Next time an incumbent won't respect primaries, what do we do?

[madfloridian]

I see so many here saying what Joe did is fine, very accepting of it.

He was an entrenched incumbent who lost. He did not accept that he lost. He made up his own party, attacked the Democrat who won, and got support from Republicans. 70% of them.

Could some of you who support or excuse what Joe did, please tell me how there will be any change in the party if incumbents refuse to be voted out?

It is a sincere question and worthy of answers without having to name call.

Joe has set a dangerous precedent for our party system. Do we accept it? Do we accept the next one who pulls this stunt?

[LynzM]

1. I'm one of those who accepts it

Anyone has a right to run, regardless of the loss. I think in this case, it helped Joe immensely to have the Repub machine backing him instead of the Schlesinger, and it hurt Lamont that he was virtually unknown until 6 months ago, so he didn't have a history to call up. In terms of Demographics, CT is only about 30% Dems, 30% Repubs, and 40% independent. The point of democracy is to respect the will of the people. If the people wanted Joe (:puke:), that's what we unfortunately get. I don't think that forbidding a primary loser from running as an indep is the solution. Not that I know what the solution is, but... I don't think that's it. If CT were 50% dems, and Joe'd lost the primary, it would have been that much harder for him to win the election. End rambling from a disappointed Lamont voter...

[madfloridian]

2. Then why bother to try to change the party.

Let's just leave it like it is. Someone gets to keep their seat until they die, then the head the DSCC or the DCCC picks his successor to run against a Republican.

Those are the implications of this.

[wyldwolf]

55. hey, MF, not everyone wants to change the party...

[CTLawGuy]

199. but do you think that it should be nearly impossible to do so?

NT

[wyldwolf]

217. actually, yes

[Orangepeel]

149. to change the party, I guess we have to win both elections.

Take a little bit of comfort from a Florida State House race. Shari McInvale barely won against a primary challenger in 2004 and was so pissed off that somebody ran against her, she switched parties and became a republican. This year, Scott Randolph beat her like a drum and the seat's Democratic again.

What happened in Connecticut doesn't mean that primaries are useless and the party can't be changed. Lamont needed to run a stronger campaign. I don't know if it was possible for him to do so, but that doesn't mean it's impossible for everyone.

[madfloridian]

158. I am surprised in a way.

I thought you would see it for what it was. Actually, it had nothing to do with the primary, and everything to do with Joe. His support for the war was the paramount issue. The long long list of national Clinton WH Dems who supported him, the hawkish ones...showed that it is effectively about Iraq as well as Joe.

Why bother having them? Do as Karen Thurman said...discourage primaries. Let them pick the candidates. And as Luis Navarro, the political director said...the DFA folks cause problems for wanting change...and he also said the 50 state strategy was not a good thing. They are going against everything the party chairman stands for, everything the people of the party stand for.

[pnwmom]

193. 18 years of experience in CT made the difference for Lieberman.

A candidate with fewer ties to the voters in the state may not have survived the general election after losing in the primary.

[bemildred]

165. Correct. The primary is the key.

Joe may have got elected anyway, but you can be sure that the way he had to do it was noticed.

[LiberalArkie]

3. What he did was definately anti-party. But in the end the people spoke.

And that is all that is important.

[madfloridian]

4. The Democrats had no voice...the Republicans did. Do you lke that?

Doesn't it bother you that the Democrats were not heard?

[Name removed]

21. Deleted sub-thread

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

[pnwmom]

194. Nobody likes it. But it doesn't change anything.

And we don't have a good alternative now but to try to keep him on our team. We don't want to lose majority party status because we're pissed off at Lieberman.

[AtomicKitten]

5. I seriously doubt anyone thinks what he did is fine,

dramatic as that accusation is. What he did is legal, but not respecting the will of the voters in the primary is bullshit. And there is absolutely nothing we can do about it. Lamont ran a brilliant primary and then fell flat in the general. On that we can improve.

But continuing to campaign to bitchslap Lieberman when it is he that gives us the majority now in the Senate is cutting off your nose to spite your face. But, as always, have at.

[madfloridian]

7. Then maybe the party doesn't need the people.

It just needs the leaders because our votes don't really matter. Once we are there to vote them in, or even out as in Joe's case...we are shoved aside.

[pnwmom]

196. There were Democrats who voted for him twice. Are you saying

the party doesn't need them either?

[CTLawGuy]

200. I suppose Howard Dean could have continued to run in 2004

or kuninich or clark. No need to win or anything :eyes: I mean what about those dems who wanted them instead of Kerry?

[pnwmom]

208. That's not an answer to the question.

[CTLawGuy]

214. ok try this

what about those dems who would have voted for Dean again had he run as an independent in the presidential race?

[pnwmom]

215. What about them?

I agree that that hypothetical situation would be similar. But my question is still: does the party need them? I think the party does.

[CTLawGuy]

220. the party may need them

but it also needs its primaries to be respected by the losers NOT CONTINUING TO RUN.

[tnlefty]

6. Not I, and not just incumbents but anyone who doesn't abide by the

primary system isn't okay with me.

[spag68]

8. I don't like him

nor do I like what he did. The fact is, he's stuck on the Homeland Security committee, where he can do little harm. I feel certain he will not run again, and somewhere in the dems. thoughts, they will remember what he did.

[Clarkie1]

9. It's not about what "we" do. It's about what the citizens do.

Be they Republican, Independent, Democrat, or other. Mad, this is something which I think you are not understanding, and when I bring it up (in one way or another) I am often misunderstood as endorsing what Lieberman did. I am not.

That said, this country operates under a constitutional system of government, not a 2-party system of government. No political candidate for elective office is bound to the rules or guidlines of any political party. Political parties are entities of convenience, nothing more.

And no, I'm not saying the Democratic Party isn't important. I'm proud to be a Democrat and want to make the party better. But the reality is, it's not about what we as Democrats "do" about Lieberman. It's about the citizens of Connecticut, who just elected him with a clear majority. They are the ones ultimately in charge of Lieberman's political future, not the Democratic Party. And in America, that's the way it has to be.

[madfloridian]

10. No, Joe did it. He did not accept defeat.

.

[file83]

46. Agree with you on that one. Joe's a selfish, power hungry, back-stabbing...

...oh wait, he's a politician. :rofl:

This election just proves that he's "one of those" politicians - he's not a TRUE Democrat. He's a chameleon and should never be allowed to run as a Democrat again.

[madfloridian]

11. Republicans elected him, not Democrats.

Does that not bother you?

[Clarkie1]

12. That's not an accurate statement Mad and you are smart enough to know it.

Republicans, Independents, and Democrats elected Lieberman.

If every Democrat in CT voted for Lamont, Lamont would have won. Lamont did not earn the support of every Democrat, and no Democrat is bound by political affiliation to vote for any candidate. As I said, for American voters, membership in a political party is a matter of convenience, not allegiance.

Candidates must earn every vote they receive, whether the voter be registered in their Party or not. The person with the most votes at the end of the day wins. That's how Democracy works. The fact that Lieberman got greater than 50% is an even more powerful mandate from the people of CT.

We need to respect their decision by respecting Senator Lieberman.

[madfloridian]

13. I am smart enough to see the spin put on this.

There is more coming out on this, I hope soon.

