Palin's Hagel Problem

[HoyaNyr320]

firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/09/18/1415527.aspx

I guess he's just stating the obvious....

[SirSaxa]

Sen. Chuck Hagel is the straight talk, honest, maverick Republican that McCain wishes he could be.

[EasyEd]

Chuck Hagel is a disgruntled Republican that thinks he should be the Pres. nominee. Always thinks he is right and the rest of the Republican party is wrong. Having said that, he is entitled to his opinion about Palin and I share his opinion at this time. On the other hand, I watched Palin the last two nights on Hannity and Colmes and, granted Hannity served up only softballs, Palin is still a very impressive young person. Don't underestimate her.

[strummer8526]

Chuck Hagel Joe Lieberman is a disgruntled Republican Democrat that thinks he should be the Pres. nominee. Always thinks he is right and the rest of the Republican Democratic party is wrong.

I guess each party enjoys the benefit (and the pain in the ass) of one such defector.

[TBird41]

I thought Boz and Bando had joined together in the spirit of bipartisanship to create a moratorium on unimaginative thread titles that follow the "X's Y Problem"? I don't think it's too unreasonable to ask Gtown grads to use a little more imagination when crafting their thread titles, is it?

[Boz]

Boz and Bando are not amused. Repercussions will follow.

(on a side note, I think I agree with strummer for the first time I can remember; Hagel (and you can add Lincoln Chaffee) is a Republican like Lieberman is a Democrat; I was going to say Zell Miller, but same difference)

[rosslynhoya]

Sept 19, 2008 9:44:18 GMT -5 Boz said:

Boz and Bando are not amused. Repercussions will follow.

(on a side note, I think I agree with strummer for the first time I can remember; Hagel (and you can add Lincoln Chaffee) is a Republican like Lieberman is a Democrat; I was going to say Zell Miller, but same difference)

When Dick Cheney, Jack Kemp, Dan Quayle, or George H.W. Bush endorses Obama, I'll concede the point. You might fixate on Kemp, he's the most likely to go squishy on the GOP.

I'd also add my frustration that so people like to imagine that Joe Lieberman is some crazy Zell Miller-esque conservative Democrat. With the exception of national security and gun rights issues, he's pretty much a dyed-in-the-wool bleeding heart pinko on economic issues and a middle-of-the-road guy on the social stuff.

[hoyatables]

Sept 19, 2008 9:44:18 GMT -5 Boz said:

Boz and Bando are not amused. Repercussions will follow.

"Boz and Bando." Sounds like a comic strip. Or maybe a hokey 70s TV show. I really want to see an opening credits clip that ends with the two of you jumping toward the screen waving jazz hands. .

[Bando]

Sept 19, 2008 9:33:52 GMT -5 TBird41 said:

I thought Boz and Bando had joined together in the spirit of bipartisanship to create a moratorium on unimaginative thread titles that follow the "X's Y Problem"? I don't think it's too unreasonable to ask Gtown grads to use a little more imagination when crafting their thread titles, is it?

Alternate thread title: HoyaNyr320's Imagination Problem

[Filo]

Guess St. Pete missed the exchanges also - McCain's Economy problem.

[hifigator]

Sept 19, 2008 9:44:18 GMT -5 Boz said:

Boz and Bando are not amused. Repercussions will follow.

(on a side note, I think I agree with strummer for the first time I can remember; Hagel (and you can add Lincoln Chaffee) is a Republican like Lieberman is a Democrat; I was going to say Zell Miller, but same difference)

I wouldn't necessarily put Zell Miller in that class, although I see your point. Zell Miller is really one of the few remaining Dixiecrats. Chaffee is just a career politician whose dad was a career politician and really doesn't know what the hell he thinks. I think he is pretty much scum.

I don't know a lot about Hagel, but I respect both Lieberman and Miller. I would have given Lieberman a serious look if not for the Gore factor. In any case, my point is that I think there is a significant difference between crossing party lines/changing affiliation and pandering. Chaffee is a panderer while Miller and Lieberman are honest guys who don't clearly fit in either party exclusively. From what I know, I would put that senator who changed from republican to independent 4 years ago in the same category. I can't remember his name for some reason. short term memory loss? maybe ....


On edit: Jim Jeffords is the name I think I was trying to remember.

[Bando]

Sept 19, 2008 12:42:32 GMT -5 hifigator said:

Sept 19, 2008 9:44:18 GMT -5 Boz said:

Boz and Bando are not amused. Repercussions will follow.

(on a side note, I think I agree with strummer for the first time I can remember; Hagel (and you can add Lincoln Chaffee) is a Republican like Lieberman is a Democrat; I was going to say Zell Miller, but same difference)

I wouldn't necessarily put Zell Miller in that class, although I see your point. Zell Miller is really one of the few remaining Dixiecrats. Chaffee is just a career politician whose dad was a career politician and really doesn't know what the hell he thinks. I think he is pretty much scum.

I don't know a lot about Hagel, but I respect both Lieberman and Miller. I would have given Lieberman a serious look if not for the Gore factor. In any case, my point is that I think there is a significant difference between crossing party lines/changing affiliation and pandering. Chaffee is a panderer while Miller and Lieberman are honest guys who don't clearly fit in either party exclusively. From what I know, I would put that senator who changed from republican to independent 4 years ago in the same category. I can't remember his name for some reason. short term memory loss? maybe ....


On edit: Jim Jeffords is the name I think I was trying to remember.

So let me get this straight? All politicians who switch from your party are all panderers, while politicians who switch to your party are principled honest men? Gotcha.

And only you would use "Dixiecrat" as a label of pride.

[hifigator]

Sept 19, 2008 12:53:21 GMT -5 Bando said:

Sept 19, 2008 12:42:32 GMT -5 hifigator said:

I wouldn't necessarily put Zell Miller in that class, although I see your point. Zell Miller is really one of the few remaining Dixiecrats. Chaffee is just a career politician whose dad was a career politician and really doesn't know what the hell he thinks. I think he is pretty much scum.

I don't know a lot about Hagel, but I respect both Lieberman and Miller. I would have given Lieberman a serious look if not for the Gore factor. In any case, my point is that I think there is a significant difference between crossing party lines/changing affiliation and pandering. Chaffee is a panderer while Miller and Lieberman are honest guys who don't clearly fit in either party exclusively. From what I know, I would put that senator who changed from republican to independent 4 years ago in the same category. I can't remember his name for some reason. short term memory loss? maybe ....


On edit: Jim Jeffords is the name I think I was trying to remember.

So let me get this straight? All politicians who switch from your party are all panderers, while politicians who switch to your party are principled honest men? Gotcha.

And only you would use "Dixiecrat" as a label of pride.

Um, you didn't pay much attention did you? Lieberman switched to an independent from the democratic party. Jeffords shifted from Republican to independent. To my knowledge, Zell Miller was and still is a democrat. So exactly how does your statement of So let me get this straight? All politicians who switch from your party are all panderers, while politicians who switch to your party are principled honest men? make any sense at all? Oh, that's right: you pride yourself on not making sense.

As for the "dixiecrat" term, I don't believe I ever said or hinted anything about it being a label of pride. You really aren't very bright are you?

[EasyEd]

The term, Dixiecrat, was the press' creation and was meant to signify, in a non-complimentary manner, Southern Democrat.

[Bando]

Sept 19, 2008 13:44:01 GMT -5 hifigator said:

Sept 19, 2008 12:53:21 GMT -5 Bando said:

So let me get this straight? All politicians who switch from your party are all panderers, while politicians who switch to your party are principled honest men? Gotcha.

And only you would use "Dixiecrat" as a label of pride.

Um, you didn't pay much attention did you? Lieberman switched to an independent from the democratic party. Jeffords shifted from Republican to independent. To my knowledge, Zell Miller was and still is a democrat. So exactly how does your statement of So let me get this straight? All politicians who switch from your party are all panderers, while politicians who switch to your party are principled honest men? make any sense at all? Oh, that's right: you pride yourself on not making sense.

As for the "dixiecrat" term, I don't believe I ever said or hinted anything about it being a label of pride. You really aren't very bright are you?

Semantics aren't going to save you here. Lieberman and Miller both actively campaigned for Republican presidential nominees. They are not shining beacons of independence and non-partisanship.

Oh, HiFi I'll never get tired of you lashing out with ad hominem attacks when you get flustered. I must really be getting to you, huh?

And Ed, I thought Wallace's presidential ticket was referred by himself as "Dixiecrat", but I could be wrong. To Wikipedia!

[hifigator]

Sept 19, 2008 14:22:00 GMT -5 Bando said:

Sept 19, 2008 13:44:01 GMT -5 hifigator said:

Um, you didn't pay much attention did you? Lieberman switched to an independent from the democratic party. Jeffords shifted from Republican to independent. To my knowledge, Zell Miller was and still is a democrat. So exactly how does your statement of So let me get this straight? All politicians who switch from your party are all panderers, while politicians who switch to your party are principled honest men? make any sense at all? Oh, that's right: you pride yourself on not making sense.

As for the "dixiecrat" term, I don't believe I ever said or hinted anything about it being a label of pride. You really aren't very bright are you?

Semantics aren't going to save you here. Lieberman and Miller both actively campaigned for Republican presidential nominees. They are not shining beacons of independence and non-partisanship.

Oh, HiFi I'll never get tired of you lashing out with ad hominem attacks when you get flustered. I must really be getting to you, huh?

And Ed, I thought Wallace's presidential ticket was referred by himself as "Dixiecrat", but I could be wrong. To Wikipedia!

Nice try, but just as yesterday, that nonsense won't fly. You specifically said that those who shift to Republican had some special status in my mind. In actuality, I spoked positively of 3 individuals who have shifted parties and negatively of 1. Of the three which I spoke positively of:

1 shifted from the democratic party to independent status.
1 shifted from republican to independent status
and
1 didn't shift at all, to my knowledge.

Sorry, but that isn't semantics. You were just flat out wrong, as you often are.

As for the dixiecrat term, I am not familiar with it having a negative connotation, but I could be wrong. I guess if you are a died in the wool liberal democrat, then the term has a negative connotation, because ideologically, such "democrats" don't aspire to your liberal views. But as ed pointed out, it really originally referred to the very common southern democrat back "in the day."

Spin, spin, spin all you want, but you know I'm right on this one.

[Nevada Hoya]

I think she would have a problem with Hegel (and vice versa, if he were alive).

[Bando]

Sept 19, 2008 14:39:46 GMT -5 hifigator said:

Sept 19, 2008 14:22:00 GMT -5 Bando said:

Semantics aren't going to save you here. Lieberman and Miller both actively campaigned for Republican presidential nominees. They are not shining beacons of independence and non-partisanship.

Oh, HiFi I'll never get tired of you lashing out with ad hominem attacks when you get flustered. I must really be getting to you, huh?

And Ed, I thought Wallace's presidential ticket was referred by himself as "Dixiecrat", but I could be wrong. To Wikipedia!

Nice try, but just as yesterday, that nonsense won't fly. You specifically said that those who shift to Republican had some special status in my mind. In actuality, I spoked positively of 3 individuals who have shifted parties and negatively of 1. Of the three which I spoke positively of:

1 shifted from the democratic party to independent status.
1 shifted from republican to independent status
and
1 didn't shift at all, to my knowledge.

Sorry, but that isn't semantics. You were just flat out wrong, as you often are.

As for the dixiecrat term, I am not familiar with it having a negative connotation, but I could be wrong. I guess if you are a died in the wool liberal democrat, then the term has a negative connotation, because ideologically, such "democrats" don't aspire to your liberal views. But as ed pointed out, it really originally referred to the very common southern democrat back "in the day."

Spin, spin, spin all you want, but you know I'm right on this one.

Yes, a very common southern Democrat who actively supported white supremacy. That you don't view this negatively is not a surprise.

[The Stig]

- Criticizing Hagel and praising guys like Jeffords and Lieberman is fine, since Jeffords and Lieberman both quit their parties when they didn't like what they were doing, while Hagel is bashing it from the inside.

- Criticizing Hagel and praising Zell Miller is BS. There's not much difference between what they've done, since they've both criticized their parties from the inside. The only difference is how they did it. Miller did so in an extremely public way, and also flat-out lied (the bit about Kerry voting against every weapons program was a prime example). At least Hagel was just giving his opinion.

[jerseyhoya34]

What I don't quite get is how someone could bash Chuck Hagel and still like John McCain.

Save for one week of this campaign (the Convention), McCain has run to the right and is campaigning on issues that the very right wing of the party cares about, not the "iron triangle" issues or reform platform that he had in 2000. He could have picked a reformer as his VP candidate, but the spectre of a floor fight in Minneapolis was too much to bear.

The rest of John McCain's career has been marked by positive reforms - campaign finance, Abramoff, lobbyist issues, and the like. The right wing of the party hated him for it. He was the Chuck Hagel of the party 8-10 years ago.