Why holding unrepresentative Dem incumbents accountable is important

[CTLawGuy]

Yes, of course we should be going after Republicans, but there are many good reasons why we should hold our nominees to high standards.

1. A Dem majority (while extremely desirable) is not guaranteed to represent us. It depends very much on who makes up that Democratic majority.

The biggest example is that the IWR was passed with, you guessed it, a dem majority in the senate. The Dem majority did not ask the correct questions of Bush, did not put any limits on his power, in fact (infuriatingly) they passed the very resolution Bush wanted. Nor did they require a plan or ask what Bush was going to do after we toppled Baghdad.

The Dem majority passed the Patriot Act, without reading it, or questioning its constitutionality or necessity.

If we had a senate full of Lamonts, neither of those two things happens. If we have a senate full of Liebermans, they do.

Thus, it is in our best interest to get the best possible Democrat in each seat. If that's not possible, then put the Democrat who wins the primary in.

2. Challenges to incumbents prevents corruption and complacency in one-party states. 6 years ago, Lieberman ran for senate and won without ever visiting CT. Becuase CT is such a one-sided state, this was possible.

If the other party can never mount any opposition to you in your state, what incentive do you have to listen to what the people of the state want? Reps exist to serve their constituents, not to exercise some kind of entitlement to be in office.

3. Challenges instill in the base a sense of ownership in the party. They feel that the party cares what they think. Having such a system will draw people to the dem party from the ranks of the independents and the non-voters, because people will no longer feel like cogs in a machine run from Washington.

4. Primaries force candidates to articulate what they stand for, since they cannot simply hide behind the reputation of their party. The candidates have to differentiate themselves and thus give not only dems, but independents (in the general) a sense of what the candidate believes in and what he or she will do in office.

5. Such a system of accountability were what the founders intended. There is no mention of political parties in the constitution and James Madison, in Federalist 10, warned against the power of "faction". They envisionsed candidates backed by the will of ordinary Americans, rather than entrenched power-brokers and special interests.

After the primaries are done, that is the time to get focused on beating republicans. But right now we have to find the best candidates to put up against those Republicans. If we don't we end up shooting ourselves in the foot.

[Monkeyman]

1. Yep

www.john06.com
www.Enger4rep.org

[ClassWarrior]

2. That's democracy for ya.

B-):thumbsup:

NGU.

[MrBenchley]

3. LOL! Faith based silliness....

"A Dem majority (while extremely desirable) is not guaranteed to represent us."
No, they're likely to represent all of their constituents, not just soi-disant socialist youth.

"If we had a senate full of Lamonts, neither of those two things happens."
Because certainly nobody who owns Halliburton stock and makes his fortune selling security systems for the ultra-rich in elite gated communities would ever do anything the far left disagrees with.(snicker)

[CTLawGuy]

6. so I don't deserve at least a chance to have people who represent me

and I'm hardly a socialist. Nice RW rhetoric. Save it for your Bob Boudelang column.

[MrBenchley]

24. Geeze, don't get me started on what you deserve....

[CTLawGuy]

29. ok big man

what do I deserve?

I will however offer to buy you all the Kleenex you want for August 9th.

[tkmorris]

31. Your debating tactics leave a lot to be desired

Can't you be civil? Even a little?

The brand of rhetoric you are displaying here is EXACTLY what people find most wrong with DU. It isn't the "wingnut" conspiracy theories, or the speed at which things move, or the tendency for hero worship.

It's the snide, nasty, backhanded, insulting style of discussion that leaves many a newcomer feeling as though they've walked into a pit of vipers. It's unnecessary, and frankly just plain bad manners. If you want to disagree with someone feel free, but at least try to respect them, and those who have to read your post.

We'd all be a lot better off if some of us learned to at least try to contain the vitriol and hatefulness just a little bit more. Come on Benchly, you paint yourself as a Moderate, so BE moderate. Join me in trying to turn down the fires.

[MrBenchley]

44. Hey, the debate content leaves a lot more to be desired....

[MarkDevin]

10. Mr. B, your ignorance is profound.

> No, they're likely to represent all of their constituents, not just soi-disant socialist youth.

