Why anti-DINO people are worse for the party

[LynneSin]

You're so hell-bent on destroying the democratic party and any chance of stopping the war, impeaching the president and halting this economic disaster because a few democrats out there don't pass your litmus test? Damn, that's really sad.

I label no one a DINO, not even Joe Lieberman, who has suprised me many times with progressive choices that he has made (He helped stop the California Energy Crisis when he allowed his committee to investigate what was going on once he got committee chair after Jeffords defected - yeah, even Joe Lieberman does some good).

How many times must we post about the good that a democratic majority will bring us and that those we label "DINO" will still allow good people to be the chair of important committees including Conyers, Waxman, Murtha, Leahy, Kerry, Kennedy to name a few.

I have a somewhat conservative democrat for my senator. If there is another democrat in the primary I will vote for that person (I don't think there is) and in the fall I will still vote for him. Because my DLC somewhat conservative democrat is still needed to make a majority. I'll deal with having him (btw, it's Tom Carper - no where near as bad as Lieberman) because I know he'll help get good democratics in key committee chair positions and I know he'll support the democratic leadership which means democratic bills NOT republican ones will hit the floor.

If you don't like your "DINO" candidate then don't vote for him/her in the primaries - that's our time to get rid of them. But this fall we need everyone to focus on getting rid of republicans. It's simple math - more "D" than "R" mean we have a chance. Right not, even if every "DINO" gets on board and all democrats want to end the war and impeach the president - the bill will never even get a debate in committee. It's all about numbers - we need more of them if we are to even get a chance to debate these issues. Without it, it will never happen

[Donald Ian Rankin]

1. Exactly!

The only point I might disagree on is the wisdom of voting against DINOs in primaries - in seats where a DINO might win, but a progressive won't, I'd advocate supporting the DINO even in the primary.

Other than that, though, I think this is a much-needed antidote to the anti-moderate posturing there's so much of on DU.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

2. And here's your second recommendation of the day!

:toast:

[Name removed]

3. Deleted message

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

[LynneSin]

22. I'm not here to support Joe Lieberman

I'm actually growing a bit fond of his primary opponent.

We're all on the same team, yes even Joe Lieberman.

I'm just here to support a democratic majority and yes, we might have to vote for a few stinkers in the general election in order to achieve our goal

[Name removed]

25. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

40. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Zodiak]

51. I agree with Lerk here.

I agree with Lerkfish's sentiments. Too many dyed in the wool party loyalists starting controversial threads about DUer's opinions. It's not about politics or candidates or the party, really...it is just about other DUers.

The ones who witch-hunt DINOs to the detriment of the party (to accept the OP's premise) at least don't make the threads about DUers.

DINO-haters = hunt Democrats down that betray progressive principles and cause losses when victories were possible.

Rabid Dem loyalists = hunt DUers who express the above opinion.

That is how I see it.

[The Magistrate]

55. The Mirror Exercise, Sir, Is Often Useful In These Matters

When the discussion proceeds from the other pole initially, persons who defend a main-line loyalist position are routinely assailed personally: they are called trolls and operatives of the D.L.C., and told they do not belong here. Both factions wish, to some degree at least, to see their regular opponents banished from the forum, whether by making the experience of coming here so unpleasant they desist, or by official action of the Moderators.

Discussion of the question, however, is part of the charter of the forum, and both sides ae not only allowed but encouraged to present their views, within the boundaries of the Forum rules.

[Lerkfish]

57. odd.

the OP is the one demanding that anyone who does not like a DINO is the worst thing for the party.
Where is anyone suggesting "main line loyalist" ( a characterization I disagree with, btw) do not belong?

As I see it, People against DINO candidates are questioning Politicians, whereas people like the OP are attacking other DU members.

trying looking in the mirror yourself, a bit.

[The Magistrate]

77. What Is Being Said In The O.P., Sir

Is that faction fighting damages the Party as a whole. That is true. In any collective enterprise, and a nationwide political party is certainly a collective enterprise, individuals must often subordinate their personal interests to the success of the whole. It seems odd to have to stress this to persons on the left nowadays, since that imoulse is one of the core elements of leftist belief and practice from the inception of the left as a political and social force. What is the critique of property owners and bosses but the inistence that they subordinate their individual interests to the interests of the social whole?

[400Years]

83. Why don't you turn those statements around and apply them to HolyJoe

Shoudln't he "subordinate their personal interests to the success of the whole" instead of betraying everything this party has ever stood for?

It's funny how the DLC apologists never apply that standard to the poeple they are trying to cover for.

[The Magistrate]

86. Should Mr. Lamont Win The Connecticut Primary, Sir

It will not trouble me in the slightest. Sen. Lieberman is one of my least favorite Democrats, dating back to his comments during the attempted coup against President Clinton.

[Lerkfish]

116. Why do you assume that to stop factional fighting, the left must acquiese?

If we support a progressive candidate, WE"RE fomenting discord?
Why isn't someone supporting a DINO candidate fomenting discord?

[Aaaargh]

119. The OP does not make that argument

As for the traditional left, their views weren't necessarily predicated on the concept of establishing a 'common good' at all. Much of the old left was focused on what they saw as an inevitable struggle or war between classes for dominance over society, in which certain class-based social institutions would be done away with altogether.

Getting back to the OP: LynneSin doesn't mention "faction(al) fighting," or refer to such a thing in general terms. Though the OP in this thread, LynneSin's message is addressed to someone whom he/she says is "hell-bent on destroying the democratic party" because "a few democrats don't pass your litmus test." Then he/she goes on to say that Democratic voters should vote for Democratic nominees even if they disagree with them on issues, and should leave opposition to Democratic candidates to primary elections only.

Thus, LynneSin here advocates support for Democratic nominees once a nomination has been made. "Faction(al) fighting" prior to that point, he/she allows for.

That is, if you get to HAVE a primary election in the first place, something which we Ohio Democrats were denied in the case of this year's senatorial race by the interference of empowered party leaders from outside the state. In a case like that, apparently, we rank-and-file party members are supposed to just shut-up from the get-go.

Still, I agree with LynneSin so far as the basic argument goes - gaining or maintaining a party majority under our two-party system is a worthy consideration.

But as Lerkfish asserts, it makes no sense for traditional or leftwing Democrats to be lambasted for dissenting against the corporatist faction, while that faction is given free rein to attack others and to set the agenda for the whole party. To argue or imply that this is right is to assume that the corporatists are most representative of the majority of the party's membership, or of its historical identity. Neither is anywhere near to being the case.

Furthermore, a candidate's status as a Democrat is not necessarily a 'litmus test' in itself. Under some circumstances, I would vote for another candidate for office besides the Democratic nominee. For instance, I'd possibly vote for Sen. Bernie Sanders, an independent, if I lived in Vermont, partly because I know that Sanders votes with the Democrats on leadership issues. I would also vote against, or at least decline to vote for, a strongly-disliked Democratic congressional nominee if maintaining a Democratic majority wasn't an issue - and, maybe in extreme cases, even if it was. However, this has never yet happened, in my 30-some years of voting.

That's because I and many others who share my views are Democrats not out of happenstance, or some blind concept of 'loyalty' to the party as an entity, but because we generally agree with what the Democratic Party and Democratic candidates stand for, as opposed to what Republicans stand for, in our two-party system. If the Democratic Party ceases to be a real alternative to the Republican Party - which will happen if the well-funded minority faction of the party, exemplified by the DLC, is triumphant - then I'll have to either fight to get the party back to where I think it should be, or abandon it, depending on what seems the best course. I would not remain loyal to a thoroughly DLCized Democratic Party.

Consider the history of the Republican Party. Founded by principled anti-slavery abolitionists, in the wake of the Civil War, the Republicans found themselves in the position of being the party favored by powerful northern business interests. Gradually, due to the corrupting influences of power and money, the Republican Party became fundamentally a pro-business party, and the social activism and idealism of the party's origins was left behind. There must have been Republicans in the 1870's and 1880's who futilely resisted this development.

Traditional Democrats today need to be concerned over the prospect of seeing their party subverted into promoting an agenda which is utterly different from what it stood for in the past, and what brought them to join it in the first place. That means they have to fight for what they believe in, and make their own reasoned decisions about when to fight and when to compromise themselves.

[sui generis]

122. I just wanted to say "wow"

I will be reading more of you.

That was tremendously fair and well stated. Some of us need to occasionally review why we're democrats, instead of just relegating responsibiity for our thinking to picking One of the Two Simple Choices, et al.