I am very intelligent, quite sensible, and people are giving a bunch of bullshit excuses for Joe.

I can not WAIT until the next incumbent pulls the trick. One almost did this year. I can not wait, and I am going to say...hey what's fair for Joe is far for anyone.

Let's go back to the smoke-filled rooms Carville touted. Sounds like that's what DU wants.

[Clarkie1]

18. Democracy is intact. Any incumbent can be challenged in a primary.

It is up to the people whether or not to elect the winner of a primary, the incumbent, or someone else should they decide to run.

It's always up to the people, Mad. Nothing that happened is CT is preventing anyone from challenging an incumbent in a primary and winning the general election. But it's up to the people, and it's not dependent on who runs or doesn't run. All Americans have a right to run for poltical office whether they win a primary or not. I say, let the people decide and all is well (even if I sometimes disagee with their decision, that's how it goes!)

[tnlefty]

23. Perhaps if any candidate who does this or switches parties after an election

were forced to pay back EVERY penny received from the national and state parties, along with individuals who contributed to the campaigns because the candidate was running as a democrat... Joe would have at least 3 election cycles to pay back, correct?

And if he were going to run as an indepedent he should have done it from the beginning, not post primary defeat.

[Clarkie1]

30. The people of Connecticut disagree with you regarding what Mr. Lieberman "should"

have done.

I respect their decision. It's time to move on and work together.

[madfloridian]

31. The Republicans of CT, you mean.

.

[Clarkie1]

32. No. I mean the PEOPLE. I believe I spoke clearly enough.

Lieberman won with the support of the people, including Democrats who cast their vote in his support.

[madfloridian]

33. So I was right, you are saying the primary did not count.

I was right.

[Clarkie1]

34. No, I did not say that.

The primary definitely counted. The primary determined the nominee of the Democratic Party. It did not determine who could and could not run in the General Election, that would be ridiculous. Political parties in America do not and should not ever have the kind of power over the will of the people to freely choose their representatives, whether or not they win a party endorsement.

[pnwmom]

195. Democrats who voted for him twice

chose to vote for the man, rather than the party.

That doesn't mean the primary did not count. Merely that voters are free to make choices outside of the party at any time. And it's the party's job to suck it up.

[CTLawGuy]

202. Actually Lieberman got 49.8% of the vote

the PEOPLE wanted someone other than him.

[tnlefty]

40. Then I suppose I won't see any more Nader slamming threads here,

although I didn't vote for him, nor anymore threads about why there are indies or green candidates on ballots, correct? At least they make their declarations up front.

I don't need your condescending attitude telling me that it's time to move on and work together when Lieberman crapped in the middle of the normal process of the way the party and primaries function. I didn't support the primary winner of the senate race in this state, but after he won I worked my ass off trying to get him elected. Perhaps this is the danger to the party that you don't want to see. If an elected democrat doesn't have to abide by the primary system and accept the results, then I don't think that it is required that I leave my family kinda out of sorts for days on end to help to elect the winner of a primary. Period.

[paulk]

51. the "no more Nader threads" is a weak argument

Lieberman, running as a third party candidate, not only had a chance to win, he did win. Nader could only act as a spoiler - he had no chance of winning the election. The two situations have nothing in common.

[Dr Fate]

132. Wrong-Both situations cause Democrats to lose-So they are quite similar.

Whether it is a Green who spoils it for DEMS or a Lieberman type who spoils it for DEMS, in both cases the Democratic party possibly loses- so I think they are very similar when it comes to the final results.

Whether the 3rd party can possibly win or not should be of no concern to a loyal Democrat-our concern should be strengthening the party by electing more members of the Democratic Party to office.

Your argument focuses on whether the non Democrat would win or not- when we should be focusing on how to make sure Democrats win.

[Zhade]

162. Some people seem to forget that lieberman IS NOT A DEM.

He ran as, and was regrettably elected as, an Independent.

He is not a member of the Democratic party.

Some seem to want to overlook that fact, but you are dead-on.

[Orangepeel]

151. If Nader had won, I venture to say we'd all be supporting him

Personally, I would have enthusiastically voted for Gore in a two way Gore/Nader race. But if Nader had won, he'd have been a hell of a lot better than bush, just like Lieberman will be a hell of a lot better than Schles-his-face.

[CTLawGuy]

201. then surely you won't mind if I vote Green for president in 2008

if the Dem nominee isn't to my liking?

Or is this a privilege only for conservatives?

[LynzM]

14. This is what I was trying to say...

But you said it much more eloquently than I did. Thank you.

[madfloridian]

28. Wait, you just said we must respect their decision...you don't think

the primary counted. Now I see it. No, I am not dumb at all, though some here like to portray me as such. Someone once told me I do a good job of cutting through the BS.

And what you just said is BS.

[Clarkie1]

29. Good grief, we must respect the decisioin of THE PEOPLE OF CONNECTICUT.

The primary is nothing more than an ENDORSEMENT. It is not a DECISION on who will be elected. THAT decision took place on TUESDAY ant the PEOPLE spoke loud and clear!

NO political party should be given the power to ultimately decide who will run for office and who will not. That would go against every principle this country was founded upon! And I mean EVERY one!

What part of that do you not understand, Mad? You seem blinded by your loathing of Lieberman to the facts of Democracy.

[bigwillq]

15. You need to change the laws

What Joe did wasn't illegal according to CT state law.

[ISUGRADIA]

17. Exactly, this could not have happened in Minnesota

candidates for the general and primary have to file at the same time. No getting in after the primary.

[Clarkie1]

19. I have a problem with that law. Seem Undemocratic to me.

The primary election is an endorsement by a poltical party. Why should that prevent someone from running if they do not receive the endorsement.

I don't think our founding fathers who warned of the dangers of party politics would have approved of such a law. Just saying.

[ISUGRADIA]

36. Nothing prevents anyone from running

One can file for the party nomination or as an independent to be on the ballot for November. Just not both i.e. run, lose the primary then run as an independent.

[Clarkie1]

38. Why shouild running in a primary exclude a citizen from running in the general election?

Primaries have nothing to do with the Democratic process as envisioned in the Constitution or by the founding fathers. They are simply means for clubs to endorse a candidate (the Republican club or the Democratic club). I don't think we should be giving these clubs undue powers to determine what citizens can run in a general election, and which ones can't.

Why should our election laws be tailored to meet the needs of these clubs?

Clearly, a majority of the people of Ct agree with this democratic with a small d view. I'm sure CT won't be passing a law like the one in Minnesota anytime soon.

[ISUGRADIA]

49. I like the idea of a sore loser law

Parties should have some control over who votes for their candidate (voting limited to party members via registration by party whic, alas, we don't have in MN) and if you throw in with a party you should respect the process (run as an independent if you don't want to abide by the voters' wishes).

The founding fathers did not envision democracy period. Limited franchise for the house by property owning white men. The Senate could not even be voted on by the people.

[bemildred]

16. That depends on whether you still need him or not. nt

[madfloridian]

24. Yes, need is the key word.

We need him, therefore it is ok.

I am getting the pulse here, it surprises me very much.

Just had to see.

[bemildred]

25. We are not forgetting. There will be another round. nt

[The Magistrate]

35. As You Generally Do, My Friend, You Put Your Finger To It

We need the sonnuvabitch just now, and so must accept what he did.

