Were all the "throw ALL the bums out" activists taught a lesson with Lieberman last year?

[IdaBriggs]

I was just having a wakeful moment, and it occurred to me that our Washington Dems seem to be feeling pretty good about their job security these days. They might be in the "barely adequate" category at making us happy, but what are we going to do -- vote for a Vile Republican instead?

So, then I started thinking, well, "support their primary challengers to teach them a lesson" only then I remembered how well that worked in Connecticut. Fabulous candidate, who actually stood for the principals I think of when I think "Progressive Democrat" and he was *totally* stabbed in the back by the good folks in Washington. Plus, most challengers have a Zero Percent Chance in Hell at raising the funds they need, let alone gathering the "walk the precinct" organizational support that is required to get elected....

Were we "little people" supposed to have learned a lesson from the whole Lieberman debacle? "It isn't going to be allowed?"

I'm a little on the slow side, and officially pissed off that the Dems aren't doing more on the Impeachment Train. Frankly, I'm thinking *ALL* of them are completely useless, and a good "throw the bums out" campaign would get my support.

Except the only alternative to supporting the Dems are Repukes, and I just can't stomach that.

(Don't say anything about "third party" -- we all know that isn't how the system is set up to work. Sigh.)

[lligrd]

1. Nope, LIEberman Is Not A Dem Any Longer

and I am proud of that. He is 3rd party. We supported the Democrat.

[Greyhound]

3. Yes, a Republik (IINO) that chairs a committee under a Democratic majority

that showed him.

[lligrd]

4. LIEberman Is Done For

He will never get elected again by either party, even as an Indy. And Hell yes it was worth that.

[Tesha]

10. We did, but the big name Democrats didn't; they supported the turn-coat

> We supported the Democrat.

We did, but the big name Democrats didn't; they supported
the turn-coat or, at best, did nothing to help the Democrat.

It's funny how this works. When lefties lose a primary to a
DINO or a DLCer, we're told to "hold our noses and vote for
the party'd nominee". But when lefties actually went ahead
and won one, the DINOs and DLCers *DIDN'T* hold their
noses and vote for the perty's nominee, they all voted
Likud instead.

Tesha

[MH1]

19. Some big-name Dems supported Lamont - John Kerry, for one. n/t

[Tesha]

20. Okay, that's *ONE*. A few more??? (NT)

[MonkeyFunk]

2. How was Ned Lamont

"stabbed in the back"?

[riverdeep]

5. Liebermann was unique

He really has more of the Republican quality of wanting to hold onto power at all costs, rather than doing what's good for the party that supported him for years. He is beyond loathsome, and my desktop will be a picture of him clearing out his office, hopefully in tears.

[LeftishBrit]

6. Not unique...

I'm reminded of a few choice items of British political history.

There was a Labour MP, Reg Prentice, who served from 1957, held several government posts, and was Harold Wilson's Secretary of State for Education in the mid-70s. He was on the right of his party; was involved in a lot of party infighting; and was deselected by his constituency party (our equivalent of losing a primary). He then crossed the floor to join the Tories under Maggie the Evil One; and was selected for a Tory seat!

Here is a link to another story that fully demonstrates that hell hath no fury like a politician who is facing rebellion or defeat from their own party:

www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bermondsey_by-election,_1983


What *was* unique about the Lieberman episode was that the Republicans were prepared to support him actively, against their own candidate, without requiring him to switch parties. I assume that this would not happen too often.

[Tesha]

11. Remind me again which big-name Democrats came out and campaigned for him.

> How was Ned Lamont "stabbed in the back"?

Remind me again which big-name Democrats came out and
campaigned for him. ...which ones sang the "you must
support the party's nominee!" song. And which ones
didn't do squat for him, even though they were (for
example) from neighboring states and might have
wielded some influence over the majority-Democrat
electorate of Connecticut.

Tesha

[MonkeyFunk]

26. I seem to recall

most big name Democrats endorsing him afte the primary.

[Warren Stupidity]

7. Yes we were taught a lesson.

We learned that we could in fact back a progressive in the primaries and win. We also learned that Connecticut had an odd loophole in its election laws that allowed the primary loser to refile under a different party ballot line. Oh well...

Politics is dirty business. Cleaning up the mess is not going to be easy.

[trumad]

8. Lamont beating Lieb in the Dem Primary was a huge upset....

people forget that....

[H2O Man]

9. Exactly.

It is a stretch to say the entire episode could make folks in Washington feel secure. That is the exact opposite of the truth.

[Tesha]

12. The lessons I took away from this were...

The lessons I took away from this were:

o The party loyalty, as I've long suspected, only
runs one way: lefties are expected to be loyal while
being routinely shit upon but the DLC types are not,
in fact, loyal Democrats.

o I will never again be susceptible to the "Yeah,
he may suck, but he's the Democratoc nominee so
you *MUST* vote for him" argument.

Now, if you suck, you don't get my vote. Period.

