National Journal has come out with their rankings of political ideology of the 2005 Congress, based on their votes.

Among the rankings, the three Congressional Representatives of the Republican CT delegation came out as follows:

- 2nd District, Rob Simmons (R):
Conservative score: 49.2
Liberal score: 50.8

- 5th District, Nancy Johnson (R):
Conservative score: 48.2
Liberal score: 51.8

- 4th District, Chris Shays (R):
Conservative score: 46
Liberal score: 54

So you see what I have to deal with. Johnson is my Congresswoman. But all three rate higher as Liberals than Conservatives. So essentially, I have no representation in Congress when it comes to advocating my point of view. Well hey, that's the deal. If I want to continue to live in CT, I have to face the fact that I'm in the minority. Many like-minded folks choose not to and move to States that are more Conservative in their overall philosophy. I can't say that it's not tempting.

But Liberals tend to overlook the fact that - nationally - they are in the minority. And rather than live with it and urge their elected officials to try and work with the majority to achieve something that they can support, most of them chose to descend into moonbattery and attack rather than propose. Rather than be part of the process, they choose to be part of the problem.

And in my own State, a serious and well-respected Democrat Senator is being chased out of his own party for not kow-towing to the extremists who are calling the shots these days. Rather than respectfully disagree with Joe Lieberman on some issues, they've decided to challenge his seat this year from within the party.

For the Left-wing loony-toons of the CT Democrat party, Lieberman isn't Liberal enough, notwithstanding his own 65.7 "Liberal" rating by National Journal. Diversity of opinion is not tolerated among Democrats. The idea of being the "Big Tent" party disappeared from their ranks over a generation ago.

I can personally attest that is sucks to be in the minority. But if Democrats are going to keep this up, they'd better get used to it.

Posted by: Gary at 02:18 PM | Comments (7) | Add Comment
Post contains 366 words, total size 2 kb.

1 Man, Let's be honest. With Lieberman, it isn't a left-right thing. (If so, why do you guys love him so much.) It's a loyalty thing. At the end of the day, Joe carries water for the GOP. You know that. I know that.

Posted by: TrueBlueCT at February 26, 2006 08:10 PM (gnlmm)

2 Why is it that when John McCain or Chuck Hagel or Olympia Snowe break with the GOP caucus on critical votes they're called "mavericks" who vote their conscious but Lieberman "carries water for the GOP"?

Posted by: Gary at February 26, 2006 08:42 PM (IGv1j)

3 Good God man! It's not about a vote or two. It's about message. Lieberman is a consistent echo of "Republicans=Good, Democratic Base=Bad". And can you give me a critical vote that your so-called "mavericks" have executed against BushCo? If the R moderates depart the Party line, it is usually with leadership's permission.

Posted by: TrueBlueCT at February 26, 2006 09:57 PM (gnlmm)

4 I'll give you seven votes: The Gang of 14. Or how about Lincoln Chafee's no vote on Alito (despite his yes vote for cloture - now that's courage). Or ANWR drilling? I could go on but I'm sure these are enough to qualify as directives from the "evil BushCo".

Posted by: Gary at February 26, 2006 10:47 PM (IGv1j)

5 I wouldn't put too much faith into rankings like this without seeing the methodology - how, for example do they define "social" issues as opposed to "economic" issues? And what about those (very) few members of congress who have a libertarian streak? The traditional con/lib spectrum doesn't fit.

Posted by: KG at February 27, 2006 12:36 PM (SZsz5)

6 Certainly it should be looked at more as "guideline" but, honestly, are there any real surprises on the list?

Posted by: Gary at February 27, 2006 02:27 PM (PLHs9)

7 Democrats' problem with Joe Leiberman is that he's on the "wrong side" of the war. On the socio-economic issues he's a liberal. (Though he does tend to rustle feathers by being open to the idea of allowing individuals to privatize a small percentage of their social security funds if they so choose.) I'd say that Joe, from what I see, represents the views of "middle Americans" who tend to be social liberals, economic moderates and foreign policy conservatives.

Posted by: Tuning Spork at February 27, 2006 08:05 PM (1/f73)

Hide Comments | Add Comment