Why Help More Conservative Democrats

I know there has been "talk" on this board about some Democrats who have betrayed some Democratic principles and why help support their Congressional (or Senatorial) campaign.

Well, there's good reason. If (and it's still a big if) Democrats regain control of Congress, they gain control of the committees. For example, had Democrats controlled the judiciary committee in January, we wouldn't have needed more Democrats to vote against cloture, because the Alito nomination never would have made it to the full Senate.

If Democrats contolled Congress, they would get to set the agenda. They could focus on issues to help people instead of screwing our country.

So, if you are a true-blue liberal living in a red state, think about supporting your Democratic nominee, even if he/she is a bit more Conservative than you would like.

the accounts of Robert Kennedy's ascent in 1968, including his almost shocking win in the Indiana primary -- that's right, a liberal Roman Catholic won the Indiana primary in 1968 -- and his death by assassination in Los Angeles later that year cemented my fierce loyalty to the tenets of our party. That cement is layers thick and not even Evan Bayh will keep me from voting Democratic.

Especially after 8 damn years of the most reprehensible, morally vacuous presidency in the nation's history.

I'd love it if the world was modeled after my express specifications but IN THE OFF CHANCE THAT IT WON'T BE, I'm still showing up to vote blue.

I'd vote Dem (no matter how conservative) over virtually any imaginable Republican. Thankfully, even the Dems I dislike (Holy Joe Lieberman and the Gang of Seven who refused to filibuster Alito, come quickly to mind) are better than the benighted group of mediocrities peopling the Republican party.
If, God-forbid, Evan got the Dem nomination, I'd hold my nose and vote for him too.

I'm blue. I'm a Dem. Democrats are better than Republicans. Listening to the debate on C-Span almost any day of the week would convince any thinking person of this fact.

When I was 4 years old, my Croatian immigrant grandfather sat me on his lap and told me, in his broken English, "Joe, when you grow up, never vote for a Republican. They won't do a damn thing for you."

He was right.

He offered you some great advice.

I guess Lugar is running unopposed. That is, from any Democratic challenger. A Libertarian is expected to do better than expected, but it won't be enough to unseat Dick Lugar, I don't think.

It's past the filing deadline, too.

A strange thing could happen in Indiana. Lugar could become seriously ill and incapacitated (I'm not wishing it on him at all) and it would leave a Libertarian as the sole electable candidate on the ballot for that senate seat in November.

I guess there could be write-ins, but it would be remarkable.

And you're right -- Evan Bayh might even carry Indiana if he's the nominee, and I'd support the ticket, but my deeper enthusiasms are for other Dems.

Nice to bump into you on DU, joemurphy.

I've gotten into lengthy, pointless arguments with ultra-liberal Dem's in my Congressional District -- California 36 -- where Jane Harman is facing a serious challenge from Marcy Winograd, a died-in-the-wool anti-war liberal.

Winograd's people just refuse to listen to the argument that Harman holds a Democratic seat in a pale blue district just south of LAX airport. I keep asking -- if they want to take back the House, why not send money to the Dem in Texas 22, who has a chance for a turnover from Tom De-effing-Lay, rather that trying to take down a sitting Dem whose position is too cozy with the Defense Establishment for them.

Ideological purity over pragmatism. Sounds like Nader 2000, eh? And look what that got us.*

and going third-party/indy in the general election.

Those ultra-liberals? They want to win the House back just as much as you do. The difference is, they plan to hold their own party accountable for its actions while they are at it. Which is more laudable? Letting the Democratic Party off the hook while slamming Republicans, or holding both parties accountable to the will of the people?

My rule-of-thumb is: in the primary, vote based on principle. In the general, vote based on party.

Hmmm.

The ONLY place I ever hear that meme is in Republican fundraising materials.

....there are ultra liberals and ultra conservatives. No degradation there. Just making comparisons, I would assume.

where Democrats are demonized more overtly.... don't know about that.

But the ONLY place I ever see those words together are- as I said- in Republican fundraises (where you can often count 'em a dozen to a page).

It's something Tom Delay would say- which makes one question the original post.

among Democrats.

It's not meant as totally derogatory (although it is meant to be so my some), it's just a comparison between moderate Dems, liberals and "ultra leftists."

Really not a big deal.

No DINO's allowed.

No matter if we never win control again. I will die on principle NEVER to VOTE for anyone remotely even a tinny weenie little conservative, no matter how small.

I'd rather wallow in self defeatism waiting for the country to completely go liberal to vote MY way.

