Arkansas Blog

if pryor really feels that way, why doesn't he run as an independent too?

Senator Pryor is correct. The Democratic party is taking a hard turn left with the sham moveon.org candidate Ned Lement. Senator Pryor is right to fight to keep the party in the mainstream. Pryor knows that if the party is hijacked by the moveon.org whackos, it may lose its viability.
Consider John Kerry's loss to President Bush. If a moderate Democrat had been selected, he would now be in the white house. But no, you had to pick an extreme northeast liberal snot. You can blame yourselves for President Bush's reelection.

This talk is very interesting. Most Democrats I know usually take the position that they support "the man" not "the party." Now, apparently, the Democratic Party is expecting (requiring) a party allegiance oath from its office holders. Demanding party loyalty on all issues and on all candidates seems to perpetuate a "polarization" of politics that the Democrats wine about these days. You cannot have it both ways.

Actually, it is time to stop pretending that Mark Pryor is much of a Democrat, conservative or otherwise. If he made the statements reported in this article, Pryor needs to resign from the Senate and ask the governor to call for a special election to replace him.

Lets see. It was Senator Lincoln that voted for the reduction in the estate taxes and Senator Pryor voted against it. Which vote represents the main line of thinking among Democrats? Maybe Lincoln and Pryor should switch over to Independent or Republican status.

Whatever, Pryor...

Just switch parties and be done with it. At least shed the Democratic cape...

And anyone slamming party loyalty over the candidate needs to wake up. The GOP is drooling over this crap and the man out front defending Leave-here-man is ours!

I have said it a million times...if you are happy with Pryor, then you are happy with the GOP...period.

All this left wing, right wing polarization talk is wearing me out...

If you are a member of the Democratic Party then you support your fellow Democrats...and vice-versa for the Republicans. If not, then shed your party identity and run as an Independent.

Oh, that's right, Senator "73 with the GOP," that means the national Dems wouldn't send you any money.

Well, no more money for you, Pryor...

'The Democrats are becoming more liberal'...since when?? And, with the likes of Lieberman and his enablers it'll never happen.

If Lieberman is the standard by which 'moderate' is determined we're screwed. And, calling the Iraq War a disaster and Bush an incompetent idiot does not make us extreme.

I'm beginning to believe that Pryor et al really don't get what's going on with us so-called Democrats.

If a moderate Democrat had been selected, he would now be in the white house. But no, you had to pick an extreme northeast liberal snot. You can blame yourselves for President Bush's reelection.
Posted by: George

First time I've ever agreed with George.

The Democratic Party should never become as liberal as the Republican is conservative.

What we need to do is point out to voters that extremely conservative is as bad as extremely liberal.

At the same time, some are trying to move the Democratic Party too far right of center, and that won't work either!

ZELDA...Baby...You are not a Democrat...you are a communist. You should leave this country. Go up to Searcy and tell all your relatives around there that you are against protecting this country and that you are moving to Cuba. Then just leave and NEVER come back. You can still stay in touch with your buddies on the lib blog and tell them how good it is down there with Fidel..!!!!! l!!!!!!!!!!!.

With a smile on [Pryor's] face he said, "Don't ask me to be consistent."

This is the type of flippant response I'd expect from Mike Huckabee, Bush, Cheney or Rumsfeld. Fine company you're in there, Mr. Pryor.

Spirit....You are just scared that the Republicans are gonna cut your free money in the for of welfare for you and the other kooks on here.

"...You are not a Democrat...you are a communist. ...You can still stay in touch with your buddies on the lib blog and tell them how good it is down there with Fidel..!!!!! l!!!!!!"

If this is what the Republicans consider to be rational discussion, then anon. is as much a blank as the Bushies in Washington who can't talk except in soundbites.

Quite a skill. If you can't carry on a rational discussion, start to call everyone who doesn't think or talk like you a communist. Where did you go to school-Joe McCarthy Prep?

If you guys are so damn smart, why do all of you have the same nane-anon.? It appears to be a very straight family tree.

Pryor's response to the question posed is basically saying, I, with my vast experience and keen political insight, know what's good for you and for the Democratic Party, even if you don't, and I intend to impose my judgment on you whether you like it or not. If you don't like it, try and beat me at the polls in 2008.

You're right, Spirit, and the time to start promoting a vigorous challenge to Pryor is today. Give us Rodney Slater, or Wes Clark, or Bill Halter, or anyone but Pryor.

Yeah, sounded just like Rummy. Pryor is dead wrong and you know he is when George is defending him. The country has moved so far to the right the last 20 years there are no fire breathing liberals any more. Ted Kennedy is only a sound bite.

It's this fine moderates who have moderated over to the Republican side who helped get us in the disaster we're in right now. How can going along with Bush-Cheney in the rape of the world ever be considered moderate?

At this point you have to wonder if Pryor is a nut, a plant or simply on the Republican payroll? He is worthless to Arkansas as a Senator and he's worthless to the Democratic Party in his lack of loyality. Pryor should be forced out of the Democratic Party. We are at war IN America today. Deserters should be punished.

British Parliment decided yesterday they're going to think about issuing pardons to all the deserters of WWI (yes ONE) that they shot, sometimes 20 minutes after their trial ended. No one seemed to mind over 80 years ago when they shot deserters. While I am not in favor of shooting Pryor, he is sure enough looking like a deserter of the Democratic Party.

We can't recall him and we can't unelect him, but the Democratic Party can sure send him packing down the road to Independent or Republican where he belongs. Lieberman is not the devil, liking him is not a crime. But in the situation we find ourselves in at this moment, every Democrat should be working hard to defeat the misguided Republicans who are killing our kids and our future.
Yeah, sounded just like Rummy. Pryor is dead wrong and you know he is when George is defending him. The country has moved so far to the right the last 20 years there are no fire breathing liberals any more. Ted Kennedy is only a sound bite.