LMAO! Joe Lieberman represents all his constituents like Saddam Hussein represented all Iraqis.

"Joe Lieberman and I have been friends and colleagues for 38 years. We ran for and won seats in the Connecticut legislature as a team of reformers in 1970. He was my state senator and I was his state representative. He rose to Senate majority leader as I became speaker of the House. With others, we formed the Caucus of Connecticut Democrats, a progressive coalition, to further the causes of peace in Vietnam and justice at home.

"I have supported him in every election he has had – until now. This year I am supporting Ned Lamont to unseat Joe."

--Irving Stolberg, former Speaker of the CT House in the Hartford Courant


"I feel I have a special obligation to respond to your July 6 editorial, “Lieberman’s run.” I am a liberal activist. I was also Lieberman’s roommate at Yale.

"Lieberman is a good and decent man personally, but he has also become a cheerleader for George Bush’s bloody, arrogant and disastrous war on Iraq.

"As a friend, I wish for him the best. As a Democratic voter, if I lived in Connecticut, I would be voting for Ned Lamont."

--David Wyles in the L.A. Times



> Because certainly nobody who owns Halliburton stock and makes his fortune selling security systems
> for the ultra-rich in elite gated communities would ever do anything the far left disagrees
> with.(snicker)

Congratulations, Mr. B! You've just renewed your credentials as a DLC tool.

At one time, Ned Lamont owned a fund that *contained* Halliburton stock. As did Joe Lieberman. These funds were bought as a package. The Halliburton stock was one one small part of them.

The difference is that Ned Lamont no longer owns such a fund while Joe Lieberman still does.

Mr. B, you remind me of Dan Quayle: Ignorant and smug at the same time.

[Monkeyman]

11. Somebody left the door open I smell something RNC talking points

[MrBenchley]

55. Somebody posted twice and has nothing to say worth hearing

[Monkeyman]

12. Somebody left the door open I smell something RNC talking points

[MrBenchley]

25. I'm quite happy to stand with the DLC

But then unlike the far left, they're actually trying to get a Democratic majority....

[MarkDevin]

33. Sure, why not? After all, the DLC's strategy has worked so-o-o well!

How else to explain the current Democratic control of both the White House and Congress? :eyes:

[LincolnMcGrath]

34. It must have been all that time we spent pimping for flag burning.

:eyes: More hatred

[MarkDevin]

35. I think the post you're referencing was deleted.

[LincolnMcGrath]

37. No #11, 13, 37, I believe are still there.

The level of loathing towards Democrats is quite revealing.

[MarkDevin]

38. Why does the DLC hate America?

;)

[LincolnMcGrath]

39. lol

:hi:

[MrBenchley]

46. That's rich coming from the far left

How'd that Dennis Kucinich bandwagon do?

[Totally Committed]

47. The DLC juggernaut of money and corporate influnce kept

left-leaning candidates and their campaigns marginalized long enough to make our POV look like a losing one, but the worm is abuot to turn, and the Left is about to come back strong. I believe that.

TC

[MrBenchley]

56. America doesn't want what the far left is peddling

The movement's whiny hypocrisy and tedious self-righteousness, coupled with the worthlessness of their ideas, makes them nothing but a drag to Democrats everywhere.

[MarkDevin]

58. If the corporate-owned media reflected the left accurately...

Oh, why am I even talking to you? Given your single-sentence posts, you obviously don't think beyond the ten-second soundbyte. No wonder your love the DLC.

[MrBenchley]

61. Yeah, and the dog ate your homework

America doesn't want any part of what the far left is peddling. And the fringe is nothing but a cancer on the Democratic party.

[MarkDevin]

64. You know what? I'm done with you.

Every post you make is a snotty one-sentence variation on the same theme. Thankfully, there are many people at DU who actually think about their views. From now on, I'll spend my time conversing with them.

Goodbye, Mr. B! Have fun snorkeling in your DLC cesspool.

[MrBenchley]

66. And the downside for me is...non-existent.

[CTLawGuy]

70. yeah, universal health care, getting out of Iraq, protecting women's right

no one supports that...

