Are You A Purist Or A Pragmatist?

[cali]

Do you want to 'purge' the dem party of DINO's, or are you more concerned with regaining the Congress?

I definitely fall into the pragmatist camp. I'm willing to tolerate Nelson of Nebraska. Why? He'll vote for a dem majority leader if we win back the Senate. I'm willing to support Nelson of FLA. A primary run by Ned Lamont in CT is fine but in red states, I don't want to see dem challenges to dem reps and senators.

So which are you? Purist or pragmatist?

[atreides1]

1. Pragmatist

Let's win back the Congress, and then we can dump all of the DINO's, one by one.

[babylonsister]

2. Pragmatist. The party will never be composed

entirely of liberals who walk the walk and talk the talk. We can eventually cull the lousy ones out but meantime, we need to get organized with who we have.

[sui generis]

3. I'm a purist. Let's get rid of the conservatives

Because purist conservatives want to get rid of the gays and we each think the other is holding us back from winning.

Rule of politics:

If the incumbent status quo is indistinguishable from it's challenger, people will ALWAYS vote to keep what they have.

If we run or keep republican lite, people will just go with republican-fully-leaded.

[NativeTexan]

17. Yeah, Sui, but..............

.........I am a moderate (read that as more conservative than you, probably), and I think gays should be allowed to marry, share employment benefits, adopt children, etc. If you want to win back the Congress, because of "purists" kind of like yourself, our candidates are going to have to campaign way left for the primaries, then moderate their message to the middle in the fall. I just believe that after this many years of EXTREMISM from the right, that if offered views from the far left as a counter in this election, and probably 2008, that the American people just might go with the extremes that they know, versus the extremes that they DON'T know. Most Amercians, by a large majority, are moderates and prefer moderation in their politics. Without that, they might just keep the status quo.

[sui generis]

30. my response was hyperbolic but

there are those to the right of moderate in our party who believe they are the base and that we should ignore the left of our base in favor of opportunistic undecideds.

The issue by analogy is that we are a big tent party, but it's a blue tent and it attracts blue people. If we want to attract people from the other party, we have to change our colors to fool them into thinking they're okay with democrats as long as democrats officially ignore gays and outsourcing and the environment and don't raise taxes.

In the meanwhile the blue people this tent used to cover on the other side are left standing out in the rain because we moved the tent over onto red turf.

We have to support the people we have under the tent today - not take them for granted.

Anyway, define "fringes". I don't believe that equal rights is a fringe argument but to a conservative democrat it is the furthest fringe. I believe that further tax breaks and dismantling social security is completely on the fringe, in fact I truly AM a fiscal conservative and a social liberal.

Get rid of this stupid made-up badly executed war and all its hanger-on sycophant war contractors and the money to pay for education, healthcare, environmental planning, even realistic border protection is suddenly there, without vigilantes militias and the most dangerous bloated secretive fascist government organization ever conceived of in the Department of Vaterland Security.

So purist / pragmatist - those terms make me run cold actually. A pragmatist next question is, what perceived political ebola would you ditch to get elected? Gay rights of course, immigration, tax hikes, pharmaceutical pricing regulation, because we're being pragmatic about what we need to do to get elected.

[NativeTexan]

34. The conservative Dems that I know....

.....are right there with you. Their conservatism is usually more social than economic. They believe in the same equal rights that you and I do. They may be, in some cases, gun rights conservatives, but they also believe in all of the OTHER amendments that the "reds" ignore. They, as a group, feel like most of us about gays, tax hikes for the poor, and cuts for the rich. Because most of them ARE NOT rich. They may be more like me on immigration. Which is we CANNOT protect our country by allowing illegals to continue to flood in and then allowing them to stay. Being in Texas, that is a big issue for all of us. They want drug prices to go down. That isn't a liberal issue or a conservative issue. It is just a WRONG policy. The "fringes" have more to do with perception than actual policy. Finding the middle is more about finding things in common, not always accentuating the differences, because we ain't gonna change them, and they ain't gonna change us. The indepenents and moderates that make the difference on who controls the power, look for the things that are the most important to them. I see things on both ends that I just see as argumentative, because nothing is going to change those issues.

[sui generis]

35. very good points

it's a shame the original title of the thread was possibly unintentionally polarizing - but you really are on to something.

We can't allow anything to really be called "the fringe" by our own because it alienates and polarizes our own and we need all of us to win.

[Warpy]

4. Pragmatist and I won't participate in more of the destruction of this

country by either GOPs or DINOs. I will be working and contributing to defeat my Dem Senator this year.

It doesn't matter to me which party he belongs to. He's sold me out one too many times. Cutting off the Alito filibuster was the final straw.

Blind party loyalty is what THEY do. I care little which football team wins, and I care little which label a bad congressman carries. I want the bad ones GONE. Period.

If it makes you feel any better, I'll also be working and contributing to rid my state of one of the most embarrassing neocons in the House.

[cali]

13. Who is your dem Senator?

and who's the neocon rep? Just curious.