And there's message too. If we're sitting here on a progressive web site saying we'll support whomever arrives no matter what, they're not going to do a damn thing to change who they are and what they represent because they don't think they have to.

The problem becomes that the voters they hoped to attract outside their own little bubble DO mostly think for themselves, and they'll lose anyway when the pink middle they're going for sticks with the red they already know and love.

You defined the issues between corporatists and populists as a fault line in ideology because they are often in opposition to each other, just as diametric views on choice, equality, pre-emptive war and immigration neutralize each other at floor vote time. What does this party stand for if it has a wide enough spectrum in ideology that these basic defining concepts remain undefined or remain internally conflicted by election time?

It's conceptually a "big tent" but a tent that's too big has its own weather - what's the point of a tent?

At the end of the day, if not the clearly defining ideals of our party, the only thing we have in a democracy of individuals that represents us IS our well-thought out vote.

[TankLV]

131. I couldn't agree more.

My thoughts exactly.

Thank you for saying it so well, along with Aaaargh above.

[dchill]

165. "subordinate ... to the ... whole"

What are we - BORG?

[Zodiak]

80. I have noted that behavior, of course

However, I rarely see threads dedicated to the subject (it does happen, though).....these arguments that you highlight are in threads that usually have to do with an individual elected official, not DUers themselves. It is when threads are started that this behavior is particularly odious because everyone has to read the subject line...even if they do not read the thread.

It is my honest perception from being here for a time.

I will, of course, caveat my opinion here with the disclosure that I believe that some Democrats are indeed DINOs.

[TankLV]

129. Ya got that right!

The OP should save their spew for HOLY JOE who ACTIVELY SCOLDS OTHER DEMS!

But you won't here that from them, I'm damn certain!

Fuck the DINOS!

OP: Put your money where your mouth is and support ALL opposition to the repuke-lite "holy joe" in the PRIMARIES like you are claiming.

Otherwise, you're just blowing DLC and repuke-lite smoke as usual to us - the DEMOCRATIC WING of the Democratic Party!

We don't need any more stinking repuke-lite voting members elected to congress, etc!

[Renew Deal]

74. It's not flamebait to say "Support Democrats"

on Democratic Underground.

[Lerkfish]

76. its flamebait to say "support DINOS or you're the worst for the party".

that's intentionally divisive.
If I support a progressive DEMOCRAT, isn't that still the right thing to do on democratic underground? why not?

[Renew Deal]

81. Because you'll get more accomplished

with a few conservative Dems than you ever will with Republicans. You're advocating a policy of failure.

You can support a progressive Democrat if that works for you. You can support a conservative Democrat if that floats your boat. The point is that if we want control of congress, we have to work together. Those advocating division are bad for the party and should stop wasting everyone elses time.

[Lerkfish]

115. who is avocating division here?

I certainly hope your'e not suggesting ME.

[MrBenchley]

138. You can always hope, no matter how futile it seems

[nickshepDEM]

4. Great post. K&R

[sui generis]

5. wait just a fucking second

now you are actively being a "divider" and not a "uniter".

Fuck that - this fall, if we need everyone to focus on simple math, then here's some math for you to chew on, 'kay?

You aren't going to like this.

The royal "we" are fifteen percent of this party. If for some reason a Lieberman slips past the presidential primary, you just lost fifteen percent of the vote.

We're going to work very hard to make sure that doesn't happen, but IF it does, and we have a Lieberman sitting there with his dromedary countenance telling us he'll support a constitutional amendment and he wants our vote and that's the democratic party, then we ain't democrats, any more. You can keep your fucking D.

You want a war right here right now? I'm up for it.

[nickshepDEM]

8. lol. Imagine if someone like Kucinich...

slipped past the presidential primary. You just lust 90% of the vote.

Meet half way, its the only real solution.

[sui generis]

10. no it's not

the reality is, if a candidate gets in there who promises to help keep us from equality, you've lost the gay vote. There is no halfway.

You're in denial. Really, are in denial. LOL. Whatever.

[TankLV]

136. I'm with SG and Harvey on this, too.

You want our vote - then don't take us for granted,. and if you DO take us for granted and ignore our wishes, then you'll only have YOURSELVES to blame, not us!

D.I.N.O.s are WORSE than repukes - because they marginalize OTHER dems is right on.

The OP is flamebait, and WE won't "go quietly into the trains" next time around!

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

30. Three points.

1) Even Kinsey estimates only 10% of the population is gay, and that's probably a bit high too. More around 7%. But I'm really just splitting hairs for the sake of accuracy there. It hurts your debate to be wrong.

2) So, when given a choice of only two candidates that have a chance to actually win the election and neither of them are pro-gay, you're just going to toss away every other issue on your agenda AND the opportunity to put pro-gay legislators into positions of power for what amounts to a temper tantrum? Don't get me wrong, I do understand the sentiment behind your actions, but it just doesn't make any sense whatsoever. I don't have any problem with anyone voting against Lieberman in the primaries. In fact, I hope lots of people do and I hope the fucking jackass has the common sense to not run as a third-party candidate. However, if the choice is between putting Lieberman (whom supports Boxer and Kennedy) into office or a Republican (whom support box-turtle lovin' Rick Santorum), how in the fucking world can you possibly see no discernible difference between the two? Even if Lieberman is a fucking jackass, he still puts you MILES closer to your objective than ANY Republican would.

3) Quite frankly, with your "You want a war right here right now? I'm up for it." is exactly what she's talking about. YOU are far more harmful to progressive issues than any DINO could hope to be because you want to fight your brethren instead of fighting the enemy. How are any of us getting closer to our sacred issues by participating in the circular firing squad? Or do you just expect all of our candidates to be exact clones of your political point-of-view?

[Maven]

42. You misread his post

1) He said 15% of the Democratic Party, not the population at large. I'm not in a position to verify or refute that number (although it sounds about right)--just noting the distinction.

2) Wrong. In fact, I would argue that DINOs like Lieberman do MORE to hurt our cause in a way than rabid right-wingers, because they make US look more MARGINAL. "Look, even the people on their side don't support them..." What exactly has Lieberman done for equal rights that a Republican wouldn't do?

I'm with sui, as are many other GLBT Americans who are tired of being SHIT ON by their own party. If the Dem candidate turns out to be another waffler, don't bother knocking on my door with your hand out. Enough is enough.

3) It was the OP that was obvious flamebait. If you don't want a "circular firing squad," then don't contrive two different "teams" and hand out rifles.

[dchill]

97. I'm with you, Harvey...

DINOs, by definition, hurt the Democratic Party, because they're NOT Democrats, and do not advance our convictions because they do not share them. As far as the percentage of gays is concerned, I wonder if and how they count the closet cases like most of Bush's "Right Hand Men" (Ooh, there's a code name for ya.)

I also agree strongly that the OP is serious flamebait, buyt I'll take the hook anyway. Crap on anyone who can rationalize and justify a vote for Joe LIEberman. Joe just lacks the balls to jump the aisle.

[sui generis]

104. Right Hand Men?

:rofl:

Reach-Around Men. You could even get away with that in public, but it would probably refer to all his sycophants.

[sui generis]

48. I was a little heated

Your Kinsey numbers are quite dated and your split hairs could use a three minute reparative rinse.

Vash, we disagree - however my umbrage was with the divisiveness. I'm past it. I've stated my position well and often here. This isn't about DINO's for some of us; although I have to stop at hijacking the thread here.

No, I don't expect anything of candidates except that they represent me or at best don't work against me. What else is the point of a democracy? I am certain that all of us will work together to get the best possible candidates through the primaries, on the off chance that some of us will be taking a political stand. That's the nature of a poker game - you really don't show the table your cards until it's time, but then most of poker after counting cards is observation and informed speculation.

I've stated where we stand on this issue, in the very sad and unexpected event that we end up with a democrat who says he'll lead this nation by signing a federal marriage amendment into law. I don't believe it's likely, but we aren't giving out a free pass, and we're not folding either.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

53. "your split hairs could use a three minute reparative rinse."

:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:
Awesome line. Thanks for the laugh!

Again, I understand your dilemma, and quite frankly sympathize greatly. It's a damn shame that we live in a system where you have to decide between two candidates that don't truly represent you. It's a republic. I fully support a proportional representation system that they have in other nations, which would be far more amenable to having more than just two parties.

