So .... you wanna get rid of the more odious DINOs ....... ?

[Stinky The Clown]

Then support them in 06. Get all the incumbent ones running for re-election elected. Every odious last one of them.

No, I have not taken leave of my senses or my sensibilities.

Take over the House with a Dem majroity - no matter how slight - and here's what you get ..... ah hell ..... you all know the list. Conyers, Waxman, Rangell, others. As committee chairs. Same thing in the Senate.

Then, put a shitload of pressure on the powers that be to NOT name the more odious among us to chairmanships. Let them be relegated to the back bench. But for all that is good, work FIRST to get that Dem majority.

I know the purists among us will see this as some sort of capitulation.

Well, consider this. Along with that DINO, you also get the power of the subpoena. Wanna find out - ON THE RECORD - what's going on in White House? Put the shitbirds in the well and put 'em under oath. The DINOs get you that, too.

Once we have some real, actual power, then we can work to rid ourselves of the worst of them. By the way, a conservative Dem from a right-leaning state or district, in my mind, isn't always a DINO. A person from a naturally blue state, like ... oh .... Connecticut? Fight to unseat him. But that back bench conservative Dem congressman from some district in rural Oklahoma? Not much choice there, huh? Him or ... what? A Coburn lookalike?

Let's get real, people. The 06 elections are right around the corner. It is about time to stop the stupid, pointless, counterproductive calls for party purity. Hold your nose if you must, but vote Democratic and work Democratic.

We're ****this**** close. But no one is about to give it to us. We need to work for it. And we need to recognize that the margins will be razor thin. Every seat matters. EVERY seat.

Once the new Congress gets its legs .... and we start to move the country back to the right track ..... THEN you (and I) can start again on the purist thing. THEN you (and I) can work to get the BEST people in. For now .... sorry purists ..... I'm working for the Letter D in parenthesis.

[LSparkle]

1. I'm just hoping if we take the House, we replace Pelosi

CONYERS FOR MAJORITY LEADER! He's provided the best leadership in the House, even in the face of absolutely zero power during the past 5 years. He deserves that gavel!

[Tiggeroshii]

3. You may be right about that.

But for now we need to focus on at least getting the house.

[MADem]

Pardon my doubleclick n/t

[MADem]

11. I think Pelosi as a MAJORITY Leader will be a very different person

than she has to be as Minority Leader. The GOP sets the agenda. She has to walk a tightrope to even get floor time for our people. We can't introduce shit. For the longest time, no one would even cover them at media availabilities.

The GOP set the rules, and they are onorous. It will be hard to blame the Democrats if they indulge in a bit of payback for what the GOP has done in terms of the procedural process in BOTH chambers.

[Hippo_Tron]

31. You mean Speaker, right?

Majority Leader is a second fiddle job to the Speaker of the House.

[rockymountaindem]

2. You're talking too much sense

for a lot of people on this site.

[dogman]

4. This is a sensible solution to our problems.

As long as the GOP holds the power, there will be DINOs to suck up. Some would change their tune in a hurry if they could be held accountable. The key to success to your plan is the leadership must be in the hands of strong Democratic leaders. If we go back to the Tip type or Rostenkowski we will not see the change we need.

[Stinky The Clown]

7. I couldn't agree more ........

But first we MUST win the House (maybe more than the Senate). And work damned hard to win the Senate.

Can you imagine how you might feel if we get within one seat and that seat would have been won handily (if even for no better reason than intertia) had the incumbent been the one standing for office?

The fact is, the seemingly worst of the so called DINOs are mostly also the ones who will win releection easily.

Later for the purges.

[Name removed]

5. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Stinky The Clown]

9. I'm not sure what Lieberman did to Obama ......

..... Obama was, when running, known as a centrist. I don't see where he's changed at all. While he gave a great speech at the convention, I, personally never saw him as 'all that'. He was able to put on any face he wanted in his Senate run because of who he was running against ..... the truly nuttish Alan Keyes.

[jwirr]

15. Warpy, I usually agree with you and what you say about

Lieberman is true but what the poster is saying is that in many red states a progressive/liberal cannot win so it is better to take a Dem conservative than a rabid rwer. Think what we did to the South Dakota senatorial race in 2004. Wouldn't we have been better off with Daschel still in the senate instead of Thum. I think we would have.

