question for the "pragmatists".

[ulysses]

What's your tipping point? Your line in the sand?

Unless you're simply addicted to the idea of power, you're interested in politics because you have ideas about how things should be run. So, what's the point beyond which you won't support a politician based on his or her position on issues?

[SaveElmer]

1. Usually...

It would need to be more than one issue...unless the guy came out with something so extreme it could not be defended...or if a member directly, politically aided a Republican.

Zell Miller is an example of the first...he did not take a Democratic position on any issue as far as I know.

William Donald Schaeffer of Maryland, Randy Kelly of St. Paul, MN, and Ed Koch as well as Miller are examples of the second...all three politically endorsed a Republican candidate for office. I could not vote for them again under that circumstance.

[ulysses]

2. thanks.

Your tolerance is quite a bit higher than mine, but I appreciate your candor. :)

[SaveElmer]

3. I did mean to add...

Joe Lieberman is coming dangerously close to being included in the second category...if Lamont took him out I would not shed any tears!

[ulysses]

4. heh.

I gave up on Joe a while back, but that's that tolerance thing. :D

[saltpoint]

5. When a candidate's chosen posture is far enough to the right that it's

assumed the far-right's influence on him or her is disproportionately large, and correspondingly the progressive issues like species and habitat preservation, civil and human rights, the right of a woman to control her own body, the insistence of dignity of a living wage for workers, etc. appear compromised, I bail and vote for a more progressive third party candidate.

If no more progressive third party candidate is on the ballot, I write in 'Bill Moyers' or 'Bella Abzug' (when she was alive), etc.

I am fearful that the rightwing tilt is already beginning big-time with Senator Clinton, and I'm not liking it much.

[ulysses]

6. I like the Bella Abzug vote.

:D Thanks.

[MrBenchley]

18. So then when Someone is pro-school prayer and anti-reproductive choice

like John Murtha you won't support him? Ho-kay.

[ulysses]

21. not to speak for Old Crusoe

and of course I don't live in Murtha's district, but it would be an open question for me whether or not to support the man. Can't say necessarily how I'd go in the end.

[MrBenchley]

29. Wish old Crusoe would speak....

[cali]

7. It depends

upon where I am. I mean that literally. Location, location, location. Look, I'm lucky. I live in Vermont. I'm used to having principled liberals to vote for. If I lived in Nebraska I'd vote for Ben Nelson. If I lived in CT, I'd vote for Ned Lamont. I could never have voted for someone as vile as Zell Miller. At this point, I don't see getting back the congress as about politics. It's about saving the country.

[ulysses]

8. hold up, though.

I could never have voted for someone as vile as Zell Miller.

What if you lived in Georgia? Location, location, location?

At this point, I don't see getting back the congress as about politics. It's about saving the country.

Fair enough, but if the only valid point is the (D) behind the name, Zell fit that bill as well as anyone else.

[cali]

13. That was then.

When was the last time Zell ran? '98? With what we know now, after he went to the repub convention, slurred dems and Kerry, and voted for bushco, I wouldn't trust him to vote for a dem for majority leader, or stay a dem. I see Nelson as a different critter than Zell. So yeh, there are exceptions. And I never said the only valid point was the D behind the name. I was trying to point out that actively working against someone like Nelson is counterproductive.

[depakid]

15. An interesting point of fact about Nebraska

Back when Hagel first ran there for the U.S. Senate in 1996, -ES&S electronic voting machines showed that he won stunning upsets in both the primaries and the general election. The Washington Post (then a credible paper) said Hagel's "Senate victory against an incumbent Democratic governor was the major Republican upset in the November election." Hagel won virtually every demographic group, including many largely Black communities that had never before voted Republican.

He was the first Republican in 24 years to win a Senate seat in Nebraska.

(No one knew at the time that Hagel owned ES&S- he didn't disclose that until after another "stunning" victory in 2002- which he bragged about on his website as being the largest margin of victory ever in a Senate race. He took that off pretty quick after the ES&S news came in Roll Call. Supposedly, he was going to face ethics charges- it was a clear violation- but we know how that goes).