In two years, when we pick up a few more seats, we will no longer need him, and can deal with him accordingly....

[bemildred]

37. We gave it a good shot Sir.

Revenge is all very well, but governing is better. It is worth remembering that one of the Bushites flaws was being too rigid about these things.

[The Magistrate]

43. A Man After My Own Heart, Sir

"Paris is worth a Mass."

[Clarkie1]

41. If he continues to be favored by the people of CT, how do you propose "dealing" with him? nt

[The Magistrate]

42. Stripping Him, Sir, Of Committee Assignments And Seniority In The Democratic Caucus

As he is no longer, by his own hand, a Democrat, and his place in our caucus a mere convenience for both him and us. It is one that, with a stronger margin of majority, we would no longer need....

[KitSileya]

64. Exactly, and when we have our own majority,

in 2008, or perhaps even sooner, it will be natural that we take into consideration that he is not a Democrat, and concentrate on giving our own the chairmanships etc. He should be welcome to caucus with us, but he is no longer a member of the Democratic Party, and should be treated as such - courteously, as we will treat Senator-elect Sanders, but with care, as we treat anyone who disregard the will of the party.

I have no respect left for Joe Lieberman, because he jumped ship not because he was treated badly by his party, as was the case with Senator Jeffords, but for his own power's sake. But I feel even more strongly about the Democrats who supported him and voted for him. The Democratic Party had its own candidate, and any Democrat who voted for Lieberman did the same as any Democrat who voted for a Republican instead of a Democratic candidate elsewhere.

[JetCityLiberal]

129. Well you can be sure us amateurs

who have been busting our asses for Democrats our entire life will continue to bust fake Democrats like Lieberman out of the party at the very least. I will continue to expose their right wing bs that is for sure.

Pretty disappointing to devote almost 50 years to Democrats to be name called an 'amateur'. Spent more hours door knocking and phone banking than I suspect 99 percent of the lieberman supporters and dlc whiners here did.

I love madfloridian's posts. You will never convince me she is an amateur...nor am I. Nor is Dean.

Oh well, Dean brought us VICTORY last Tuesday. Screw Lieberman, those 'dems' who support him and his ilk will expose their rethuglican values themselves. They always do...everywhere they go.

[AntiWarPoster]

20. Wahh?

He lost the primary, not the election. Your choice for Senate LOST. He LOST fair and square. RESPECT democracy, maddy.

[Zhade]

163. FUCK YOU, BENCHLEY.

I called it:



Try to be more subtle next time, you lying conservative asshole.

[madfloridian]

22. Thanks, folk, I got it. Just wanted to be sure.

It seems to be ok.

I was thinking back to 04, and how people stayed on board. Guess that's out the window now.

[paulk]

26. we could all move to the state it happened in

so that we could vote against the guy!

or...

we could endlessly whine about it on an anonymous internet discussion board!

[AntiWarPoster]

27. let's just let floridians decide our connecticut senate races

becuase they OBVIOUSLY would know more about the candidates than people who actually live in Connecticut.

[Name removed]

39. Deleted message

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

[AZBlue]

44. We won't "do" anything.

It's their right and it's within the law. Period.

If you don't like it, next time do more for their opponent.

[madfloridian]

45. I am very glad I posted this...it reveals a lot about people.

I have been reading the answers to my very "sensible" question..and it was a fair one. The usual ones who are thoughtful are still that way. They are more accepting than I am, but still being fair to me about it.

I see people praising Joe for what he did, some staunchly defending his right to run...almost like a mantra sent out as a talking point.

I see one or two really angry that I questioned.

I know Joe has us by the you know whats...he knows it, too. he is gloating about it. That is the sad part. He owns us now, we must give in to him and honor him or he will go to the other party. He is in control.

It is going to happen again the next time. Some say change the laws. That's an idea. Some tell me to mind my own business, but unfortunately it is my business also. Joe's firm stance on Iraq hurts me as much as those in CT. Some tell me in an almost childish way to spend more time working for my candidate, without having a clue.

I want to remember this. I was reading a post by blm in GD today by Bob Parry, about how all the investigations were closed on the BFEE. I remembered something...looking for the exact words now but search is not working well. Not too long ago Joe Lieberman said he did not want any investigation into pre-war activities and intelligence. That article reminded me of that. Wonder why, Joe?

Anyway, I am glad I posted it, I will try to get off this topic for a little while. But there won't be much time to sit back and relax...the party's heart and soul is up for grabs.

[file83]

47. I think that what Joe did is UNFORGIVABLE. It's legal, but slimey.

The point is, you can't trust a guy like Joe. Never. He's going to stab us in the back many times in the next several years. Just you wait and see - this isn't the last time he's going to betray us.

[Mass]

48. The pb is not Joe. It is the leadership who did not respect Democratic voters in CT

and did not support Lamont strongly. It was telling that the first list of critical races the DSCC issued on election day did not include CT.

This said, it is now too late for Lieberman. We need him to have our majority, even if I would prefer that we did not.

We just can hope that we can make the message clear to our leaders that we care that they respect the Democratic primary results.

[JCMach1]

50. Get SORELOSER laws in all 50 States... Lost the Primary, lost the election

[madfloridian]

53. Good idea

Hi, JCMach..:hi:

[Eric J in MN]

61. I agree. NT

NT

[janx]

52. There aren't too many (any?) other Dems who could have

pulled that off. Lieberman had the support of Republicans, CT Lieberman Dems, and insurance companies.

[wyldwolf]

54. pout, stomp your feet, pump your fist in the air, and whine on DU about it?

[wyldwolf]

56. Ned Lamont got exactly what he earned. He was the Dem nominee

..and he lost.

[Dr Fate]

59. LOL!!! FUCK YEAH- Us- errr- I mean-those 70% of Republicans kicked Democratic ASS!!!!

IN YOUR FACE LAMONT- you LOSER DEMOCRAT!!!!!

You tell those whiny Democrats- if they keep on moaning & groaning about their stupid "integrity of the primaries" and "Party loyalty" we will just get the Republicans to vote and win it for the Democr-er-I mean Independents.

GO Independe-err- I mean Repub--er- no I mean Demo---oh whatever, you Far left freaks-GO WINNERS!!!!


;)

[wyldwolf]

60. don't forget the 35% of Democrats and 50 some odd % of Independents

Last I checked, they were all qualified to vote in a general election.

[Dr Fate]

62. So 65% of loyal DEMS disagree with Liberman. So we-errr-I mean they- DID kick DEM ASS then!!!!

65% of DEM voters got their asses handed to them by Republicans-LOL!!!

Us-er I mean THOSE GUYS KICK ASS!!! LOL!!!!

[wyldwolf]

63. such is Democracy

[Dr Fate]

66. True-it is a good thing us- errrr I mean- those Democrats cant win them all.

n/t

[wyldwolf]

67. If the Democrats "won them all," I would suspect the will of the people was compromised.

[Dr Fate]

69. Or at least a DEM win in CT would have compromised the will of of Republican voters.

THANK GOD we did not do that- that would be bad for Democracy. ;)


Related thread:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2961555&mesg_id=2961555

[wyldwolf]

70. A Dem win in CT would have disappointed Republican voters, yes...

... but the will of the people would have still been respected.

[Dr Fate]

71. In other words, a DEM win would have dissapointed Lieberman supporters. n/t

n/t

[wyldwolf]

73. Some of them, yes, but the Dem and Independent voters were not Republicans

[Dr Fate]

75. Right- they just voted for one.

Related thread:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2961555&mesg_id=2961555

[wyldwolf]

77. no, they voted for a Democrat running as an Independent

..and the people spoke. Why do you have a problem with the Democratic process?

[Dr Fate]

81. "The people spoke" I agree. The Republicans spoke. 70% of them.

See related thread:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2961555&mesg_id=2961555

I dont have a problem w/ Repbublicans, conservatives and Bush/Iraq war supporters voting for who they like best- -I have a problem with disloyal Democr- errr I mean "Independent Democrats" in our leadership who refused to respect the results of primary election process.

[wyldwolf]

82. Along with 35% of Democrats and over 50% of Independents... and since ...

...general elections are open to all voters, the people qualified to vote in CT did.

[Dr Fate]

86. 70% GOP vs. 35% DEM? YES- the Republican voters have spoken and won.

While the vast majority of DEM voters have also spoken- and they voted DEMOCRATIC in the election.

Joe, aside from disregarding the primary system, won, fair & square- no doubt. But he won against 65% of loyal Democrats by getting 70% of the GOP.

He owes the 70% of Republicans a hell of a lot more than he owes the 35% of DEMS.

Related thread:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2961555&mesg_id=2961555

[wyldwolf]

88. ..and Independents. On election day, they are all residents of CT

[Dr Fate]

90. I agree- Joe owes more to 50% of independents than he does to 35% of DEMS. n/t

n/t

[wyldwolf]

93. And he owes it all to the voters of CT.

[Dr Fate]

97. Moslty Republican and conservative independent voters. The DEM voters lost.

So he does not owe anything to "the voters of CT"- he owes things to CERTAIN CT voters who supported him- his biggest bloc being 70% of the GOP.

[wyldwolf]

101. Still, the voters of CT.

[Dr Fate]

105. Sure- and Joe owes much to those GOP & Conservative CT voters.

n/t

[wyldwolf]

106. just a thanks for their vote!

[Zhade]

164. And his Republican benefactors who funded him.

Like, oh, Mel Sembler.

[wyldwolf]

188. Ah, Zhade. About those two factually challenged claims you made

You remember - that Bill Clinton called himself a Rockefeller Republican and that the DLC and PNAC share the same address and phone number? Must suck to have that hanging over you.

[LoZoccolo]

57. No one said that what he was doing was "fine".

I did say that it was legal, and that complaining about it wouldn't do anything to stop it.

It will be interesting to see how long you complain about something that already happened and can't be changed.

[Dr Fate]

58. Problem now is we dont have the "hold your nose & support DEMS anyway" talking point anymore.

Lieberman and his excuse makers/supporters took that talking point away from us.

Now, whenever I try to convinve someone to "hold their nose" and get involved in the ground-up process-you know- ggetting involved at the local level and working to get insert your values into the "big tent" through the primary process and otherwise... they will just point to '06 election support for Lieberman and say:

"Bull shit- we can support all the progressive DEM candidates we want- the DEM leadership will just ignore them, like they did Lamont."

It is obvious that many in the DEM leadership has a "my way or the highway" attitude and they are not interested in any grass-roots movements helping to select candidates- that is the biggest rub with all of this.

[KitSileya]

68. That's a very good point.

It is imperative the Democrats get involved and run for office - from dogcather to President. Usually, Presidential candidates start out on dogcatcher level, and then get weeded out by the people - now any candidate that the people don't like, but the Democratic leadership does, can be forced down the people's throat. It's not very encouraging for an increased participation on grassroots level, without which the Democratic party withers. If there's anything the past decades, and the last two years of 50-state policy has shown us, is that the Democratic party nieds to field candidates everywhere, and to every position. Who among you have not had ballots with entire columns of names with only R behind them?

[Zhade]

100. An extremely important point.

That phrase was lobbed at us over the last six years, and many voters held many noses in 2002, 2004 and 2006.

lieberman's run, but more critically the response of some of the Dem leadership and elected officials to it (supporting lieberman over the actual Democratic candidate), has revealed that this talking-point is utterly dead.

If there hadn't been prominent Dems supporting lieberman (even after he broke his promise not to run as an independent if he lost the primary), and this insanity about him keeping his seniority hadn't been allowed by Reid, then we could just be pissed at Joe for being the scumbag he is and still know that the party listened to our voice, especially if they'd poured the support and money they gave lieberman into Lamont's campaign, which would have given them a seat held by a guy who ISN'T toying with the idea of going to the Republicans.

I despise lieberman, as he's a sanctimonious lying fuck who broke federal election law, voted for the Cheney energy bill, and supports the illegal war and other b*s* schemes, but I'm really, really angry at the Dem leadership for coddling him even before he won.

Now I know that their calls for unity are hollow. When they won't even line up behind their own party's candidate, and instead support the guy working against him, why the fuck should I trust them? Why should I even give their lecturing about holding our noses for a majority a second thought?

If they're going to ignore our voices by working against those we, their supporters, choose to represent us, the deal's off.

I agree that lieberman had a right to run, as much as he currently threatens our slim majority status, but if anyone thinks we should support the party when they not only don't support our choice but actively work against him, well, they're going to be surprised.

[madfloridian]

65. Joe doesn't think we had a big win last Tuesday.

http://thinkprogress.org/2006/11/12/lieberman-no-realignment

"Transcript:

LIEBERMAN: The fact is that this was not a major realignment election in my opinion. This was the voters in Connecticut and elsewhere saying we are disappointed with the the Republicans. We want to give the Democrats a chance. But I believe that the American people are considering both major political parties to be in a kind of probation because their understandably angry that Washington is dominated too much by partisan political games and not enough by problem solving and patriotism."

:banghead:

[FredScuttle]

153. That "patriotism" crack gets me so fucking angry...

Joementum must be be fought, not trusted. He must be shunned, not handed the gavel to the Homeland Security Cmte. He is a rat, through and through, and he will stab Democrats in the back as he has done since 2000.

[onenote]

72. I have no idea. What would you do?

I know what I personally would do...the same as I did this time: Support the nominee of the Democratic Party. But I suspect you're looking for something more? One answer is a "sore loser" law; but to be honest, I'm on the fence about those for much the same reason I don't support term limits. If someone can meet whatever petition requirement there is to get on the ballot, I don't see why they should be precluded from running.

(And to be honest, I wouldn't want to rule out the possibility of the repubs splitting over a nominee and having a splinter candidate siphon away enough votes to give victory to a Democrat)

[Jed Dilligan]

74. I think Lieberman is a special case

He has a ridiculous cult following in CT. There aren't a lot of incumbents out there that people would follow out of the party, but he happened to be one of them.

[Dr Fate]

76. That is the one ray of hope us DEM party loyalists have in all of this. n/t

n/t

[wyldwolf]

78. sort of like the ridiculous cult following Lamont had outside of CT.

..among people who could not even vote for him.

[madfloridian]

79. Hey, here's how I feel about some things.

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/madfloridian/616

It is liberating in a way, that no one can tell us to "stay on board". I probably will, though, most of the time.

I just wrote this about exceptions to the rule.

[wyldwolf]

80. 1. We know how you feel about some things, 2. A journal post of yours...

... doesn't impress me as authoritative.

Not too many people care whether you vote for a DLC candidate in 2008 or not.

[madfloridian]

85. One thing about DLC advocates....such nice people..and so kind.

They really care about the people of the party, and they are sensitive to those around them.

Yep...

[wyldwolf]

89. do you need a box of tissue?

[Dr Fate]

83. I know- how "ridiculous" of us to support the Democratic party primary winner.

Having Democratic party loyalty is now apparently "ridiculous."

[wyldwolf]

84. and even more ridiculous to assume the will of the voters should be questioned

[Dr Fate]

87. I cant control the will of Independent Candidates and their Republican/conservative supporters.

To you the will expressed by Democrats in primary elections is not valid as opposed to the will of Republican voters in the final election fair enough.

My posts do not concern the will of Republican and other non-DEM voters- I cant control that. My posts are concerened with whether we are going to have party loyalty or not.

Some state that party loyalty is "ridiculous" while some still think it is a good thing.

[wyldwolf]

91. actually, you can't control any voters

To me, the will expressed by Democrats in primary elections allows the candidate to be the Democratic nominee. It doesn't guarantee them a win.

[Dr Fate]

94. True. Or DEM leaders. I cant control them either. Not even with primary votes.

Your post does not tell me anything we have not learned recently- we are fully aware that a primary victory does not mean that the loser wont run with support from the disloyal factions of the DEM party leadership anyway.

That is what this is about- the primaries- you keep bragging about your wonderful GOP & Independent voters- but this about respecting the Democratic primaries. GOP and Indy votes are not a factor in that debate.

[wyldwolf]

99. the Democratic primary was respected

Joe Lieberman lost and did not run as a Democrat.

[Dr Fate]

104. DEM leaders who opposed the DEM primary winner were not respectful of the process.

And Joe was not respectful of the primary process either- if he wanted to be in a different party aside from ours, then he had no business running in the wrong primary in the 1st place.

We disagree- you think party disloyalty is fine so long as the primary loser can get Republicans and Conservatives to vote him in- I disagree with that concept.

[wyldwolf]

107. ...most of who couldn't vote in CT, either. But CT citizens could, and they chose Lieberman

[Dr Fate]

108. I concede that the 70% of GOP voted in Joe. I'm talking about respecting the DEM primaries.

n/t

[wyldwolf]

109. So am I. The Dem primary was respected. Lamont won it.

Then the citizens of CT, exercising their right to vote, chose someone else.

[Dr Fate]

110. The primary results were not respected by DEM leaders who supported the loser. n/t

n/t

[wyldwolf]

123. but we were talking about the voters - who did.

[Dr Fate]

127. DEM leaders either respect the primary process by supporting the winner, or they dont.

Some prominent DEMS respected the process and supported the winner, some are more in line with 70% of the C.T. GOP and refused to support the Democratic party.

It's a sad fact, but that is what happened.

[wyldwolf]

155. but we're not discussing Dem leaders, we're discussing CT voters

[Dr Fate]

170. Who says no one should consider disloyal DEM leaders in this debate? They are a factor.

Although I can see why you prefer to discuss and brag about your wonderful pro-Lieberman Republican voters instead.

[wyldwolf]

189. Hey, did you know Lieberman ate at several local restaurants? TRAITORS!

[Shrek]

115. Thanks for making that point.

The primary wasn't a referendum to kick Lieberman out of the Senate; it was to select the Democratic nominee. The primary served its purpose so there are no grounds to say that the results were disrespected in some way.

[Dr Fate]

119. By respect I mean the DEM leadership will support the winner, not the loser. So I do have grounds.

Now if you are saying that certain Democratic Leaders can "respect" Democratic Primary results by disregarding the winning votes and supporting the loser, then I guess you would have a point- but I'm not sure how you would craft such an argument.

How did the DEM leaders who supported a 3rd party instead of the DEM nominee respect the DEM primary system? I honestly dont get it.

[wyldwolf]

124. up until the last couple of your posts, the concern has been voters...

...now you've switched gears.

[Dr Fate]

126. DEM leaders either respect the primary process by supporting the winner, or they dont respect it.

No amount of semantics, changing the subject or focusing on non-DEM GOP & Indy voters will change that.

[wyldwolf]

154. so why did YOU change the subject starting in post 110?

Suddenly your focus shifted from the voters of CT to the Dem leaders.

[Dr Fate]

171. Post 94. And It makes sense to discuss Joe's voters AND DEM leaders who also supported him

They were a factor in DEMS losing CT as well.

Disloyal DEM leadership is 100% relevant to the discussion.

I can and will discuss Joe's GOP & conservative voters in response to your posts- as well as discussing the disloyal DEM leaders who agree with those Republicans and conservatives.

Your semantic games may make you think that you are winning the debate, but they dont change the facts.

[wyldwolf]

190. And what about the restaurants he ate at and the local utility companies...

...that provided him comfort? TRAITORS!

[Name removed]

121. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

125. Deleted message

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

[Dr Fate]

128. That is just semantics- he knows that many DEM leaders were disloyal to DEM party voters.

Lieberman apologists & Pro-disloyalty Democrats want to focus on 70% of the GOP and 50% of conservative independents who supported Lieberman instead of the DEM leaders who refused to support the party nominee- and they certainly dont want to discuss the 50% of progressive Indies and 65% of Democrats who have no voice now.

Semantics and other weak debate tricks are the only way to make this bizzare position make sense.

[wyldwolf]

157. but we were discussing CT voters, not Dem leaders

[Dr Fate]

172. B/c you would prefer to brag about Joe's 70% of GOP votes than discuss disloyal DEM leaders.

n/t

[wyldwolf]

187. good to see you finally admitting to changing the subject.

[wyldwolf]

156. can't stand the truth?

Narrow world view.

[CTLawGuy]

204. bullshit

your tone would be shifted 180 degrees if it were Howard Dean running as an independent in 2004 presidential election.

Obvious hyocrisy.

[wyldwolf]

209. you mean it wasn't respected?

[CTLawGuy]

213. It was not

He ran against the duly-nominated Democratic nominee, drawing out voters who would vote against other Dem candidates.

How he can call himself a Democrat, even in part, is beyond my understanding.

He's worse than Ralph Nader.

If he wanted to be an independent, he should have left the party and dropped out of the primary. Instead he used the primary and the general to take two bites at the apple.

The point of the primary is to find ONE nominee that the party is to unite behind. At least thats what the closet cons tell us when a DLCer is nominated to something.

[wyldwolf]

216. let's see. The primary process gave CT a Democratic nominee..

...Ned Lamont, who went on to face two other candidates in the general. Looks like it was respected to me.

[Name removed]

96. Deleted message

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

[wyldwolf]

102. that is why I just offered her a box of tissues

[Dick Diver]

92. Exactly, what people in this thread (and others) are suggesting

is that approximately 10% of the registered voters in CT be able to disenfranchise the rest. Democrats comprise approximately 30% of the registered voters in CT. Assuming that 60% voted in the primary (a high assumption), 52% of those voted for Lamont. Or, approximately 10% of CT's voters -- while 48% voted for Lieberman or approximately 9%.

The primary is, indeed, important as it determines (as it did in this case) which candidate is the official candidate of the party, with all of the funding, backing, recognition, etc. that comes with that. If some here feel that Lamont did not get that, it's not the fault of the system or, actually, of Lieberman, but the fault of the party itself.

[Dr Fate]

98. I agree with your last paragraph- it is on point.

This debate is not about what Republican & Indy voters did- it is about what DEM primary voters did and how certain DEM leaders responded.

[CTLawGuy]

205. its called a write in ballot

no one has ever been disenfranchised becuase someone lost the primary. If that were true, no primary would ever be legitimate ever, becuase someone would lose and be denied placement on the ballot.

[Jed Dilligan]

103. I supported Dems in all races.

I'm not particularly a Lamont partisan. The Democratic candidate lost, which is a cause for our concern, but I believe the reason was case-specific and not a general malady in our campaign strategy. My reasons for this are largely anecdotal; my brother's ex, a Hartford native and flaming feminist liberal, adored Lieberman to the degree that she would "love to go to sleep every night to the sound of his voice."

[mcking]

95. This would not have been possible in Oregon.

And I was surprised that it was legal in Connecticut.

Many states have "sore loser" laws -- if you lose in the primary, you can't run in the general.

In fact, Oregon now prohibits people who have voted in the partisan primary from signing petitions for independent candidates. (There's a lot of controversy about this, and I actually don't agree with it, but that's how it stands now. It was passed to prevent members of a party, Republicans for example, from signing petitions for "spoiler" candidates, Nader for example, in order to dilute the opposition vote.)

If Connecticut Republicans were so gung-ho for Joe, they COULD have written in his name in the Republican primary, and he could have been the Republican nominee. (It happens.) But they didn't see fit to do that.

There's also the Louisiana system, where everyone runs in the general, and if nobody gets a majority, the top two have a runoff, regardless of party. But Connecticut has not seen fit to change the party-based election system.

It just seems wrong that Joe used what may have been an oversight by lawmakers to get around the system that has been accepted for many, many years.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

111. It's pretty simple.

He's/She's not allowed to be in another party primary.

:shrug:

[slackmaster]

112. The "excommunication" option

IMO a party would be within its rights to adopt such a policy.

[rinsd]

113. I would agree.

I think some CTers even tried to have Joe's registration in the Democratic party revoked!

I think that may be a bit harsh but I think a statement that not abiding by the primary voters decision forfeits participation in future primaries would be fine.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

118. "It's the 'Comfy Chair' for you!"

[piedmont]

114. Apparently, whine and pitch a fit.

He didn't do anything illegal. If you want to make it illegal, then try to pass a "sore loser" law. In this instance, I'd prefer for Joe to caucus with the Dems than to tell him to buzz off. If we had more than enough votes without him, then maybe something could be done.

[Unvanguard]

116. We ignore it.

Democracy is democracy.

Lieberman happens to be vile, however, so if it's a justification for weakening his position, I'll go with it.

[LittleClarkie]

117. Nuthin' honey

People have the right to do any little thing they please.

[Dr Fate]

120. What if an entrenched DEM leadership prefers a NON incumbent that won't respect the primaries?

It could happen.

[Strawman]

122. I don't think he set any precedent

Don't think you'll see the Republicans effectively conceeding many major elections like they did in the CT Senate race this year. It's an anomaly.

[joeprogressive]

130. I completely agree

It is too bad we didn't pick up one more senate seat then we could have neutered Joe

[Clarkie1]

131. What Party system? There is no Party system. We live under a constitutional form of government. nt

[Dr Fate]

133. The primary selection & party system exists and is constitutional.

A party member or leader either respects that system by supporting the winners, or disrepects and disregards the results by supporting the candidate the primary voters rejected.

I find it interesting that so many here want to focus on semantics as opposed to the larger issue of whether the DEM party as a whole should respect what DEM primary voters demand.

[Clarkie1]

134. It's constitutional to form parties, but political parties are not part of the constitution.

It's perfectly possible to have a government without them.

[Dr Fate]

136. Mom, Apple Pie, fireworks & fast cars are not in the Constitution either.

It's perfectly possible to have a government without them.

Having said that, this thread is about how participation in primary elections effects internal Democratic party control- if you are a Democratic leader, you either respect the primary system by supporting the winner, or you disrespect and disreagrd primary vote participants by supporting the loser.

That is what this thread boils down too- if you want to abolish parties or add 50 new parties , that is another issue.

[Clarkie1]

138. I agree, Democratic Party leaders should respect the will of Demcoratic Primary voters.

No disagreement there.

I do not agree, however, that losing a primary should disqualify a candidate from running in the General Election. If a candidate wishes to abandon the party that has abandoned them, it would be undemocratic not to allow the candidate to run in the general election.

[Dr Fate]

140. That is valid argument for non-partisans and for those who prefer weaker parties.

And if you want to weaken the hold that political parties have on the system, that is a valid goal too- just know that this is what you are advocating w/i your own party structure- and that Republicans may not play this way when it comes to their own primaries & party strength.

[Clarkie1]

143. I do not believe poltical party primaries should ever disqualify a candidate

from running in the General Election. To do so would give political parties undue powers, and they far more power than our founding fathers ever envisioned they would have to begin with.

I say, let the people decide, not the party memebers.

That said, I'm a Democrat and I support the Democratic Party. This discussion has brought up a broader, more philosophical issue though that goes beyond what is best for the Party system.

[Dr Fate]

146. That is valid. Just dont expect the Repubs to go along with weakening THEIR party structure. n/t

n/t

[LoZoccolo]

135. It really should be obvious.

Try to differentiate the Democratic candidate from the independent, and give people a reason for voting for them. Lamont actually tried doing that, notably with the ad where the car goes into the wall. Sadly, a lot of people who could have been helping him do that instead wanted to complain about Lieberman's disloyalty despite the fact that doing so would really have no effect on anything. Effective people take responsibility for acting in the situation they find themselves rather than wasting time wishing they were in another one.

[Dr Fate]

139. The OP was talking about more about changing the future, not the past.

I thought she was trying to get ideas on how to handle disloyal Democratic leadership in the future- the past Lamont/Lieberman event is used more as a model or proof that it will occur as opposed to merely "wasting time wishing" it were different.

In any event, either Democratic leaders will either support primary winners or they wont- if they wont, then people who respect the process will have to not only fight Republicans but their own party.

"Try to differentiate the Democratic candidate from the independent, and give people a reason for voting for them" That sounds like how the Naderites spin it to me. In either case the DEMS lose votes.

This is an internal debate about whether Democratic loyalty matters. What 70% of Republicans and 50% of conservative independents want is not my concern- our concern should be that 50% pro-Lamont/Dem Indies and the 65% of loyal DEMS have no voice now, thanks in large part to disloyal party Democrat Leaders who supported a 3rd party instead of honoring the primary results.

[Clarkie1]

141. I don't consider Democrats who did not support Lamont in the General Election "Party Leaders"

That I think is something we have to be very clear about.

At the same time, how do we feel about the Democrats who voted for Lieberman in the General Election. They may not be Party leaders, but they are voters. Ultimately, it is those Democratic Party voters who enabled Lieberman to win, not the disloyal Democratic "leaders."