Gotta say though, I think not caring which side wins, is ridiculous. Individual reps and senators can be somewhat helpful when in the minority. If in the majority, we can make a real difference. Without dems in the majoriy we'll never see a meaningful investigation of bushco or impeachment. Don't you think it'd make a difference to have Conyers chairing the house judiciary? Leahy instead of Spector in the Senate?

[paulk]

46. you are a purist, not a pragmatist as you describe yourself

???????????

[laruemtt]

5. Purist.

i realize i might be alone in this. but imho it's what's in a name. :dilemma: it's like gw calling himself a 'conservative.'

[Selatius]

6. Neither.

The point for me is somebody who represents me. I'm not out to purge the entire party like the Republicans do. If I disagree with your policies, I won't vote for you regardless if you are a Democrat or a Republican. I'd sooner not vote or vote third party than vote for a Ben Nelson-type.

"I'd rather vote for something I want and not get it than vote for something I don't want, and get it." -- Eugene Debs

[TygrBright]

7. I'm a pure pragmatist. Or maybe a pragmatic purist?

I don't think generalizations are very helpful here. Case-by-case is more functional.

disputatiously,
Bright

[welshTerrier2]

8. pragmatism: getting rid of the DINO's if we want to win

the Democratic Party does NOT have a clear message ... "wanting to win" is NOT a message at all ...

when we're seen as a party that will do or say anything to get elected, that's NOT pragmatism, that's a muddled message and voters will reject it every time ...

the issue has never been purity; it's been clarity ... we all want to win; the nonsense implied in "purity versus pragmatism" is exactly why we won't ...

[elehhhhna]

10. Yes, becuse IF we win with DINO's, WHAT have we actually won?

[Lerkfish]

11. pyrrhic victory.

[CTLawGuy]

37. yes,

and if we get the majority with DINOs then they will say "we can't do because we have to retain the majority in the next election, and we can't do anything unless we are in power."

And so it goes.

[PassingFair]

63. Real Choice: Progressive/Populist vs. Corporate/ * Enablers

We need REAL change.

[CTLawGuy]

that is a great cartoon!

NT

[PassingFair]

71. I searched and searched....

Ted Rall archives all his cartoons, but this one is BY FAR my favorite.

It says it all...

[CTLawGuy]

69. that is a great cartoon!

NT

[MrBenchley]

14. So it's goodbye to John Murtha and "Deport 'em all" Paul Hackett?

Interesting.

[welshTerrier2]

20. ahhh, Mr. Benchley chimes in ...

well, hello Mr. Benchley ...

consider this ... almost everything imaginable is in bad shape in this country ... we're in an endless war ... our military is being used to promote commercial interests ... the country has rarely been more divided ... we're losing jobs ... the deficit is way, way out of control ... we're suspending the Bill of Rights ... we've essentially had one party rule for the last five years ... many Americans can't afford healthcare ... global warming appears to be reaching a crisis stage with disasterous potential consequences ... a massive hurricane has devastated a region of the country that has not been adequately addressed ... our food and water supplies are at greater and greater risk ... our energy supplies are making us more and more desperate ... and frankly, our entire government is being sold off to the highest bidders ...

with me so far????? you should be ... i assume you are ...

and against this backdrop of massive failures by the bush administration and the party in power, how exactly are Democrats faring in the polls ... do we see a massive tide in favor of Democrats all over the country?? or do we see a widespread malaise where neither party is seen as offering much hope??

now, i suppose you could blame all this on a biased media ... i suppose you could say the American people are all stupid and have no idea what the hell is going on ... perhaps you find some comfort in these excuses ... at least to some degree, they contain some truth ... or perhaps you want to blame our fate on the left ... if those radical left-wing purists would just shut-up, Democrats would win overwhelming victories ... or maybe it's all Nader's fault ... after all, had Gore won, we wouldn't be in this mess in the first place, would we??

well, blame away ... of course, that may offer you some comfort but it sure as hell doesn't change anything, does it?? so, we have a situation where the country is facing crushing problems largely created by this hideous administration and Democrats have thus far been unable to capitalize on it politically ...

i attribute this to a muddled message ... do you think Americans have a clear understanding of what Democrats will do to help get them healthcare? do you think Americans understand what Democrats believe is the best course on Iraq or the "war on terror"? do you think Americans believe that the Democrat party has strong, clear convictions on the issues or do they see the Party as a big tent that says whatever it needs to say to "win" elections??

you always seem to want to push those of us who put issues first as being "purists" ... let me assure you that you're just plain wrong ... i think there's plenty of room to compromise on many issues ... the problem the party seems to have is that it is unable or unwilling to promote a dialog that could lead to those compromises ... we do need to speak with one voice; there is always room for variations but the central themes must be conveyed loudly and clearly ... that's just not happening right now ...

so, Mr. Benchley, instead of just criticizing, how about offering some solutions that could actually lead to a change in the party's current status ... we're not exactly taking the country by storm, you know ... something needs to change ...