Previous Nebraska Senators include Bob Kerry, who wasn't even close to a DINO. He served until 2001.

And in Hagel's seat- Jim Exon, sort of a DINO- but pretty good on the environment, and not at all the cross over sell out that Ben Nelson has become.

So, contrary to the "coventional wisdom" around here- Nebraska's not the far right wingnut state people think it is.

[Dr Fate]

9. Who says YOU are not being pragmatic?

You fall into their argument by assuming they are "pragmatic" while you are the "idealistic dreamer." Uh-uh.

The "pragmatists" lost the last 3 elections by my count- I would say those of us who dissent against machine politics are the real pragmatists here.

I dont always agree with you, but dont assume that your take on things is less pragmatic than anything the "strategists" who lost the last 3 elections came up with...

[ulysses]

10. that's why I put it in quotes.

;-) :hi: How're things out west?

[Dr Fate]

11. The West is the best.

Like the man said it was.

[The Magistrate]

12. Not Easy To Define, Sir

As with the judge on pornography, "I know it when I see it," but it is hard to put a finger to just what it is that seperates it from erotic art...

To me the most important thing in the present circumstances is to deprive the enemy of organizational majorities in the Congress, for our side is absolutely powerless in official terms unril this is achieved. That would incline me to support anyone who would caucus reliably with the Democratic contingent over anyone who would do the same with the Republicans. This seems t me a necessary discipline at this time.

Should we gain an organizational majority, there would be a little more manouvering room, and my inclination would recalibrate a bit. It would then be possible to seek to slough off figures who vote frequently against the Partry's position, and provide other aid and comfort to the enemy. An organizational majority is valuable in and of itself, but cannot achieve its full potential unless it is also a working majority when the time comes to vote on specific legislation, and appointments.

[QC]

16. Exactly--it's about having majorities.

So long as we are in the minority, I will take even the nastiest DINO over the most "moderate, centrist" Republican, because even those "nice" Republicans keep people like Frist and Santorum in control.

[SteppingRazor]

19. Couldn't agree more, Mag...

Right now, I am more pragmatist than I would be if we had large majorities in Congress. How opportunistic I am depends on how desperate I am, to put it bluntly. And with Republicans in control of every branch of government, I'm more than willing to elect a DINO or three to Congress if it means a Democratic majority. For now, nothing else matters. We can talk about moving the party further toward progressive stances once we have the ability to set the nation's agenda.

[ulysses]

20. fairly enough said.

An organizational majority is valuable in and of itself, but cannot achieve its full potential unless it is also a working majority when the time comes to vote on specific legislation, and appointments.

Discipline doesn't end when we get that majority. :thumbsup:

[LWolf]

14. When the position hampers moving forward on the issue.

I'm very pragmatic when it comes to moving issues forward. I'm willing to work with anyone to get it done, to consider anyone's ideas, and to try myriad ways to get to the goal, simultaneously if need be.

When a politician's "platform" hampers that process, then he or she has lost my support.

In reality, no politician is going to be strong on every single issue. So when I'm looking at a politician, I'm looking for my interpretation of "greatest benefit with fewest drawbacks." I'm hoping the drawbacks are minor. If they are major, that politician may not get my support.

[MrBenchley]

17. When a Democrat appears at the GOP convention to denounce Democrats

All else is just the big tent.

Adults can disagree. Children fly into pissy little snits when they don't get their way on everything.

[LincolnMcGrath]

24. Do you support a 'Big Tent' on Gun Ownership?

[SaveElmer]

25. Can't speak for MrBenchley...

But for my part, if gun ownership were only one of a handful of areas I disagreed with the Democrat I would have no problem voting for them, even though I do believe in strong gun control measures.

I don't know of too many Democrats who would advocate banning gun ownership altogether however.

[LincolnMcGrath]

26. I'm really more interested in MrBenchley's opinion of those who

disagree with him on gun legislation.

I do, however, appreciate your thoughts on the subject. :hi:

[MrBenchley]

28. Pretty much every Democrat I've ever seen is for gun control....

The few on the national stage that aren't are few and far between.

[SaveElmer]

31. Definitely for gun control...

But few are for banning guns completely...that is the canard Democrats often get hung with every election.

[MrBenchley]

34. I've only encountered one person who thought so sincerely....

But then it's one of the joys of "responsible gun owners" that they shriek like castrati at every opportunity.

Meanwhile, here's a nice thought exercise that spells out what's wrong with Democrats having that crappy little hobby:

Imagine you're a stamp collector....

--But it turns out that in buying stamp albums and collectible stamps, you're supporting some of the scummiest corporations on earth.
--And suppose every stamp collector's association and group was headed by racist right wing loonies.
--And suppose every stamp collector's journal and website was filled 24/7 with right wing drivel, open bigotry and attacks on Democrats.
--And suppose the stamp collecting conventions regularly honored some of the scummiest and most corrupt politicians in the country while the stamp collecting associations funneled them money.
--And suppose there was a public health hazard associated with your stamp collecting hobby, but philatelist groups had hired a racist crackpot synonymous with academic fraud to produce a "study" "proving" otherwise.

Would an honest person rethink stamp collecting? Or would they stamp their feet and deny that any of that was true, and make absurd analogies in a desperate attempt to justify their hobby?

[MrBenchley]

27. Hey, if you're dumb enough to support a major funding source for the GOP

I'm not going to stop you. But I am going to jeer at how simple-minded and dishonest the "gun rights" arguments are and how scummy and far right wing the gun lobby and its sycophants are..

But it's noticeable that our "pro gun democrats" are all "pro gun" and not a speck of "democrats." Open bigotry and racism among gun owners don't faze them, and gun groups spouting the most asinine freeper rubbish don't rouse them. And in the world at large, it's clear either they agree with the right wing bilge, or else there ain't enough of them to make a pimple on a gnat's rear end.

[LincolnMcGrath]

33. So your answer is no? Your big tent is not so big after all.

I'm Pro-Gun? News to me! lol

Your second paragraph is just not worth commenting on.

[MrBenchley]

35. Don't cry to me because you can't read....

"Your second paragraph is just not worth commenting on."
Then don't and see if I care. You'll notice nobody gives a crap what you've got to say on the subject.

[LincolnMcGrath]

36. LOL on edit

Adults can disagree

Or Not :shrug:

[Neil Lisst]

22. Life is not a series of tipping points to me.

Everything depends on time, place, and context.

Standing in a circle at which one is the center, and making that circle smaller and smaller is no way to live. Life isn't that structured.

The best way is to use reason, not rules.

[Hosnon]

23. Depends on the situation...inherent in the definition of pragmatism. nt

[madfloridian]

30. My tipping point doesn't mean a damn thing....

if the other party is in total control. If I don't work to change what we have instead of trying to harm it....then I am giving the other party even more power than they have.

So it is not a matter of tipping points.

I wanted to be part of the group that so easily says let's just leave the Democrats....but I see in so many of them less tolerance than I see in the party itself. It must be their single issue or die. There is too much contempt for moderates, like we are fools.

I wanted to be just that way, but I can't do it after seeing the way people are treated who want to work within the party.

[Armstead]

32. My tipping point? About 20 percent...

...Unless I get poor service. Then it's about 15 percent or less.

But as a pragmatic purist, I'd have to say it depends on the politician and the issue. I have my tipping points on certain issues, but I give more leeway on others.

[AtomicKitten]

37. until we take at least one house of Congress, nothing else matters.

At this point, it is clear that there will be no oversight by Congress and therefore no meaningful investigations of the pile of felonies committed by this administration until the Democrats take control of at least one house of Congress.

And all this rhetoric about DINOs and the DLC is simply bullshit and extraneous to my personal goal - and I trust others share that goal - of making this administration accountable.

That's all the matters to me. I want a reckoning.

[paulk]

38. after the last five years, I can't afford a tipping point

what Mr. M says upthread is also my position. Until we, and by "we" I mean Democrats, achieve a majority in Congress

all else is just pissing in the wind.