It's these fine moderates who have moderated over to the Republican side who helped get us in the disaster we're in right now. How can going along with Bush-Cheney in the rape of the world ever be considered moderate?

At this point you have to wonder if Pryor is a nut, a plant or simply on the Republican payroll? He is worthless to Arkansas as a Senator and he's worthless to the Democratic Party in his lack of loyalty. Pryor should be forced out of the Democratic Party. We are at war IN America today. Deserters should be punished.

British Parliament decided yesterday they're going to think about issuing pardons to all the deserters (306 at last count) of WWI (yes ONE) that they shot, sometimes 20 minutes after their trial ended. No one seemed to mind over 80 years ago when they shot deserters. While I am not in favor of shooting Pryor, he is sure enough looking like a deserter of the Democratic Party.

We can't recall him and we can't unelect him, but the Democratic Party can sure send him packing down the road to Independent or Republican where he belongs. Lieberman is not the devil, liking him is not a crime. But in the situation we find ourselves in at this moment, every Democrat should be working hard to defeat the misguided Republicans who are killing our kids and our future. Come to you senses Mark Pryor and I hope Senator Lincoln is watching closely.

You're right, Spirit, and the time to start promoting a vigorous challenge to Pryor is today. Give us Rodney Slater, or Wes Clark, or Bill Halter, or anyone but Pryor.

Well put, Spirit...

It's the same attitude Leave-here-man has. GOP Joe knows better than his own constituents...what an embarrassment to the Democratic Party.

I found this article in The Hill...pretty much what any informed Democrat already knows...click on my name to read...

I was at a breakfast town-hall thing with Pryor at Paragould earlier in the day. He said pretty much the same thing, except he also said that he was backing Lieberman because Lieberman had helped him on the DHS committee procure funding for Arkansas projects. However, he was not the least bit flippant, and was his usual folksy self. I gave him points for actually bringing up tough issues like gay marriage, estate tax, and immigration, and clearly stating his positions and voting record on them.

Give Pryor a break, folks. While I don't think supporting Lieberman is a good idea, you who are encouraging him to walk away from the Democratic Party have a death wish. If you like ideological purity, join Rod Bryan, Jim Lendall, and all those other perfectly nice guys who are never going to be elected to anything. Pryor knows how to win under the toughest of circumstances, like 2002, when he was the only freakin' Democrat in the nation to beat an incumbant Republican. We need more Pryors, not fewer.

"We need more Pryors, not fewer."

What?! Maybe you, Pryor fan, belong to the wrong party.

This is the big picture:

Pryor's support of Leave-here-man undermines the credibility of the National Party...

In his position within the DSCC, his mission is clearly stated...

"Our mission is to elect more Democrats to the United States Senate."

Not Independents and not Republicans...

I am all for Rodney Slater or possibly Wes Clark being my senator. But please, let's not even start talking about Bill Halter ever being much more than a candidate for an office that has no function.
Both he and his right-wing opponent, Jim Holt, are simply dolts.

How about Pryor acknowledging the right of Connecticut Democrats to choose their candidate...whether or not Lieberman is the finest Senator around.

More than likely, however, I'll vote for Pryor 'cause he'll probably be far better than his opponent when it comes to the issues I'm concerned about. But I'm still pissed at the off-handed, dismissive way some of the Democratic leadership have treated their base; and the way they've allowed the Republicans to define what it means to be a 'liberal' or a 'moderate.'

I'm suppose to apologize for being 'liberal' but Lieberman's the Party's savior 'cause he's so 'conservative'? That's fucked-up.

The Democratic primary for the U.S. Senate in 2008 will be a doozie, and Bill Halter just may be in the chase. With several strong challengers in the race, it will be interesting to see where financial support for Pryor will come from. I suspect he shouldn't expect too much support from the DNC.

I emailed the DSCC, Sen Schumer and Sen Reid about Pryor being in a leadership position of the DSCC and DEMANDED that he be removed from that position IMMEDIATELY! The stated mission of the DSCC is to actively work to elect DEMOCRATS to the Senate. Holy Joe ain't no Democrat no mo'. He is running AGAINST the Democratic candidate that was voted for in the CT primary.

"The Democratic primary for the U.S. Senate in 2008 will be a doozie, and Bill Halter just may be in the chase. "

Bill Halter is never going to run against Mark Pryor.

After Liberman goes down in a historically huge defeat, even with tons of Israel's money , Mark will see the Light,
change a few votes, try to kiss and make up back home and nationally;
have a photo shot of him leading his Sunday School class, rocking his kids to sleep and ---sing:
Will you you still love me tomorrow?

I used to think the Righteous Wingers were evil. But after reading here that only fire breathing liberals are welcome in the Democratic Party, maybe I am in the wrong party.

Someday, maybe, there will be a party for me. We will be fiscally conservative and socially conscious. There will be taxes, and the rich won't get to live in a loophole. There will be a real safety net for the poor and unfortunate, but that net won't provide a financial incentive to stay there. Government won't be any bigger than it absolutely has to be and the solution to social problems won't be solely throwing more money at them. A balance between business and the environment will be reached, but both will be as unburdened as possible. Teddy Kennedy won't be welcome in this Party, and neither will the Bible thumping Nazis. But this party won't hate Republicans and it won't hate Democrats. It will offer refuge to the moderates in both parties and maybe the fringes remaining will wither up and die. At a minimum, they will be left with no real influence.

I know, I know. I'm delusional. Might as well take a bullet to the brainpan.