Unfortunately, we don't have that system right now though. Even though it is a horrific thought that you'd have to vote for someone that doesn't support some of your basic human rights, by not doing so you let someone that doesn't support any of them. And further, even though said Democratic candidate doesn't support you, the people he supports do. I'm not going to sit here and try to tell you that it doesn't suck to do that, but all I'm asking is, what real choice does one have under this system?

I am all for voting for whomever you want in the primaries. I'm not going to tell anyone whom they should nominate. I will ask that if you are a progressive that you vote for the most progressive candidate with an actual chance at winning. Even if you don't agree with 100% of them, they're helping us all in the end.

[welshTerrier2]

69. "they're helping us all in the end"

i like the respect embodied in this post; it's sorely lacking in the OP ... it's fair game to debate "voting strategies"; it's not fair game to fail to respect those with deeply held beliefs especially where their constitutional freedoms are being undermined by candidates from both parties ...

i disagree, however, with the last line of your post ... a common debate tactic is to paint your opponent as an inflexible extremist ... no one argued, contrary to your point, that they would only support candidates they agree with 100% of the time ... that's an unfair characterization ...

of greater concern though, and certainly ripe for debate, is your very last point that "they're helping us all in the end" ... perhaps you could make that case; perhaps not ...

i see issues like depriving gays, or black or women or foreigners or anyone of their fundamental liberties as human beings as deepening an acceptance that doing so is justified ... searching for compromise on issues of human freedoms is a very slippery slope ... if you accept compromise, not as an interim, transitional policy, but rather as a fundamental value, it seems to me you fight against the legitimate interests of these citizens ... to argue that "they're helping us all in the end" seems to not be the case at all ...

what's lacking all too often in exchanges like these is a recognition that there may be differences in tactics and timing but not in ultimate values of right and wrong ... so, for example, if the Party were to argue that we should push for "civil unions" but that "gay marriage" is not feasible politically at this time, perhaps we can unify our base ... perhaps their would be room for tolerance and compromise among all concerned parties ...

but when the Party refuses to state that equal rights for all citizens, gay or otherwise, is a core value, then pushing marginal, politically expedient solutions fails to create the much needed unity ... truly, it mystifies me that those in charge in Demville do not understand this distinction ...

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

70. I'm sorry, but it's not factually incorrect in any way, shape, or form.

The vast majority of policy and the overall tone of Congress gets decided on one, and only one, vote each Congress. That vote is the one where they decide who will be Speaker of the House and Majority Leader in the Senate. Therefore, if they have a D next to their name, they ARE supporting all progressives. It's that simple.

[The Magistrate]

59. There Is A Flaw In Your Reasoning, Sir

Democracy is not really an exercise in representing you, or any individual. It is about representing the greatest number of individuals, and the count is taken by ballot in which persons indicate support for particular candidates for office. A sort of individual that is not very numerous in the general population will necessarily be in a poor position to demand identification of a candidate with their views, but this does not by any means indicate that the result is not democratic or representative overall. If the greatest number of voters does not share your views, the election to office of a candidate who does not share them is certainly representative and democratic, though it may well be personally unpleasant.

[welshTerrier2]

75. and one in yours, as well ...

too often we see fundamental fights for human liberty in terms of selfishness ... your post uses the phrase "representing you, or any individual" ...

democracy should not endorse a tyranny of the majority in opposition to core human values ... the majority should never be imbued with the power to deprive any human of basic liberties no matter how great their numbers ... and certainly, as a Party, Democrats should stand behind all movements to grant equal rights to every citizen ...

and then again, you conclude with the phrase "though it may well be personally unpleasant" ... just as the individual must appreciate the idea that their vote should seek to help build the most just society even if they may not reap personal gain, so must the society vote to protect the precious liberties of each and every individual even if they personally would not choose a given way of life ...

[The Magistrate]

82. It Is True, Sir, That Democracy Includes Protection Of Minority Rights

And my personal views are the same as yours in regard to vindication of the eqaulity of rights every citizen should enjoy.

But it remains the case that an electoral result does not fail to be a democratic representation merely because it is not agreeable to me.

[sui generis]

88. well sir, that's not an argument that would convince a black man

to vote for a Grand Wizard of the KKK for president. I know I'm making an absurd comparison but this one "it" issue for us explains that we may be expressing some reluctance to blindly back the winning candidate. This ain't our first time to the rodeo.

I understand that supporting a candidate who doesn't support ALL my issues is mature and proper and benefits the greater good. But do not expect us to support an end-game candidate who doesn't believe we are equal citizens. It's that simple.

That is not a petty issue, and as much as you may dislike the fact, if in spite of all effort to the contrary we end up with such a candidate, we will likely abstain from voting.

Vash said earlier we should support the candidate most likely to win. Just figure this factor into the equation then, that the candidate most likely to lose if he can't cover our missing vote is not the candidate the democratic party should be supporting.

[The Magistrate]

91. Since You Acknowledge The Comparison Absurd, Sir

What benefit to do you think to gain by pressing it in the first place?

It is certainly your right to place a decisive value on a single issue; my views of what is wise or not are hardly commands. Certainly the prospect of single-issue driven defections are part if the political calculations necessary to success. But it is worth mentioning that a good part of politics is the careful selection of enemies. Single-issue groups are particularly vulnerable to this when strategy is considered, for sometimes alienating a small group may pay great dividends from larger groups that disagree with the smaller. In the broader calculation, on the question of particular interest to you, it seems evident that less harm will be done to your cause by a Democratic majority, even if that includes a few figures who do not support your cause. A Democratic majority, even so composed, is unlikely to initiate and press measures destructive to it, and a Democratic minority is unable to balk such measures that the enemy initiates and presses.

[sui generis]

93. let me be clear in very unflowery language

If you want our vote work with us to make sure our candidates support equality issues. You're right, this is the fight of our lives. In those terms it certainly feels a lot less like an oracular game on DU than a fight for our lives.

I believe you were implying that alienating us would actually strengthen the party.

Then so be it. You will have achieved your goal after all and we won't have voted for someone who wouldn't vote for us, no harm, no foul.

As a tactician though, I would suggest that is a very risky trajectory to seek without MUCH better information about the kinds of "strength" you would be attracting at our expense, and whether they wouldn't just habitually vote for the status quo anyway since you would be indistinguishable.

[TahitiNut]

182. That, of course, brings up an interesting question.

Is a liberal democracy better served by 'representing' some selected collection of interests or those interests we have in common absent narrow privilege? It seems clear that the stress in our bosy politic is, as always, the schism between common interests and narrow (but privileged) interests.

When governance is consumed with enforcing narrow entitlements, it has lost the very basis of its legitimacy: justice.

This thread's OM is emblematic one of the more salient reasons I'm a dedicated (anti-partisan) independent. I could never feign loyalty to a "my shit don't stink" party - no more than I'd buy a non-flushing toilet.

[Renew Deal]

79. In the end

It's all about you. How about We as a party? Or We as a society. Republicans have figured that out.

"No, I don't expect anything of candidates except that they represent me or at best don't work against me."

[sui generis]

89. if I'm not an equal citizen then it's all about you

and not about me at all. If you want our vote, don't ignore us and our petty little equality issues that don't impact your life one way or another anyway, but impact every molecule of ours.

You just want us to generously put that aside? What are you putting aside of equivalent value? What rights of yours are you willing to sacrifice for the democrats to win?

The right to get married? The right to dispose of your own property as you see fit or assign your own heirs or visit your family in the hospital? This is a serious question Bleachers. What if the winning candidate said he loved the environment and thought the living wage should be increased and our national debt reduced but didn't think people like you (whatever that is) should be allowed to be married, ever?

Our petty little issues are not gay issues, they're American issues. Freedom and equality. Yes, it's all about us. Us Americans.

[Renew Deal]

101. This is a perfect example of an interest group

that doesn't see the big picture. Who didn't allow the gay marriage amendment to get cloture 2 years ago? The Democrats. And if the Dems were in charge, it wouldn't have even come for a vote. So even though your Senator might be a bible banger that thinks gays are going to burn, the net result is still a protection of civil rights.

I have Hillary and Schumer. Schumer rocks, though he's not perfect. Hillary is a different issue. You know what though? I would re-elect Schumer (and Hillary) in a second. Schumer made the entire Dubai Ports story possible. Schumer has been all over wingnut judges. Hillary is another vote for Harry Reid. Hillary is also the highest profile elected woman in the country.

You're taking issues that people like myself agree with you on and separating yourself because not every Democrat is 100% as ideologically pure as you think they should be. You should read the second chapter of Crashing the Gates. It describes this perfectly. We can do more together than we can divided.

