{Repost, modified)

{note to mods: I cited the DU rules in the first thread for the sake of the rank-and-file posters who may or may not be aware of them; I didn't mean to insinuate that the mods needed reminding.}

I'm not a "tout-the-DLC-line" Democrat by any means. But I do know that even Joe Lieberman is about 3-times as liberal as "Democratic" as the most moderate Republican currently in the Senate. Even Ben Nelson of Nebraska has a voting record many times more liberal than almost any Republican. The way the "Vote out Maria Cantwell! Vote out such-and-such!" agents provocateurs on these boards would make us believe, it was Ben Nelson of Florida who launched the Iraq invasion, Dianne Feinstein who signed the Patriot Bill into law, Hillary Clinton who authorized that Gitmo prisoners be tortured, and Joe Biden who sat on his a$$ while New Orleans turned into lake.

My personal preference for Democrats is that they are of the liberal-center mold, like say, Russ Feingold, John Kerry, Pat Leahy. But obviously, not every Democrat in Congress is going to be a carbon copy of my favorite type. How could they be? In the entire history of the United States, there has never, ever been a uniformly "liberal" Democratic bloc in Congress. Even during the Golden Age of liberal-center Democratic presidents (FDR through LBJ, and I include Ike as a de facto liberal-center kind of guy), the Democrats in Congress were the usual mix of conservatives, liberals, centrists, you-name-it.

What naive person could legitimately argue a uniformly "liberal" Democratic congress could exist now?

I'll just repeat something here that I posted on other thread last night:

Before supporting a primary challenge against a Democrat, it's the responsibility of that challenger's supporters to

1) Have a darn good reason to want a different Democrat in the incumbent Democrat's seat (just because somebody out there in the peanut gallery calls Democrat Joe/Jane a "DINO" does not necessarily make it so)

2) Have VERY good reason to believe that the challenging Democrat would have a very legitimate shot at defeating the GOP candidate.

Anybody who supports replacing incumbent Democrats but doesn't adhere to those two requirements I just mentioned is simply out to destroy the party, and hand power permanently over to the Republicans.
It means that the "Let's all work to defeat the DLC!" people on these boards are essentially "Let's work to defeat the Democratic party!" Republicans, whether they are Republicans in disguise, or simply useful idiots for the Republicans.

(Apologies in advance to any who may take this as singling them out personally. I post as forcefully as I can for a reason: My goal is only to help the Democrats regain power, so that there's at least some hope of overturning the atrocities enforced upon the nation by Republican policies.)

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

But I'd rather be a dipshit than an unprincipled say anything to win guy (see I don't have to call you anything(lefty(haha)48197). What should I stand for today, yeah that's what is polling good, that's the ticket...

majorities in the House and the Senate so that every single committee is headed by a Democrat, instead of by a Republican, as they now are.

So that John Conyers will again be head of the Senate Judiciary Committee. So that every committee can resume the job of oversight of the executive branch that has always been part of its mission. So that we can reassert separation of powers.

That's why we need to put aside our differences and work together to support every Democratic nominee.

the radical right. Liberals, moderates, DLCers, DFAers, ACLU members, libertarians, etc. should all band together right now if we want to take out the hardcore right wing and stop their political momentum for good.

I liked the part where you defend the DLC's support of the Iraq war. And how you explain that stuff about them not wanting Democrats to criticize Our Righteous Leader. Nicely done.

Three-fourths of the time they vote Democratic. They disappoint every time, unfortunately. People can vote for whomever they wish, but I cannot bring myself to vote for these part-time Democrats...

I'm beginning to wonder.

He was the perfect candidate, had all the grassroot supports, before Nightmare decided to call it quits, and then the DLC/Democratic Party pushed Ken Salazar into the front before Miles. Miles actually won top ballot in the convention, but in the primary, the voters chose Ken Salazar because DLC/Dems were pushing him too hard. So, Ken wins, and frankly, I'm not too pleased with his voting record, and have written many letters stating so.

Hawkeye-X

because Miles would have had his ass handed to him on a plate in the general election.

the DLC had nothing to do with it.

to say on the subject really. The smaller Neocon issues Lieberman contests are the Trojan horse. Brilliant cover, until rumbled.