:sarcasm:

Yeah, I guess it's better to have a Republican House, and a Republican Senate, to pass on the next two Supreme Court openings . . . . (Stevens is 85 and Ruth Ginsberg is a cancer survivor.)

Take a long look in the mirror, Friend, when Roe is overruled, the Voting Rights Act is declared unconstitutional, and religious police are posted in your kid's school.

Myopia, by the way, means "short sighted."

of my little silly rant.

:nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: until I saw the sarcasm.

Remember Richard Milhaus Nixon and George Walker Bush!

so I suck in that regard.

:-)

It's a hot issue in California 36, though. Canb't understand why.

who would rather lose with a Green Party Candidate then vote for Harmon (or Feinstein).

Heck - I am originally from Pennsylvania - and I would rather win with Casey then have six more years of Rick Santorum.

both within parties systems and between political parties. I have no idea why we as a party don't figure that out.

Ideologues eventually are left out in the fringe ranting and raving.

Oh and mine since rwenos blamed me because I'm from Texas! You just a blaming kind of guy aren't you?

Of course, I blame everyone but myself. (I've learned from our Commander in Chief.)

I do feel strongly about some of the stuff I posted about Texas (a political nightmare, in my view). I jumped on that sarcastic message because I was getting my exercise jumping to conclusions.

"Using Lieberman as one example, would you replace his vote with a conservative Republican's vote in the Senate on the basis of his support for Iraq?

A case could be made that he has voted with the Democrats a majority of the time. If I were in Connecticut this year, I'd support Lamont mysef over Lieberman, but against a conservative Republican, I vote for Lieberman. Or at least against the conservative Republican.

If Evan Bayh were not way more moderate than his father, Birch Bayh, he would never ever have won state-wide elections so consistently. Never. I'd prefer Birch over Evan, but take Evan over the folks the GOP has offered to Indiana forever: Earl Landgrieb. Dan Burton. Steve Burton. Dan Quayle. Lugar. And there are worse examples still than those.

We may prefer the left-leaning candidate but our party must govern from the middle."

Its been interesting watchng the Republicans self destructing over this concept

I hope it never pours out over my belt.:hide:

Because if the Democrats as a party take control of the House and Senate, they will have control of the committees and have the power to investigate and subpoena witnesses.

You may disdain the Democrat running in your CD as a DINO, but in January he'll still vote with the Democrats for the Continuing Resolution that will make John Conyers chairman of the Judiciary Committee. And that is worth holding your nose and voting for a DINO in November.

the Judiciary Committee.

I'm tellin' ya, I LOVE it.

Am I disappointed that my Senator, Bill Nelson voted for Gonazlez as AG? Of course I am. But, remember, he's from FLORIDA and voting against a Hispanic (which is how it would come out in the spin cycle) is a kiss of death.

Even if Senator Nelson didn't USUALLY vote the way I want him too, I'd want to help him get elected because I'm not just voting for Nelson, I'm voting for Patrick Leahy to chair the Senate Judiciary Committee and Biden for Foreign Relations - oh, and Kennedy for Health, Education & Labor.

I am pretty much a dyed-in-the-wool Liberal, but whenever I get angry at so-called DINOs, I remind myself of this.

Well put.

If so, then our platform says "We will protect Americans' Second Amendment right to own firearms, and we will keep guns out of the hands of criminals and terrorists by fighting gun crime, reauthorizing the assault weapons ban, and closing the gun show loophole, as President Bush proposed and failed to do." See http://www.democrats.org/pdfs/2004platform.pdf

If you support our platform, then you oppose people like Schumer/Feinstein/Kennedy/Boxer who speak out against the position of our party on the Right to Keep and Bear Arms.

....it will be largely attributable to the brilliant political manuvers of Chuck Schumer. If you want to publicly oppose him on the basis of a single issue, feel free, but you might try to be aware of the larger picture. Perhaps a Democratic takeover of the Senate isn't something you're too keen on, given your non-stop concentration on guns.....

to a post about Democratic principles. I asked what were those principles and whether our party platform was appropriate.

I assume you are a Democrat and your previous posts suggest you support gun-control.

I have a problem with Democratic candidates who use their prestige to command media attention and then speak in favor of banning handguns or all guns without saying their position is a personal opinion and not that of the Democratic Party.

I don't agree with you that a Democratic victory in the senate is "largely attributable to the brilliant political manuvers of Chuck Schumer."

If we Dems regain control in the senate or house, it will be attributable to the stupid, arrogance of Bus and his cabal. My opinion on that issue may change if the Democratic Party gets its act together.