For those wailing about how "left" leaning the Democrats are becoming based on the CT primary, you should take a cue from President Clinton, the king of conservative Dems, who came out the other day and blasted Lieberman, saying the one-time Democrat wasn't in the majority of the party on his views about Iraq. Seems like the only polarization going on is in the GOP, which continues to go as far hard right as possible as wet closer to the November elections, trying to revive that base as poll numbers show the outcome of the mid-terms looks pretty bad for them. Again, cyclical politics at work, but not a "communist" takeover of the Democrats by any means.

"fire breathing liberals"

You must be Pryor fan...and you still don't get it.

If the Democrats, of which you claim to belong, want to win back one of the Houses in November, it will take a concerted effort by ALL Democrats...working together.

You cannot spout your mouth off in support of a sore loser Independent just because he held your hand a bit on The Hill...

73 is making the Dems look bad...and there will be consequences.

As for your "moderate" party idea with "fringes withering and dying"...keep it, pal. You are clearly out of touch.

If you consider Pryor and Leave-here-now to be "moderates"...you must have voted for Bush both times...

Who does Mark Pryor support among Arkansas constitutional and congressional candidates?

Stubby? Andy? Boozman? Hutchinson? Holt? Lagrone? All good fellows, no doubt.

That "R" you put behind Joe's name just seems to fit. He can keep it there and smooch on GWB as much as he wants. He running as an Independent will guarantee a REpug gets elected. WHO's a Democrat? You gotta know there's something fishy when the REpugs speak well of ANY so-called Democrat. Maybe Joe and Zel can team up and run for the White House on their own ticket..... what should we call it?

All this Pryor-bashing raises the question again - do you elect a Senator to use his judgment to make wise decisions or do you elect a Senator to just parrot what the people want?

Since the Senator is privy to more info than we commoners have, I would lean toward letting him make the decision based on what he knows. And if I don't like the result, try to elect someone else. Otherwise you get a panderer to popularity polls (like some more notorious leaders who are left nameless but you know who I mean).

I am getting to be more impressed with Mr. Pryor. Maybe he is his own man after all and should get my vote!

I guess I am out of touch. Obviously, I can't belong to the same party as Rosso.

"Senator Pryor is correct. The Democratic party is taking a hard turn left with the sham moveon.org candidate Ned Lement. Senator Pryor is right to fight to keep the party in the mainstream. Pryor knows that if the party is hijacked by the moveon.org whackos, it may lose its viability.
Consider John Kerry's loss to President Bush. If a moderate Democrat had been selected, he would now be in the white house. But no, you had to pick an extreme northeast liberal snot. You can blame yourselves for President Bush's reelection.

Posted by: George | August 16, 2006 01:47 PM"

George, it's Lamont. If you're going to smack talk someone, at least get their name right...

There are plenty of us who actually vote Democratic (if you're the same "George" who's frequentely posted right-wing comments here in the past, I'd have to seriously question whether you fit into that category) who are perfectly happy with the party, and the country for that matter, moving more to the left than it's been for the past five and a half years--at least to the point where we're somewhere reasonably close to the Center again. However, that preference is not necessarily the basis, or at least the only basis, for Lamont's win in the Connecticut primary.

Bottom line is that a majority of DEMOCRATS who participated in the DEMOCRATIC primary favored Lamont over Lieberman, and, by God, that was their right to do so. The likes of George Bush, Dick Cheney, Karl Rove, Mark Pryor and you haven't been able to change that just yet, although I'll give all of you credit for taking your best shot at it so far.

If Pryor wants to continue to support Lieberman, fine. That's his right. However, for the good of the party and its credibility, he needs to resign his post in the DSCC, because his continued presence there creates a situation of rank hypocrisy, if not a downright conflict of interest.

Folks like you and the ones who run the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette (a prime candidate for a truth-in-advertising complaint if ever there was one) want to wring your hands and moan over the fact that the the voters (Remember the voters, George; you, too, Mr. Greenberg? Pesky little critters, ain't they?) have exercised their right to move their party (and hopefully, by extension, the country) in a different direction. You want to characterize the Connecticut vote as "punishing" poor Joe Lieberman for sticking up for his principles.

I have no problem with elected officials sticking up for their principles. However, the soon-to-be Ex. Sen. Lieberman, you, the national leadership of the Republican Party, Mark Pryor, and Paul Greenberg all evidently have a problem with the voters (here I go again bringing up them damn voters...) deciding that they'd like someone with another set of principles, thank you very much.

I don't hear you, Greenberg, or anyone on the board of directors of BushCo. getting upset over the REPUBLICAN congressman from Michigan who lost his primary to a challenge from the extreme right wing of the party, based on his pro-choice stance on abortion and his support of stem-cell research. Same thing for the tough primary fight Sen. Lincoln Chaffee of Rhode Island now finds himself in, because he refuses to cater to the evangelicals on social issues and the Iraq war.

Where did all this concern about punishing politicians for holding to their principles go? Or does that standard only apply to Democrats who buck their party, and not to Republicans. Why am I not surprised at this?

Maybe Lieberman should move to Florida or Ohio and run for one of their Senate seats. The Republicans are much more adept at stealing elections there than they apparently were in their attempts to tamper with the Democratic primary in Connecticut.

It's hard not to vote for Bush twice when you offer up Gore and Kerry. Nominate some moderates and maybe you will have a chance.

That's what's wrong with the Democratic leaders, they won't finish the Right-wing-nuts off when they have the opportunity.

The Right-Wing will push a man down, then kick him until he can't get up.

It will be quite amusing when Lieberman easily defeats his moveon.org whacko ned lemont.