[sui generis]

102. I understand what you're saying

and even agree somewhat, and realistically we aren't going to get a rabid thumper through the primaries so all this talk is mostly hypothetical anyway.

But, realistically there are a lot of people who aren't informed or who really ARE one issue voters and the people who vote on this particular issue are not going to be swayed with lofty arguments of political expediency. Not saying that in any way but to point out that it is a reality, and that the conversation I've seen so far on enlightened progressive DU has been a lot more browbeating and negative and even in an odd way patronizing than productive and constructive.

I can tell you for a fact that most people in the gay community will get 150% behind (unfortunate choice of words ;)) the candidate that has a plan, who speaks to hope and equality and the unity of America rather than fear and evasion and double speak and hollow rhetoric. If you think our gaydars are fierce, wait until you run into our truthdars.

We sure as hell would rather it not be a central issue and that whoever our nomination turns out to be is a lion (or lioness) who can address the issues head on and then lead and move on to the next item instead of sweeping them under the rug.

Feingold and Hackett found a language for this that really brooks no argument; the only difference is they also have the personal conviction of their views as solid American cultural values for all Americans.

That's really all it takes. We all want to win, and to win with the strongest leader on democratic values out front and proud.

[CTLawGuy]

121. I'm so glad

that the DLC never had the ear of president Johnson when he had the Civil Rights Act on his desk in 1964.

So glad for all our black brothers and sisters.

Where would our country be otherwise?

[TankLV]

135. There is a lot of evidence to suggest it's closer to 20%, so 10% is too

too low.

At least that's what the stuff I've read reports.

Kinsey's studies are outdated and were done in the 40's, so they are not the gold standard by any means any longer.

[Autonomy]

47. "You want a war right here right now? I'm up for it."

LOL. Academy award for best acting in a melodrama.

[sui generis]

49. academy of peers I suppose

and the award for most irrelevant reply to a reply goes to . . .

[Autonomy]

54. and the award for most irrelevant reply to a reply goes to . . .

everyone who thinks this internet message board discusson is anything more than that.

[Renew Deal]

78. Simple math

1 Democrat who votes for Harry Reid for Majority Leader > 1 Republican that votes for x Republican for Majortiy Leader.

And if you don't consider it simple math, it's at minimum simple logic.

[the other one]

6. Should Democrats impeach if they don't campaign on it?

Would that be good politics? It would be like Bush trying to reform Social Security without mentioning it in the campaign. Won't go over well.

The Dems should raise the issue, and tell the country in no uncertain terms what they would do if elected.

[sui generis]

7. and another thing about your subject line

we're "worse" for the party. Then get rid of us. Go right ahead. Your browbeating is just the ticket.

You don't need us anyway. This is bullshit Lynne. Stop it.

[Name removed]

11. Deleted message

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

[Lerkfish]

15. wonderful....

:eyes:

so...you're arguing against divisiveness by belligerently increasing the divide?

LOL.

[sui generis]

18. woops

:blush: self delete

[Name removed]

17. Deleted message

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

[LynneSin]

24. So I should just take it when people want to slap "DINO" on any dem

that doesn't agree 100% with their own ideology?

There are more important things than slapping DINO labels on democrats and that's retaking the house & senate.

[sui generis]

28. yeah, straw man

What's important in a democracy is representation. If your party doesn't represent you, then it's not your party, and partisans should respect that.

YOUR goal is retaking the house and senate at all costs.

MY goal is representation at all costs, and those goals might not necessarily mesh all the way down the line. If you are serious about your goals then you have to consider that some people are serious about choosing who represents them, and this is NOT the way to speak to them and win them over.

[LynneSin]

29. We have our chance to retake representation - it's called a primary

:D

[Lerkfish]

34. that's why your argument is a strawman. I've explained this to you before

but you insist on this misrepresentation. people who are opposed to DINOS are FOR challenging them in a primary.
You keep acting as if they don't.

this is like the fourth thread you've trotted out this bs.

[LynneSin]

95. That's ok, I've lost count of how many thread were started

where people have sworn up and down they weren't voting for such-n-such 'DINO' ever, so I have some catching up to do!

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

33. This is a REPUBLIC.

This is winner take all.

Your choices are simple. Does the Republican or the Democrat come closer to representing your values as a whole? You either vote for the one that does or you help his enemy. Those are your ONLY choices. This is NOT a proportional representative democracy, contrary to what you've been told. Your goal is a pipe dream if you seek to marginalize yourself.

[Lerkfish]

35. bullshit strawman again.

a repuke and a DINO are NOT the only choices. We can support a nonDINO in the primary.

stop making these ridiculous, and frankly pathetic, false dichotomies.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

37. "Strawman" my ass.

We're going to work very hard to make sure that doesn't happen, but IF it does, and we have a Lieberman sitting there with his dromedary countenance telling us he'll support a constitutional amendment and he wants our vote and that's the democratic party, then we ain't democrats, any more. You can keep your fucking D.

This is talking about if Lieberman spills through to the general election. This is not a strawman. Further, I've also said above that I hope Lieberman doesn't win in the primary. Lynne NEVER argues that we should vote for DINOs in the primary. In fact, only one person in this thread has said that, and that isn't me.

Get your facts straight before you run off at the mouth.

[sui generis]

52. it's always refreshing to find someone

who views himself higher and mightier than I, however unwarranted. :rofl: Okay, just funnin', but this is talking about if "a lieberman", not lieberman himself.

Your facts are a little misread here. I was referring to someone who stands in full opposition to equal marriage, not Lieberman himself.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

66. I apologize for misrepresenting your post.

It doesn't, however, change the context of my post. He's claiming that it's a strawman because one could just vote for a non-DINO in the primaries, whereas that is not the case because A) you had claimed you'd not support "a Lieberman" in the GE though you seem to have backed off that since and B) Lynne had specifically said to vote for whomever you want in the primaries.

[Lerkfish]

58. good grief, you aren't even addressing what I referred to as strawman.

the strawman argument is that the ONLY two choices are to accept a DINO or a republican.
I posited another choice is to oppose the DINO in the primary.

the strawman is that for anyone to object to a DINO is working against democrats. Simply untrue.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

60. Well, good grief - I don't think you read the OP properly at all.

Perhaps you should again. There's a whole paragraph in there about voting for whomever you want in the primaries.

[Lerkfish]

63. I'm referring to YOUR post

Your choices are simple. Does the Republican or the Democrat come closer to representing your values as a whole? You either vote for the one that does or you help his enemy. Those are your ONLY choices. This is NOT a proportional representative democracy, contrary to what you've been told. Your goal is a pipe dream if you seek to marginalize yourself.

your absolutism avoids the primary issue.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

67. Do you vote for Republicans in primary elections?

Last I checked, one votes for only one side during primaries. So, I'm quite obviously not referring to that at all, am I? In fact, if you were capable of processing anything outside of your narrow perspective, you'd notice I've said repeatedly that one should vote for whomever one wants in the primary. I think I've been rather clear on that point.

[Lerkfish]

71. and i've been very clearly making the same point.

:shrug:

so why is that you're accusing me of working against democrats?

[The Magistrate]

65. In Many Sections Of the Country, Sir

A primary victory for a whole hog progressive figure over a more centerist type can well mean defeat in the general election. It is a thing that works both ways, of course, as there are ceratinkly sections of the country where victory in the other side's primary by a whole hog rightist reactionary over a more centerist type can mean defeat for the Republicans in a general election.

[Name removed]

68. Deleted message

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

[The Magistrate]

72. As A Matter Of Curiousity, Sir

Are you calling me a D.L.C. supporter? And if so, on whjat grounds?

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

73. If you had any clue whatsoever

The Magistrate ALWAYS addresses people properly. It is NOT condescending. Cilivity and logic are apparently COMPLETELY lost on you.

[sui generis]

50. eh.

vuh.

I recall you are a beltway type. The world is bigger than DC, and people are smarter than having the beltway present the world in terms of ONLY TWO SIMPLE choices. If your crystal ball works as well as you claim, we would never have had a republican administration to begin with.

Something's broken there Vash.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

56. I didn't say it wasn't broken.

Quite frankly, I think our system sucks, but I've said that above.

The rest of your post doesn't make any sense, however. The success rate of third parties in this country is well under 1%. You don't have to like it, but the truth of the matter is that you do only get two choices. That's not an opinion or a crystal ball - that's a fact.

