Maybe we oughta describe Congressional "majorities" in terms of ideology instead of party

[Armstead]

We and the media are obsessed with the Congressional score card of minoroties and majorities in terms of the number of Democrats and Republicans.

We bemoan that Democrats can't get anything done despite having a substantial majority because of the presence of enough GOPers to create a filibuster.

We're paranoid and nervous about the prospect of the GOP gaining enough seats to gain a majority.

Maybe that's a false way of looking at it. Maybe it's an anachronism.

Perhaps a more realistic basis to keep score in terms of ideology and loyalty. Where do individual Congresscritters stand on issues? Where are their primary loyalties and sources of support? A Liberal and Conservative and Independent Moderate scoerecard might be more accurate, and give us a truer sense of the reality when you subtract the ConservaDems, the corporate centrists and the Weasals.

On that basis -- when you count in the Nelsons, Baucuses, Bayhs, etc. and add them to the Republicans, the Economic Corporate Conservatives have the REAL majority in Congress, while Liberals, Progressives and True Moderates have the minority.

Ben Nelson and Sherrod Brown, for example, may both be part of the "Democratic majority" in terms of numbers. But they are on different planets in terms of what they believe, what they do and who they are allied with.

The health care debate brought this into focus. Maybe Democrats have a technical majority, but that was meaningless in terms of how many actually supported and want real reform in the system...The same can be said about many issues..

It bites, but it might at least make the task of bringing real reform clearer.

[Clio the Leo]

1. I'm ALL for separating us according to "ideologues" and "pragmatists,"...

.... I think that all the time when arguments here spiral into never-ending back and forths.

Because, eventually, that's what all of our debates come down to.

[TheBigotBasher]

2. Just like car racing

they should be made to wear suits showing their sponsor

[amandabeech]

3. The way it looks to my old eyes, is that people who 50 years ago

would have been liberal to moderate Republicans are now in the Democratic Party and form its conservative wing.

The Republican party has moved so far to the right since then, that it has totally lost its moderate and liberal wings and now only has the conservative, the ultra conservative and the nut case wings.

The mods and libs are now calling themselves Democrats and join some hereditary Dems from conservative states. I'm talking Lincoln and Landrieu here.

Really, though, it is like we have three parties. Regular and liberal Dems, mod and conservative Dems and Pubbies, who march in lockstep no matter what.

I've stopped expecting the mod and conserv Dems to vote with the regulars and the liberals because we can't even seem to hold party discipline on procedural motions. That's really the sign that the Dems aren't one party, but a bickering coalition.

Unfortunately, I'm not convinced that the country right now or in the near future will elect enough regular or liberal Dems to make cloture regularly. Our hands are really tied.