And don't tell me Lieberman won because he got the Republican vote...the fact is if all Dem voters had voted Dem, Lieberman would have won. But they didn't, and Lamont failed to convince a large number of registered Democrats to vote for him.

[Dr Fate]

145. Neither do I. I am talking about Democratic party leaders who didnt support their own Party.

As a result, DEMS lost an election to a 3rd party.

35% of DEMS voted with 70% of the GOP and half of other Independents.

Would more of that 35% have voted Lamont had the DEM leadership given him full support instead of making it okay for other leaders & prominent beltway DEMS to support & endorse Lieberman?

We will never know-but as it was, many DEMS leaders supported a 3rd party run and DEMS lost.

[LoZoccolo]

150. The difference between the Greens' argument and mine...

...is that I'm on the Democratic side. I am not promoting a spoiling independent to intimidate a possible Democratic winner and trying to justify that, rather, I'm talking about what to do in a situation where an independent is running whether we like it or not. I don't know of any other way to deal with the situation other than try to make the Democratic candidate appeal more to people.

[Dr Fate]

168. Wrong- the similarity b/t Greens & Joe is that Democratic Party loses the election.

You can split hairs all you want- bottom line is that support for 3rd parties that take votes away from DEMS goes against strengthening the Democratic party- especially when your own "leaders" are the ones opposing the DEM nominee.

"Whether we like it or not" applies to Greens as equally as it does to rennegade party leaders who do not respect primaries- both end up spoiling the DEM victory.

I dont need you to tell me how to beat 3rd party canidates that are supported by disloyal DEM leaders-- I need to know how to keep disloyal Democrats in D.C. from supporting 3rd parties in the first place.

DAMN- it's bad enough trying to convince individuals not to go 3rd party- now I have to convince leaders to support their OWN party that they are members of? Sheesh.

[LoZoccolo]

173. I'm sure that sitting there behind your computer, you'll be able to do that.

This kind of fits in with all my ranting about how netroots will not be a force until they learn to take responsibility, which can't much be done on the Internet.

[Dr Fate]

176. I see you sitting behind your computer as much as me- but I understand why you try to insult me...

...as opposed to adressing any of my points about how disloyal Democratic leaders helped to cause the Democratic party to lose election just like greens do.

Netroots? Please- you are on the web right now yourself.

[LoZoccolo]

177. And I'm like, so?

I don't think sitting around just complaining about things will change that. The situation is what it is, and you can take responsibility for where you want it to go, or you can blame everything else in the world for it and get nothing you want. If you want to discuss leaders, I offer initiative as something that separates leaders from followers.

[Dr Fate]

178. I dont disagree. None of that adresses my points about party loyalty though.

Thanks for the lecture anyway- but I'm not sure what examples of my behavior you are adressing- I fully acknolwledge that the Lamont camp could not develop a strategy to compete w/ 70% of GOP voters.

But back to my point-Either party leaders respect the primary process by supporting the winner, or they disregard it by supporting the loser.

DEM leaders who support 3rd parties are doing exactly what people who support greens do- in that the results mean the DEM party loses an election.

You are on the computer as much as me- I always assumed you were involved in less frivolous activism outside of that- like me.

[Tiggeroshii]

137. lamont could've beaten joe, he played it all wrong....

I think he shouldn't have identified himself so much with the left as he did in the primaries.

[Dr Fate]

144. So we should be okay when our leadership disregards primary results?

Your argument is that it is perfeclty fine for the Democratic leadership to disregard primary results- and once they do, our only recourse is to accept the slap in hte face and just fight harder.

That is a valid position, but it pretty much supposes that the primaries are meaningless. If these guys want to run as independents, fine, but stay the hell out of the DEM primary structure to begin with.

[Tiggeroshii]

207. That's not my argument.

My argument is that he should have campaigned -no matter what,as though he was campaigning against a well known, popular incumbent. I in no way think that it was right for Lieberman disregarded the primary results as he did, but I do think that his fight would have been just as hard had he been up against a popular Republican incumbent Senator. In either case, I think Lamont had a great capacity to win it.

[Timbuk3]

142. Elect even more Democrats in 2008...

...and neuter him.

Related thread here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x2965196

[madfloridian]

147. The bright side of it...Joe had to court the Republicans to win.

He showed his true colors, we saw the true colors of the ones who supported him in our party.

Here is rundown of his vote, which of course has been rationalized here just as everything Joe has done is rationalized.

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/madfloridian/581

Just a portion of the exit polling:

Lamont won the Black and the Latino vote

Lamont won the under 45 vote; Lieberman by 16-20% the over 45

24% more if over 65

Lamont won if your total income was 50,000 or less; Lieberman was 24% higher if your income was 200,000 or more

Higher educated people voted for Lamont

72% of those who support Bush were Lieberman supporters

77% who strongly approve of the Iraq War support Joe Lieberman

72% of those say send more troops

[Orangepeel]

148. I don't think it's "fine" but I do think we have to make the best of it

It was shitty for Joe to run, but he did and he won. He got the most votes and is the Senator from Connecticut, like it or not. There's nothing to do about it but try to make the best of it and use him to get control.

[madfloridian]

152. Lieberman changed things.

I have decided something for 08. Since party loyalty is now off the table, and primaries are also up for grabs....there are only certain ones I will vote for. Included will not be anyone who is a leader of the site who allows this to be linked from their front page.

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/madfloridian/616

Or who is still having this mentality from 03, making fun of the activists like the link above does.

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/madfloridian/62

Something changed in me the day Wittmann wrote that KOSenfreude ugliness above...gloating about Lieberman. Something in my mind just thought....as long as that group makes fun of, humiliates, calls us names... I will not vote for them.

I don't have to do that now, the rules have changed since Lieberman pulled his stunt. Things are very different.

I will most likely vote Democratic, but now the rules have changed. Party loyalty only worked one way, so it is different now.

Lieberman broke the spirit of a lot of Democrats, and now it is worse with Harry Reid offering him chair of the Homeland Security.

Things have changed. There are many other good Democrats who have not taken their stand with that group recently. I will likely vote Democrat but not for these:

http://www.dlc.org/ndol_ka.cfm?kaid=137

[mtnsnake]

159. "I see so many here saying what Joe did is fine". Oh yeah, sure you do. Right.

I see so many here saying what Joe did is fine, very accepting of it.

Unless I've been reading the wrong forum, I saw very few people saying what Joe did is fine. Are you sure you saw "so many" people here saying that?

[madfloridian]

160. Here are my thoughts...he changed things.

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/madfloridian/624

[LoZoccolo]

175. She has this interesting rhetorical device.

You'll say one thing, and she'll go, "oh, so you believe _____" and it will not be what you said. I think that may fit in with the seeing so many here saying what Joe did is fine thing.

[Dr Fate]

182. She should have said "a few here" -then you could debate her points instead of her semantics.

n/t

[mtnsnake]

191. Yup, that's right. nt

[Generic Brad]

161. This isn't Independent Democratic Underground

His behavior is worthy of offical shunning. Joe who?