[MrBenchley]

24. So I guess you're dodging the question.....

"you always seem to want to push those of us who put issues first as being "purists" ..."
Is that what you think this dreary parade of "I hate hate hate Hillary/Lieberman/Kerry/Byrd/Brown/the DLC/DINOS/etc.,etc. etc." comes across as? That IS rich.

"we do need to speak with one voice"
Why? "Ein volk, ein reich, ein fuehrer" has ALWAYS been a crapass idea. Democracy is the building of concensus between camps.

[welshTerrier2]

33. well Benchley

democracy is indeed the building of consensus between camps ... looks like you're not interested in doing that ...

i notice you only seem to participate in threads that either bash the left or bash the moderates ... guess that's how you get your thrills ... doesn't seem like you're very interested in building consensus ... you just want to say everyone else is wrong ...

[MrBenchley]

36. Yup.

Guess you'll have to piss and moan about how "eeeeeee-vil Democrats are" without me.

[paulk]

48. your argument has no foundation

from the most recent ABC poll


"OPPOSITION — Bush's problems clearly benefit the opposition: Americans — by a 16-point margin, 51 percent to 35 percent — now say the country should go in the direction in which the Democrats want to lead, rather than follow Bush. That's a 10-point drop for the president from a year ago, and the Democrats' first head-to-head majority of his presidency.

The Republican Party is feeling the pinch as well. The Democrats lead them by 14 points, 51 percent to 37 percent, in trust to handle the nation's main problems, the first Democratic majority on this question since 1992. And the Democrats hold a 16-point lead in 2006 congressional election preferences, 54 percent to 38 percent among registered voters, their best since 1984.

Independents — quintessential swing voters — prefer the Democrats' direction over Bush's by 51 percent to 27 percent, and favor the Democrat over the Republican in congressional races by 54 percent to 31 percent (the latter result is among independents who're registered to vote."



------------------------------------


While it is debatable as to whether these advantages will translate into victories come November, your defeatism surely doesn't help.

If, that is, you even want Democratic victories, as Democratic success would tend to invalidate your entire argument.

[Lerkfish]

9. interesting labeling.

coopting the term "pragmatist" for your own side.

bravo!

I consider myself a pragmatist who considers the pressure to shift rightward only benefits the republican party.
I don't believe in a purge, but I do think the DLC and other "centrist" groups are being disingenuous and manipulative in the way they debate the issues, just like this thread.

I think that the time has come for the democratic party to be true to its roots, and NOT become republican lite.

I'm also against cutting off primary challenges because its a self-fulfilling prophecy: "voters will vote for a centrist dem in a red state", well, if you prevent a progressive dem from even competing in the primary, then you're correct. However, I would posit that the majority of democratic voters, even in a red state, are more than fed up with republicans and republican wannabes, that they would prefer to have the primary choice to make their voices heard.

If you are against primaries, consider you are pretending to know whats best for voters, and not caring what the voters think.

[MrBenchley]

12. Pragmatist....

The purge the purists are screaming for would cost us good folks like Ike Skelton, John Murtha, Gene Taylor, etc.

[depakid]

15. Totally false presumption- actually- sort of an offensive one, too

The DINO's are the reason why we've lost 6 straight elections and are about to lose a 7th.

A pragmatist (and systems thinker) who can see beyond the end of his nose- or beyond one election cycle. A purist thinks that a myopic view of THIS election (whenever "this" is- 200, 2002, 2004, etc) is all that counts- and so makes false assumptions and misses the dynamics of what's actually going on.

So long as there are DINO's who consistently and repeatedly undercut the party and vote with the opposition- the Dems will never be able to put together any kind of coherent message- much less one that reflect traditional Democratic values. You know, the ones that, until the DLC's "new Democrats" gained the upper hand- hadn't lost Congress since 1948?

Gingrich was smart- he saw the Dems diluting what they stood for- and he appealed to his base and marginalized the so called "moderate" members of his party. Whether or not he was honest about his "contract with America," he nevertheless solidified his message- and nationalized the campaign. That resulted in large gains in long time Democratic strongholds. You know- like the kinds of "Republican strongholds" that shortsighted people say that progressives (regardless of how popular their stands on the issue are there) -can never win.

The problem with the Dems- and the reason why they lose- and look to keep losing- is because they legitimize (and enable) right wing policies. In doing so- they make it impossible to draw a contrast between the parties- and what's more, they end up looking weak and ineffectual in the process.

In case no one's noticed- that's one of the prevailing sentiments about the Dems all over the country- and things like that show up in poll after poll.

Now, if the Dems really want to win (and after the events of the past months, I'm wondering whether- as a party- if they actually do or not)- they need to take a page from the Republican playbook and marginalize the right wing corporatists in their party.

They need to clean house first. Do that- run a nationalized campaign with REAL and WELL DEFINED alternatives- and victories will follow.

Keep doing what what we've been doing- letting the far right and their DINO's walk all over us- and we'll keep losing- not just elections- but on nominations and legislation -just as we have for the past 12 years.