I support Hillary because I think that she is our best chance to take on the vast right wing conspiracy. Also, I think that she is well qualified because she is married to Bill Clinton. Being a senator from New York is also a sure fire way to learn the president business. What else could someone do that would make them more qualified?

All this Pryor-bashing raises the question again - do you elect a Senator to use his judgment to make wise decisions or do you elect a Senator to just parrot what the people want?

That assumes that what 'the people' want is not the 'wise' decision.

Since the Senator is privy to more info than we commoners have, I would lean toward letting him make the decision based on what he knows. And if I don't like the result, try to elect someone else. Otherwise you get a panderer to popularity polls (like some more notorious leaders who are left nameless but you know who I mean).

It's not a secret that Connecticut Dems voted Lieberman off their ticket...what else does Pryor need to know? And, that's exactly what the CT Dems did...elect someone else.

I'd be happy if the Democratic leadership acknowledged that their constituents had a valid point-of-view that's at least as valid as the talking points the Republicans keep feeding em.

If Pryor wants to continue to support Lieberman, fine. That's his right. However, for the good of the party and its credibility, he needs to resign his post in the DSCC, because his continued presence there creates a situation of rank hypocrisy, if not a downright conflict of interest. -- Posted by: N. Vino Veritas
+++++++++++++++++++++++
Yep! That's the kind of thinking that we need today - My party, right or wrong! Toe the line or get the H*** off the boat! Blind party loyalty -this is a virtue? Come on all ye faithful, join the lemming crowd and scamper right over that cliff!
I used to hear that fundamentalists were the only ones that shot their wounded - well, now the democrats are doing it too! What a hoot!

It's not a secret that Connecticut Dems voted Lieberman off their ticket...what else does Pryor need to know? And, that's exactly what the CT Dems did...elect someone else. -- Posted by: Zelda
++++++++++++
I suppose you might also consider that Mr. Pryor took that into account - If those damyankees want this other guy, then Lieberman must be the better choice for the country.

Rosso, you have convinced me of something. I don't belong in the Democratic Party. And I'm leaving it. Sure, I'll continue to vote for some Democrats in Arkansas, and maybe even contribute to their campaigns, but I'm not giving the Party another nickel or an ounce of support. If you don't have room for a moderate viewpoint, eff you, you are no better than the Republicans.

I've felt without a party for some time actually, so this isn't that drastic of a move for me, but I didn't have the hudspah to do it until I reread your post about a dozen times.

And in 2008, if you nominate another Kerry, I will hope like hell the Republicans come to respect their moderates and offer a viable choice so that I can vote for my first ever GOP presidential candidate. I'm not holding my breath any more and voting for Democratic nominees that you and the other "fringe" nuts nominate. You are the ones out of touch. Goodbye.

"What a hoot!"

Hootenanny... the Republicans telling the Democrats how they should run their party.

"Rosso, you have convinced me of something. I don't belong in the Democratic Party. And I'm leaving it. "

What Democratic Party?

There are many moderate Democrats in the House and Senate and there are some very liberal ones too.

The Democratic Party is the oldest political party in the world and probably the most diverse. It's members come from a variety of backgrounds and there are many different views.

Finding a message that all members can march in lock-step to is difficult. However, the hope of the Democratic Party is the hope of the U.S., and the World really-- that we can be respectful of each other despite our differences and, at the same time, work together for the common good.

The issue surrounding Sen. Pryor's comments is simple. He has a duty to support Democratic Party candidates because he is a member of DSCC. His current position is untenable.

On a different subject, I watched Ned Lamont on Fox News last Sunday and saw him today on MSNBC's Kudlow & Co. He's no radical and did a great job.

"It's hard not to vote for Bush twice when you offer up Gore and Kerry."

Don't ever lose sight of the fact that Gore got more votes than the chimpanzee-in-chief.

Sam, you never voted for Democrats anyway. People like you always start off that way to try to give themselves credibility.

Sen. Pryor is a traitor to his party. Every rank and file Democratic party activist who's ever put foot to the ground in support of the Democratic Party knows that precinct chairs, et al. are required to sign loyalty oaths. They are required to promise they won't work against the Democratic candidate, duly elected by voters in a Democratic primary election. So, Sen. Landrieu (D-LA), Sen. Pryor (D-AR) and Sen. Levin (D-MI) are TRAITORS, who are violating their party loyalty oath; and they are WHY the DEMOCRATS WILL LOSE in NOVEMBER '06 and in '08. That is party rules, and party structures REQUIRE THEM TO SUPPORT LAMONT. They are refusing to do so. They will lose money and votes to support the GOP Candidate, Joe Lieberman instead of the Democratic candidate Ned Lamont. Senators Reid and Schumer are allowing them to get away with this. They are all destroying the Democratic Party, and that is why they will lose. They won't even support THEIR OWN CANDIDATES. That's the first test of the leadership to GOVERN--getting your own party to follow you. They failed the test.

Sen. Pryor is a traitor to his party. Every rank and file Democratic party activist who's ever put foot to the ground in support of the Democratic Party knows that precinct chairs, et al. are required to sign loyalty oaths. They are required to promise they won't work against the Democratic candidate, duly elected by voters in a Democratic primary election. So, Sen. Landrieu (D-LA), Sen. Pryor (D-AR) and Sen. Levin (D-MI) are TRAITORS, who are violating their party loyalty oath; and they are WHY the DEMOCRATS WILL LOSE in NOVEMBER '06 and in '08. That is party rules, and party structures REQUIRE THEM TO SUPPORT LAMONT. They are refusing to do so. They will lose money and votes to support the GOP Candidate, Joe Lieberman instead of the Democratic candidate Ned Lamont. Senators Reid and Schumer are allowing them to get away with this. They are all destroying the Democratic Party, and that is why they will lose. They won't even support THEIR OWN CANDIDATES. That's the first test of the leadership-- to GOVERN--getting your own party to follow you. They failed the test.

rosso, it must hurt your feelings when Republicans pretending to be Democrats tell you they can't be in your Democratic Party any more. It makes me laugh out loud. Goodbye Sam and be sure and tell Bill Frist hello at breakfast in the morning!