[Renew Deal]

84. Or run for office yourself and let the voters decide.

Otherwise stop bitching. (not directed at Vash)

[autorank]

160. Marginalized, i.e., 3rd Parties. Which party came up with Social Security

I know the party that passed it, run by my favorite president ever, FDR, it was the Democrats back in the Depression. And thank God they did that. We'd never get a program like that out of * and the Republican dominated nihilists.

But who came up with the idea, which party originated it? You are correct it was...

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

http://www.ssa.gov/history/briefhistory3.html

One of the earliest American advocates of a plan that could be recognized as modern social insurance was Theodore Roosevelt. In 1912, Roosevelt addressed the convention of the Progressive Party and made a strong statement on behalf of social insurance:

"We must protect the crushable elements at the base of our present industrial structure...it is abnormal for any industry to throw back upon the community the human wreckage due to its wear and tear, and the hazards of sickness, accident, invalidism, involuntary unemployment, and old age should be provided for through insurance." TR would succeed in having a plank adopted in the Progressive Party platform that stated: "We pledge ourselves to work unceasingly in state and nation for: . . .The protection of home life against the hazards of sickness, irregular employment, and old age through the adoption of a system of social insurance adapted to American use."

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

It's a big country, there's room for all sorts of political ideas, and third parties come up with some pretty damn good ones. They start on the margins but get integrated quickly, forming a powerful incentive to change.

Partial list of ideas first pushed by 3rd parties

Abolition of Slavery

Women's Right to Vote

Child Labor Laws

Reduction of Working Hours

So in a way, our heritage as a party is due to the innovation of third parties and past Democratic leaders being willing and open to those ideas.

[killerbush]

9. Thank you !!!!!!

A lot of people around here are so blind to the fact that they cannot support someone like Lieberman because he is for the war. I support Lieberman simply because his body of work for the Democratic party has a been excellent. Yeah, he's for the war, but I look at other things besides that. Being for the war, doesn't disqualify him for getting my vote. Can someone name me a candidate they agree with 100% of the time? I strongly disagree with Joe on the war, but I still will support him. I have seen Lieberman being called every vicious name in the book, and it's not fair. A lot of DU Democrats have a lot of soul searching to do. Take a good look at yourselves and try to figure out that calling Lieberman all sorts of names, makes you no better than Republicans.
GROW UP!!!!!:mad: :puke:

[Cassandra]

26. It's not that he's for the war...

even now that it's clearly a mess but that he goes to the media and continuously trashes other Democrats and the party in general. That's the most destructive thing he does and it's also what gets him so much face time.

[Ken Burch]

177. You CAN'T be saying you'd back Holy War Joe

against Lamont in the primary...

Dear God, why?

And before you answer that, remember, there is NO electable candidate to Lieberman's right in Connecticut this year.

[danalytical]

12. F Joementum

Lieberman is my Senator. I am not a whacked out super left liberal, but I am a Democrat and I feel Joe has sold us down the river. I'm sick of him, period. I gave money to Lamont, and I will give him more if I can. We need to take back the peoples party. It doesn't belong to corporate right wing war hawks like Liberman. If Joe gets through the primaries, and there is no viable alternative in the form of a Green of an Independent. THEN and only then will he get my vote.

[KoKo]

13. Anti-DINO Dems are worse for the Party than what?

:shrug: Would you say that the Religious Right Cabal was worse for the Mainstream Rockefeller Repugs? Did they hurt their party?

Do you remember what Holy Joe did to undermine Al Gore in Florida? Where he got his marching papers to accept the Military Vote which many feel was manipulated? Do you feel that Mary Landrieu and Ben Nelson of Nebraska and the other gang of about 14 who consistently vote with the Repugs stopping every Dem Amendement that could have countered some of the most aggregious acts of the Repugs was acceptable?

I don't know of any Anti-Dino's who are still left on DU urging that we not vote Democratically or support the Democratic nominee. But, I do know many of us want some accountability for those who run under the Democratic banner not to consistently vote against our party in legislation. Once in awhile is fine....but consistently means they are a Repug in Dems clothes.

Plus there are economic differences in the Dino's views on whether Big Business is favored over us little folks out there who at this point have NO VOICE.

So...I didn't understand your post which seemed angry and ask Anti-Dino's are worse than what? :shrug:

[MrBenchley]

14. Well said....

[Lerkfish]

16. this whole thread is intentional flamebaiting.

good luck with that.

[sui generis]

19. you're right and I bit the bait

I need to step off before I eat someone's liver. :hi:

[kmla]

31. ....with a nice chianti, and some farva beans.

Sorry. Couldn't help myself.

My sincerest apologies, Clarice.

Hannibal.

[acmejack]

21. Indeed...

[More Than A Feeling]

20. This is your money quote:

If you don't like your "DINO" candidate then don't vote for him/her in the primaries - that's our time to get rid of them. But this fall we need everyone to focus on getting rid of republicans.

Spot on. :thumbsup: I'm anti-DINO, especially the "Alito 19". If I had a chance to vote against any one of them in the primary, I would do so. In the general, though, they'd all get my vote over the Republican.

[NoPasaran]

23. I will NOT vote for Lieberman

Because I don't live in Connecticut. Would I vote for him against either of my two real-life senators, aging cheerleader Kay Bailey Hutchison or John "Boxturtle" Cornyn? In a heartbeat. Whatever failings Joementum has, they're nothing compared to the two Bushbot pod people I'm stuck with.

[LynneSin]

27. You think like me

I've had Rick Santorum as my senator (I lived in PA until 2001). Trust me, even Joe Lieberman would have been an improvement over Tricky Rick

[killerbush]

32. I do live in Ct., and I will NOT vote for one issue Lamont

Joe has been my senator, off and on since 1989, and I will not change now. Lieberman is the man.

[Lerkfish]

36. LOL! thanks, that made my day.

but not how you think it made my day.

:)

[EST]

43. Heheh!

I saw it, too. The prettiest birds are hidden deepest in the brush.

[CTLawGuy]

123. well, I guess Joe will have one vote

NT

[welshTerrier2]

38. this is all drivel

i don't use or care for the term DINO ... it's just name calling and we can do better than that ... but i also don't care for many of the hideous conservative votes cast by those often tagged with the label ... that's the essence of the problem ...

what i object to in the OP is a failure to address the concerns of those who want blindly and automatically vote the Party line ...

you need to tell us how you plan to rid the Party of these "wrong vote representatives" ... and let's not get into the silliness about purity or perfection or refusal to compromise or any of the other nonsense that passes for discourse ...

over and over and over we are told that we have to "go along" with these conservative Democrats because we have to win ... well, we want to win too ... we want to win on the issues we care very deeply about ... yes, we may even agree that these conservative Democrats are much better than the republican alternative ... and we may even see legitimacy in the political expediency argument ... but exactly when is it that the Party will stand-up and do all it can to crush the candidacies of these wrong-thinkers?

it gets pretty old to be told that once we regain power, we'll do really neat things just like you progressives are calling for ... does anyone really believe this?? i sure don't ...

is there room for compromise and negotiation? absolutely!! no one needs to dig in so deep that we can't find common ground ... but it is never acceptable for the Democratic Party to support candidates that would deprive people of their fundamental liberties ... there still must be certain areas that are not compromised ... we cannot negotiate with a black man to offer 80% "equal" rights ... we cannot say to women that they have a right to control their own bodies except in Pennsylvania where we really need to win ...

what is lacking from the Party is a stated commitment to certain fundamental liberties ... now, in the interest of unity, i will say that there is room for negotiation over tactics and timing as long as the ultimate value, i.e. the ultimate objective, is clearly stated ...

so, for example, on an issue like gay marriage, the Party might clearly state as its core value that there should be no discrimination in law against gays and that the gay community should enjoy the same liberties as all other citizens ... that's the stated goal ... as a policy implementation, whether i agree with it or not, the Party might argue for civil unions recognizing them as a "transitional step" toward legalizing gay marriage ... this would allow for certain concerns about political pragmatism (whether legitimate or not) and would allow for a period of societal transition ...

the stridency of the OP does nothing to attract those already alienated by the Party's conduct ... do you think that screaming at people is an effective political tactic? if you really cared about the politics and the Party's best interests, perhaps reflecting greater tolerance and respect for those with genuine disdain for certain Democrats might be a wee bit more useful ... the point here is NOT to argue that your "voting strategy" isn't legitimate; it's to argue that your presentation of it is totally ineffective ...