(I was going to post this in response to your "What about Alito..." questions before the thread got locked):

Even supposing there were enough votes in the Senate to force a filibuster (there wasn't, but we'll ignore that for the moment), what would the filibuster have done? It wouldn't have done anything: Filibusters only work when the non-filibustering side eventually loses their nerve and withdraws their support for a bill/nomination following a long, drawn-out filibuster; when the majority of the Republican senators' local constituncies already strongly supported a conservative nominee like Alito, why would you expect the GOP senators to cave in to a filibuster? It doesn't make any sense.

As for the Iraq War Resolution? It's annoying that some Dems signed it, but it didn't make a bit of difference either way. We know today that Bush was going to launch the invasion anyway, even if the Republicans didn't support the resolution. That thing some of the Dems signed was mostly just a symbolic gesture; it did not launch the war, mobilize troops, or anything.

You might be right about the bankruptcy reform bill, though I don't know for certain. If a Dem was a "deciding factor vote" on that one, then that Dem should expect a primary challenge.

Republicans love to cite IWR as their justification for launching the war. It was about all they had to hang their hat on.

because it is the right thing to do?

the big picture is, even if Joe Lieberman or one of the Nelsons does make votes we don't like, if we stay united, we can hopefully retake the Senate. This will help transfer power from Conswervative Republicans to all types of Democrats. Do you really think if Democrats were in charge this horrible gay marriage amendment ever would have made it out of committee or gotten a debate on the Senate floor? Do yoo really think if we had control of the Senate that alito would have made it through the Judiciary Committee?

I for one, do not. I will take a Joe Lieberman, a Ben Nelson and a Harry Reid if it means Barbara Boxer and Russ Feingold will have more power.

"Do you really think if Democrats were in charge this horrible gay marriage amendment ever would have made it out of committee or gotten a debate on the Senate floor?"

If it were good for poll numbers, actually, yes, I think it would have made it out of committee. Even with Dems in charge.

If I want to support a Republican I can do that without the DLC putting up a DINO. I don't want any kind of Republican, lite or otherwise.

There is nothing wrong with wanting to rid the party of the DLC scourge. In fact, it is good for the party because then the Democratic party can actually claim to stand for something. Right now, we can't make that claim because any time a real Democrat takes the stand, someone out of the DLC pack undercuts them and shoots them down.

As for the DLCers being "liberal", well sure they are on throw away votes. Just enough to keep the peons happy. But on the big issues, the core issues, they screw us every time.

We need to get rid of the corporatists. We need to get rid of the appeasers. Sure, I'll vote for any DINO before any Repug in any election, but in the Democratic primaries I reserve my right AND DUTY to try to bring about the demise of the DLC and their kind.

The "repug-lite" charges are getting more and more tired... :boring:

I tried

The original post is clearly so tilted that I am incensed to read the diatribe! The issue for those of us that are unhappy the democrats of the likes of JoeMentum and all the DINOs, is the constant and guaranteed undercutting of the democratic party's position on key issues. To us it seem that what the DINOs are more interested in is how may times they are identified with the winning side of the vote in congress regardless of whether or not the vote is in keeping with the principles of the democratic party. So if by chance the democrats regain control of congress, I will not be surprised to see these DINOs vote more often with the Democrats on these same issues that they voted previously with the repuke-licans. To me that clearly shows that these DINOs are unprincipled and drag on the party's image. It will be no problem, as far as I am concerned, if these DINOs and their DLC masterminds are not always seeking for ways to publicly undercut the progressive wing and the party in general - but that is what they seem to do all the time. I deem it a necessity that the DINOs get a dose of their own medicine - make their reelection effort harder and harder for them with the possibility of the defeat in the primaries even. And if the party bosses and staff do not like it and refused to extend help to any candidate that defeats a DINO, then making a sweeping change of the party's administration should be our next target.

You stated, as I recall, that it would be better to have a liberal run as the Democratic candidate in Connecticut, even if he were to lose in the general election to the Republican. Otherwise, you asked, "what's the difference." (Sorry, I can't access your post any longer.)

