The Democrats have never consistantly been MM's party. He was green in 2000. Fought hard for Nader and later regretted doing so Gore lost by New Hampshire.

Those on the Right always seem appalled at the idea of dissent within one's own party, like it's some big huge surprise that someone would dare to have a thought that hadn't been vetted by the national organization.

I recently took a Righty blogger to task for calling one of the Presidential hopefuls "Osama Obama." A Righty poster archly informed me, after some back-and-forth aimed at building suspense and (I assume) constructing some petard by which I might be hoist, that Ted Kennedy had been the first to use the "Osama Obama" construction. Ted Kennedy! His own self!!!

This guy was clearly expecting me to respond with something on the order of, "No! There's no way Kennedy said that!" or, "Well, it's okay if he does it" or something equally weaselly. That would be, I understand, the Republican way, because, to the Right's way of thinking, and Republicans must ALWAYS be right while Democrats must ALWAYS be wrong. Admitting that one of your own is off-base is the ultimate disloyalty--unthinkable.

Democrats do things a little differently. For which I am thankful.

Those on the Right always seem appalled at the idea of dissent within one's own party
You're kidding, right?

Pick up a newspaper. There's an immigration bill out. Read up on the unflinching solidarity amongst Republicans.

Or look back at Harriet Miers' nomination for the Supreme Court.

Or look at the debate about abortion that rears it's head in every Republican primary.

Or look at the differences between Rudy, Fred Thompson, Newt Gingrich, McCain, etc. What a wide ranging set of ideas and principles.

The only difference between the Democrats is based on race and gender. Oh yeah, that's what is considered "diverse" for Democrats: one's physical appearance. Ideological diversity gets you kicked out of the party (go ask Joe Lieberman).

Sean:

The examples you mention--except for the abortion one--have all sprung up only in the past couple of months. That's why it's big news, my friend: Republicans always march in lockstep, and now they aren't. Thus, the very idea of ideological dissent is weird to them--they're looking at a meltdown within the party.

Also: how did Lieberman get "kicked out" of the Democratic party? Since when did not winning your party's primary equal getting kicked out of the party?

Michael---

The DSCC was neutral when Lamont ran against Lieberman. The only time I can think of when the NRSC was neutral when an incumbent was challenged was Bob Smith in 2002, and that was because he'd left the party in 2000, only to come back with his tail between his legs a few months later.

If you want some longer standing issues of dissent on the right, try looking at the reaction of conservatives to the Balkans campaign in the Clinton years, or the bitter disputes between the Nixon-Kissinger detente wing of the party versus the Reaganite rollback crowd. Or take a look at the long-standing grudge match between libertarians and conservatives on the drug war or whether to fund the National Endowment for the Arts.

I'll listen to your other examples, but I'm going to toss the Libertarian one--Libertarians aren't, to my mind, in touch with reality and shouldn't be counted.

Notice, though, that you're picking examples that are decades apart. I submit again that party discipline is overwhelmingly the rule rather than the exception on the Right.

Michael, had Hubbard chosen only recent examples, you'd have argued he had referenced an insufficient timeframe. Come now, this is not a beginning debate class. You're not even attempting to offer a counterargument of substance, merely statements that you posit as factual when they lack any basis. For one, I'd like to you state *why* libertarians like me are "out of touch with reality," instead of declaring it as fact. Does this include stances shared with Democrats, or do you not wish to admit that Dems are half out of touch with reality?

Libertarians and their philosophy of individualism have played a significant role in conservatism's last four decades, and you disregard that at your own loss. I suppose you never heard of the conservative icon who directly stated he believes that "libertarianism is the heart and soul of conservatism"? Hint: he lost the 1976 GOP presidential nomination in no small part from his opposition to agricultural subsidies.

Hubbard did an excellent job of showing the nature of politics: occasional flareups where major issues tend to cluster in active years, but for the most part, big government manages to steam on regardless of which party has the most power. He could have cited other good examples such as campaign finance reform, free trade, and immigration. (Anyone who thinks immigration is a recent issue must not be very old.) Energy independence, too, though it's a fallacial desire (long story we can get into elsewhere): it was a big conservative thing in the 80s, died out when prices really dipped in the 90s, and was taken over by the Democrats.

I'll listen to any of your examples of why Democrats themselves are so righteously homogeneous, but modern liberals aren't, to my mind, in touch with reality and shouldn't be regarded.

Notice, though, that whatever you cite, I could do as you did and reply that you're simply picking examples that are decades apart. So by your own token, I submit that party discipline is overwhelmingly the rule rather than the exception on the Left. But you do realize that this is the very nature of a two-party system, right? The U.S. doesn't have all the factions of a modern Italian parliament or the Weimar Reichstag, so the major parties must be far more inclusive in membership ("big tent"). For example, many libertarians (small "l") like me tend to vote GOP for economic and politically practical reasons, though I'm no fan of all the big government Republicans in the party. Other libertarians like Radley Balko wanted to see the GOP lose big last year, though he's no fan of the Democrats either. And there's perhaps a 5% difference between Balko and me in overall political philosophy.

And by the way, if the GOP had been merely neutral on backing incumbents like Arlen Specter, Lincoln Chafee or Sue Kelly (my former rep), the media would have trumpeted how those candidates were effectively "kicked out" of the party.

Does this include stances shared with Democrats, or do you not wish to admit that Dems are half out of touch with reality?

This is a prime example of precisely the kind of thing I was writing about with that other poster, but I'll have to spoil your "gotcha" moment. Yes, the Democratic party has its full share of shmoes and bad ideas.

I can't believe you're trying to argue that the Republican party is not more on message as a whole than the Democrats. This point has been made again and again and again over the course of the years by smarter people than I. The slow and patient growth of the conservative movement over the past several decades, with the attendant strict party discipline, is the reason that five of the last seven presidents have been Republicans.

"I can't believe you're trying to argue that the Republican party is not more on message as a whole than the Democrats."

Actually, I am arguing no such thing. It's a logical fallacy to assume that because I argue against something, then I must be arguing in favor of the reverse. What if I am arguing that neither is true?

So, you may immediately cease the common liberal trick of putting words into the other person's mouth. Thanks.

"This point has been made again and again and again over the course of the years by smarter people than I. The slow and patient growth of the conservative movement over the past several decades, with the attendant strict party discipline, is the reason that five of the last seven presidents have been Republicans."

Well, it's certainly true that there are many people smarter than you.

Nixon, Ford, Reagan, George H.W. Bush, George W. Bush. Each was/is a completely different political animal. Nixon was a self-avowed Keynesian, whose belief in government manipulation of the economy is something Reagan would have never accepted. Reagan would have never accepted the tax hikes that Bush 41 did. The Dems knew Bush 41 wasn't a strong tax-cutter, so they knew they could blackmail him. Bush 43 is like Reagan only in that he cut taxes, and that's about it. His ideas of big government aren't even like Nixon's.

I have my problems with Republicans, but if we knew only that "a" Republican will win in 2008, we'd have no idea what the future would bring. On the other hand, Carter, Clinton, and any Democrat who might win in 2008 (God help us) are of the same breed: tax hikes, social programs and everything else about big government.