[CTLawGuy]

71. yeah, universal health care, getting out of Iraq, protecting women's right

no one supports that...

[MarkDevin]

52. Just wait until August 8th, Einstein.

You know, when Ned Lamont kicks Joementum's DLC butt eight ways to Sunday. See how snotty and self-righteous you'll be then!

[MrBenchley]

54. LOL!

Like the outcome of the Connecticut primary is going to make the far left any less of a cancer on the Democratic party....

[MarkDevin]

60. Yeah, the left is such a cancer on the party.

After all, we support such pinko-commie things as a living wage, civil rights, a sane environmental policy, and a government that's truly accountable to the people. In other words, the things Democrats have always supported and that corporate whores can't stand. Which one are you?

[MrBenchley]

65. Yes it is...

How is pouting and throwing pissy little tantrums "supporting" anything?

[MarkDevin]

59. Hello??? Who was in charge of the party in 2000, '02 and '04?

I'll give you a clue: it wasn't the so-called "far left."

[MrBenchley]

67. Of course it wasn't the far left...

The far left could fuck up a baked potato. They're utterly useless except for their value to the Republicans as a boogeyman to scare voters away fropm the Democrats.

Who would put the far left in charge of any fucking thing?

You'll notice their own Green party is a shambles that's as welcome to voters as an onion fart.

[ToeBot]

18. "the far left" Remind me now, who uses that kind of rhetoric? eom

[TheVirginian]

19. Simple question:

Do you disagree that, generally speaking, there are two branches of the Democratic Party, with one further to the left than the other?

Do you disagree that, generally speaking, Ned Lamont enjoys the support of those from the "far left" and Joe Lieberman enjoys the support of those from the "center left"?

[CTLawGuy]

22. the "far left" is a derogatory term implying "out of the mainstream"

which, considering Lamont's poll numbers, he is obviously NOT, and neither are his supporters.

[TheVirginian]

26. Why is it derogatory?

There is accepted a left and a right, correct? Generally, Democrats are the left, and Republicans are the right. In that section labelled the "left", there is are sub-sets, correct? One sub-set hovers near the center. The other subset is further to the left. So that is called the far left. Have I thus far stated something that is untrue?

[Solon]

27. Its almost universally used as an insult...

Mr. PD(Benchly) is an example of that. Look, if you want to quantify it, the Communist Party of the USA is far left, The Greens are somewhat left, the Green party(different party, Ralph Nader, possible spoiler), is more moderate than the Greens, the DNC would be considered center-left, this includes, despite people's perceptions, both Ned Lamont and most DUers. While the DLC would be somewhere around the middle, and the RNC, right now, much further to the right.

[TheVirginian]

41. I'm not claiming some sort of absolute definition here.

In American politics, there is a left and a right. In the left, there are those who are center-left and those who are far left. It was neither meant as an absolute statement, nor as an insult. It is also not an inaccurate statement to make.

[MrBenchley]

23. Pretty much everyone....

http://farleft.blogspot.com/

[CTLawGuy]

30. oh so you DON'T mean it as a slur

gotcha....

[MrBenchley]

45. The hypocrisy is exquisite

It's truly a marvel to see the Unknown Millionaire's backers, whose platform consists pretty much entirely of mindless and extremist vitriol and abuse shouted at Lieberman, sniveling about an actual description of their posititon as a "slur."

[CTLawGuy]

53. projection?

I don't think a platform of getting out of Iraq, universal health care, investment in public schools, standing up to Bush on judges, keeping the government out of personal life and death medical decisions, and promoting fair trade policies constitutes "extremist vitriol and abuse."

Well, I guess you'd know what vitriol and abuse are because that composes 99% of your posts on this website, and not against conservatives, but rather against liberals.

[MrBenchley]

57. Yeah, that explains the snivels of Lamont supporters

Sort of like hearing the far left bloggers in Pennsylvania and California who have spent so much time puffing up the Unknown Millionaire pout that Bill Clinton and John Lewis are an out-of-stater trying to influence Connectiucut voters.