Lieberman's actual vote record puts him at a 76% on progressive issues, above 5 other Democrats and Jeffords. Sen. Chafee, the Republican with the highest score, rated a 43%. The vast majority of Republicans were under 15%. So when you say Lieberman's a DINO, that he "votes with the Republicans most of the time," what do you mean exactly?

There are five Democrats more conservative than Lieberman. Should they all be voted out? Even the lowest scorer, Nelson, votes with the Democrats most of the time and against the vast majority of Republicans. And every single Democrat that we have in office, including Lieberman and Nelson, contributes to the overall number of Democrats in office. When we have 51 Senators in office, John Conyers will be the head of the Senate Judiciary Committee, and every other Chairmanship will be filled by a Democrat. To that end, we need to support every single Democrat who has a good chance of beating the Republican opposition. Almost all of the time that means the INCUMBANT Democrat.

Lieberman represents people in the State of Connecticut and it's really up to them -- not liberals in other states -- to decide how good a job he's doing. Sometimes Senators in states that aren't as liberal as yours vote in ways that you don't like, but they may well be representing their own constituencies. If they don't, their constituents will let him know.

In any match-up between a Democrat and a Republican, depending on the state, a more conservative Democrat may have a better chance of beating the Republican than a liberal Democrat. Sometimes we have to make compromises in order to win.

Here's to every Democrat in every race across the country!

The issue here is primary challengers. It is a straw man to suggest that Democrats like Lieberman are preferable to Republicans. Duh! That isn't the issue. While it may be true that Democrats like Ben Nelson need to be more conservative in order to stave off losing to a Republican, that excuse doesn't work for Joe Lieberman. Connecticut isn't a red-state.

of people in Connecticut. Obviously, the state isn't as blue as you think. Now, at this moment in history, is not the time to take a chance on losing a race in the hope of getting someone better.

I mean, I know all the people who were bashed for voting for Nader were told that they should try and move the Dems left rather than voting third party, but you didn't really expect them to be allowed to DO IT, did you? Hell no!

Quit trying to change the party, it is basically, shut up, sit down, and do as you're told. Don't talk about change, we don't want to hear of it. We will control the debate, the questions, the context, and indeed who may ask them and when! For one thing is certain and that is that we must move to the CENTER! Americans want Defense! Military! Weapons! Defense! Security!

All Hail the Mighty Hillary!

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

You already know the answer to this. Quit wasting our time with dramatic displays.

:bounce:Reality check:bounce:

1. Some people voted for Nader whether we agree with their reasons or not
2. People who vote USUALLY have a reason for choosing their candidates, regardless of party
3. Some people may not vote for the same democrats that you do
4. Some democrats may not even vote for a democrat who doesn't meet their standard
5. The really real world is not made up of straight ticket voters
6. Not everyone who doesn't vote for a democrat is an embryo saving homophobic hawk
7. People vote for who they think will represent them best.

Who is this "our" you're talking about? You're wasting "our" time with this unproductive authoritarian form of discourse. If you're serious about getting people to vote for our candidates, then help craft our candidates to be worthy of voting for.

It's that simple.

There are more people who vote their own interests than who vote the party's interests, and if you don't figure it out real soon and learn how to address it, your strategy of browbeating will fail.

Would YOU explain to me why people should NOT vote Nader if in fact they are not allowed to try and change the Dems from within? If they can't try and get rid of Lieberman, for example, at the primaries, why should they not do it in the general?

that decorated vet Chuck Hagel admits was a mistake.

AFAIC the DLC is worthless. I don't agree with their message and I don't think it's good for the party. So before the primaries, what's the point of limiting dissent against anything/anyone?

this critical time in our history -- assuming the incumbant is well positioned to beat the Republican, which Lieberman is -- is dumb.

And it's up to the people of Connecticut to decide how well Lieberman is representing them. What may look too conservative to an outsider may fit his constituents. In any case, his overall vote score on progressive issues is 74%. The vast majority of Repubs, according to Progressive Punch, score 15% or lower. He's not the DINO he's painted to be.

I hate his votes on Iraq but I'm not willing to sacrifice a single Senate seat because of that mistake.

back to "values"

1. some people's top value is to get as many democrats in office as possible no matter what

2. some people's top value is to vote for who they think represents them best

Clearly if you are a #1 type you can't convince anyone in a live conversation who is a #2 to vote based on YOUR political value here.

Calling them "naive" and out to destroy the party - that's destructive. There are many more people who are #2's than #1's, and that's reality. So far I'm not seeing how the "more democratic than thou" crowd here even KNOWS how to talk to the #2's - it's pretty evident throughout DU's political forums.

We need to figure this out together; not by posturing against each other. If we can't then we need to lower our expectations for the next electoral outcome.

in the long run.

I suppose you're hunky-dory with his
championing of "faith-based initiatives", too.

Someone who has strayed so far from
democratic ideals should face a
challenge from the roots.

But I've discovered that not all the congressional Democrats who are of the DLC follow that line: John Kerry, John Edwards, and Al Gore, as examples.

Lieberman supports the war, and that's a disgrace, I agree. But even Lieberman is not the reason (or even part of the reason) we went to war, or that we're still in it. As I said, if Lamont can be a strong candidate against the GOP opponent, I'm all for a primary. In either case, I will support whoever wins the Dem primary -- yes, even if it's Lieberman. (One exception: If Lowell Weicker, as an Independent, were to run against Lieberman, I'd support Weicker).

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

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

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

I said that what you did was cowardly. And it still is.

unproductive. How does the OP plan to go door to door with that philosophy? I hope he doesn't or we will be losing democratic votes.

You know, the same nitwits who tried to convince us that there was no difference between George W. Bush and Al Gore?

has a personal belief in yer requirements 1 and 2. I sorta suspect that the folks signing petitions to get onto primary ballots (or how every a district goes about it) do, too.

The entire country gives the congress lower approval than they do W. Think about what that SHOULD mean to challenging the incumbents. If this is a Republic with democratic elections then WHEN would be a better time than now to hold the incumbents (R & D, DLC and non-DLC) to account for their collectively poor performance?

Why do the DLC and the DCdems always preach "fear, fear, we are gonna run outta money, we are gonna ruin our candidates by exposing their flaws" sort a stuff?

Why don't we _celebrate democracy by practicing it_? Despite gerrymandering that makes alternate party challenges difficult, despite the advantages that incumbents that make any challenge difficult, there are democrats willing to put their reputations and fortune on the line to make the challenges.

I say "Hallelujah!" That's proof their is still life in this old Republic after all!

Joe Lieberman is one such Democrat. He gravitates to the spotlight, and revels in the attention that the political pundit shows heap on him as a dissenting voice. The problem is that we need Democrats who will promote our agenda, not the agenda of the GOP. A politician is much more than just their voting record. Democrats are continually shut out of the debate, and when the only voices are self-serving, there is little hope of getting our message out. It may very well be that Joe Lieberman has a very liberal voting record. How many times have you heard him on the television advocating for any of those causes?

You're clearly holding someone to a standard that no Democrat could satisfy.

what's wrong with standards?

Name one Democrat who has not undermined another Democrat by disagreeing with them ever. Go. You have ten minutes.

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

Democrats. Even worse, you're undermining incumbants with seniority that have proven they can win elections. In a time when we are 6 Senators away from achieving a Senate majority.

Do you live in Connecticut? If you don't, how do you know how often Lieberman's on television there? Out here in Washington, I don't hear much about your Senator either, unless his name is Kennedy.

It seems to me that you follow a very conservative idea - "the ends justify the means". Kicking out GOPers is more important than having a representative that represents one's values.

This, I'm sorry to say, isn't democratic. And it certainly is NOT going to help progressive ideals in the medium term - it will harm them in the long term and arguably will only benefit conservatism in the short term.

I would very much like to debate on something I find lacking in the DNC and in American politics in general - an ideology. If the country has moved to the right it isn't just because of the corporate billions poured into indoctrination, it is because the DNC has reacted through market-driven politics. Such a reactive strategy in the face of an aggressive proactive strategy can only result in the erosion of the core values of the DNC - as we have seen with the Lieberman's and the DLC.

