Bloodless Coup

Bro,
I thought you hated towing the party line and loyalty (or is that just when conservatives and Bush are the one doing it?).

first, i think you mean toEing the line. second, while it's important to run against your party's grain when you disagree as a matter of principle (precisely the sort of thing we see so little of from the GOP, which is the sort of thing i know i get bitchy about, and precisely the thing the right inanely identifies as moral relativism when the left does it), it's something else entirely to run on two overt prongs: a) as the putative choice of the party by seeking said party's nomination and b) as the putative choice of whomever will vote for him. he's not only playing both sides against the middle, he's also putting the party in an absolutely horrible position. unanimity in policy positions, a la the right, is utterly disturbing. blatant opportunism at the expense of the party brought you within a few votes of the office of the vice presidency is shameless opportunism. if he can win as a republican he should. ditto as a democrat. and ditto as an independent or as the choice of some other party. but it's unseemly and reprehensible that he might set himself up to cost his party the senate, which if he loses the primary and splits the left (which has no business voting for him, since he's simply zell miller with the volume turned down) in the general election is exactly what he could do. asking him to identify himself clearly and unequivocally in a primary election so that his party and his supporters can decide where they stand is nothing like asking Joe Schmo (R-Wingnut) to vote out of lockstep once a term.

I object to people being mindless followers of policies that inhibit our liberty and endanger our lives and livelihoods - particularly when they make a show of how brave and patriotic they are being in falling such idiocy.

I also object to people standing for utterly nothing except themselves, refusing to go along with the people's choice if the people's choice is to vote them out of office, and to purport to stand for certain fundamental principles when it's abundantly obvious they are mostly standing for the maintenance of their own power. It's unseemly and a perverting of the political process by someone who can't stop declaring his righteousness. And I find it absurd to suggest that someone should seek a party's nomination when that person publicly announces he'll oppose that party's nominee if it's not him.

The one does not conflict with the other. And that he's pulled this kind of nonsense TWICE now (this instance is far worse than the 2000 situation, but he should have dropped out of the Senate race then) shows how desperate he is to cling to his own position.