Bottom line- DINO's are a bigger drain (and if winning is what you're concerned about) equally as bad -if not worse than Republicans. The sooner the Nelsons and the Liebermans et al. are defeated- the sooner the Dems can regain some relevance in national politics.

As it stands, people like that hurt other candidates all over the country. Smart, huh?

[cali]

21. I reject your analysis.

You don't butress it with facts. Your opinion isn't enough. Saying that DINOs are the reason dems are losing elections without demonstrating that it's so, doesn't cut it. We don't have the luxury of looking beyond this election cycle. We need to take back the Congress this year. Republicans manage to put out a pretty coherent message despite their RINOs. We should be able to do the same. If you can't see that there are indeed some republican strongholds, you're not based in a reality grounded world. Same goes for dem strongholds. In Vermont the pubs are putting up a pro-choice candidate for the house who openly criticizes bushco and the war. Why? Because they know they don't stand a chance with a conservative candidate.

I suspect you're wrong about dems continuing to lose. Most of the endangered house and senate seats are held by pukes. In PA, for example, Santorum trails by double digits.

I'm not suggesting we let the corporatists and DINOs walk all over this. Where it's practical to run liberal and progressive candidates, I'm all for it. There's a difference between CT and NE. That should be obvious to anyone.

Finally, getting the Congress back would place lots of liberals and progressives in positions of power. People like Conyers, Leahy, Kennedy, Kerry and many others. We'd be able to truly investigate bushco. Impeachment would be a possibility. Why is that so hard to get? Is that worth nothing to you?

[depakid]

28. Welp, without a coherent message

and with the widespread perception that the only real reason to vote for the Dems- who've proven to be ineffectual- I see no reason (absent some "devine intervention") that 2006 is going to turn out any differently than 2002 and 2004- in which the Dems ran on the same kind of "strategy" that you're apparently advocating.

I don't understand why you're unable to see that running with the same kind of lame, stand for nothing strategy isn't going to work now- any more than it's worked in the past. That's just downright illogical.

Also- I don't see many RINO's. Not sure who you're referring to. On damn near EVERY issue that comes up- the Republicans vote lock step in barrel. Even Chaffee does. Consistently (except for the occasional vanity vote- which the Republicans are smart enough to provide their members from time to time- PROVIDED THAT- it doesn't get in the way of the results). It's damn rare to see the far right lose out because a few turncoats vote with the opposition. Moreover, you don't see them outfront knocking the extremists in their party- no matter how whack they are.

On the other hand, it's become standard operating procedure in the Democratic party- which can't even filibustered anything! Every nomination- every piece of legislation- no matter how egregious- gets a pass. people rightly see that as weak

I'd love to get where you want to go- but it ain't gonna happen as long as highly visable members of the party go on the Sunday talk shows every week and simper and enable the far right- or verbally backstab members of their own party- and the party chairman- whenever they tell the truth or make a bold, assertive statement!

That's a prescription for a 7th straight loss- and, unfortunately- that's what I expect to see. Just as it was what I expected to see (and wrote about here) prior to 2002 and 2004.

[Laelth]

66. Nicely said, depakid.

I embrace your analysis, and I can't "prove" that you're right, but I feel it in my bones.

for what that's worth ...

-Laelth

[Totally Committed]

16. What good does it do to win back Congress with a bunch of

Congresspeople who will vote like/with the f*cking Repunblicans anyway? Answer me that.

It is still the end of Democratic ideals, democratic policies, and our Party either way.

Real Democrats for a REAL Democratic Party!

TC

[depakid]

18. It does no good at all

The DLC apologists seem to think that the Republicrats will somehow magically come around and start opposing right wing policies and supporting progressive ones.

Of course, there's no evidence- nor any other reason to believe that- but as "purists" they just can't seem to accept that that's the case- and historically has been the case. Many of the DINO's who've been crossing over to vote with the Republicans will keep on doing so, because that's where they think their interests (e.g. their lobbying perks and campaign money) comes from. Duh.

Needless to say- those interests aren't the party's interests- not are they by any stretch of the imagination their constituent's interests.

[Armstead]

19. Pragmatc Purist LOL

I look at things on two levels. One level are my purist ideals and goals and ideas for the way things ought to be.

At anotehr level, I'm very pragmatic. I realize you have to play with the crads you're dealt, and that little things add up. And that peope who disagree with me may well have legitimate reasons for their disagreement.

MY own view is to hold on to those purist ideals, and be uncomprom,ising abiout them as goals, but accept the real world and try to work within its limitations and expectation.

[Wordie]

23. That's what I'd call myself, too!

I would say in the case of the DINOs, to oppose them, but only if there is a viable Democratic challenger. That would mean someone who could attract enough middle-of-the-road votes in the general to have a shot at winning. It would depend entirely on the circumstances of the particular contest. Otherwise, I'd support the DINO.

It occurs to me that there might be another reason to run a progressive candidate. It might put the DINO on notice that there are lots of progressives out there, that need to be listened to, even if the progressive didn't win. But that again, would depend on the particular race.