[bvar22]

45. Well Said.

A Statement of Fundamental Values of the Democratic Party is sorely needed. Then the voting public could unite behind Issues instead of personalities. Democratic Represenatives could then be held accountable.
Sorry, "A Strong America" (Democratic Party Platform 2004) is NOT a fundamental value.


The Democratic Party is a BIG TENT, but there is NO ROOM for those
who advance the agenda of THE RICH (Corporate Owners) at the EXPENSE of LABOR and the POOR.

[sui generis]

99. brava brava!

It boils down to standards, or values, or commitments, or whatever we want to call it.

So right on the mark:

"what is lacking from the Party is a stated commitment to certain fundamental liberties ... now, in the interest of unity, i will say that there is room for negotiation over tactics and timing as long as the ultimate value, i.e. the ultimate objective, is clearly stated ... "

Without that everything else is just a personality contest and a prayer.

But having said that, why on earth isn't there a stated commitment? What's keeping us from making such a commitment?

[Virginia Dare]

39. Well, I'm going to quote the intellectual acuity of

one Donald Rumsfeld:

As you know, you go to war with the army you have, not the army you might want or wish to have at a later time."

:hide:

[pstans]

41. I agree about the primaries

I am supporting the most progressive candidate for Governor here in Iowa in the primary. However, a lot of people say that candidate is unelectable and we need a more centrist canidate to win the general election. People need to just vote for what they beleive in.

I will be supporting the Democratic nominee for Governor even if it is not my candidate though I will be disapointed if it is not my candidate.

[Quantess]

44. For what it's worth, I disagree.

I'm not as "into" politics as many other DUers, but, the idea of mislabeling oneself as a Democrat is inherently repellent to me. It's dishonest to the constituents.

Yes, I am aware that majority rules, but, that doesn't justify supporting DINOs. I'm sorry, but I expect better from my Democratic leaders.

[Autonomy]

46. Hey LynneSin

I am in Delaware, too. Down in Dover. I agree with your argument generally. Intra-party diversity is not a bad thing. The Republicans are the bad guys, not Lieberman. Carper and Biden are OK.

We need to work on getting Castle out of office. Have you heard anything about his Democratic opponent this year? I called the Delaware Democratic Committee to volunteer, but they haven't gotten back to me.

[Name removed]

62. Deleted message

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

[katinmn]

145. What? That is inconsistent with your OP!

And you just make a case for the anti-DINOs. It's okay for you to vote Green if there is no fighting Dem, but no one else should criticize Leiberman, or any other Dem that represents against their interest?

[LynneSin]

154. Actually - there is no dem running for the seat

so should I vote for the Republican?

[katinmn]

155. Dennis Spivack is the Dem candidate in the race

But then you must know that.

http://www.spivackforcongress.com/

[Usrename]

61. It does not matter that Lieberman supports the Bush agenda?

I don't understand this argument at all. Lieberman is helping Bush whitewash his crimes. And yet you see it as helping to stop the crimes?

Please explain when Lieberman has ever leveled any serious charge of wrongdoing against this criminal cabal.

He has not. He will not. He believes in this fascist regime. To him, it is the way the world is supposed to work. He thinks this is the way our country should be run. He has no complaints.

How many "bi-partisan" investigations have been done with Lieberman's support? Do you honestly believe that any of them were truly bi-partisan? Do feel that as the faithful opposition you were well represented in any of Lieberman's "bi-partisan" investigations?

Lieberman assisted the guilty parties in fleeing with the cash in California. None of them will ever be brought to justice. None of the money will be returned. This is what you want?

[Lerkfish]

94. posted without comment

[stepnw1f]

64. Get On Board or Get Out of Our Way

It's time....

[The Witch]

85. For pete's sake, we're just talkin'.

How on earth else are we going to express ourselves but by voting against DINOs in the primaries? that's the only "official" action we take. We vote against them in the primaries. We talk to them, we talk to each other, we help define what we want as a party. Of course we want a majority. I do not understand what the so-called destructive effect of Lieberman-bashing (or Lieberman-basher-bashing) is. It's like saying that not supporting the President = helping the terrorists. Not supporting Lieberman (or, conversely, supporting him) is helping the Republicans and hurting the Democrats? For pete's sake! We're just talkin'!

[Renew Deal]

87. She did say you have freedom in the primary

and I think she's right about that.

"If there is another democrat in the primary I will vote for that person (I don't think there is) and in the fall I will still vote for him."

[lojasmo]

90. If the "Ds" vote consistently like "Rs" it's a wash.

You compromise your values all you want. Have at it.

[Quantess]

92. As if Democrats need to be more like doormats.

I completely agree with you.
It's called standing up for principles.

Democrats already have a stereotype of being wimpy, and electing people who fold on principles only encourages that sterotype. In my opinion, DINOs represent a wimpy, folding attitude.

[Usrename]

96. More like traitors to our country.

Heads on pikes!!!!

[Quantess]

98. What does

"heads on pikes" mean?

[Name removed]

109. Deleted message

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

[AtomicKitten]

100. I think the term DINO is completely subjective.

IMO Dems need to work hard in the primaries for the candidate of their choice, and then hopefully come together in the general election against the Republican.

[Zorra]

103. Nice common sense post. We all have a common enemy - the

republican fascists that seek to end democracy in the US as fast as they possibly can.

Bottom line: We need to unite and get rid of the fascists or it's over for America.

I'd hold my nose, choke down the bile, and vote for Lieberman as Senator over any republican in a heartbeat if that was my only choice.

[Le Taz Hot]

105. Oh, goodie!

Another, "We all must be Good Germans" post. Good goddess like we haven't heard THIS argument before from the SAME people . . . over and over and over and over and over . . . The counter argument remains the same and remains correct.

[CrazyForKucinich]

106. Good. We won't vote for them not only in the primaries but the GE as well.

Let's see how far the Democratic Party makes it without us.

[Neil Lisst]

107. AMEN AGAIN LYNNE!!

[messiah]

108. Damn this place has changed alot

I don't even recognize this place anymore.

[Lerkfish]

110. sad, eh?

[AtomicKitten]

111. that depends on your point of view.

It's unfortunate that a more mainstream Democratic point of view is viewed as "sad," which leads one to wonder if perhaps you are confusing a progressive democratic board with a progressive independent one.

Good ideas don't have those kind of restrictive confines.

[Lerkfish]

112. that's an amazing amount of extrapolation from one word. try again.

and while you're at it:

define your terms "democratic progressive board" and "democratic independent one"

your terms, so help me understand the difference.

and explain to me what "good ideas don't have those kind of restrictive confines".

i think you're jumping to kneejerk conclusions about me, and I don't appreciate it. But I could be wrong, depending on your definitions.

last I checked, DU is defined as "progressive".

[AtomicKitten]

113. it's pretty self explanatory - read my post

Progressive Democrat versus Progressive Independent.

Some would say the incessant whining of the latter is sad, but not me. I seek out good ideas from anyone who has them. Rejecting ideas based on narrow ideology isn't particularly bright, but feel free to continue your jihad against the Democratic Party and anyone who supports it. And, for the record, that is sad.

[Name removed]

114. Deleted message

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

[AtomicKitten]

117. Progressive Democrat does not equal a DLC apologist.

It is your scorched earth rhetoric that makes it impossible for you to participate in a reasonable discussion.

[sui generis]

118. scorched earth?

We're not the ones judging you. We're just saying what we think. We're not trying to get anyone to agree with us, just explaining ourselves.

This idea that it makes us "special interest group" operatives is silly, and all the scorched earth rhetoric is coming from people who can't stand for anyone to think independently.

It doesn't matter whether you agree or not, our positions are as rational to us as yours are to you, with the important distinction that we're not telling you you're not a real democrat or that you're hurting the democratic party by existing or having a brain or an opinion.

Here's the plan: Get the best candidate out there who supports the most issues. If you think there is some particular issue they shouldn't support (yawn, we're talking in code about The Gay Issue) to get elected, they probably aren't going to be able to address that issue and STAY elected. Not because of the issue, but because the candidate himself likely doesn't believe his own rhetoric.

Fix it! How hard is that. Browbeating the rest of us to vote for the buffoon anyway is not a plan that will work to get a vote out of us - that's not scorched earth.

It's reality.

[AtomicKitten]

120. Hmmmmm, I wish I'd thought of that.

Oh, wait. I did.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2589411&mesg_id=2590017

And, again, calling all that don't agree with your ideology DLC apologists is, in fact, scorched earth rhetoric, although that accusation is usually preceded by "kool-aid drinking."

