Calling for Primary challenges to Democrats is stupid stupid stupid!!!

[Perky]

Ok I am going t rant about this.

Some DUers would rather be in constant protest rather than constant governing!!!

I guess because it easier to yell and scream and call people traitors and sell-outs than it is to deal with the real-world politics.Al Gore is dead on right in his criticism.

Does "liberal" always have to be radical in order to be acceptable?

Arguing for primary opposition to anyone who voted for the funding is intellectually lazy and politically naive. It only damages our chance of holding either House.

Fending off a primary challenge is expensive and take money out of general election coffers. That means if the Dem survives the insurgency he is substantial weakened going into November.

So what happens in this silly movement takes hold and we take out democratic incumbents who are committee chairs or have substantial seniority or we lose control of both houses but gain the presidency?

I guess that would be fine by you? Didn't Lieberman-Lamont teach you anything?


:hide::nuke:

[Donnachaidh]

1. it would be far more practical to channel this rage towards republicans

After all -- we did NOT have the votes.

K&R. I agree 100% with the OP.

[Clark2008]

11. Actually, it would be far more practical not to allow the loser of

a primary to run as an Independent AFTER the primary election.

[Donnachaidh]

61. no argument THERE

But all those folks in Connecticut where warned, and still voted the jackass back in. Watching him with his helmet buying cheap sunglasses in Baghdad made me want to punch something. :puke:

[mike_c]

2. the problem is, that I have no interest in "holding" the House...

...or the Senate with sell-outs who are not a real opposition party. The D after their names is NOT what makes them good leaders or good representatives-- it's their actions that count, not their party.

[bryant69]

3. Yes but without political power, it really doesn't matter if they

are good leaders or good representatives; they can't get anything done.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[mike_c]

23. conversely, without principled opposition, political power is useless....

Somewhere along the line effective government requires the convergence of principles and values with the political power to implement them. One without the other leads to the situation we see today-- a democratic leadership that pays lip service to democratic values but does not fight for them.

[Perky]

4. Well fine thengive it back to the GOP

and vote for a Dem for Presient and we will still be in Iraq in 8 years.

[VP505]

6. Exactly,

and what good are they if they continually go along to get along with the other party.

[Perky]

8. but they are not "Continually going along" with the GOP

Not hardly.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

5. So, how do you propose getting rid of the sellouts and traitors?

That's what primaries are for.

[Perky]

7. By replacing republicans in the House and Senate with more Democrats

and electing a Democratic President who has opposed the war from the start.

All we need is a filibuster proof Senate and the troops come home.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

9. Care to answer the question?

Why not replace the sellouts with Democrats who will support defunding the war rather than leave the ones in place who support the war?

[onenote]

14. And what are the odds that you can successfully replace a blue dog with a more progressive

Democrat in a district that leans red? You have to look at each situation individually and weigh the pros and cons. If there is a reasonable chance of electing someone who is appreciably more progressive than an incumbent Democrat, I say go for it. But attacking a moderate/conservative Democrat in a district where he is the lesser of two evils and there is no realistic chance that a Dennis Kucinich clone is going to get elected is just cutting off one's nose to spite one's face.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

17. Again, how do you get rid of the sellouts and traitors?

Or, do we just allow them to vote with the Republicans without challenge?

[onenote]

19. How do you get rid of the repubs in conservative districts?

I suppose you can get rid of the "sellouts and traitors" by ensuring that they are defeated by repubs. If you think that's an improvement, we'll just have to agree to disagree.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

24. Our sellout rep was unseated by a very rightwing repub.

Who was then replaced by a very liberal Dem.

A lot of us sat out the election when our supposedly "liberal" Dem sold her soul to the NRA. We had a one term ultra-rightist. Followed by our present rep(D) who is on his 4th term and almost a sure thing in 2008.

[onenote]

28. interesting. What district is this?

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

47. Clark County Washington.

[MH1]

32. Educate the voters and get them to pressure the rep.

So s/he knows s/he had better get in step.

In most cases of "sellouts and traitors" that you are probably thinking of, there is little chance of winning a primary challenge AND the general election without FIRST changing the thinking of the voters and getting them to act on their new understanding.

And I believe that in many of the cases you're concerned about, if you change and activate enough voters, the current Dem rep will stop "selling out."

[endarkenment]

50. There are only two pressures our representatives understand.

1) the negative pressure of getting voted out of office in either the primary or the general election.

2) the positive pressure of cash flowing into their campaign treasury.

Without (1) the only pressure that guides their decisions is (2).

[Perky]

22. Because even if you are successful

in defeating the COngressional Campaign committee's candidate and the power of incumbency at the primary level

You have taken out what ever seniority the congress critter has been able to accumulate;

you have divided the part in that district and risked a third party bid by someone who is otherwise a loyal democrat and splitting the vote plays into the hands of the Republican challenger.