And Don, no friend to any Democrat, throws in his 2 cents worth too. Another vote from the side that would love to see all Democrats be just like LIEberman and Pryor or dead, which is the same thing.

It's pretty pitiful when asking a Democrat to support the Democratic Party makes people like me a flaming liberal, nut case commie. There would just be a little flaming pile of shit where a Republican stood if any of them told the nation they were skipping over a Republican candidate to support a non-Republican for any office. Don't pretend otherwise.

This is the last straw for Pryor. He burning bridges faster than Karl Rove can build them for him. Dad better have a talk with him or Mark is going to be looking for a new job come January '09.

PS....stick that commoner crap up your Cheney.

So Mark Pryor supports Joe because he was a friend and mentor. This appears to be his only answer.
Mark, Your mentor jumped ship on the party and it's fundamentals, who's constituents, not Joe, put you in and your father in the Senate.
A mentor in Department of Homeland Security, How's that working out for us Arkansas? (Katrina), Michael Brown was approved in 35 minutes. For shame.
A mentor in The Armed Services Committee. Well it may be a cash cow, but, it's borrowed cash and our armed services are in bloody shambles today. They spent years without decent armor, on and on.
Perhaps the mentor helped Mark form the seven Dem. members of the gang of fourteen. Rubber stamped the way for strip search, anti women's rights Alito, without final senate debate or an opportunity for a filibuster by fellow Dems.
So how's that friendship working out now? May the mentor, with any luck for the rest of the world, no longer be your guide. The Republicans are your cheerleaders now because you were led astray by their favorite two timing pawn. You don't answer constituents questions about this with any principles from the party platform. As a constituent, these are the topics I want answers about. With only friendship to rely on I am disappointed and not represented. Call me far left for wanting a better crew and response to disasters like Katrina, current condition our armed services, civil liberties and yes a woman's right to choose. I don't breathe fire today but see an inept public servant who represents somebody else.
Friends don't let friends drive their herd off the cliff.

There would just be a little flaming pile of shit where a Republican stood if any of them told the nation they were skipping over a Republican candidate to support a non-Republican for any office. Don't pretend otherwise. -- Posted by: Deathbyinches
++++++++++++++++
Seems like Republicans can act on principle to distance themselves from scalawags - check out David Duke in Wikipedia:

"In 1990, Duke challenged incumbent Democratic Senator Bennett Johnston in the open primary as a Republican . . . Republican Senator John C. Danforth of Missouri openly endorsed Democrat Johnston." ------- Hmmmm. No stinky little pile here. . . Mr. Danforth survived.

And then "Duke ran for Louisiana governor in 1991 as a Republican Party candidate, despite getting an official reproval (letter expressing the GOP's disdain for Duke's activities) from that party." ----
Well, no foul aroma from that toasty little crapette.

Sounds like you are saying that a Democrat would have honorably supported a schlep that made it onto their ticket - at least Republicans stood up and rejected this embarrassing pooper without becoming toasted s***.

Of course, you can pretend otherwise.

Mark Pryor should be supporting Lamont. Period. But whether he is supporting a member of his own party is beside the point. The fact is that he is not really ideolgically in sync with most Democrats even in Arkansas. (Nor is Beebe for that matter. If he were, the race against the Nazi Hutchinson would not be so close and Rod Bryan would not have a reason to run.).

We need an independent challanger to the left of Pryor in the '08 election. Democrat in the primary or independent in the general election.

Rod Bryan are you listening?

Pitiful.

It looks like the greatest party in the history of this country is in the hands of left wing radicals. Even in Arkansas.

Sam...what was so radical about rosso's comments?

Pitiful.
Posted by: Sam

I assume Sam is referring to Don_key having to resort to mention David Duke as a time Republicans didn't support their nominee.

Yes. Pitiful indeed.

A few other responses:

Like DBI, I am also opposed to shooting Pryor. I probably won't give a kinder position than that.

Give Pryor a break, folks.
Posted by: Pryor fan

No way. There are limits and Pryor has exceeded them. No breaks on this latest one.

As I mentioned a few days ago, a few conservative votes are one thing. That can be overlooked in the big picture. But what he has done regarding Lieberman, compounded by his flippant attitude. That's way over the line. No more breaks for Pryor.

(Heavy sigh)

Zelda, since you asked without calling me names, I will try to answer. But my life forces are weak today, so bear with me.

Between Rosso and DBI and probably others by now, I have been accused of being out of touch and of being a Republican pretending to be a Democrat. Other posters have been similarly riduled. Why? Because they, like me, advocate a more moderate position for the national party.

I have been a loyal Democrat all my life. I voted for a Republican ONE time in my life. It was a judicial race when I was living in Texas. The Democratic nominee revealed he was a socialist. I mean a real one. He was a bona fide nut case. (I don't remember the nutcase's name, but it was the 160th Judicial District, Dallas County, and Bill Rhea won the race. 1992, I think. You can look it up)

I am not bragging, but I would match my contribution checks to the party and Democratic candidates to anyone on this blog. And unless you have been to three, I have been to at least as many presidential inagurals as you.

If it were just the comments of two professional posters, I wouldn't have reacted the way I did. But I've tried to move this party to the middle for many years. I've tried persuasion, service on state and national committees, and money. Just when I think we are making headway (Clinton era), we fall back with the likes of Kerry.