[dogman]

16. That is what Obama ran on.

His ability to work in a bi-partisan manner along with the opponent being Keyes led many GOPers to vote for him. He truly had a bi-partisan win, with many GOP state legislators acknowledging his willingness to work with them. Listen to his Convention speech again. He spoke clearly about the shared interests of all Americans. Many think Illinois is a blue state but we've had GOP govs for quite a stretch and our Senate has usually been split. Obama actually had coat tails that strengthened the Democratic Party in this state. We have rural Dems who would be considered DINOs, but combined with the more mainstream Dems give us the leadership in the state legislature. This has helped overturn a lot of damage done by the GOP over the last couple of decades. There are times his votes piss me off and I let him know as best I can. I realize though that he represents a larger constituency.

[sui generis]

6. so are us "purists" (what's with the name calling)

We just have standards.

Sorry guys, not all DINO's quack like a duck. There are plenty of REAL dems who you wouldn't call a DINO who push some of us aside.

Enough in fact that it's a zero sum game for some of us. It's not a matter of holding our noses for some of us.

You are the purists, not us. You're the ones who think any democrat will do because the truth is you really don't have any issues you need to hold your nose on.

I get the message of hope. I hope to send a message of "if you want a sure vote for being a bigot, be a republican".

We'll see what happens.

[Stinky The Clown]

8. Can you put that in English, please. And if your comments are directed

at me, please be clearer in your accuusations .... just so I can understand. I ain't the smartest pickle in the barrel.

[sui generis]

10. no pickles were harmed or exploited in my post.

Let's start with, you can be a great democrat on every other issue, not a "DINO", and still think gay issues are stupid and that not all Americans deserve the same rights under the law and the same legal protections for their families.

Your criteria for voting for everyone with a (D) means that nobody has to change anything to get elected. Asking some of us to vote no matter what is like asking a black person to vote for a politician who believes that black people shouldn't be married or have legal protections for their families just because they're a democrat. It's not realistic to expect that.

That's all.

I see where you're going with it, but I disagree with that strategy. We've got to stack the deck up front with decent politicians, then vote for them because you mean it, not because you have to.

[Stinky The Clown]

21. Thanks for the clarification. That helped me a lot.

Now I understand where you're coming from. And I can appreciate it.

I'll use your gay issue without prejudgment (cuz it doesn't really matter anyhow).

I'm a person fully in favor of gay marriage ...... not some almost marriage .... real marriage. That said, and not being gay, I can see a compromise or two on the road to full recognition. I am also aware that's easier for me to say than, say, a gay person.

But on the other hand, I'm not aware of any Dems who are just flat out anti gay. Admittedly, since this isn't my own personal highest priority, I am only familiar with the more obvious aspects of the whole issue and the recent history around it. I would only be engaged if there were someone taking a hard line on gays in the manner Tancredo is these days with Hispanics.

But let's look at the DINO of them all .... Lieberman. I may be wrong here, but I don't see him as being particularly anti gay. He may not be the savior of the gays, but is he so bad on that particular score? (That wasn't rhetorical ... I honestly don't know.)

As I look around, I don't see any of the DINOs being real anathema to our party's (and, more to the point - liberals') core values. I clearly understand the issues with Lieberman and War, with Biden and Credit Cards (and lots more ..... ol' shifty Joe), with Feinstein and Corporatism ... etc. And those are not good positions. But on core values? I'm less sure they're worth losing control of the Congress just to jettison them.

[welshTerrier2]

23. you'd be more effective if you got off this "purist" stuff

first, it's just flat out insulting ... it implies that those who put issues ahead of party loyalty refuse to compromise or be flexible ... it's just bullshit ...