"I guess you'd know what vitriol and abuse are"
Yup. All anyone has to do is open one of the far left's posts on Lieberman.

[MarkDevin]

62. "The snivels of Lamont supporters?"

If anyone in this race is "sniveling," it's the Lieberman people. They're the ones who consider it an abomination that another Democrat would dare to challenge their beloved incumbent. They're the ones who bitch and moan about Ned Lamont's wealth, even though Lieberman gets $15,000 a speech and is married to a lobbyist for the pharmaceutical industry. During his televised debate with Ned Lamont, it was Lieberman who came across as whiny and petulant. And just yesterday, two registered Connecticut Democrats (and bloggers) were forbidden to attend the Clinton event, despite having tickets.

Oh, but it's the Lamont people who are sniveling. :eyes:

[MrBenchley]

63. Yup, the snivels of Lamont supporters...

Now go pout about it to somebody else...

[TheVirginian]

68. If you don't see the abuse that Lieberman gets on this board, you're blind

I'm not saying that people should agree with his policies or support him. I'm saying, people shouldn't drag his name through the mud as much as they do. If you disagree with him on foreign policy, then disagree with him. There's no need to call a respected three-term incumbent a right-wing operative in lockstep with the Bush Administration and a cancer on the party.

[CTLawGuy]

69. does Lamont post on this board?

what people post on this board is irrelevant to anything I said about Lamont's platform.

[LincolnMcGrath]

4. Sit back and observe the far right wing dlcentrist-zellocrat wing on DU

as they check in and call you a commie, socialist, or whatever the Hate Phrase of the day is.

Oh, I almost forgot, prepare for at least some version of second grade name calling related to your age, whether factual or not.

[CTLawGuy]

8. its sad

well he's the one who's going to be crying come August 9th.

[Totally Committed]

48. I agree with you...

I never thought I'd take as much heat for being a Democrat from other Democrats before in my life. DU has been a life lesson, and a real challenge to me to following heart, my soul, and my conscience in all politics -- even Democratic Politics.

TC

[skeeters2525]

5. Yawn

What exactly is LIEberman doing to lead the Democrats?

Vote out all Democrats. That's a great idea.

Hello Rapture

[CTLawGuy]

7. ?

that's about all I can say to your post.

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

14. OP is not saying to replace Dems with Repubs. He's saying replace bogus

Dems like Joementum with good ones.

I'm not sure how that's "voting out Dems" since if it goes according to plan, a Dem is still in the seat.

[ClassWarrior]

9. K&R

NGU.

[TheVirginian]

13. Why do people think Lieberman thinks he's entitled to his seat?

I've never understood this phenomenon.

[Clark2008]

15. Because, after viewing the polls and realizing he may lose,

instead of campaigning harder or actually, you know, writing legislation that represents the thousands of voters who are planning to oust him for NOT representing him, he throws in the towel, forms his own party, dumps the party who "brung" him to the dance and runs as an independent.

That's why.

It's not that hard to understand why people think Joe L. thinks he's entitled to his seat based on his most recent actions.

[TheVirginian]

17. Two things:

1) How does not pandering to his party mean he's not representing his state? The majority of people in Connecticut are not Democrats.

2) If Lieberman is trying to make it to the general election, where every voter in Connecticut will have a chance to vote whether he should continue to be their Senator, how does that mean he feels entitled to his seat?

I understand the arguments of disloyalty. I don't understand this one.

[Solon]

28. Problem is HOW he is doing it, not that he is doing it in the first place.

Its his right, as an American Citizen, to run in any race he chooses, its HOW he is doing it that is pissing people off. I said it before, and I'll say it again, I don't give a rat's ass if Lieberman runs as an Independent, but he should make the decision NOW, and leave the party, and stop using the "Democrat" label altogether.

[TheVirginian]

51. That's fine. I understand that you don't approve of it.

What I don't get is how people claim that Lieberman thinks he's entitled to his seat.

[oc2002]

16. That is right on target. We need to make the Democrats in office hear it.

We are better off not supporting Lieberman like Democrats than supporting them just because they have a (D) next to their name.

[alvarezadams]

20. Just DON'T ASK the pro-DLC crowd...

...about DLC links to Bradley and Olin or PNAC.

...or about the core issues of economics or foreign policy.

They're happy with token "progressive" votes on talkingpoint issues. Or better still - as long as they have a "D" afte their name it's AOK with them!

[Radical Activist]

21. Yep. This is what primaries are for.

Its a shame the big money Democrats have such a problem with democracy.

[ecstatic]

32. I can't stand Lieberman, but winning majority needs to be our main

priority. We can get rid of the problematic Dems once we have a strong majority and Bush is dealt with.

[MarkDevin]

36. You mean, wait six more years to oust Lieberman?

No, thanks! I'd rather do it now.

[CTLawGuy]

40. if we need them to get the majority

then we'd need them to keep the majority, so your logic doesn't make any sense.

[KitSileya]

42. You have very good points.

It has surprised me to see how many are so virulently against the democratic process where Lieberman is concerned. The democratic process is simple - first there's a primary (or caucus) to determine who the party candidate will be, then there's an election campaign to try to win the seat in question. That so many feel that one of these steps is unnecessary surprised me. Incumbents don't have the right to continue as the party candidate automatically untill they lose an election. They don't even have that right in presidential elections. Just because the parties usually go with the incumbents as candidates don't mean that this practice is law. How else is a party going to be able to get rid of incumbents that haven't kept their promises, voted against party interests, or made major mistakes - if they insist on not withdrawing from the race, that is?

Many voters in Connecticut have decided that they don't want the incumbent as their candidate in this election. Consequently, they're working to get Lamont elected as their candidate. That is their right. That Lieberman has announced that he will run as an independent if he does not win the primary is his right as well, in Connecticut at least, but it is also a big slap in the face of all those who participate in the primary process, simply because he's saying to them that he will not abide by the will of the party. The purpose of submitting to a party's primary process *is* to submit to the will of the party - anyone can run independently, but if you ask to be a candidate in a party primary, you're essentially saying, I will run if the majority of the party wants me to, and if they don't, I will not. That's why so many are outraged about Lieberman's ploy - he's showing disrespect to the Democratic party members of Connecticut. Which is why even more people have decided not to vote for him in the primary - and some even in the election, figuring that he has just become the plague, and they don't want to choose between the plague and the cholera. However, most democrats in Connecticut will vote for him if he wins the primary - but that doesn't mean they have to support him in the primary.

Personally, I hope Lamont wins - Lieberman has shown that he is not the type of Democrat I would support, while Lamont has. If I could vote in the CT democrat primary, I would vote accordingly. But were I a voter in CT, and on election day had the choice between Lieberman and a Republican, I would vote for the former, simply because a majority of Democrats in the Senate - DLCers, progressives, or Zellerites - will mean that the Democrats get to head committees etc. Doesn't mean I would like it every time Lieberman and his ilk supported Republicans (or Bush!) rather than their own party members, but at least it would give the Democrats a chance to get some of their legislative agenda through. Only, if Lieberman and his ilk are replaced by Lamont and his ilk, the Democrats would have a better chance of getting more of their agenda though Congress. Imagine that!

[monarch]

49. Nice post!

Guess some things can be seen more clearly from a distance.

[KitSileya]

50. Thanks. ::blush::

Of course, from my point of view, most of those centrist Democrats are in fact conservatives on the right of the political spectrum. They have more in common with Norway's Right party than any leftist politicians. That's the joy of living in a social-democratic country, I guess. Civil unions, free higher education, free health care, labor protection, welfare - and not a lot more taxes than in the US.... and when you factor in what you guys have to pay for health care and college....well...

Anyway, that is why I support those progressive Democrats - it just seems sensible to me. And I hate Bush, of course, and anyone who gets in with him and his rabid chickenhawks gets no sympathy from me when they're challenged in the primaries.

[Cocoa]

43. some dem critics are fakes

the points you raise above are all valid.

For some critics, those points are a sincere basis for their criticisms.

For others, they're just an excuse to cover their dishonest attacks. Example at the link below.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2738315&mesg_id=2738315