This party is going to die if we don't move toward the center of the political spectrum. The only reason it isn't dead today is that the Republicans are equally stupid in not moving from the Right. Most of America lives in the middle and we are not represented by either party. One of the parties is going to "get it" some day, and I fear it will not be the Democrats.

A viable Independent Party is desperately needed in this country to wake up the two traditional parties.

So, with this backdrop, it is the attitude expressed by Rosso and DBI that I think is "pitiful." I hope I have answered your question.

As an aside, I am not on this thread in support of Mark Pryor. It is well and good, proper, and, in my opinion, necessary to advocate moderacy in the Party. But if you are a Democratic Senator, you support Democratic nominees, even if they happen to be (heaven forbid) Rosso or DBI.

I'm curious Sam.. whats so "left" about Ned Lamont? THe guy makes milions of dollars as an entrepreneur, and he's some raging socialist? Opposing the war on Iraq isnt just being a "lefty" either, since your last poll said 60% of AMericans thought the war was wrong. Thats a lot of lefties.

For that matter, what's so "left" about the Democratic Party? From a Canadian point of view.. they look to be a moderate centrist party as it is.

The problem with the Dems is they confuse being centrist as being afraid to defend themselves against Republican attacks.

I don't know what you are talking about, Scott. I haven't posted about Lamont, other than to say an elected Democratic senator (Pryor) should support all Democratic nominees (Lamont).

I'm ignoring the Canadian comparison, even though it makes my point.

George @ 147:

But no, you had to pick an extreme northeast liberal snot. You can blame yourselves for President Bush's reelection.

Are you talking trash about Iowans?

Sam, I like much of what you say (but you're wrong about DBI and Rosso and a few other things).

I'm all for the center and just left of center. But I can't take much of anything right of center. If being "moderate" means being as conservative on some issues as you are liberal on others, I'll have big problems with that. Arkansas' senatorial delegation has been way over the middle line way to often.

Any time a Democratic senator has near-gushing praise from Don Keyhotay and George he must be doing something wrong.

I am not talking about right of center. That WOULD make me a Republican. I'm not even talking dead center, just closer to it than we are today.

I do, however, believe it is possible to be somewhat conservative on some issues and somewhat liberal on others. Certainly, there a lines in the sand you cannot cross.

Gosh. I sure don't want to harm my man, Mr. Pryor. I will tone down my gushing lest I be considered subversive and cause him trouble among the Lemming Demos --- even though it shows that some of us on this blog can support a candidate that may not be from "our"party, whatever it is.

Of course, I still haven't decided for sure whether to vote for him . . . but he is definitely lookin' good!

Of course, I still haven't decided for sure whether to vote for him . . . but he is definitely lookin' good!
Posted by: Don Keyhotay

Don_key: the "vote for the man" type regardless of party.

No! You don't get to switch to that attitude at this point. No way do you get off the hook for Bush. He's yours, lock, stock and barrel. Don't start a battlefield conversion to say you would vote for a non-Republican.

You're sounding like the type who would deny Cheney three times before the cock crows, and I know that's not the real you.

No way do you get off the hook for Bush. He's yours, lock, stock and barrel. Don't start a battlefield conversion to say you would vote for a non-Republican. You're sounding like the type who would deny Cheney three times before the cock crows, and I know that's not the real you.
Posted by: Spirit
+++++++++++++++++++++
Bush vs. Gore, Bush vs. Kerry - I would still take Bush both times, no contest. Matter of fact, I don't see any Democratic past or upcoming future candidate that would have changed that. (I just wish Kennedy had run against him OR ANYONE- that would have been absolutely glorious!)

So I still proudly claim Mr. Bush, lock, stock and barrel, warts included.

But Pryor --- compared to most of our dour local politicians . . ., I guess I'm just a sucker for a photogenic faceman with some independent thought and a pleasant disposition. So my alleged ephemeral conversion experience is pretty much just on the close-to home side.

As for Grandpa Dick, well, what can I say. A wise and kindly old gentleman around whom I would trust my grandchildren but I would also keep my shotgun locked up.

You're all missing an interesting point. Whether you like or dislike the situation. Mark Pryor has cast his lot for his next election on attracting more Republican supporters than the Democrats he has alienated with his stance on Lieberman.

Some Republicans will extol him, but will they vote for his version of the Democrat candidate, if he wins the primary? Some Democrats will excoriate him, but will they vote Republican against him assuming he survives the primary?

I think it will be an interesting Senate race, when his term is up. I wonder, if he will stick to his guns, if it turns out that Democrats view Lieberman as the new Zell Miller at the ballot box.

Regardless of your preference, it was a risky political move and one that I do not believe his father would have taken.

Regardless of your preference, it was a risky political move and one that I do not believe his father would have taken.

Posted by: docholliday
+++++++++++++++++
Which is why he will probably get a good block of middle ground votes - people that want a leader that will take a stand that may be contrary to what the old guard tries to dictate.

I better take a break and slap myself awake before I wave the flag any more for this guy. . .

Sam, thanks for taking the time to explain your position. And thanks for saying Pryor should be supporting Democratic candidates.

But I am totally buffaloed by you believing the Democrats need to move a little farther to the right. My god man we're to the right of Nixon now! I don't think a living soul except maybe Karl Rove even knows where the real middle is these days. The old 1975 middle say. We're about 3 inches away from starting up the fires and going back to witch burning as it is.

Here is what my position is, what I strive for in my daily life and in my politics. I want everyone to be equal in the eyes of the law. Black, Mexican, Lutheran, gay, crippled, atheist, Buddhist, cross-dressers, stamp collectors, strippers, the profoundly retarded, the rich, the poor, Wiccans, ex-cons on the straight and narrow, preachers, tattoo artists, transvestites, Mormons and any other human being you can name.

