Democrats jumping ship

[FastEddy]

"Artur Davis, former prominent Obama backer, leaves Democratic Party" - By Morgan Little - May 30, 2012 - LA Times

"Artur Davis, one of President Obama’s earliest supporters and a former co-chairman for his presidential campaign, announced Tuesday that he was leaving the Democratic Party for good.

In a post published Tuesday on his website, Davis was vague about his future political endeavors, but declared: “If I were to run, it would be as a Republican. And I am in the process of changing my voter registration from Alabama to Virginia, a development which likely does represent a closing of one chapter and perhaps the opening of another.”

Davis, who represented Alabama’s 7th Congressional District from 2003 to 2011, was notably the first member of Congress outside of Illinois to endorse then-Sen. Obama’s 2008 presidential bid. And it was Davis who seconded the official nomination of Obama at the 2008 Democratic National Convention.

Along with making hints at the future, Davis reflected on his experiences as a Democrat, and condemned the path he believes the party is taking.

Renouncing the party “is no light decision on my part,” he wrote. “Cutting ties with an Alabama Democratic Party that has weakened and lost faith with more and more Alabamians every year is one thing; leaving a national party that has been the home for my political values for two decades is quite another.”

But “wearing a Democratic label no longer matches what I know about my country and its possibilities,” he said.

“On the specifics, I have regularly criticized an agenda that would punish businesses and job creators with more taxes just as they are trying to thrive again,” he said. “I have taken issue with an administration that has lapsed into a bloc by bloc appeal to group grievances when the country is already too fractured: frankly, the symbolism of Barack Obama winning has not given us the substance of a united country.” ... "

---

Making "progressives" progress, one at a time.

[BRamey]

The lefties will consider him a "sell out" and so it will be free to make racist remarks about him.

[Bemused]

Over the past 40 years I have known of several from both sides who switch to the other. Nothing new here.

My observation is that the pendulum is now swinging the other way, that there is a move towards the common sense center. Eventually, that same pendulum will cross center and swing to the other extreme. This is the way it ALWAYS has been.

People like Limbaugh often criticize "moderates" as squishies who have no strong beliefs. People like Limbaugh are wrong. Moderism, according to the Greeks, is a dynamic center, struggling to balance the extremes of too much and to little.

Right now, thank God, we in America at a point where the direction is towards the center of common sense. The extremes of liberalism are on the decline. Maybew to the point where Obama can be voted out of office.

As for your picking a particular individual as indicative, it will take more than a singe example

PS David Mammoth whom you originally dismissed as a "liberal" but subsequently accepted as someone sincere who offered a paean to his change of heart) is a supporting case.

[Rifleman]

Originally Posted by Bemused

Over the past 40 years I have known of several from both sides who switch to the other. Nothing new here.

My observation is that the pendulum is now swinging the other way, that there is a move towards the common sense center. Eventually, that same pendulum will cross center and swing to the other extreme. This is the way it ALWAYS has been.

People like Limbaugh often criticize "moderates" as squishies who have no strong beliefs. People like Limbaugh are wrong. Moderism, according to the Greeks, is a dynamic center, struggling to balance the extremes of too much and to little.

Right now, thank God, we in America at a point where the direction is towards the center of common sense. The extremes of liberalism are on the decline. Maybew to the point where Obama can be voted out of office.

As for your picking a particular individual as indicative, it will take more than a singe example

PS David Mammoth whom you originally dismissed as a "liberal" but subsequently accepted as someone sincere who offered a paean to his change of heart) is a supporting case.

Please! It seems your desire to slimeball Limbaugh is motivating your comments. I have done the same thing as Limbaugh, and there are valid reasons:

1. So-called Moderation, is presented as a virtue. I often critize the aledged conservative at the NYT, for promoting "moderation." Nothing could be farther from the truth. Clearly, at this point in US History, Socialism has been on the rise since the far ranging success of Roosevelt in implementing it. And now we have Obama trying to finish the job making the US into a entirely Socialist country. Therefore, a "moderate" stance would support making the US even more socialist. So, consider Romney, who was considered more moderate than the others, except the "other Mormon', such policies of Romney's like "automatically indexing minimum wage to inflation" simply promotes more socialism.

2. Liberal to Extreme Leftist DimocRATs ALWAYS promote themselves as "moderate".

3. Compromise between an extreme Left position and the mildly conservative position of the majority of the country is NOT moderation.

4. Often, the same "compromise" promoted as a moderate position, is promoted as a moderate position rather than on the merits of the position itself. Or, conservatives are demonized because they are "extreme" not because the moderate position is not desirable.

[dcannady]

Originally Posted by Bemused

People like Limbaugh often criticize "moderates" as squishies who have no strong beliefs. People like Limbaugh are wrong. Moderism, according to the Greeks, is a dynamic center, struggling to balance the extremes of too much and to little.

There is a vast difference between compromise and appeasement. One can't tolerate a little corruption any more than one can be a little dead. We are either sovereign individuals or we are drones in a hive of socialist construction, but we can't be both. All available evidence favors the individual thing and repudiates the hive thing. So, how does one compromise ones individuality to a failed and corrupt ideology? It is appeasement and it's just weakness of character.

"Moderation in temper is always a virtue; but moderation in principle is always a vice." -Thomas Paine

[BRamey]

Originally Posted by Rifleman

Please! It seems your desire to slimeball Limbaugh is motivating your comments. I have done the same thing as Limbaugh, and there are valid reasons:

1. So-called Moderation, is presented as a virtue. I often critize the aledged conservative at the NYT, for promoting "moderation." Nothing could be farther from the truth. Clearly, at this point in US History, Socialism has been on the rise since the far ranging success of Roosevelt in implementing it. And now we have Obama trying to finish the job making the US into a entirely Socialist country. Therefore, a "moderate" stance would support making the US even more socialist. So, consider Romney, who was considered more moderate than the others, except the "other Mormon', such policies of Romney's like "automatically indexing minimum wage to inflation" simply promotes more socialism.

2. Liberal to Extreme Leftist DimocRATs ALWAYS promote themselves as "moderate".

3. Compromise between an extreme Left position and the mildly conservative position of the majority of the country is NOT moderation.

4. Often, the same "compromise" promoted as a moderate position, is promoted as a moderate position rather than on the merits of the position itself. Or, conservatives are demonized because they are "extreme" not because the moderate position is not desirable.

Agreed, liberals love the "moderate" label since it is easy to convince people like that to their beliefs. That is why Obama would rather deal with republicans who call themselves moderate, but liberals are not moderate with any of their actions. They want the republicans to be held to a high standard of conduct, in reality a standard that can not be reaches, while they play every dirty trick possible. The democrats in WI are sending mail to residents informing them of their neighbors' voting habits. I would hardly call that being moderate.

[BRamey]

Originally Posted by dcannady

There is a vast difference between compromise and appeasement. One can't tolerate a little corruption any more than one can be a little dead. We are either sovereign individuals or we are drones in a hive of socialist construction, but we can't be both. All available evidence favors the individual thing and repudiates the hive thing. So, how does one compromise ones individuality to a failed and corrupt ideology? It is appeasement and it's just weakness of character.

"Moderation in temper is always a virtue; but moderation in principle is always a vice." -Thomas Paine

Yep, so we should be moderate in terms of terrorism? The terrorists aren't going to do that. And this "well, we are better, so we need to show them we are better" is a crock. Like the terrorists are going to change their thinking because of that. Like you mention, it is a sign of weakness they see and playing nice isn't going to do anything. The same with politics. The democrats use every dirty trick in the book and the republicans playing nice got a McCain and how did that work in 2008?