If you (in the collective sense) were simply stating what you think, there wouldn't be a problem. It's when opinion is laced with caustic rhetoric that people turn away.

Trying to move forward in a cohesive body as Democrats isn't sad. It's strategic. The primaries are meant for bare knuckle contests within the party. It is the suggestion that we should unite behind the Democrat in the general election that is met with disdain from the progressive indies. And it is on that point where people party company at DU.

[sui generis]

125. I don't care about moving forward in a cohesive body

What I care about is who is leading the pack, and why I should trust their infallible crystal ball now when it's never worked before.

The problem is (since you've thought of everything) that my pack ain't necessarily your pack and we can both use exactly the same words to mean exactly the opposite thing.

The people my crystal ball says will win are anathema to social conservative corporatist democrats, and vice versa. So the issue isn't about us all mindlessly agreeing and getting with the party until we know what the hell the party is about.

Again, reality check. As much as you dislike it, and even if I were ON your side in these particulars, what you don't get is that people think for themselves, and neither you, nor I nor the DLC nor anyone but the person with the best message is going to attract those people to vote for them. So the issue isn't that some democrats aren't getting with the program.

The issue is, what the eff is the program. It's all over the map. Are gays in or out? Is healthcare in or out? Is being a three issue voter better or worse than being a one issue voter? How many issues and who decides the cutoff? Or do you just want to tell us who to vote for and be done with it?

We. Think. For. Ourselves. And that's the way it is.

Here's an exercise: Name the topmost divisive issue you think would cause people to flee or withhold a vote from a nominee or candidate. Don't be shy.

Now here's the solution. How do we get all of our candidates to agree that this issue is not a divisive issue for democrats? Browbeating voters is not the answer.

Fix our ability to address that issue. Believe that issue is a core value of our party. Give people something clear to vote for or against.

[AtomicKitten]

127. I know you don't care which is why your candidates don't win.

There is strength in numbers, and that is a hard cold fact. And you can't please all the people all the time, but compromise isn't part of your agenda. (I'm speaking as an overview, not a personal indictment BTW).

I met and worked for Dennis Kucinich in Santa Cruz, CA, but I knew he didn't have a chance. That's the difference, you did. And you still don't understand why.

And as an observation and I beg to differ, but I've seen more parroting of Mike Malloy here on DU than any other oft-repeated mantra. IMO that isn't thinking for oneself. Many people that identify themselves as progressive indies are generally po'd and tend to glom onto others that exhibit the same nonspecific rage, and the sad part is they direct it at the Democrat Party rather than the infinitely more egregious Republicans.

People are great in that they have different opinions. The beauty of politics is finding a common denominator that binds them together as a cohesive voting block and, as much as you don't care about that, that's important. That wins election. It's compromise. It's hard work. It's patience and perseverance. It's discussing issues with someone without calling them names.

My deal-breaker? Abortion. I have no tolerance for Dems that support anti-choice measures. I believe all people should enjoy the same freedom, including gay marriage. I believe we should all have national health care insurance. I believe corporations should be extracted from their influence on politics and that they should not be allowed to base offshore to avoid paying taxes. I believe no measure is too radical with regard to environmental protection.

That's off the top of my head.

What we need are better choices in the primaries. I fully support challenges to the big dogs in the Democratic party (I was more reticent before DU but am thankful to the polite and thoughtful indies that schooled me on that issue!).

I just wish people like you would stop blaming people like me for your anger and dissatisfaction. We really are in this together. I am just a logical person that doesn't react with emotional ire (well, except where Al Gore is concerned) when things don't go the way I think they should.

On edit: FTR, my gut feeling is that I don't want any of the knuckleheads that acquiesced to Bush's immoral war scheme as the Democratic candidate. But that's me.

[sui generis]

143. I didn't vote for Kucinich

you have me confused with someone else.

[AtomicKitten]

162. never said you did

it was an example

[Name removed]

144. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

158. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

146. Deleted message

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

[sui generis]

157. answer one issue in my post

[Name removed]

163. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[AtomicKitten]

168. wow - I missed the entire delete-fest above.

I feel so left out.

[sui generis]

175. why don't I doubt you?

I mean, I completely agree with you on everything. Even the part about me parrotting whatsisname that I've never listened to.

Vanilla.
:eyes:

[Panda1]

134. Hahaha

This is my favorite post on this thread.

[AtomicKitten]

137. except she/he got it all wrong

the OP encourages voting for whomever you want in the primary.

And I quote: "If you don't like your "DINO" candidate then don't vote for him/her in the primaries - that's our time to get rid of them."

It's rather disingenuous to misquote the OP and then go off on a bent, but we see alot of that here when people don't have a substantial argument to make. That or name-calling.

[leftstreet]

124. I think progressive independents want to be part of the Dem tent

It's not as if they can turn to the Repubs. And there's no viable third party option. Some of us are old enough to remember when the Dem party was a friend to labor and, hence, progressive.

[AtomicKitten]

126. well I agree a turn to the left would be a good thing

but that is accomplished more effectively en masse, slowly, like moving a herd. I think the progressive indies became exasperated and impatient with that notion, and I do understand the frustration. The rubber meets the road reality is there is strength in numbers, and until third (fourth and fifth) parties become a viable option, that is our mutual strength. That challenge has to be met with patient and perseverance or it won't work.

The good news is the time is ripe for change.

[leftstreet]

128. Actually the swing to the right (corp $$) happened fairly fast

and as more members of "the herd" start figuring it out, they're not very patient.

You're right that "the time is ripe for change." But if the Dems don't dump their corporate masters, they'll end up being responsible for the changes.

[AtomicKitten]

130. It's the almighty $$$$ that prevents that.

And the best way to counter corporate influence is to prove that grassroots fund-raising is at least its equal. Dean proved that. Too many people think withholding money from the Dems is prudent and the right thing to do, but that is counterproductive to weaning them off corporate money. It's a Catch-22. People need to decide to roll the dice with the Dems - or not. I fully support Howard Dean and buy the bonds.

[leftstreet]

141. Public campaign financing would also "counter corporate influence"

Grassroots fundraising can't equal corporate donations.

[QC]

164. It's downright psychotic lately. n/t

[Jose Diablo]

132. Sounds like ABB

Now that was a strategy. I won't say if it worked.

Maybe instead of ABB if the strategy had been less of expressing a negative, express a positive, like a ideology that works for the people. Maybe, just maybe, then a good portion of those 'poor ignorant trailer trash republicans' may have saw something worth voting for, rather than a republican lite. I wonder how many grassroots Republicans work at minimum wage. Will any of these grass root repubs vote for a Republican lite? Why buy near-beer when you can get the real stuff?

Say a message of "I support workers Unions, because-----". Believe it or not, Unions do a lot for the Dem party, but their help is seldom acknowledged after the politicos get to congress. And the DINO's don't do squat for unions, other than taking their money.

One of the things about selling a product is called 'product differentiation', that is our product is better because-fill in reason here instead of- 'yep, me too'.

It's a big tent alright, but it seems to me, the 'people' have been pushed out of the tent. Maybe instead of ABB, careful thought should be done as to who exactly the Dem party represents. There does not seem to be a demarkation line dividing corporations versus people in this party anymore. Maybe the corporate money has made it so the politicos don't need 'people'.

Then there are the warhawks. Help me out here. What is the Dem party's stand of war. For or against. The politicos stand is like shifting sand depending on who they are speaking with and what the polls say.

Nope, what I want to see, is not ABB, but a stand on what they believe so I know who I will vote for.

Oh, just because I don't believe in ABB, doesn't mean I am not a dem. The party left me, I didn't leave the party. Blind loyalty is a republican trait, not mine. What's in it for me. Now if a politico want my vote, then they need a message that turns my crank.

[Clarkie1]

133. You are correct. Once the primaries are over, we all must come together.

nt

[autorank]

139. No more so than than those who support Bush while bearing our colors.

And I mean Lieberman. I do not think you are intent on destroying the Democratic Party. Why would you accuse those of us who support another Democrat for the Senate nomination of trying to destroy the party. There is a primary after all. Once the primary approaches in any state, it's time to examine candidates. Surely you don't oppose debate between primary candidates. I worked in the 2005 election in VA, very hard, and supported someone to the right of me. I did it because the opposition was awful and the candidate was about 70% of what I wanted. With Lieberman, it's a different story. He gave up in Florida, on television, just a few days into the recount. He supported Bush on almost everything since day one. Yet people who opposed Lieberman are accused of destroying the party. I think surrendering the presidency to this tyrant THEN supporting him on evey crucial issue is more in line with those remarks.