You don't have to like any of them, but the law should just see a human, nothing more. I'd also like to see peace, in America and the rest of the world. I'd like to see the US not back any terrorist group. I'd like to see the US get out of the arms business. Of course I don't want us known as cutting edge torturers, black site prison operators or violators of the Geneva Convention.

I would like to see government and religion get a divorce. I'd like to see government and big business get a divorce. I'd like to never hear of another hypocrite or crook in public office. I'd like for us to put down our guns and try to stop the hatred directed at us or anyone else in the world. Our only chance is talking with and working with the people trying to kill us today. Unless you can kill all of them, we'll never be safe.

I suspect Sam, behind your desire to see the Democratic Party move to the right is a religion motivation. And that is your business and your right as an American. But in my opinion you're wrong. Look where we've landed by moving to the right. Look at the mess we're in. Look how nothing means anything any more.

Moving towards the Republican, the Republicans we have today is suicide. We need a hard jerk to the left just to get back to the middle. We are seeing the Natzification of America and I will not stand for it.

Mark Pryor's voting record is much more reason to dump him than this silly infatuation with Lieberman. He makes poor choices, he is Tim Hutchinson without the weasel face and the R behind his name. It's embarrassing to have such weak Democrats undermining their own party vote after vote after vote. Arkansas can do better. We're in trouble and we desperately need to find the center again.

Mark Pryor's center is way way to the right and only taking us farther into the pit of hell that Bush-Cheney has dug.

The so called far left is by all appearance able to support it's moderate nominated candidates and office holders than far right Democrats or Republicans are willing or able to comprehend. Ned Lamont is a moderate nominee of the CT, Democrats. They are super rich and old school moderate to conservative up there. Next time you shout and cry extreme lefty, ( even perhaps, with some facts) you will regret this attack (again) without substance, and it will fall on deaf ears. Your (anonymous posters) extreme right President is around 33% and the VP is a proud 18%. They can't terrorize themselves above 40 % and 21%. Maybe, if they steal one more election and we attack Iran by next spring, you will get another blood bath for oil and five to ten dollar gas. We know it's the plan. So I don't think you have any valuable input with name throwing and no facts or new ideas or the willingness to use diplomacy at all, much less, clean up your own party.

Digby said a while ago that there are no more Democrats and Republicans, just Neocons and everybody else. I would throw in Theocon and Kleptocon, but he makes a good point.

Now Sam starts to discuss the middle and I hope he elaborates sometime. Also, what part of the Democratic middle is Pryor or Lieberman successfully representing?

Some Republicans will extol him, but will they vote for his version of the Democrat candidate, if he wins the primary
Posted by: docholliday

I cannot imagine many Republicans voting for Pryor over a Republican nominee. The fact that you suggest it, however, tells us how far Right Pryor has drifted.

Some Democrats will excoriate him, but will they vote Republican against him assuming he survives the primary

I disagree again. I can't imagine a Democrat voting for a Republican over Pryor. I can imagine a LOT of Democrats not voting at all in a Pryor/Republican race, but vote for a Republican? Never. I'd take Pryor, even Pryor, over any Republican.

OK, it's the brandy. I misread both of docholliday's questions as statements. I both cases I read "will they" as "they will". So, pretty much, never mind.

On another subject, can anybody tell me how Eureka Springs survives in NW Arkansas? It must be hell for them, unless they never leave the city limits. I hope they have checkpoints to keep Republican suicide bombers out of town.

With such impressive and "loyal" credentials...in keeping company with such unprofessional bloggers...you must be drivin' yourself nuts, Sam...

I haven't ever been to an inauguration...never been invited.

What I can afford to give to the DNC probably doesn't amount to much...but that's because I have some charitable obligations...and lately, paying bills has been tough...

As a little bitty voter guy, I don't feel like GOP 73 is focused on the Party's best interests...his coziness with the GOP gives me gas...his support for Leave-here-man gives me a chill...

And don't EVER ask him to be consistent.

Who knows...maybe someone will step up for '08...

Center, right of center, top of center, wingnut lefty, are just words that hardly define anything in these terbulent days.

Republicans have combined corporate power with governance to the point that lobbists are not only advising but writing legislation and pressuring for pro-corporate agendas with more money than anyone can deny. And our candidates for public office are being bought and paid for by 'big money', for the price of an election. To the point that we vote into corporate computers and they tell us how we voted, and without recourse to varifyable recounts. But to question that procedure labels one as a wingnut lefty. (and I had laboured under the opinion that even conservatives valued the vote).

So it is not suprising that candidates are more interested in what lobbyists motivate for than constituents needs, or even following the law.

This corporate/governance has led to a tyranny of mega monopolies in all of our industries. And most industries have up and moved good paying jobs out of the country. Thank you Republicans!

If you are calling folks that consider the patriot act's dismissal of some conventional freedoms as not being interested in the safty of our people, you are misinformed.

What I'm trying to do is bring the conversation back to real points and get off the propaganda splurbs we get from the coventional media.

I hold Pryor responcible for making a deal that usuring into our Supreme Court ultra conservative activist judges and voting just like a Republican 99% of the time.

Pryor is an ultra conservative, like Lieberman, and will not be getting support from me.