I think moveon has a grassroots campaign going on right now, looking at these sorts of issues.

[Adelante]

44. I think I will buy that one

Pragmatic Purist. I knew I'd lived too long to be a Purist, but not long enough to be a Pragmatist. This works, thanks. :)

[Douglas Carpenter]

22. 10 Progressive Caucus will become Committee Chairs if Dems take the House

If the Democrats take the House this November

10 members of the Progressive Caucus would become chairmen of committees

John Conyers becomes Chairman of the Judiciary Committee

I guess that makes me a pragmatic wild-eyed leftest

I look how the far right working from the aftermath of the Goldwater landslide defeat of 1964 changed the big tent Republicans into a distinctly right wing party; so right wing that poor old Barry wasn't even welcome anymore. But, to do this the right wing did back in general elections candidates and Presidents who were clearly not their ideological soul-mates. Richard Nixon would be a socialist wacko by current Republican Party standards. But, it was the Nixon era that gave real rise to the long-term agenda of the right-wing.

Since we do not have a system such as exist in much of Europe which is accommodating to third parties and there is realistically no possibility whatsoever that will change anytime prior to the collapse of the current order which I do not anticipate will happen anytime soon--we have no choice in my opinion but to work with what we do have.

Furthermore any survey of actual congressional voting records will demonstrate that with the exception of the likes of Zell Miller almost any Democrat including Lieberman and definitely Clinton are still much more progressive than any "moderate" Republican.

Now let me make it clear I am no fan of Sen. Lieberman or Sen. Clinton. I wish the whole Democratic Party had voting records more like Dennis Kucinich, Sherrod Brown or Bernie Sanders (who is not a Democrat). But still let's compare the records of even Sen Lieberman and Sen. Clinton with one right-wing Republican and one so-called moderate Republican:

This is courtesy of project vote smart - link:

http://www.vote-smart.org/index.htm


2004 Senator Lieberman supported the interests of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation 33 percent in 2004.

“Senator Clinton supported the interests of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation 67 percent in 2004.

2004 Senator Allen supported the interests of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation 0 percent in 2004.

2004 Senator McCain supported the interests of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation 0 percent in 2004.
_________________________________
2004 Senator Lieberman supported the interests of the Peace Action 38 percent in 2004

Senator Clinton supported the interests of the Peace Action 75 percent in 2004.

2004 Senator Allen supported the interests of the Peace Action 0 percent in 2004.

2004 Senator McCain supported the interests of the Peace Action 13 percent in 2004.
______________________________________

2004 Senator Lieberman supported the interests of the National Abortion Reproductive Rights Action League 100 percent in 2004

2004 Senator Clinton supported the interests of the National Abortion Reproductive Rights Action League 100 percent in 2004.

2004 Senator Allen supported the interests of the National Abortion Reproductive Rights Action League 0 percent in 2004

2004 Senator McCain supported the interests of the National Abortion Reproductive Rights Action League 0 percent in 2004.
___________________________________

2003-2004 Senator Lieberman supported the interests of the American Civil Liberties Union 83 percent in 2003-2004.

2003-2004 Senator Clinton supported the interests of the American Civil Liberties Union 78 percent in 2003-2004

2003-2004 Senator Allen supported the interests of the American Civil Liberties Union 0 percent in 2003-2004.

2003-2004 Senator McCain supported the interests of the American Civil Liberties Union 22 percent in 2003-2004.
_____________________________
2004 Senator Lieberman supported the interests of the Americans for Democratic Action 75 percent in 2004.

2004 Senator Clinton supported the interests of the Americans for Democratic Action 95
percent in 2004.

2004 Senator Allen supported the interests of the Americans for Democratic Action 15 percent in 2004..

2004 Senator McCain supported the interests of the Americans for Democratic Action 35 percent in 2004.
__________________________

2004 Senator Lieberman supported the interests of the AFL-CIO 83 percent in 2004.

2004 Senator Clinton supported the interests of the AFL-CIO 100 percent in 2004.

2004 Senator Allen supported the interests of the AFL-CIO 17 percent in 2004..

2004 Senator McCain supported the interests of the AFL-CIO 33 percent in 2004.
___________________________________

2004 Senator Lieberman supported the interests of the United Auto Workers 92 percent in 2004.

2004 Senator Clinton supported the interests of the United Auto Workers 110 percent in 2004

2004 Senator Allen supported the interests of the United Auto Workers 9 percent in 2004

2004 Senator McCain supported the interests of the United Auto Workers 9 percent in 2004.
__________________________

2003-2004 Senator Lieberman supported the interests of the National Education Association 88 percent in 2003-2004.

2003-2004 Senator Clinton supported the interests of the National Education Association 85 percent in 2003-2004.

2003-2004 Senator Allen supported the interests of the National Education Association 25 percent in 2003-2004.

2003-2004 Senator McCain supported the interests of the National Education Association 35 percent in 2003-2004.
______________________


2003-2004 Senator Lieberman supported the interests of the Human Rights Campaign 88 percent in 2003-2004.