I'll be flexible on many issues - what i won't be is blindly loyal when the party refuses to create forums for voters to exchange ideas with their elected reps ... what i won't do is "just go along" with a party that seems to refuse to stand up to bush and keeps voting more and more funding for Iraq ... and now Iran ...

so, I'll "pick my Democrats" ... i'll be supporting progressive Democrats ... yeah, i'd like to have all those progressive Dems as Committee Chairs - it's a bargain with the devil until the Democratic Party decides to really become "democratic" ...

we are badly in need of major reforms within the Party and I just don't see it happening at all ... and this isn't about "punishing" the Party; it's a recognition that whether we support the Party or we don't, either way, we're sending a message ... it seems to me that sending money, helping candidates, remaining a registered Democrat sends a message that we support the status quo ... there are Democrats I think the world of and I will definitely be supporting them; but until the Party puts real democracy at the core of its values and its actions, I just can't get there from here ...

[Stinky The Clown]

24. We all have our opinions .... and that's yours

With all due respect, I see that as a route to increasingly marginalized liberals/progressives.

While I don't disgaree a whit with your goals and your intent, I see the notion of not supporting Dems who don't meet your personal standards as a sure route to permanent minority status. Hold those values and hold them dear. But you simply can't effect change until you have some power. Right now, we have none. Absolutely none.

And if the party has no power, they are surely more concerned with getting back that power *for the party* than with satisfying the personal needs of individual members.

[welshTerrier2]

25. "personal needs of individual members"

if the party sees its constituents and potential constituents as selfish (i.e. trying to fulfill their "personal needs") rather than seeing them as people they hope to represent, we will continue to be a minority party saved only by the utter incompetence and tyranny of the neo-cons ...

a victory of "anyone but neo-cons" is better than no victory but not the vision and new direction we need ...

here's a hint: the way to "getting back that power *for the party*" will be achieved by doing a better job representing the views and hopes and dreams of more voters ...

[Sparkly]

37. "representing the views and hopes and dreams of more voters"

Do you -- in your views -- represent the majority of people, or even the majority of Democrats, in your voting district? If so, that's a great success!

But when you talk about "doing a better job representing the views and hopes and dreams of more voters," I hope you can consider that your views don't necessarily represent those in other states and districts all across the country. It's possible that the party representatives you malign -- not to mention Republicans in Congress -- are indeed representing the views of their constituents; and it's therefore possible that the greatest effect we can have is to act to change the views of those constituents (rather than to try to exert pressure on Democratic representatives themselves in ways that benefit Republicans in effect).

It's possible that the horse is actually the people, and the cart is the government. The challenge is that the GOP cart now encompasses a mass propaganda machine that whips and blinds the "horse" with lies and fears (and trips the "horse" with election fraud).

The point is that it begins and ends with the people. Consider switching your cart and horse around: perhaps it's less about leadership "doing a better job representing more voters," and more about changing the minds of those voters to make your views better represented. Let's recognize that DU may not represent the majority of people in this country -- perhaps not even the majority of people in the party.

[Stinky The Clown]

47. "....doing a better job representing the views and hopes and dreams .... "

..... of more voters ..."

Be careful what you wish for. Consider, if you will, a district wherein the overwhelming majority favor ..... <pick an onerous viewpoint or policy>.

You're clearly a progressive/liberal/lefty/whatever ...... imagine that you lived in a rabid RW dominated district. Would you still be so quick to call for your reps to better represent the people? Would you be pleased if, in your district, the majority favored a roll-back or even complete elimination of abortion rights and your rep took that position? Would you be pleased if, in your district, the call was in favor of nuking the entire middle east and you rep called for that?

In our imperfect system, we have a government that is supposed to represent the imperfect view of the imperfect constituents. It is my own view that Democrats do a better - albeit imperfect - job of that than do the even more imperfect Republicans.

[sui generis]

26. the bigger issue for the democratic party

is that approximately 15% of its individuals would not vote for a presidential candidate that swore he would sign the FMA to appease social conservatives.

Realistically I don't believe it's going to happen. I believe that we WILL learn to talk about the issues, and then move on to other business.

But the reality is, there are a whole bunch of people this election who won't put up with even a major race candidate who is tongue tied on the issue, and that means that the democratic party can't win if it pisses off 15% of its base. Reality is, welshterrier and I and the rest of that 15% are going to do everything in our power to reach our candidates and to make sure that the one that reaches through the primary will be one who is savvy and fast enough on his feet to shoot down values voters and get the rest of us excited about someone who can deliver a little more fire and a little less mush mouth.