It's an entirely different thing to knee-cap Republicans so effectively that the electoral battles never even take place, and that's what Schumer is currently pulling off. In red states as well as blue. Of course, the Bush regime's long overdue implosion is a big help, but this notion that the Democrats are still cluelessly wandering in the desert at this point is Fox News propaganda---and DU Gun Dungeon Democrat-trashing, in my opinion. Schumer proves it.....

Democratic Party platform on RKBA.

...with the party's stance on the Second Amendment. I just don't think that support includes blowing Wayne LaPierre. Or pandering to the arrested development types that think the only kind of guns worth having have bayonet lugs, huge magazines and flash suppressors, so they look "scary." Or refusing to consider anything whatsoever in the way of proactive steps to keep the next mass slaughter in this country from happening, because God knows, the Founding Fathers in their wisdom just wanted us to mop up the blood afterwards.

Something for you to think about---or not. Glad I keep you amused.....

...with the party's stance on the Second Amendment" you might eventually not have Much Of A Problem with opposing people like Schumer/Feinstein/Kennedy/Boxer who use their media platform to mislead voters into believing the Democratic Party is a bunch of gun-grabbers.

Something for you to think about---or not.

I'll vote for a yellow dog before I'd vote for a non-Democrat.

People like Ben Nelson and Evan Bayh are just as much Democrats as John Kerry and Teddy Kennedy. They happen to hold office in quite conservative states which completely explains why they cross-over occasionally. Were it not so, they would not get elected in those states.

That's why I will not second guess the rationale behind a Congress critter's voting record during these days of one-party rule. We need the majority in both houses so that we can hold an out-of-control executive branch's feet to the fire.

My political leanings are quite far left. But without a Democrat majority I have precisely ZERO chance of having those very liberal issues in front of Congress, let alone the public. Only a sea change will do it.

That's why everybody ought to be Yellow Dogs this year.
Hell! My nose is even cold. My tail is a'waggin' in anticipation.

How do you figure that? Look how many Dems voted for him- and for Roberts.

I honestly don't know why people think that the far right enablers in this party are magically going to stop voting with the Republicans.

Ain't gonna happen- nor do I think that the Dems are anything but a longshot to even be able to take back the majority as long as prominant DINO's keep legitimizing Republican policies- and backstabbing their own party and constituents.

that is how I figure it.

Alito is going to be bad news, bad news, bad news all the way into the next generation, I fear.

........you support EVERY DEMOCRAT no matter what. You HAVE to agree more with THEM than ANY BUSH FACIST REPUBLICAN.....wouldn't you?

If you are in a blue state you have the luxury of being "choosy" about your Democrats and only supporting the real liberals. If you are in a red state (Florida, Texas, etc) you have to appreciate what you have, take the "bad" with the good, recognize the need for compromise and realize that sometimes there really is a difference with the "lesser of two evils."

At least in Texas, we have the same HIGH quality Democrats running. The problem is two-fold.

One, the Republican manipulation of the religious of the right-wing is so prevalent here, that it is hard to breakthru, although the stranglehold is getting weaker and weaker.

Two, number one is so frustrating that many Dems stay home because they assume that it won't matter anyway, not because they don't like the candidates.

If I can't bring myself to vote for a DINO, I can usually bring myself to vote against the Republican.

(Hypothetically, of course - the old nutjob is out, thankfully.)

I have been known to NOT VOTE for pugs in Dem clothing, but not voting for ANYONE. Had to do that in an extreme case a couple of times.

BUT the rest of the ticket got my support.

As of yet, I've seen no real plan from the "punish-'em-later" folks here as to how to get 'necessary' conservative/anti-worker/anti-choice/pro-war Dems to pursue a progressive, liberal direction once elected to Congress.

Why in the world would any of them bow to pressure AFTER being voted in? Those who vote against their principles to help install more Dems, regardless of said Dems' views, are bargaining from a position of weakness! Plus, if these conservatives DO trend away from their previously-stated views, a good number of the chuckleheads who voted for them FOR BEING CONSERVATIVES will ditch them the next election.

So, how does this plan really entail any difference? What makes anyone think newly-elected conservative Dems will, e.g., vote for impeachment, or even to place more liberal Dems into chairmanships?

Frankly, I think a lot of this "vote them in, then make them toe the line" stuff is purely wishful thinking. I don't see why conservative Dems would feel obligated to suddenly become liberals.

Committee chairs (as well as leadership) determine the agenda, not the rank and file.

That aside, there's a single issue here that some people forget. When Conyers becomes judiciary committee chair we get to hold ANY hearing and subpoena ANYBODY THAT WE WANT and make them testify UNDER OATH. Words cannot describe how critical this is. If Conyers has this power, we can truly expose the Bush administration's corruption.