2003-2004 Senator Clinton supported the interests of the Human Rights Campaign 88 percent in 2003-2004.

2003-2004 Senator Allen supported the interests of the Human Rights Campaign 13 percent in 2003-2004.

2003-2004 Senator McCain supported the interests of the Human Rights Campaign 25 percent in 2003-2004.
_____________________________________

2003-2004 Senator Lieberman supported the interests of the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights 95 percent in 2003-2004.

2003-2004 Senator Clinton supported the interests of the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights 100 percent in 2003-2004

2003-2004 Senator Allen supported the interests of the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights 7 percent in 2003-2004.

2003-2004 Senator McCain supported the interests of the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights 14 percent in 2003-2004.
_____________________________

2004 Senator Lieberman supported the interests of the Arab American Institute 50 percent in 2004.

2004 Senator Clinton supported the interests of the Arab American Institute 25 percent in 2004.

2004 Senator Allen supported the interests of the Arab American Institute 0 percent in 2004.

2004 Senator McCain supported the interests of the Arab American Institute 0 percent in 2004.
__________________________

2003-2004 Senator Lieberman supported the interests of the League of Conservation Voters 56 percent in 2003-2004.

2003-2004 Senator Clinton supported the interests of the League of Conservation Voters 92 percent in 2003-2004.

2003-2004 Senator Allen supported the interests of the League of Conservation Voters 0 percent in 2003-2004.

2003-2004 Senator McCain supported the interests of the League of Conservation Voters 56 percent in 2003-2004

____________________________

2004 Senator Lieberman supported the interests of the Christian Coalition 0 percent in 2004.

2004 Senator Clinton supported the interests of the Christian Coalition 0 percent in 2004.

2004 Senator Allen supported the interests of the Christian Coalition 100 percent in 2004.

2004 Senator McCain supported the interests of the Christian Coalition 83 percent in 2004.
_____________________________
2004 Senator Lieberman supported the interests of the American Conservative Union 0 percent in 2004..

2004 Senator Clinton supported the interests of the American Conservative Union 0 percent in 2004

2004 Senator Allen supported the interests of the American Conservative Union 92 percent in 2004.

2004 Senator McCain supported the interests of the American Conservative Union 72 percent in 2004

[MrBenchley]

25. I always love when you post that--you're 100% on the money

[Douglas Carpenter]

26. yah, but I always feel a bit funny when you and I agree (snicker)

[MrBenchley]

27. It's a big tent....VBG....

[Douglas Carpenter]

29. well yes and it always has been for better and for worse

Even in the 60's the party of George McGovern was also the party of Lester Maddox. That's even a bigger divide than exist today.

[depakid]

31. There's a difference

In those days, the Dems had the courage to do the right thing- which is why the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act became law.

Today's DINO's would NEVER have allowed that to happen.

(incidently- it cost the party "the solid South" -which is what Benchly et al. would have been hollering about were they around in 1964).

Yet the Dems maintained the Congress- and with a one election cycle in between- the Senate, until 1994- by which time, much of the party abandonded its traditional values, and Gingrich saw weakness and struck.

[CTLawGuy]

41. you're right

In 1964 the DLC would have said "hey blacks, take a hike, we have to keep our majority. What are you going to do, vote Republican?"

Thank God that President Johnson had something else in mind other than getting power and retaining it.

That's what makes Howard Dean great, he is a moral person. He believes in doing what is right while in office and not worrying about whether it maximizes your electability (see 2000 civil unions bill). I wish more politicians were like him.

[Douglas Carpenter]

43. yes it was very different. Democrats held an overwhelming majority

and liberals and progressives dominated the Democratic Party. Even then nobody, even extreme dixiecrats were purged.

Let's build a liberal/progressive majority within the Democratic Party while at the same time making the Democratic Party the party of the common people again with an solid majority.

Then we can pass legislation just as sweeping as what LBJ did and those within the party who don't like it will be irrelevant.

I just think it is lot more important and productive for progressives within the Democratic Party to win converts then to purge heretics.

Besides the Democratic Party hasn't even be able to purge the Lyndon Larouche's disciples, how can they even think of purging the DLC?

[MrBenchley]

32. You make a very good point....

Diversity is a strength, not a weakness.

[Telly Savalas]

49. Which is why it's puzzling that you seem to think that anyone

to the left of Joe Biden should have no voice in the Democratic Party.

[LincolnMcGrath]

62. Funny ain't it.

[rman]

38. Are regaining Congress and purging the party of DINOs mutually exclusive?

That's what you seem to presume, but i'm not so sure it is true.

[Hippo_Tron]

55. In some senses they are

Incumbents are going to get re-elected easier. If incumbents are unseated in the primaries then they are going to require more money to win in the general, money that could go to other candidates. That being said, Ned Lamont can self-finance so if I lived in CT I would be voting for him in a heartbeat.

[CarlSheeler4U]

39. Pragmatist who sets expectations public must come first

It's not even party as much as whose looking out for the public?