But even if the insurgent dem wins, you still need more members and their votes to bring the war to an end.

You have to keep what you have and take out vulnerable republicans. If you knock off 20 more republicans on the House and five more in the Senate. The war ends. because a new Democratic president would sign the legislation and it would become filibuster proof in the Senate. It is not rocket science it is simple math.


Remember alot of those who voted for the funding voted against it in the original legislation that has a timeline. Voting for the funding out of conference was inevitable because everyone knew that there was going to be full funding.

Hold your nose and insure that you strengthen the house and sanate and the troops will come home.

[H2O Man]

10. Respectfully disagree.

And the Lieberman-Lamont issue only confirmed that Joe was closer to the neoconservatives on Iraq, than he is to me on anything.

[LSK]

12. and he set a precedent to run Independent and win with GOP voters

The OP has a point.

[H2O Man]

18. He does have a point.

But, unless people are pleased with Joe Lieberman, his point doesn't apply to them.

[NoPasaran]

65. Although the electoral laws vary by state

What Lieberman did---running in, and losing, a primary, and then running as an independent in the general election, isn't possible in every state. For example, in Texas a candidate has to file for a party primary OR declare intent to run as an independent. Lose your primary and the game is over for you.

Another thing to remember is that the republican candidate in that race was just a sacrificial lamb because no one with actual political prospects in that party saw any benefit in being crushed at the polls.

I won't even go into Joe's zeppelin-sized ego.

[IChing]

15. Exactly--Lieberman-Lamont--

"Don't go after anyone that doesn't represent your beliefs and issues" is a lame democracy.

[H2O Man]

21. It's lame democracy.

It is investing in the mind-set that allows incumbents to become entrenched, and to be unresponsive to voters.

[IChing]

58. It is a DLC talking point. n/t

[RaleighNCDUer]

13. Maybe you don't understand what the purpose of a primary is --

replacing a weak democrat with a stronger democrat does not weaken the party in the least.

And what Lamont/LIEberman taught us is we cannot trust DLC right leaning corporatist democrats to respect the wishes of the people they are supposed to represent.

Without REPUBLICAN support, LIEberman would not have won. Do we need this, when the winner could have been Lamont, who the people and party nominated?

[Perky]

33. without an incredibly weak GOP candidate, the GOP might not have voted for Lieberman

Replacing an incumbent with another DEM dope not strengthen the party for many many reasons.


Tell your congress critter you are pissed off and that you do not want him voting for the war again. Tell him he is a traitor. Go to a town hall meeting and rant but creating an insurgent movement movement out of protest at best is fratricide.

[RaleighNCDUer]

49. The GOP candidate was weak because the republicans were

supporting LIEberman. They KNEW that they could not field any republican candidate that had a chance against any dem candidate, so they threw their support to the turncoat. They knew that a dem was going to have that seat, so they made sure it was a dem that would vote with them. Now, in part because of LIEberman, (they believe) we have to tread lightly because we can't trust LIEberman to vote with us. Gives him a lot more influence than the turncoat POS is worth.

The party would be MUCH stronger now with a solid dem in that seat, rather than one who may caucus with the dems but votes with the republicans. So the only difference is, we have somebody of questionable loyalty who has seniority rather than someone we can count on who does not have seniority. Know what? Seniority or not, they still each would have but a single vote.

I think a good insurgency is called for.

[MadHound]

16. God forbid that we do the democratic thing and hold our so called leaders accountable!

:eyes:

Excuse me, but isn't this what primaries are for? If you don't like what your Dem rep has done, back another one, or run yourself? But here you are stating that we shouldn't do that, it would hurt the party, etc. etc. So tell me, how, exactly, are we supposed to hold these people accountable? And please don't tell me to write them, email them, or phone them. I've a stack of form letters I've been dying to send to somebody.

Sorry, but what you are proposing is being ruled by people who would no longer be accountable. God knows, we don't have enough accountability already, yet you think that we should get rid of the last little bit that we have left:crazy: Hell, why don't we just have the goddamn DLC appoint our reps, and we the people can just sit down and shut up like good little sheeple.

Fuck that! If I don't like what my senator or rep is doing, I will back their challenger in the primaries. Hell, I've even backed their challenger in the generals. Under our form of government it is, at least nominally, we the people who are in charge, and I refuse to give up my right and duty to hold politicians accountable. That way lies tyranny, and God knows, we have enough of that going around already.

[madfloridian]

20. Yes, it taught us Lamont won. Lieberman had to make his own party

and get the support of many Democrats who don't want activists in the party. Joe lost as a Democrat.