Tesha

[cgrindley]

15. I think the problem is with our loss of the blue collar voter

Lots of my wife's relatives are blue collar workers... and they're really drifting over to the Republican Party even though the Republican Party hates them. They are pretty conservative morally but are naturally inclined to a few quite left leaning issues. Sort of like the polar opposite of a Rockefeller Republican.

These voters--morally conservative but fiscally liberal--basically have nowhere to turn. They're strong union supporters, very civic minded, in favor of strong public schools and affordable health care, but mention gay marriage to them or illegal immigration or a whole host of other progressive issues and they're pretty vocal about it.

I think that at least in CT, they were itching to vote for someone such as Lieberman, who basically represents everything they want to believe in and I don't think they cared much which party he belonged to, though he really doesn't belong in either.

It breaks my heart to see my wife's working class relatives basically run away from the Democrats to Republican candidates. The side of her family that is rich... they are as progressive as you can get. Perhaps that's what's so bizarre about CT. It's the rich here who are progressives while the working class are republicans. As for the poor... during the phone drives for Lamont... the poor seem to be sullenly disinterested in politics.

[txaslftist]

21. I absolutely agree.

I'm a bomb-tossing liberal, but this next election I'm voting person, not party.

[cgrindley]

13. I volunteered for Lamont and I learned two things...

One: CT is not really a blue state. It has a Republican governor and a Republican senator, many Republican State legislators, and lots of Republican mayors. Basically, it has Chris Dodd and Rosa Delauro and John DeStefano on the side of good.

Two: people are stupid. People voted for Lieberman because they are stupid.

[trumad]

14. Inolur neck of the woods we call them Morans... but stupid will work.

[CTyankee]

16. I volunteered for Ned too and called from his New Haven hq both

during the primary campaign and the general. My "poll" of course is not scientific but anecdotally I can say that locally there was a mixture of support for Joe from misguided, if sincere, Orthodox Jews, some of whom knew Joe personally, and Dems who didn't know that Ned WAS the Dem candidate, not Joe, in the general. Also, when I canvassed for signatures early in the campaign I found that mix also (Joe's synagogue is few blocks from me). Also, there was a degree of discomfort with Ned because people didn't know him; he just popped out of nowhere to them. Whereas we liberals just loved him and what he represented.

I've said this before on DU but I still feel it's true: I think some working class Dems felt that Ned was a rich Greenwich guy who would go back to his mansion and his lifestyle if he lost and had no idea about the reality of their lives. It's untrue, I believe, but that seems to me to be what they were communicating when I called. That thundering silence when I said I was calling from Ned Lamont's campaign...

[KharmaTrain]

17. A Slow Evolution

Two things I keep in mind...

First...is the position of the Democratic Party only a few years ago...especially going into the '02 and '04 elections. It was a "top-down" party that gave little thought to party building and outreach. It was centered around the "bundlers" and corporate money and winning "strategic" victories. Following Kerry's loss, the Democrats were on the edge of the political abyss...facing a strong possibility of a veto-proof House and Senate. Be thankful we walked away from that edge, but this is just a first step...and this leads to point two.

Progressives have won some battles, but we're far from being in a position to win the war...the war of ideas and values. Sadly, decades of sliming by the right, a paid-for corporate media that lives by a GOOP-driven story-line and years out of power have created a heavy "learning curve" on the Democratic party. It's one that's very much in transition and, honestly, where it goes is still not clear.

The netroots are a new element in an old game. Just like the Falwells and Gingrichs were kept at arms length by many "mainstream Repugnicans" in the 80's, they grew over the years and rose to be the prevailing voice in their party...the Progressive movement can work in the opposite direction within the Democratic party...especially when its shown that it can be the difference in elections and fund raising.

Lamont was just the first step in a long, long road...and many underestimated both the steepness of that road and the length. Many still do. The '08 election is the next step. It's the first national election where Dr. Dean's 50-state approach at the DNC is being put into play. There's a far different political landscape, but change doesn't happen overnight nor should we want it to be.

Yes, Democrats are frustrating as all hell right now, but it's not a monolith...it's now the "big tent"...that covers many types of people with different perspectives and priorities. It's a steady process that could open doors down the road to a "golden Progressive age"...but it only can be achived through working hard in winning elections and having both the political muscle and organization that will change the political narrative just as the right wing did during the 90's.

Cheers...

[Tesha]

23. From your lips to FSM's ears, wherever they are... (NT)

[lonestarnot]

18. Sucking Polergeist and Hannity ass doesn't do much for a dem career does it. Heh.

[sendero]

22. I don't think...

... there was much about the whole episode that can be extrapolated to the larger picture.

Lieberman was a unique candidate in a unique state with unique election laws and a unique electorate.

[paulk]

24. Lamont was a poor candidate

who ran a lousy campaign. That's why he lost.

That's the lesson.

[tom_paine]

25. Seven years living in Imperial Amerika is nothing BUT "lessons"

I think the Imperial Subjects of Amerika have lost any power we once might have had (which is debatable, but I believe at one time considerable, especially 1945-1980).