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/2/19/1730/42036

Carl
Sheeler for US Senate
www.carlsheeler.com

Be a patriot and pass the bulletin board link to every person you know and every blog you can and ask the same from them, too.

[Strong Atheist]

40. Pragmatist. Once we have hugh!!!1!!11!! majorities, then we can

talk about replacing dino's ...

[Stockholm]

42. Purgmatist

I want it all and I want it now.

[SteppingRazor]

45. Pragmatist all the way...

the only thing that matters is retaking Congress. Period. If we have to elect a couple of DINOs to do it, so be it. Just as long as we make sure the leadership positions go to better men.

Besides, "political purist" is an oxymoron. There is nothing pure about politics.

[radio4progressives]

47. Are you Concerned about the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and

Separation of Church and State?

is caring about those issues, being a "purist"? and if it is, what is being a "purist" for? I don't see anyone apart from Feingold and Byrd giving a damn about these issues - but I sure the hell know it concerns alot of citizens across the political spectrum.

so i think your question is missing the big picture, frankly.

you're missing the fact that the a huge faction of the dp is in allignment with the GOP - now if you look at it from the standpoint of pragmatism, one could argue that there's really no need to go on with the pretense of a two party system - and that we should dispense witha political parties altogether - that actually would be far more pragmatic than parsing distinctions between a handful in the party who clearly represent progressive/liberal pov from the RW. there are huge distinctions naturally from GOP idiots who hold seats in the Senate - we could certainly make clear distinctions - but on a panoply of issues, differences are not very distinct to suggest that we need to be "pragmatic" unless we're interested in maintaing the status quo, which then gets back to my earlier point, why even bother maintaining the fascade of a two party system, when it barely exists in the first place? Why not simply back individual candidates that represent your views no matter which party they claim to identify with.

But if we want a distinctively different party, i suggest we first learn to be an opposition party - first and foremost. So far, the Dems don't seem to agree with that suggestion or point of view.

[omega minimo]

51. I LOVE a "panoply"!!!!!!!11

At this point, a "purist" Democratic opposition force would be extremely "pragmatic"-- as it would sweep up the cynics and "independents" and fence sitters and non-voters........................................... ssshhhhhhhhh, don't tell annybuddy.....................

[omega minimo]

50. Yes

:hi:

[ulysses]

52. both. or neither.

I want to regain Congress. But not regardless of the cost.

edited for clarity.

[Neil Lisst]

53. get a majority in either House, then it's CENTER SQUARE TO BLOCK

YEAH

[Hippo_Tron]

54. It's not always that black and white

If I lived in Florida would I vote for Nelson? Yes. If I lived in Nebraska would I vote for Nelson? Yes.

Could we do better than these guys? HELL YES!

The reason that we have DINOs representing us is largely because we can't find politicians with real talent. I am going to use the example that I use over and over again: Bob Kerrey. Bob Kerrey was a Senator from Nebraska until 2000 and unlike Ben Nelson, he was known to actually vote with his party. So how is it that Kerrey was actually able to not be a complete DINO but still win in Nebraska? It's because he was just as charismatic as Bill Clinton and while maybe not as intelligent as Clinton, he had a good head on his shoulders.

Ben Nelson is a lightweight who stands for nothing and the people in Nebraska know it. Throw a good Republican challenger up against him and people will vote for the Republican because they know that their choice is between a Democrat who votes Repuplican and a Republican who votes Republican. People will take the Republican because most people in Nebraska would rather have the Republicans control the senate.

Bill Nelson is another matter entirely. The man has so much potential but he uses almost none of it. He has some 30 years of experience in Florida politics. He is tall and has that alpha male presence. HE WENT INTO SPACE WHILE SERVING IN THE US CONGRESS, THAT'S THE COOLEST THING EVER (sorry I still find that amazing). If Nelson could actually use his potential he would beat any Republican challenger with ease. But that is not the case. Fortunately Katherine Harris is running against him and she is so appalling that he will win a lot of votes from people that just don't like her.

What we need to do is to find candidates that are GOOD politicians that can win over swing voters without voting like Republicans. Will the candidates in red states have to vote with the GOP sometimes? Yes. Will they have to vote with them ALL OF THE TIME like Nelson does? No.

[Wisconsin Larry]

56. I would prefer the Democratic Party stand for something

besides getting elected at any cost. One can be progressive, outspoken and in clear opposition to the neo cons and get elected. Witness Russ Feingold in Wisconsin who was re-elected in 2004 with 11 points versus John Kerry who carried Wisconsin by less than 1%.

And please do not fall for the media bull that Wisconsin is a “blue” state. As you can tell I live here with a Republican majority in both houses of the state legislature that is barely held in check by a progressive Democratic governor, Jim Doyle. The majority of the US House representatives are Republican, eg. James Sensenbrenner and the other “Democratic” Senator is Herb Kohl who somehow thinks that it is conscionable to vote yes on the Alito cloture but no on the nomination.
So, trust me, Wisconsin ain’t New York, people.