There will continue to be challenges to some of the Democrats in safe areas who STILL vote with the GOP.

[Perky]

27. But look who is in the Senate????!!!!

That really is all thart matters.


If the GOP has a decent candidate it might not have even been Lieberman.

[H2O Man]

29. The GOP had exactly

who they wanted: Joe Lieberman. That's why they supported him. And it's why they elected him.

[mudesi]

31. Lieberman would be there anyway!

The point is that Lieberman is a DINO. Had Lamont not run, Lieberman would have won as a Democrat, anyway.

[madfloridian]

41. OMG...is that all that matters to you?

Then there is no common ground.

[Perky]

45. of course it isn't

I wante a fillibuster-proof and a veto proof senate. That is the only way to shut this war down.


I would rather see a democrat in Susan Collins seat then spend money trying to defeat Joe Biden or Daina Feinstein in a Democratic primary.

[Wiley50]

25. Excuse me but, isn't this the reason we have primaries

to pick the party candidate who most aligns with your own views?

A lot of our people don't seem to be doing the job we sent them there to do.

So, in the primary process we try to pick someone who will.

This is what primaries are for

[mudesi]

26. Is opposing the war "radical" now? (nm)

[jackstraw45]

30. Maybe it's time Democrats stopped "playing politics" with our country..

And actually used our primaries to pick the best candidates - ones that represent OUR views, WE THE F-cking people.

Maybe it's time we pick candidates who know the Constitution and take on their responsibilities to PROTECT the Consititution.

Bushco has so politicized the government that many bow in fear to the established incumbent system that decisions in Washington and votes in Congress sway for what is politically safe.

I'd rather be called "politically naive" and choose leaders who represent ME than continue to play this game of political chicken.

[Beelzebud]

34. Then why bother having primaries? Why not have life terms?

[proud2BlibKansan]

35. SO we should just let them vote to continue killing our soldiers

and innocent Iraqis?

No thanks.

[Beelzebud]

37. I guess the OP doesn't realize that the Republicans behaving like sheep got us in this mess.

We don't need to compound the error by becoming sheep ourselves.

Democrats don't get my vote by default. They need to realize I'm not alone.

[proud2BlibKansan]

43. Here here !!

I am about over ALL of them. I don't care any more what party they belong to. Like Cindy said, I place what's best for my country ABOVE what is best for the damn Democratic party. If more Americans (especially the politically active ones) would take this attitude, we wouldn't be in the pickle we are in today.

[L. Coyote]

36. Stupid? Only if you are not an R. Really smart if you R an R. n/t

[Perky]

38. Replacing Dems with other Dems does not get us out of Iraq

Spend your money helping to defeat moderate republicans and getting more Dems into office rather than than practicing Fratricide by knocking off moderate Democrats.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

39. Gotta Disagree With Ya Here. Voting In The General Election For A Green Or Indy Is Just Plain Dumb.

But the primaries are the absolute right place to show voter discontent and do our part to get as progressive a candidate in there as we can. The only real avenue to do that is through the primary, with then full support for whichever candidate makes it through.

I do understand what you're saying and where you're coming from, but compared to your concerns the concept of voicing our opinion through our primary vote and having at least SOME power over the process, far outweighs them.

[Perky]

44. but the primary is not the only place to voice your concern

ever hear about a petition or protesting at a town Hall meeting? Get in the critters face. Tell him how you feel. If enought people yell and scream and warn and cjole he/she might vote more correctly next time.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

48. Maybe Not The Only, But It Is The Ultimate.

Like I said, I can't agree on this concept. Every politician should earn their right from their party to run in the general election, not just be handed it out of expectation.

[Perky]

51. I am all for scaring them to death

I am just saying there are other ways that do not put our lim majority's at risk

[Lerkfish]

40. "Didn't Lieberman-Lamont teach you anything?"

actually, it taught us that running a better candidate in the primary is a successful strategy.
Unless you wish to argue that Lieberman was a better candidate?

[Perky]

42. No I do not Lieberman is a pig

The point is two fold.


Lieberman came back and won as an indy because the GOP had a non-candidate. If the GOP: had someone with some bite Liberman would not have won and Lamont mignt not have one either.

Splitgting the Dems and embittering moderates and swing voters because you are pissed off might cost us more seats than any liberal influence it might gain.

[Lerkfish]

53. but the end result would have been the same, no? and then, we'd have sold our souls

to accomplish a CERTAIN lieberman win, when by opposing him, we at least had the chance to unseat him.

sigh...i grow tired of people telling me to hold my nose and vote for people like Lieberman.

[Perky]

55. Is Jack Murtha like Lieberman?

Joe Biden?

