With Joe down, I think its time for a short moratorium on the 'Dino' crowd

[Stinky The Clown]

Joe is probably the most egregious example of a DINO. He has a years long record of triangulation and outright collusion with the Republicans. More than honest bipartisanship, he's been an enabler. This goes waaaaaaay back to his smoke and mirrors 'no' vote for Justice Slappy. Most of you pretty much know the record. This from a man who was, in fact, the Number Two standard bearer of our whole damned party. He's not just another DINO. He is a top tier Democrat with a bad record and a big mouth.

Tonight he got the message.

And with luck, so did many others.

While I'm thrilled to see Joe go, I am equally UNenthusiastic to see calls for a party-wide purge .... right now.

While tonight was a night to cheer and have an extra glass of some old vine Zinfandel - like maybe some Cline 2000 Big Break - it is also a time to take stock and recognize we're still very much the minority party. A purge now, while we're **finally** seeing some ascendancy is likely not in our best interest.

Every state is not Connecticut.

Just as an example, Ben Nelson is not my favorite Democrat. His vote record, as compared to Lieberman's is even worse. But he gets very high approvals from his constituents and he, as a DEMOCRAT, gets elected in a very conservative state. But even more to the point, he doesn't undermine the party. He's a back bench guy who rarely blathers on teevee with the likes of Sean Hannity, yukking it up and bad mouthing Dems.

I honestly think that the 'Dinos" and various and sundry party wishy-washies were watching the primary tonight as hard and as close as we were.

Maybe more so.

My moratorium would be until at least after the midterms.

Watch them close. See where they go. Hear what they say. Evaluate and reevaluate.

They're heard it. They're read the scrawl on the wall.

Its now up to them.

I say we wait.

And watch.

An reevaluate.

[Exultant Democracy]

1. I would agree

if they get the message they can work with us. We do need all the friends we can get.

[deadparrot]

2. Exactly. Just by virtue of being Democrats, DINOs may be the

difference between the Congressional commitee chair and the ranking member. It's a process...this kind of stuff is not going to change overnight.

[Bucky]

3. So do you still think it wise to strip Lieberman of his committee posts?

In another thread you were calling to purge Lieberman from the party in the Senate. Where do you stand on punishing Lieberman further? Is that "party purging" or is that something that will make him look more sympathetic and a "stand up for my principles" kind of guy?

[Stinky The Clown]

5. Yes I do

Lieberman is a very special case. He needs to be made an example. It needs to be made PERFECTLY clear that we the people and we the party will not tolerate collousion and enabling.

You see, here's my big beef with Joe. Its not his record. Its not even his vote for the war, so much.

He was our VICE PRESIDENTIAL NOMINEE. He is a national Senator, perhaps even more than he's the Senator from Connecticut. He has name and he has clout and he has access and he has media coorperation. And instead of supporting the DEMOCRATS, he criticizes those who see things differently and he supports Bush.

If you watched teevee tonight, Al Sharpton said it best. He stood on the Senate floor and called from Clinton's censure over a blow job, but he has yet to even hint at criticizing the WORST PRESIDENT EVER for LYING this country to war ... to say nothing of shitting on the Constitution. Not ONE FUCKING WORD of criticism.

So yeah, I want his stripped of his commitee assignments.

[Bucky]

10. I get the anger; I feel the same betrayal. I don't see how it justifies...

...changing Senate rules to do a gotcha on a guy who's ego is bigger than his loyalty. In another thead I point to the example of Jim Jeffords. He ran against a Democrat to get into the Senate. Once there, he chose to caucus with the Democrats. We hailed him and opened our arms to him. So why the double standard?

Lieberman should be punished for enabling the war and being a weak party man. In fact, he was punished for exactly that tonight. It's just that I believe in proportional punishment. And I don't believe in changing established operating rules just to get at someone we dislike. What I'm looking for from you (and thank you, by the way, for reponding to my unpopular questions respectfully and thoughtfully) is a rationale for carrying over that punishment from the electoral sphere to the legislative sphere where Lieberman is still serving out a term in which he was elected and has served as a Democrat.

We put up with far worse from Zell Miller. The Republicans have endured far less loyalty from Linc Chaffee (and until recently McCain). Why is Joe different?

[Stinky The Clown]

14. With Lieberman specifically and uniquely, there's more at stake.

As already outlined.

[beltanefauve]

17. Jim Jeffords

didn't switch his party affiliation from "R" to "I" as a result of losing his party's primary. As I recall, he said, "I didn't abandon my party. My party abandoned me." Furthermore, I suspect the calls on this board to have him stripped of his committee positions have nothing to do with punishment and everything to do with abandoning the Democratic Party.

[BrightKnight]

28. No, he might win - n/t

[Erika]

8. He's a democrat or he is not

Punishiment has nothing to do with it. Why should someone who is running as an independent chair committees, proclaiming to be a democrat?

[Bucky]

12. You mean like Jim Jeffords? Or, if he wins, Bernie Sanders?

Running as a Democrat is not the same thing as caucusing as a Democrat. Organizationally they are in two separate spheres. Besides being a PR disaster and a potential electoral boon to Lieberman, it seems to me that hitting him on his committee assignments for what he's done as citizen of Connecticut applies a double standard, given how we treat other candidates elected as independents.

[robinlynne]

23. That makes sense to me. If he runs as an independent he is no longer a dem

[Vidar]

4. Good ideas.

[welshTerrier2]

6. we need a party-wide discussion NOW ...

NOW is the time to call for a real intra-party dialog ... the progressive wing of the party showed a little muscle and its time we got a little recognition and representation ...

we need to see some movement from our elected Democrats ... they can start by pouring into CT and supporting Lamont ... and they can start with a re-evaluation of their positions on the war ...

the last thing we need is some kind of grand purge ... but I, for one, see no reason to yield to the status quo until after the election ... compromise and unity should absolutely be our objective; but our movement should move forward and our newly demonstrated power should be put to immediate use in the negotiations ...

we should not go quietly into the midterms without compromise ... if no progress toward unity is earned, then there should be no unity ... let's hope it doesn't come to that ...

[Stinky The Clown]

13. Please see what The Magistrate said, just below

I think we'll be having that dialogue you want. Some may sit at the table feeling a bit of ... mmmm .... duress. But they'll be listening.

I honestly think, if we can see some movement on the part of thoise who purport to represent us, we'll have made some serious progress. It won't be a techtonic shift by any measure. but it will be noticeable. Think about it. They saw what happened. They know more than ever we're watching. And you can bet your sweet bippy (Goldie Hawn on Laugh-in?) they'll be paying REAL close attention to the Pajama-Hadeen (I heard that one today. Like it?) of the 'blogosphere'. The fact is, the citizens of Connecticut caused the cataclysm, but the formerly unmotivated pols think of it as a 'blogosphere' phenomenon - and that's where they'll be doing their surreptitious late night surfing.

Speak up ..... :::tap tap tap::::



This thing is *definitely* on.

[welshTerrier2]

18. the message has been sent ...

it is not yet clear what message was heard ...

the next day or two should be very telling ... there seems to be an undercurrent that we are expecting a visible reaction from the party ... i'm never optimistic that they will change without real pressure ... i'm not sure tonight has built that pressure ... it's a start; it may not be enough to bring about change ... i hope it does ...

actually, i could see a scenario where Lieberman, running as an Indie, is seen as the ultimate triangulator ... he pulls in moderate Dems, Indies and moderate republicans ... Lamont gets the center-left and the left ... what message would that contest, if it's close or worse yet, Lieberman wins, send to Dems??

maybe that message teaches them to abandon the anti-war progressive crowd completely and to go after the center-right ... that wouldn't do at all ...

i guess my main emphasis is that we should "strike while the iron is hot" ... i want to work something out BEFORE the midterms ... right now, we have a shiny new track record and some pre-election leverage ... after November, we will not be heard from until the '08 primary season starts in Jan, 2008 ... that's longer than i want to wait ...

i strongly agree with your call to knock off all the DINO bashing; the goal should be to strive for unity ... but i don't want to defer until after the midterms ... we need to push really hard right NOW ...

[Stinky The Clown]

26. I have no problem at all with that dialogue thing .... in fact .....

.... I'd be among the earliest endorsers. Maybe what I mean in this whole thread is that I would not be one to try to pull another 'dump the incumbent' gambit.

You're right, of course, that we now have some heat in the old iron. And 'they' might be more amenable to giving a listen ......

[The Magistrate]

7. Well Said, Sir

Once the example has been made, it is best to wait and observe the effect. Lieberman was an exceptionally egregious case. He was not from a state where some latitude must be granted owing to the character of the electorate, and he did not just hold some umpopular positions, but attacked those in the Party who did not share them.

"Kill one, warn one hundred."

[Stinky The Clown]

9. Indeed!

[IChing]

16. Sorry JOE is a traitor to the party and to the process

I await the DLC's response defending their former CHAIRMAN on this crap.....
Oh, yes I was warned he would do it in these posts by these people......(mail me)

and we, as members of the democratic party would face this
and we would be at fault for the lost of the state.

They knew, he had no respect for the party or process

and neither did they....... I READ THE POSTS

SORRY NOT ALL
SOME HAVE WRITTEN WELL ABOUT THIS
IN DU TONIGHT and no longer support him

[lostnfound]

24. Well put.

"not from a state where some latitude must be granted owing to the character of the electorate"

[dolstein]

11. So are the 48% of the primary voters who supported Lieberman DINO's?

Just curious.

[Stinky The Clown]

15. No .... presumably they're still DEMOCRATS

[IChing]

19. No, you are right

If Joe would have won, believe it or not
I would support him in the fall,
but reluctantly, non financially
and philosophically.

But none the less
I would support him as a Democratic Candidate
in someone's mind only.

[IChing]

20. But he did not do that did he?

[elsiesummers]

21. Lieberman promoted himself as a guy who bucks his party.

His marketing ploy was high profile, and not without risks. In some ways I think McCain has used a similar marketing ploy, often claiming that he is independent of his party. A contrast to these two characters would be, for example, Lincoln Chafee, who often goes against his party but does not seek a high profile for going against the grain.

It's a sort of live by the sword, die by the sword approach. Lieberman literally publicized himself out of a win (though of course it isn't completely over yet).

Whether it was scolding Hollywood or crying for Clinton Censure or promoting his military hardliner facade, Lieberman has not chosen to publicize his profile on his more liberal votes, has not chosen to promote himself as a party line Democrat, instead focusing on where he differs from Democrats.

If Lieberman has marketed himself right out of a job, well so be it.

His second problem, of course, is his state. If he had chosen to pursue this against the grain Democrat packaging in a Republican stronghold, well, he probably wouldn't have had to deal with a serious primary contender. Lieberman left himself open for a run from the left.

I'm left thinking that Lieberman has a political tin ear - I seem to remember him talking up his lousy showing in New Hampshire in 2004, when he should have simply bowed out gracefully. If nothing else, Lieberman has proved himself a lousy politician.

[Canuckistanian]

25. They say he voted 90% with the Democratic platform

But it's that 10% PLUS the bad-mouthing PLUS the schmoozing of future criminals that really did him in.

[JeffR]

22. Zactly

But tonight still feels good.

[w4rma]

27. I am in full and total agreement. (nt)