[against all enemies]

166. Isn't Traitor Joe's located in New England? Thought so.

[Fear_n_Loathing]

167. I think that the Dem Party needs to have very strict adherence

to party policy - which is established by registered Dem's at conventions. Joe continues to be hawkish on the Iraq war, despite the rest of the party and the American people being overwhelmingly against it. The registered Dem's in Conn. did not force Joe out - his refusal to play by the rules did. Let him go to the other side of the aisle - that's where hypocrisy rules!

[unkachuck]

169. thank you....

....Madfloridian, Dr Fate and others for helping me understand the real signifcance of 'pulling a lieberman'....

....so our chances of really changing the Party from within are slim to none if incumbents and Party elders don't want it changed....nice....

....this is good to know when they come looking for support for their hold-your-nose-and-vote candidates....but it saps my Dem Party enthusiasm....

....what 'pulling a lieberman' tells me is that it's ok for every progressive/liberal Dem incumbent to challenge undesirable primary results by running as an independent....and that they should be able to count on our support....

[Dr Fate]

174. Dont thank me & Madfloridian, thank Joe's supporter's and apologists.

No one could have pointed out the damage they have done to party loyalty and the integrity of the primary system without you seeing their very own lame arguments and half-assed excuses for yourself.

[AtomicKitten]

179. I think you are confusing people for injecting reality into this whining.

I doubt very seriously anyone here is either a supporter of or apologist for Joe Lieberman; I certainly could not point to any. However, there are people like myself and many, many others who donated money and worked for Lamont's campaign (I did phone bank for him here in California) who realize the facts and reality of the situation, i.e., that although what Lieberman did was the epitome of cheesy, it was legal and he had the legal prerogative to do what he did. He put the Democratic Party between a rock and a hard place, and clearly your expectation is that rather than being prudent the Democratic leadership should have participated in an all-out war against Lieberman. That may seem completely reasonable in your view, but now that the election is over, the Democratic majority is dependent upon Lieberman caucusing with the Democrats. I for one am glad he wasn't entirely alienated and, yes, the balance of Congress does matter; it's bigger than Lieberman or Lamont.

It is not only disingenuous but it is insulting when you purposely mischaracterize the positions of people here. Rather I would submit that the self-indulgent whining that occupies much of the time of people here is nothing more than a pointless exercise. I would much rather throw my lot in with people smart enough in the face of a battle lost to pull up their socks and move on to the next battle than with those that are stuck in the hamster wheel position of whining over things they cannot change.

[Dr Fate]

180. Actually, I've seen 5 or 6 Lieberman supporters and apologists-or more.

So while you are right to suggest there are not that many, they do exist here on this message board.

Hey- I'm glad you dont support Lieberman or his apologists at DU, in the leadership or otherwise-If the shoe dont fit, dont wear it.

This is not about what the leadership does with Lieberman now- it is about the primaries and what they will do to keep this from happening again.

[AtomicKitten]

181. what can we do?

It was the Bermuda Triangle of politics, the conditions of which I hope to never see again in my lifetime. Now our choice is to make the best out of it, the "best" IMO being a Democratic majority. If some Republicans defect, we can safely cut Joementum loose and he can commune with his kindred spirits on the other side of the aisle permanently, where he belongs.

[Dr Fate]

183. It was an odd event. I hope I dont see it again either. That is the OP's point.

And that is my point.

Everyone wants to side step the real debate and talk about "the will of CT voters" and "The DEM leaders have to support him now"- most of us do agree that those are not the issues we can control.

I dont know what we can do- I used to tell people to get involved at the local level and to try to get people who reflect your values into the system.

I hope that old fashioned notion still holds true as far as most DEM leaders go-but at this point one could argue that they might support our values in the primary winner, but they could just as easily support the loser in the primaries.

[AtomicKitten]

184. Too much blaming IMO

I am of the opinion that we should move along and not get bogged down in rehashing something we have no control over and something that is a done deal. It was like a horrible car crash, and now we are on the mend.

We have much work ahead of us and now that we have the majority in both Houses, we finally have a real shot at putting this country back on its foundation by systematically undoing the damage inflicted by this administration.

I'm just a bigger picture kind of person which annoys the crap out of people that enjoy getting bogged down in rehashing minutia, and when I see that as damaging I instinctively administer a boot to the keister.

Peace.

[Dr Fate]

185. The OP's post is about what we do in the future, it does not have to be a rehash.

I agree that arguing over CT's GOP voters and the failed Lamont strategies, etc is a rehash- but asking what might happen in a similar situation in the future is not...

Talking about whether DEM leaders will continue to disregard prmimaries in the future does not mean we cant also mend the country and get re-elected and all that other good stuff in the meantime....

I'm not ready to move on at all, unless someone can assure me DEM leaders wont support 3rd parties again anytime soon.

[AtomicKitten]

186. a circuitous argument

This election was unique on many levels including the fact that there are more registered independents than Rs or Ds and the fact that only Ds could vote in the primary. It skewed the actual support that Lamont had. In spite of running a brilliant primary, Lamont fell flat in the general. He was given the support of the Democratic Party on many levels, not balls-out support for reasons we have already discussed. IMO the Democratic leaders did precisely what was required of them. Lamont lost because of the political makeup of the electorate and failing to connect in the general. You will not get any assurances that in similar circumstances things will turn out any different.

So, in conclusion, you seem intent on continuing on the path of blaming and resentment, so I'll leave you to it.

[LoZoccolo]

197. Name 'em or be quiet.

And you're not allowed to name 'em, so guess what that leaves? If you have a point, make it; don't spoil DU with McCarthyism because you can't or won't do it.

[wyldwolf]

203. to you, a Lieberman supporter/apologist is someone who recognizes the simple fact..

... that a primary winner isn't guaranteed they'll win the general.

[madfloridian]

212. You are just plain being dishonest and misrepresenting.

That is not honorable.

[Zodiak]

192. you're right

And if I had not disabled my ignore list last night, I wouldn't have seen it.

Reinstating the list...they STILL have nothing constructive to offer other than insults, semantic arguments, and the "get over it" attitiude. Not to mention the tautology of yelling at someone on a message board for being on a message board.

Now defending Leiberman....how many sharks do these people have to jump?

[CTLawGuy]

198. that was the biggest disappointment from the Dem party

was accepting this shit.

Well I guess voting Green doesn't sound so bad. If Mary Landrieu can come to CT and campaign against the Dem senate nominee with no consequence, then why can't I vote for the Green candidate?

[Name removed]

206. Deleted message

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

[madfloridian]

211. Boy, this attracted many. Yeh, I'm used to it.

So go ahead, tell me to get a life.

Doesn't bother me at all.

Joe is still wrong, the Democrats who supported him are still wrong, and I just asked a question.

Get a life, get used to it, get over it....those are ugly right wing talking points that should not be used here.

[happydreams]

210. Let's run some "Independent Repricklicans" in bright red zones

that are strong on fiscal conservatism, blah, blah then organize the dems to switch parties and vote him in. Then have him switch parties afterwards.

[Katzenjammer]

218. Go along to get along, of course. As per usual. What's IMPORTANT is that

the scum with the GOP label didn't win! All else pales into complete insignificance.

[WCGreen]

219. First of all, it is not the party that sets the rules....

It is the Secretaries of State who establish how elections are run....

In Conn, it is legal to run in a primary, lose and then run as an independent...

It is not so in Ohio...

We should work with each state to get a consistent set of rules...

That is the only way in order to solve the problem...