[AtomicKitten]

142. did you read the OP?

allow me to point out something you clearly missed: "If you don't like your "DINO" candidate then don't vote for him/her in the primaries - that's our time to get rid of them."

I think some people read the first line and then respond. The OP clearly encourages the primary process, but asks that people pull up their socks and vote to the oust the Republican in the general election. The OP does not oppose debate between primary candidates.

And I for one agree that Joementum smooching Bush ass on the war is unforgivable. Others may not. But that will be decided in the primary, and nobody has come close to trying to put the kibosh on that process.

You're arguing a point in opposition to a point the OP never made.

[autorank]

149. "hell bent on destroying the Democratic Party" -- tell me what you think.

Check this story out. It's a real point of contention for people here and in the mainstream of America, the millions victimized by blindly "pro business" initiatives like the * tax cuts, bankruptsy, and right wing judges passed along as though they're "just fine."

Take over of the Democratic Party

That's what I was responding to. I have no problem supporting part of a post that had a main message that I have questions about.

What do you think of the Sirota article? That's a really hot issue. They want our votes, for what, to provide the support for our own demise?

[AtomicKitten]

161. well, I must say I'm disgusted after reading this

I had posted this http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=2580555 a day before anyone else and nobody was interested, but I had no idea McCurry was pimping this cheesy endeavor. Democrats whoring behind our backs is as insidious as it is disgusting (I also was responding to the OP, not this issue).

This certainly gives credence to the notion that we might be choosing between the lesser of two evils and is precisely what will bolster a viable third party. That's tough for me to say as a long-time uberDemocrat, but I'm not stupid and I'm not a doormat for the cause.

I would like a word with Howard Dean about this.

This needs to REALLY see the light of day. Perhaps shame will induce second thoughts in these charlatans selling out the party for the almighty buck, something that is oh so Republican.

BTW thanks for pointing this out to me; it appeared on Buzzflash today. Should have checked DU first. Too little time, too much going on.

[autorank]

166. "Perhaps shame will induce.second thoughts..." I truly hope so, but

I'd be just as hahppy, and more satisfied, to see Al Gore head the ticket as the true populist he's
showing himself to be. This would provide an instant solution. It's one thing for "corporatist" only factions to buck the party, it would be another to go head to head with Gore in 2008. I saw him speak in DC on 1/16 and he is "free atlast." I'd like to be a spectator at a meeting where Gore whipped the various factions into shape on his vision. Cheers!

[AtomicKitten]

167. from your lips to god's ears -- I hope she's listening

[Name removed]

140. Deleted message

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

[meganmonkey]

147. Since this website is about the Party

and not the People or the Principles, I better just keep my sorry mouth shut, huh.

Peace.

[autorank]

152. Just because you give huge amounts of time and resource to your party

you think you can speak! HA, naughty, naughty.

Thank you for everything your doing in your state to preserve democracy. You're one of my party heroes.

:yourock:

[meganmonkey]

153. Thanks, auto!

Although, for the record, I am an indy, not a Dem. But that doesn't stop me from actively working toward Democratic goals or voting for Dems (edited to add that).

If the Dems want the indies to keep supporting them, they need to stop alienating us for not being in lockstep.

And you, btw, are a fricking superstar, and don't you forget it!!!

:yourock:

[Name removed]

159. Deleted message

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

[katinmn]

148. "Actually, I might vote Green this year" Post #62

Does anyone else notice any inconsistency in the OP and #62?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2589411&mesg_id=2589739

LynneSin (1000+ posts) Tue Apr-25-06 11:42 AM
Response to Reply #46
62. Actually, I might vote Green this year
Edited on Tue Apr-25-06 11:43 AM by LynneSin
Michael Berg, father of Nick Berg (the contractor behead in Iraq back in 2002) was asked to run for the house on the Green ticket. Now I'm about as blue democrat as the best of them, but Democrats never really bother to fight Castle for his seat. But with name recognition like Michael Berg, I might help out with the campaign.

There are more details about his race over in the DE forum.

To be honest, it's better to go over the border to Pennsylvania where there are 4 very hotly contested congressional races where democrats could pick up a seat all within a 60 minute drive of my Northern DE home.

EDIT NOTE: I am not advocating support for the Green Party. This seat has been held by a republican for like 10 years and delaware democrats very rarely put an effort forward to try and beat the guy (who is a moderate republican). Knowing that this year that democrats are still hardly putting an effort forward, I might, just this one time, vote Green because personally the Green has a better chance of winning than the democrat but I still think this seat will stay in republican hands

[meganmonkey]

150. Wooops!

I'm glad it's okay for some people but not for others.

Maybe if we sign a Dem loyalty oath, we can get away with voting Green once in a while too! :rofl:

[Usrename]

176. That is the point isn't it?

Who should really be signing the loyalty oath, us or the leaders that we elect?

Keep the faith MM, you are one of my heros in this battle too.

[katinmn]

151. Hmm. No takers?

Edit: question posted before I saw MM's comment which I believe is right on.

[Jose Diablo]

156. Yeah, no kidding

I'd say this is..is...uh...whats that word..Hy something or another...<looking up word, we need an on-line dictionary>....hypocorism..nope...hypocotl...nope...hypocrisy...hey, here it is:

Hypocrisy- a feigning to be what one is not or to believe what one does not; especially: the false appearance of virtue or religion.

I'd say this describes it pretty close, as religion is pretty close to politics.

The male bovine processed grass can get deep round here sometimes.

[William769]

169. No truer words spoken

Thanks.

[Capn Sunshine]

170. I'm not sure what you mean

But last I checked, I was against those in our party who promote things I don't agree with, like the Quagmire in Iraq and building a freaking two thousand mile long fence when our schools need a pretty major tune-up.

But I rarely use the term DINO, and I certainly see a place for the DLC within the party confines, and I LOVE Hillary. Maybe not for President. But love her nonetheless.

But if you think I'm EVER going to make nice with that asshole Zell Miller who IS A DINO, well, I respectfully disagree.

It's probably the agent-provocateurs you're responding to, just like they want.

Or do you think we should keep Zell?

[rman]

171. There are conservative Dems, but no progressive Repubs

The fact that it's a "surprise" when a Dem like Lieberman supports a progressive cause, says it all.

Fake Dems will only take the party more to the Right.

[loyalsister]

172. At what point

does having high standards evolve into a solid attitude of "anti-Dino"

"If you can't drink their booze, take their money and vote against them you don't belong in this business." --Sam Rayburn

Some of us just want to hold them to a higher standard!

[mmonk]

173. My head is spinning

[mmonk]

174. I've got another angle.

Nobody has been worse for the democratic party than DINO's. They obscure the truth, split the party, and have made it a weak shell from which it doesn't defend itself adequately.

[Name removed]

178. Deleted message

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

[johnnyrocket]

179. I agree, WE NEED MORE D's THAN R's!!

Otherwise we get NOTHING done!

Hell, it's not even D's or R's, it's a caucus of more than 50%, that's it. We'll have Sanders and Jeffords who aren't even democrats...that's fine with me.

[flaminbats]

180. why would anyone do a litmus test for a DINO?

a DINO is DemocratInNameOnly, why is an anti-DINO person bad?

I believe it's good to set higher standards for people that we vote for, if we don't..people like Bill Tauzin, Nathan Deal, Ben Nelson, Richard Shelby, and Zell Miller are elected. Three of these "Democrats" switched parties under Clinton, and all of them helped to pass Bush's tax-cuts. Now those tax-cuts must eventually be repealed, then Democrats can get blamed for again raising taxes!

I want my party to succeed because I also want universal healthcare, a balanced budget, and Democrats who don't switch parties on me when times get rough! Voting for Republican tax cuts, Republican spending increases, and then switching sides after winning my vote doesn't help our party! I hope I'm not expecting too much from those I helped to elect! :shrug:

[Zhade]

181. Yeah, those in Congress who enable Republican fascism have no power...

...while those of us opposed to enabling fascism have all the power!

:rofl:

Here's the thing: you can say this all day long, but the end result remains the same: if they compromise my principles, they don't get my vote, and I don't give a FUCK what you think about it.

[leesa]

183. Did his committee ever FIND out what was going on? Funny how DINO efforts

never seem to have conclusions. I'm not for the status corporate quo. We will still be stuck with Feinstein and Lieberman and whoever it is they work for, but expect more of the same crap governance then.