The long rambling point that I am trying to get to is that it should be easy to be an opposition party to these neo cons currently in power. Polls show that the majority of Americans want a progressive policy – they just don’t like the label. Americans want out of Iraq and into a healthcare program. They do not want their government to be sold out from underneath them. We want clear air and water and power, We do not want to be slaves to the petroleum industry and continue to give money to the oil industry and the richest 1% of the country.

My source for the above opionon is the survey that the Program on International Policy Attitudes (PIPA) at the University of Maryland published in October of 2004 showing that the majority of people that voted for Bush did not know his stance on issues, e.g., they thought he was for stricter environmental regulations. Unfortunately I no longer have an online source for this but can email a copy to DU if they wish to put it up.

But the short answer to your question is that as member of vichydems.com, I am working to put Dems like Herb Kohl (and Joe Lieberman) out of office and replace them with progressives. What good is it to have power if you don’t have a policy? That’s what the Republicans have and look what a disaster it is for our poor country.

[Wisconsin Larry]

57. Link to the PIPA Report --

http://www.pipa.org/OnlineReports/Iraq/IraqRealities_Oct04/IraqRealities%20Oct04%20pr.pdf

1st Paragraph starts as
Ocotber 21, 2004 "Even after the final report of Charles Duelfer to Congress saying that Iraq did not have a signigicant WMD program, 72% of Bush supporters continue to believe that iraq had acutal WMD (47%) or a major program for developing them (25%). Fifty-six percent assume that most experts believe Iraq had actual WMD and 57% also assume, incorrectly, that Duelfer concluded Iraq had at least a major WMD program. Kerry supporters hold opposite beliefs on all these points."

Later on the press release addresses differences on other issues between supporters of the different camps on Bush positions and what he actually supported.

[Don1]

58. Sorry, but you're wrong about

Nelson of Nebraska. We did some statistics on him and found that he votes with Democrats only 48% of the time. He's really a DINO by definition. You are entitled to your opinions about everything else, but on that one point you are wrong.

Finally, the whole purist versus pragmatist dichotomy is a sham. It's just as much being a purist to support a label over an ideology as it is to support an ideology over a label.

[eridani]

59. Purist in the primaries, pragmatist in the general elections

Mostly into focussing on my own state, assuming that locals elsewhere know the best things to do where they live.

[LWolf]

60. Neither.

I really don't like polarizing anything into "either/or" camps.

Including Democrat/Republican. While humanity seems fervently united in the desire to have everything concretely labeled into black/white, bad/good, us/them categories, I resist.

As for me, it depends on who you are asking. If you asked many of the self-labeled "pragmatists," they'd call me a purist. Why? Because I prefer truth to spin, integrity to compromise, and I don't march in anyone's line. If you asked the people who know me in real life, they would scratch their heads in confusion, because they've seen me compromise, they've seen me be pragmatic, yet they know I don't ever compromise principles. Not an inch, not a hair.

This constant polarization isn't relegated to politics; it permeates our world. The problem with asking me to polarize myself, politically, is that the question comes from the narrow perspective of party politics. I don't make political choices or decisions based on party, but on issues and people. Hence, those who put party first may see me as a "purist," because I put issues before party. Those who put issues first will see me quite open to any path that will move us forward on that issue. Regardless of what camp, or camp outsider, it comes from.

From my perspective, I view those who will only see things through the party lens, and who only want change if it comes through their party, and empowers their party, as "purist."

[LincolnMcGrath]

61. Pragmatic Purist?

Nobody on DU can answer this with 100% accuracy, because it is a false dichotomy.

It also smacks of another attack on the base of the democratic party.

[Lindacooks]

64. I'm a purist who realizes that a pragmatic view and pragmatic

actions are the only way we're ever going to take our country back.

[Laelth]

65. Pragmatic Purist

I'd say I'm a pragmatic purist. I want Democrats to win, and I honestly believe that the party, as a whole, would have a better chance of winning if we could deliver a unified message. The party needs to stand for something before the American people are going to trust us with national security. The "moderate" Dems. make us look weak and ineffectual. In the long run, we're losing more than we gain from having them in the party. The race to the middle is killing the party.

Dead armadillos are the only things you can find in the middle of the road.
Given the choice between a Republican and a Republican, the people are going to elect a Republican every time.

That's all the cliches that I can think of at the moment, but you get my point. My purism is pragmatic.

-Laelth

[AtomicKitten]

67. pragmatic

particularly since no one is entitled to judge who is a DINO and who is not.

If we don't regain at least one house of Congress, it's a moot issue at which purism will be rendered pointless.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

68. Absolutely Cali! Taking Back Congress Right Now Is 100% Priority!

I'm 100% in the camp that DINOS should ONLY be attempted to be voted out when their primary replacement has a BETTER chance of winning against the repub. Other than that, campaigning against them serves nothing more than helping the freepers and would be irresponsible.

We MUST take back congress. :)

[DerekG]

70. Proud purist.

The only group I have more disdain for than fascists are their enablers.

Never again will I pull the lever for a pro-war candidate.