Enacting a progressive agenda doesn't happen over a course of one midterm election. I agree with you that we not only need a majority in congress, we need the votes to enact our agenda (especially if we want to be strong as a party). That said, if Conyers gets to be chair of the judiciary committee, we have the potential to ruin the GOP for a decade or more. If we can do this, we will pick up dozens of seats and the White House in '08 and then we will be able to enact our agenda.

...is it assured that Conyers would get that chairmanship?

And what assurances do we have that a liberal - heck, just NOT a corporate-beholden anti-choice pro-illegal war - Dem would become leader in the Senate and House?

THAT'S my concern with the "just chuck a 'D' in there" approach.

He's ranking member on the committee which means that he automatically ascends to the job of chairman if we take the majority. Pelosi becomes Speaker and Reid becomes Majority Leader.

He could hold ANY hearing, Subpoena ANYBODY, and force anybody to testify UNDER OATH.

Maybe our agenda would only be marginally better than the GOP's until we strengthen are margin with more progressive dems. I'm still holding my nose and voting for any dem this november because if Conyers becomes judiciary committe chair, it may end the Republican party for a decade if not more.

of anti-conservative resentment, what would you do in 2006? It seems to to me that one of the few chances you'd have to keep Republicans in power would not be to fight anti-Repub sentiment, but to harness it and use it against conservative Democrats like Joe Lieberman. I don't believe for a second that Bush would give Joe a cabinet position, but I do believe that Republicans say he would because they know that creating that perception is one fo the few ways they have a chance of picking up his senate seat.

It's sad that we have RW Democrats who force us into having to do this. But, for now, I'd rather have Lieberman in Congress than a Republican.

we will get liberal legislation from those committees. I think we should discourage conservatives of any party when it doesn't cause us to lose control of the Congress.

A majority of conservative Dems is as equally as bad as a majority of equally conservative Repubs. Conservatism is regression and we should fight it.

And maybe 1 or 2 others, I agree. Lieberman is beyond what I can tolerate. We're a big party. Not everyone is going to agree on everything. The only person that agrees with you 100% is yourself. So either run for office or STFU.

.....that's also what is wrong with it, your position makes sense and would actually accomplish something concrete.:bounce: There are some at DU who are lacking, to one degree or another, in the "common sense" department.:wtf:

Here we go again.

Look, labels are counterproductive and frequently don't tell the whole story. let me use my current situation as an illustration.

I've served three terms in the NH House. I am generally painted as a "moderate", "centrist", or "New Democrat", and to a certain extent, the labels are accurate. I supported legislation to support public charter schools (vey "New Dem" of me) and supported the parental notification law (a vote viewed as socially conservative).

On the other hand, I have one of the most pro-environment voting records in the legislature (the Granite State Conservation Voters named me a "Hero of the House"); I sponsored tough lobbying reform legislation; I have a solid pro-labor record.

And what about an issue like crime victim rights? That's an area where compassionate liberalism and a hard-nosed, tough on crime approach go hand in hand. When I sponsored the new law providing guaranteed work leave for crime victims and wrote an amendment protecting funding for the victim advocacy office, it brought together the NH Police Chiefs Association, several GOP prosecutors, the AFL=CIO and the progressive NH Citizens Alliance. Liberal, conservative or moderate?

My point is that we need to stop spending so much time worrying about labels, and look at what candidates and elected officials bring to the table. We need to be concerned with coming up with a set of policies that improve people's lives, that clean up a rancid political culture, that empower people at every level of the economic ladder.

Many DU'ers like to pretend that the Democratic Party that controlled Congress during most of the years between 1932 and 1994 was overwhelmingly liberal, and that the Party only lost its grip on Congress when it began moving to the center.

Of course, anyone familiar with political history knows that this is nothing more than a left-wing fantasy. The Democrats depended on a sizable contingent of conservative Democrats (primarily from the South but also from rural districts out West) for their Congressional majorities. The Democrats lost control of Congress when Republicans finally succeeded in convicing voters who had been voting Republican at the presidential level to start voting Republican at the Congressional level. DU'ers conveniently forget that only 40 years ago, nearly every member of Congress from the South was a Democrat. It's laughable to suggest that these seats switched to the Republicans because the Democratic Party moved to the center.

The fact is that if the Democrats want to regain their Congressional majorities, they need to be able to elect more candidates from red states. And the Democrats aren't going to be able to do that it if they insist on supporting only left-wing candidates.