I don't think we should be hostile to each other (each side) - the fact is we ARE talking hypothetical, and a candidate that can speak clearly and honestly and with conviction on equality issues is in fact speaking to all Americans, not just gay Americans, and can speak on just about any issue with the honesty and conviction and excitement that a candidate for president is going to need to win with a landslide.

And we'll be there for you like a rock.

[Auntie Bush]

68. ((((((((BRAVO))))))))

Couldn't have said that better myself...and that goes for your OP too and all your comments!

[Douglas Carpenter]

12. John Conyers becomes Chairman of the Judiciary Committee

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

Even a vote for a conservative Dem is a vote for Conyers and the 10

https://www.democrats.org/page/contribute

[longship]

13. My Yellow Dogness is stronger now than ever.

I'll vote for anything with a D next to it.

What's important this year is that Democrats take majorities in both Houses of government. That's the *ONLY* thing that's important.

I'll take the DINOs, the socialists, the anti-choicers, the commies, anybody with a D next their name.

This year I'm a Democrat first, and a liberal second. It's not that I'm compromising my principles, it's just that the only hope right now to be able to exercise those liberal principles is if accountability is restored to government. The best way for that to happen is for Democrats to have a majority in both House and Senate.

If a seated DINO has primary opposition, one has to consider whether the opponent can keep the seat if he or she wins the primary. In some states (CT) it might be. In others (NE) it would be very dangerous and could result in a loss of a seat. If no liberal can win, I have to vote for the DINO. Political realities sometimes stink big time. But a good Democrat just holds his or her nose and pulls the lever.

The stakes are too high right now to not look at the big picture.

Once we have a majority and the Repug regime has less power, then I'll feel comfortable letting the yellow dog go back to his doghouse.

[Neil Lisst]

14. As that Jordan guy said ten years ago in that R&B song ...

"this is how we do it!"

Get the power. THEN punish the collaborators, but not enough to make them switch parties.

[blm]

17. I actually think they WON'T be as centrist then because they won't HAVE to

worry about compromising to GET bills through the way they have been.

For instance, I expect Landreiu to move left knowing she doesn't have to beg for scraps for her state.

[Sparkly]

18. That's an excellent point, blm.

I hadn't thought of that. :hi:

[Zodiak]

69. Landrieu's RW voting record extends beyond Katrina

and she would naturally move to the left because she cannot move much farther to the right.

Johnson (SD) -DLC 33.3
Conrad (ND) -DLC 30.6
Carper (DE) -DLC 27.8
Salazar (CO) -DLC 22.2
Nelson (FL) -DLC 22.2
Lincoln(AR) -DLC 22.2
Pryor (AR) -DLC 19.4
Landrieu (LA)- DLC 16.7
Nelson (NE)- DLC 0.0

She is the 2nd worst Senator we have.

As far as the my opinion about this whole thread, we will never resolve what comes first, the issues or the politicians. Both sides have strongly developed their opinions and both are valid in their own way. Democrats will never vote the some for the same reasons. When we trod on this territory, hurt feelings and factionalizing results.

Strategy or issues, take your pick and call yourself a Democrat. I will not badger either side because they are both right and neither deserves priority over the other.

I would also like to congrat the OP for at least being reasonable (other than the "come on people!" comment).

[stillcool]

19. even if I have to vote while holding my nose....

I will vote for a dem. First things first....as they say. But, boy oh boy, do we need some big-ass brooms...and maybe a few bull-dozers.

[AtomicKitten]

22. big-ass brooms

[Totally Committed]

20. No.

eom

TC

[Totally Committed]

55. No DINO gets my vote.

Period.

TC

[Radical Activist]

27. And then those chairman can't get anything passed into law

Because the DINO's side with Republicans for floor votes. The argument is weak.

[Douglas Carpenter]

29. the Chairman have subpoena powers and sets the agenda and controls

the calendar. They determine a lot and have a lot of sway over other members of the same party. Just imagine John Conyers having that sway with the Judiciary Committee or Charlie Rangle with Appropriations.

And besides the ONLY other option is continued Republican control

[Hippo_Tron]

33. That's the next step

As someone already replied to you, the key here is that Conyers gets subpoena power. This means that we can hold ANY hearing that we want and force ANY administration official to testify to us under oath. Downing Street Memo, NSA wiretapping, Patriot Act, you name it we can do it. Furthermore, we can tell Sensenbrenner to sit in the corner with a dunce cap and shut his mouth.

The investigative powers that we will gain from taking back the House are reason enough to hold your nose and vote for a DINO (especially if there's no other option). Everything that we try to pass will be subject to shrub's veto anyway (god forbid he may have to use it) until January of 2009.

However, your concern is definately a legitimate one. If we do have a bunch of DINOs that side with the GOP, and we can't even send pieces of legislation to the white house to force them to veto because we can't get 218 votes, then we will look very weak. I seriously wish that we had tossed Cuellar on his ass and I hope that we replace Ford with a more progressive dem. It is important to not just have a majority in the house, but a strong one.

But right now, we need to worry about investigating this administration before they are out of office. Our last shot to be able to do that is this election.

[ieoeja]

52. That isn't why.

They won't be able to get any legislation passed because the party failed to sell the ideology behind that legislation to the people. Running a centrist platform then legislating a leftist platform is a sure-fired way to send the people running back to the Republican party.

Running just to win and gain power that you can not wield is a waste of time.

[Radical Activist]

54. Good point.

At some point in time we have to convince the people that a leftist agenda is a good idea or it will never stand.

[ldf]

28. i imagine the gop has some backup plans

like we all dutifully go and, trying to retake congress, we vote for many dems that are zell-dems.

we get congress back, and what do the zell-dems do, but switch parties.

they have been working at this for a couple of decades, getting people right where they want them. they do NOT plan on giving up power, whether it be by election fraud, fraudulent dems, or martial law. at this point i assume the absolute worst of people.

i'm just saying.....

:shrug:

[Stinky The Clown]

40. " . . . . . . what do the zell-dems do, but switch parties."

I actually worry about that. But then I ask, who would switch?

Lieberman? That would not surprize me, but in the end, he'll stay a Dem.

Biden? No way. He's the second (third?) most senior Dem in the Senate (gack!)

Feinstein? No way in hell.

Nebraska Nelson? Maybe. but not too likely. He'd get eaten alive back home.

Florida Nelson? I don't think so.

Bayh? Not a chance in Hell. Too much family tradition and all he has is his name, really.

In the House, I'm less sure. There may be a few from Tejas who might switch. That guy who hugged Il Dunce in a recent congressional speech he gave ... I can't think of his name ... Hispanic guy.

I'm too tired to think, but there might be a few in the House who are more likely to switch than in the Senate.

But ... didja ever think the reverse could also be true? That soem Repubs could switch if WE win. It is hardly outside the realm of the possible. Any smart leading edger sees the pendulum swinging back toward the center with the inevitable counterswing to the left to follow on shortly thereafter. The smarter liberal Repubs (the few left) can see they're more in line with the liberals than with the extremists who have stolen the once grand Grand Old Party ..... yanno?

06 has every potential to be the start of a tectonic shift in US politics. If we can get a foothold, we can can really turn things around. We KNOW where the skeletons are buried. If we have the power of the subpoena, we can send out the digger squads to bring them to the light of day. Imagine it .... bigotry will be exposed and people will see they're bigots. No one will want to admit it. Bigotry will be as unpopular as smoking or drunk driving .... at least till the next tectonic shift.

Please Big Guy in the Sky, let that second shift never happen!

[ldf]

51. we can only hope that some repubs would turn to dems

i can only wonder why, with all that has been going on, they haven't turned already.

but, we can hope.

:thumbsup:

[cascadiance]

30. The issue isn't about conservative "DINOS", but corporatists!

From conservative states, I'd like to have Dems there, whether or not they are more conservative than your mainstream Democrat. The key though is whether they represent PEOPLE there, and not corporations!

I'm all for being open to having candidates with moderate positions, and in some areas even conservative ones, if they can be shown to be representing PEOPLE in those areas, not corporations.

Right now, the problem is that the DLC along with their corporate partners are setting the agenda for many of our pols and leadership! This needs to stop, whether or not we have conservative or moderate Dems which we welcome to be a part of the party. The important thing about giving leadership control (whether overall leadership or important committee chair spots) is that we make sure that it is to pols that represent people and not these corporate special interests. We can start demanding that now, even if we don't try to "progressivicize" every election just yet. I would think even legitimate people representing moderates or conservatives would think that as a good thing to get a lot of votes from both progressives and other political spectrums in their less than progressive districts.

We need to get as many candidates as possile on the public financing campaign bandwagon. That will help them put their money where their mouth is!

[Hippo_Tron]

34. Yea, but see that makes too much sense

We could never do that...

[loyalsister]

46. The trade off---

Once we get the majority, the Dems in those states have to continue to compromise and capitulate in order to maintain their corporate contributions to KEEP the majority.
This is a very slippery slope.

[depakid]

32. The trouble is that the DINO's are what's made

the party irrelevant in the first place. Until they no longer control the agenda- the Dems will remain in the minority.

Even with the Republicans imploding, I don't see 2006 stacking up any differently that the past six elections. Same so called "strategy" -pander to the right- same result. A 7th straight election loss in both the house and senate.

[Stinky The Clown]

35. "Same so called "strategy" -pander to the right- same result."

First of all, for no reasons a single dem can take credit, we have the tide turning our way due to the ongoing republican implosion. Secondly, who said one word about pandering to the right? This isn't a national eletion. The Dems are notorious for not having a national strategy and I don't think 06 will be any different (except for Dean's 50 state strategy, which has given us candidates in 431 of 435 congressional districts ... a new high). Elections are going to be in local districts. The conservative back bench dem incumbent from East Podunk in Red State will surely be speaking to his constituents. The firebrand lefty representing East Metropolis, Right Coast will be playing to **his** audience. If you want to call 'pandering' both would be guilty.

Sorry, I just can't buy that term as applicable in this context.

[depakid]

36. I've seen this over and over

which is why I'm not optimistic, despite the Republican implosion.

Prominant DINO's on the national level- the ones on TV every Sunday, for example legitimize and enable far right policies (when they're not voting for them). That hurts state and local candidates all over the country. It undercuts the party- which people perceieve as weak and ineffectual- and standing for little or nothing. It's gotten to the point where there's an entire generation of voters who don't even know what traditional Democratic values are anymore.

A lot of what they hear is Biden's drivel or Liberman's simpering. Or Tom Kaine's "response" to the state of the union. Not very inspiring- and not likely to bring people to the polls in a mid-term election, where turnout is already going to be low.

I agree with your original post, btw: these people need to be marginalized. Unfortunately, I have a bad feeling that the Dems won't be able to win back the House or Senate until that happens. I hope I'm wrong- but what I see coming is a repeat of the past 6 congressional elections.

[Stinky The Clown]

39. You're so very right .......

What I wish would happen - and have long been saying - is that the party would just light a match under the scripts employed by 'The Joes' and then set the two of them down and chain their feet to the bench.

Where Biden - wishy washy as he is on princples - is at least able to manage some fiery oratory from time to time, Lieberman is simply a fucking joke on teevee. But these guys, and a few others - like Feinstein - are the darlings of the Three Monkey Media.



Clearly it is for the cover they give the media "But .... but .... we're impartial. We have Dems on **all** the time ... see? Joe? JoeII? Ain't it true? Don't we **always** have you on?"

What the party needs to do is get them to just shut the fuck up and get out of the way. That's why, in my OP, I said the onerous and odious ones should not be given chairmanships. Just let them wither and die ..... or at least stay out of sight until we can replace them. No one seemed to key on that point in my OP. I want them gone, too. But in due time. We can't have it all when we start out where we are now ..... with nothing.

[populistdriven]

38. k&r

[ArbustoBuster]

41. The day that the Shrub nominated Ashcroft as AG is the day...

...I swore that I would vote the straight Democratic ticket for the rest of my life.

[The Magistrate]

42. You Are Quite Right, Sir

Further, there is this consideration: with a majority in hand, it is possible to consider culling those who cannot be relied on. A budget for such a purpose, so to speak, will exist in such a situation..

"LET'S GO GET THOSE BUSH BASTARDS!"

[Warren Stupidity]

43. Fight them in the primaries and vote for them in november

Thems the rules.

[Stinky The Clown]

44. "Thems the rules." .........

.... and a good rules it is! :thumbsup:

[Neil Lisst]

45. Smells like ... VICTORY!!

Robert Duvall
Apocalypse Now

[saltpoint]

48. Blue voter here. Democratic ticket straight thru, top-to-bottom.

No Republicans.

[saltpoint]

49. As many DU posters have indicated at various times, it's easier to

subpoena documents when your people are the Committee chairs and the majority party in the House.

Definitely worth working for, and working hard for.

[iconoclastNYC]

50. The time to beat DINOS is in the primary.

After the primary it's unity time.

[Stinky The Clown]

53. I have no problem at all with that .......

.... so long as, without exception, that gets done.

There are some on our side who are as inflexible as any neocon ever hopes to be. They will support their horse in the primary and then shun the eventual winner. A sure recipe for disaster.

[sui generis]

56. play poker much?

'nuff said.

brother, I would clean your clock from noon to high noon. :P




("stubborn as a neocon"?, mutters to self, wanders off)

[Stinky The Clown]

58. Okay .... that went right over my head .......

how does poker playing relate to cleaning my clock?

[sui generis]

63. ack.

Some of us are going to play poker with some of you on the issue of who gets our vote. Some of us are bluffing, some of us are not. Let me try again, we're not giving all democrats a free pass. You're worried about it. That's nice but who cares what you think (not being unfriendly, just follow me a bit here), we're playing this hand to the staffers of those dems who think all progressives are just going to give them a free pass. They're the ones who better worry and think hard about what they stand for.

Cleaning your clock. Well, at least here in Texas, when said between friends usually refers to kicking ass in a friendly rivalry, such as a poker game. If you mostly assume goodwill, that's mostly what comes your way. This is the second time you thought I was being mean or pretty fucking weird to you. I promise, if I ever get mean to you, I'll let you know in no uncertain terms.

Is it a deal?

[Stinky The Clown]

66. Yes, it is the second time I asked you to clarify your intent/meaning

And they are also the only two times you and I have ever discussed anything. I sensed you were being straight, but since I don't know you, I wanted to be sure. The alternative would have been to jump down your throat. Something I chose not to do, but something of which I am more than capable.

Once again you clarified things for me and once again I see your point.

Deal.

[iconoclastNYC]

62. I agree 100%

The democratic party is long over due for a major shake up. Corporate forces have been remaking the party to serve thier interest and we must undo this if we wish to set our country on the right track.

But I think we do that during primary season.

[opihimoimoi]

57. Where in the World is our DINO Filter??? We need a DINO Prevention

Program....

How could a guy like ZELL MILLER call himself a DEM?

What is the DEM Party doing to Prevent guys like him coming aboard?

Are we that dumb?

[Stinky The Clown]

59. How does one become a Democrat?

For me, it was registering as such at my local election board office.

Really, what's the process? I don't know that there are any barriers that are set up. In the US, it seems to me that every damned one of us who claim a party affiliation are simply all self-declared, no?

[opihimoimoi]

60. I could see joining but to RUN....thats another ball game...

[skyblue]

61. Primaries help Republicans.

If each Dem candidate beats on the other Dem primary candidate and one of them wins there is fuel for the Reps watching the inside debates. Gives them ideas. Primaries can only help to weaken the election of the eventual candidate.

Also if the Dem elected in the Primary has ideas that appear more extreme than the current candidate and because we mostly listen to each other rather than to those who are not in our party, we may be biased to believe that the other candidates will be broadly accepted. The Primary candidates tend to tell you what you want to hear. If they tell you what you want to hear, they are probably not telling what the polls say they should in order to make it through the general election. They don't tell you want they need to say in order to make it through a general election.

Primaries are a mess..........................................................

[daringthedevil]

64. No. But I suppose I'm not unreasonable to the point of believing

that any Democrat who doesn't agree with me is a DINO.

[blondeatlast]

65. Broken record time--but you are absolutely right.

Let's get a majority first and the rest will either find a spine or go the way of the dodo.

[seabeyond]

67. i wanna get rid of repugs. yep, i do n/t