The Neispace of Doom wrote:
Democrats really only have one dissident faction, the blue dog democrats, and they are only such on economic issues.
You're forgetting the New Democrat Coalition. They only make up about 25-30% of the Democratic House. As for differences...
lolWiki wrote:
Members of the New Democrat Coalition, an affiliate of the Democratic Leadership Council (DLC), take moderate or liberal positions on social issues and moderate positions on economic issues and trade. The DLC aims to revitalize and strengthen the Democratic party, while the Blue Dogs emphasize bipartisanship.
Democrats who identify with the Blue Dogs tend to be conservatives, but have more divergent positions on social issues than "New Democrats." Reflecting the group's Southern roots, many Blue Dogs are strong supporters of gun rights and receive high ratings from the National Rifle Association, some have anti-abortion voting records, and some get high ratings from immigration reduction groups. As a caucus, however, the group has never agreed on or taken a position on these issues, and many members favor more socially liberal positions.
On economic issues, Blue Dogs tend to be pro-business and favor limiting public welfare spending, arguing instead for "individual responsibility". They have supported welfare reform as well as the Republican-backed Bankruptcy Reform Act of 2005. They have differing positions on trade issues, and include supporters of labor unions, protectionism, and other populist measures. New Democrats tend to favor free trade.
Some moderate or conservative Democrats, such as Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords of Arizona, are members of both the Blue Dog Coalition and the New Democrat Coalition.
Neispace wrote:
It's possible to be a republican and pro choice, and also to be one pro-life.
Really? This explains why Snowe and Collins get dismissed as RINOs for their pro-choice views and why Steele has to backpedal when he's caught saying that abortion should be a choice. and why Romney had to have a revelation that abortion was wrong before running for president.
Quote:
There were strong differences between mccain, romney and huckabee
For instance, Romney dropped out of the race almost immediately and Huckabee never had a chance in hell but stayed in just for sh
its 'n giggles. Thompson & Giuliani (who both had pro-choice stances) never won a single state.
This would be a better argument if you had found several significantly different candidates who both remained viable well into the race.
Quote:
The democratic party has done a better job of purging dissidents, as how they handled lieberman shows.
You mean the Senator Lieberman who still caucuses with the Democrats and who remained with the Democrats through a period where his switch would have won him all manner of praise and gifts from the GOP? That Senator Lieberman?
I'm sorry...
where did you say Senator Specter was hanging out these days? Which was the most recent senator to change caucuses prior to Specter? Which party had a senator
writing Op-Eds about how they had to stop castigating the moderates in their party and driving them away?
Right.
Edited, Jun 13th 2009 9:24pm by Jophiel