NOW President has an excellent article on how & why Liberman loss the majority of DNC Women voters. She's right and confirms that Liberman and supporters are nothing more than devious hard core and fork tongue polical hacks. 's . Here's the article @ http://www.now.org/news/note/081506.html

Spirit - When I leave Eureka Springs, most of the time I leave the country. The locals are in a cat fight over the CAPC these days and the Mayor is running against an incumbent for City Counsel. Progressive Dems are fighting Diebold tooth and nail. The tourists are predominantly wealthy motorcyclists sparking up local complaints for quiet muffler laws. Some smart person learned to feed wingers the passion play a long time ago and it keeps them happy with good music and liquor afterwards. I live outside of town, on the Kings River. It's clean again, though very dry. Almost elk country now. Twenty one bald eagles in my yard every winter. I miss the duck hunting and the cyprus swamps of the delta but these hills keep my spirit at ease.

Thanks for the answer Sam. I do hear what you and others have been saying (mostly pre-Bush..but still); but I'm having a hard time recognizing the specifics of what it means to be a 'moderate' Democrat...both nationally and individually. For example and for Democrats: What is a moderate position on the Iraq War...on abortion...gay marriage...Bush (I ask that because the very act of hating what Bush has done seems to have earned people like me a far-left extremist label)...on Lieberman...on immigration...on universal health-care? As I've tried to answer these questions for myself, I've noticed that the markers that are used to determine what's left/right, extreme/middle-of-the-road seem to get move around by the Republicans and then mirrored by the Democratic Leadership.

And the Lieberman situation is a good example of what I'm referencing. I just don't understand how it's extreme to think that Lieberman (and his Democratic supporters) should comply with the wishes of the CT Democrats. But yet that's the tune that's getting the most play...Lieberman's a moderate; Pryor's a moderate for supporting him; and people like me are extremists who are going to destroy the party. I just don't get it; and when I do think it through I feel that the Democratic Party has been co-opted by the Republicans. And, it's the Republican vision that's setting Democratic Party. Heck, Rush almost singlehandedly has made 'liberal' a dirty word. And what do the Democratic politicians do in response? They buy it and while they're backing away from being a 'liberal' the Republicans are wallowing in the joy of being the ultimate conservative.

Compared to right-wing Bush I'm so moderate I can't see left...but yet I'm a radical lefty for labeling Bush thusly....hmm, something ain't right with this picture.

The fact that Bush will not come out and endorse the Connecticut Republican nominee for the senate seat is interesting. It blows away our theory that Republicans always back Republicans.

Strange world.

But at least Bush isn't campaigning AGAINST the Republican nominee. He's just keeping his mouth shut, like his good friend Blanche (he'll be kissing her on the cheek next).

Dems are moving leftward.Reps are moving rightward. Lieberman is moving rightward together with the Bushies. How do you guys name him? Liber-bush-man is being officially suppoerted by reps againts a dem candidate; how does it sound to you guys? How reps (while speeding rightward) can support a centrist?
If those supporting Lieberman's move are rights, then something is wrong with the Bushies, and ultimately their best friend Lieberman.

I am logged into a hot spot, waiting for a plane that is already late, so this will have to be short and may end abruptly.

DBI, the Democrat Party has to remain the party for all of the people you list. At the core, that is what separates us from the Republicans. Our inclusiveness. I don't advocate changing that.

My cry for moderacy is not motivated by religion. I'm somewhat ashamed to say that I am not a very religious person. Yes, I believe in God, but I am not active in any organized religion and don't attend church nearly enough. So that's not my motivation.

And this may be heresy to you, but my real problem with the party is economic... fiscal... how to spend our money. We desperately need tax relief. Not the "give it all to the rich and we will pass it on down" that the Republicans advocate, but broad-based tax relief like under Clinton. I think Clinton proved that the best way to stimulate the economy is to give everybody a dollar and let business earn that extra spending money, as opposed to giving it to business and let it trickle down. That will never work because the rich will pocket a sizeable chunk and take that amount out of circulation.

You and I probably would disagree on many specifics on business. You say the government and business need a divorce. I say they need a happy marriage. Again, something less than the Republicans gladly offer, but something that will keep business strong. No time for specifics now.

DBI, most of the problems you cite as putting us right of Nixon are accurate, but they are the result of 1 1/2 terms of Bush, not the result of a more conservative Democrat Party. This country is too conservative; the party is not.

We have to remember that this is a POLITICAL party. You have no power if you don't get the votes. Is it better to govern and accomplish 85 percent of your platform, or advocate 100 percent as the party out of power. I think you know my answer. I won't compromise my core, but I will participate in some give and take to put me in a position to do good for most. And, no, that's not selling out.

Zelda, I don't have time to get to most of your post. I will say that I agree with you on Lieberman. As for Mark Pryor, that is a very complicated topic. Mark has some great skills. He's a great coalition builder and that's needed. But Mark also has some shortcomings. First, I'm afraid he just isn't very smart. Second, I'm not sure he knows what he believes or what he wants. He's good at listening to everyone, but not that good at making informed decisions. While I appreciate his willingness to consider things outside the cookie-cutter party view, he needs a lot of work. No time to elaborate.

Gotta go. Thanks.

DBI, the Democrat Party has to remain the party for all of the people you list. At the core, that is what separates us from the Republicans. Our inclusiveness....

DBI, most of the problems you cite as putting us right of Nixon are accurate, but they are the result of 1 1/2 terms of Bush, not the result of a more conservative Democrat Party.
Posted by: Sam

Sam,

I appreciate you being one of us, but generally only Republicans call it the "Democrat Party". They have applied that term in recent years to get under our skin.

We call it the Democratic Party.

I just heard on the radio that Lieberman is leading the 3-way race in Connecticut.

Dump Lamont!

Tough crowd.

Spirit, see my 4:46 and 7:37 posts of yesterday.

Glad you have time to proof read. I didn't this morning.

Sorry to be tough, but some things just fly all over me, and "Democrat Party" is one of them (in other words, the Republican's little plan worked).

But, always, words matter.

Signed,
Doug Smith Fan