[Usrename]

62. Democrats reelected Lieberman.

He never would have mounted any kind of challenge without support from the leadership and votes from the rank and file.

You need to look at this a little closer.

Why did all his "friends" in the leadership support his independent run over their own party candidate?

Can't you figure out that this is exactly the behavior that has gotten the world into the disaster it is in?

Go ahead, keep blaming the Republicans while excusing the misdeeds of our own party leadership.

We are all doomed.

[endarkenment]

46. "Didn't Lieberman-Lamont teach you anything?"

Why yes it did. It taught me that we can mount a successful primary challenge to corrupt and compromised DINOs and win. And then it taught me (or rather re-taught me) that our many varied and byzantine state election regulations are also corrupt. However not all states suffer from Connecticuts regulation malfunction of allowing a primary contender to refile on a separate ballot line.

Primary challenges are the most effective in-party mechanism to change the way our party works. If in fact we cannot challenge the dinos in the primaries then I for one am done, out of here, off to a party, any party, that actually supports progressive policies and believes in popular democracy.

[Czolgosz]

52. Look at Henry Cuellar's record, and understand that he comes from a good Democratic district, and

then say that he ought not face a primary challenger.

I'm not suggesting that luke warm Democrats representing deep red states or districts should have a primary challenger, but DINOs in districts or states which would support a true Democrat ought to face primary challengers.

To suggest otherwise is undemocratic (with a small "d").

[KaptBunnyPants]

54. So then we can't vote third party

and now we shouldn't even try to challenge corrupt Democrats in a primary? You have a problem with this whole "democracy" thing, don't you?

[Virginia Dare]

56. If it's based on one Congressional vote, I'd say yes..

if your Rep consistently doesn't support your expectations of them, by all means, seek other avenues. To me, you do yourself no good by supporting an unelectable candidate though, just because they're more like you.

[blondeatlast]

57. Yeah, let's take that whole bothersome democratic thing out of the Democratic Party. nt

[camero]

59. They are reapng what they have sown

They should have known that they were gonna piss alot of people off with that vote since the war was then and is still among the top issues of the electorate.

[bvar22]

60. We should select our primary targets wisely.

Unseating Holy Joe was a national effort.
The Progressive community should target several of the most egregious Blue State insults to Democratic values, and build a NATIONAL campaign to send them home.

Rham Emmanuel/ Rep Chicago is FIRST on my list. I will be donating to his Primary opposition (with or without a movement).

DiFi would be a good target in the Senate.


We do need to be careful:

1) Casting too big net will dilute the effort. We should be selective and coordinated.
Most of the self-serving Democratic Professional politicians who are on the take from BIG WAR Profiteers (AIPAC, MIC)(DLC) are very aware of what happened to Lieberman. One more election cycle with properly targeted traitors will let the WHOLE Party know that continuing to ignore the Majority Left has consequences. If they jump ship and crawl back to the Republicans where they belong, so be it! The Democratic Party will be better off and we will be better able to rebuild a party that actually represents Working Americans.

2) We should temporarily avoid targeting Red States for now, though exceptions could be made. There are plenty of Corporate/AIPAC owned politicians masquerading as Democrats in Blue States.

3) We need to protect REAL Democrats. The DLC, AIPAC, and the MIC are already planning efforts to unseat Anti-War Democrats. We must be able to respond with money and support for those REAL Democrats who speak for us. Dennis Kucinich is already a target of the Corporate War Profiteers, predatory FOR-PROFIT HealthCare(?) Corporations, BBV Corporations, K-Street, and their toadies inside the Democratic Party.


I WILL be targeting DiFi and Rham.
Join me, and lets build a stronger NetRoots Progressive movement!

[Usrename]

63. I do agree with your assesment and the proposed strategy.

There are only two choices, really. Support third party candidates, or have targeted challenges in the primaries.

I am wondering who the most worthwhile target could be, in order to make the maximum benefit from limited resources and effort. There will still be a need to run effective candidates in highly contested districts, thereby maintaining a general sense of purpose and unity in the party and in the national debate.

Rahm Emanuel - that might be the best choice.

I've been pondering if it would be practical to begin an early challenge to Pelosi, in the hopes of changing her behavior about impeachment. I can't see any good that could come of it. I really think that if she had gotten Murtha (her choice for majority leader), then her attempts in halting the occupation in Iraq would be a whole lot more successful. Why couldn't she have Murtha? I suspect that some of that has to do with Rahm Emanuel.

[NoPasaran]

66. Spelling nazi alert!

If you're going to target "Rham Emmanuel" you might want to check the actual spelling of his name.

[GeorgeGist]

64. anyone who voted for the funding is intellectually lazy and politically naive.

:freak:
:nuke: