Skip to main content

View Diary: 2 Blue Dogs caucus with Republicans handing Washington Senate to the GOP (143 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Personally, I think it should be forbidden by law (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    sethtriggs, myeye, Samer, Chacounne

    for a representative or delegate or senator or whatever the state calls its legislators (and this includes Congress) to switch parties outside of an election campaign. If you campaigned as a Democrat, you must stay a Democrat until you give your constituents a chance to decide if THEY WANT YOU to be their representative as a Republican.

    It's false advertising. It's bait-and-switch. I would be INFURIATED if someone I voted for, as a Democrat, decided to become a Republican not two months out from their election.

    The last time the Republicans were this radical, they were working to elect former slaves to Congress. What a difference a century and a half makes!

    by jayjaybear on Tue Dec 11, 2012 at 07:55:39 AM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  Yes (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      myeye, Lefty Coaster, Chacounne

      If an office-holder wants to change parties, they should have to resign their seat, although they could run for the then-open seat with their new party affilitation. Truth in advertising should apply.

      A winning campaign? You didn't build that...

      by SilentBrook on Tue Dec 11, 2012 at 08:37:53 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Why should political parties have such (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Mindful Nature

      special protections?

      •  Because one of the ones we have right now (0+ / 0-)

        is batshit crazy and people defecting from the sane party to the insane party after they've been elected as a sane party member isn't just duplicitous, it's dangerous.

        Barring some sort of automatic disqualification for turning one's coat, I'd support state provision to recall legislators (and a federal one, too) in all 50 states.

        The last time the Republicans were this radical, they were working to elect former slaves to Congress. What a difference a century and a half makes!

        by jayjaybear on Tue Dec 11, 2012 at 09:22:03 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  So you want to allow the government to dictate (0+ / 0-)

          who a person decides to associate with on the basis of your subjective judgement of sanity, duplicity, and danger?

          The major political parties already have too much power and influence over the government. They're too intertwined with it already. It's among the most significant reasons our political landscape is the way it is. And you want to make it worse? On the basis of party affiliation that most politicians ignore once in office anyway?

          I just don't think you've articulated a very good reason to cede one of the most important First Amendment rights we have to the government.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site