After the biggest successes in our national history the Democrats seem to have abandoned the very basis upon which those successes were won under Democratic leadership. Somewhere down the line we abandoned Keynesian economics and embraced neoliberalism (the DLC is CERTAINLY a believer in that economic concept). We complain of Reaganomics yet the DNC and DLC emulate them - albeit with a softer edge. There was little liberal about Clinton, no matter how big the "D" was after his name.

So ultimately what does the DNC with or without the DLC stand for? "Get rid of the GOP" and nothing more?

I'm sorry - for me it's time that the lines be drawn. I don't want a choice between a GOP and a GOP lite - if this is the case I'm almost in favor of the GOP winning - at least that way the failure of their policies could NEVER be blamed on progressive or liberal ideals. And such an event might lead to the thing that I believe most Americans of all political stripes most want - REFORM.

Now you might wish to consider me "a useful idiot for the Republicans" because I want to make a stand on what I believe in. That's your choice. I could retort by saying that YOU'RE a useful tool of conservative idealogues.

But this is a debate and my mind is open. Perhaps there is a solution that would satisfy both sides?

You haven't done your homework.

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

...to someone who's bringing up a tired line that's been skillfully and objectively debunked so many times. If you don't believe me, check out post #8. Maybe it will get you interested enough to read the rest of the reasons why it's been shown again and again that there is a difference.

I knew this kid in elementary school, and as a joke he started saying nothing but "peanut butter" in response to what other people would say. You'd ask him a question, he'd say "peanut butter". You started talking about how he'd say "peanut butter" to everything people would say, and he'd say "peanut butter". That is like what the "no difference" people do, it has about as much meaning now that it's been thoroughly debunked. You can't keep people from saying it over and over again, but that doesn't mean it's true or even that they don't know it's not true. It gets annoying when you know someone's lying to you over and over again. That's why I have so many people on ignore. I just don't have a good reason to spend time listening to people who spam DU with third-party lies when I have limited time.

I'm really sick of this pompous attitude people get when trying to prove they are more liberal than everyone by making unreasonable comments like this notion that there's no difference between the parties. It is because of people like that that we have two conservative supreme court justices, a war in Iraq, and dead and displaced people as a result of Hurricane Katrina.

You're really "sick" of this pompous attitude?

Here's pompous: No matter how ugly you and people like you get about other democrats voting for whomever they think is going to represent them best, they're still going to do it. I might add arrogant too.

LoZo, it is pompous to say in the same breath: "it's not fair to say some democratic candidates are less of a democrat than others" because of a difference in ideology while you're saying some voting democrats are less of a democrat than others because of the difference in voting ideology.

You still haven't answered how you plan to take this "vote for us or you're out to destroy the party" strategy door to door.

Threads like this are destructive and divisive.

I think a lot of this "I'm leaving the party" rhetoric has to do with the fact that people can go around saying it on an anonymous Internet message board and face no consequences. I really don't take it seriously. It's trolling, whether it's from the left or right because it's not serious and it seems to be from a lot of people who like to get a rise out of other people. I had someone tell me that Nader was running to put himself into office. I don't think I can be expected to take stuff like that seriously.

Less people voted for Nader in 2004 than 2000, so I think a lot of people got the point. I think it basically has to do with Maslow's triangle or something. People's need to survive usurps the need for them to show off with vanity votes. Same goes with their needs to be taken seriously by other people and not to be ridiculed or shamed for making a decision harmful to society. If you want to call the mechanisms that society uses to protect itself from careless decisions made by a few of it's members "ugliness" I don't think I can stop you.

Now what I haven't heard from the Naderites is basic cause and effect. How will what they do bring them closer to their goals. I've heard maybe one basic plan, and that's to let things get so bad under Republican rule that people run to a progressive candidate the next time.

I have a few objections to this strategy.

1. I value human life.
2. It is terrorism.
3. It is the strategy that Stalin encouraged German communists to undertake in letting Hitler rule. I will concede that the plan eventually did lead to a German communist state after World War II, however.
4. It is institutionally racist and classist, as lower classes and minorities are likely to be disproportionately harmed by the system it creates.

Nobody in this conversation is "leaving the party".

Nobody is defending Naderites or the worst of their strategies.

All I ever talked about was voting for the person who best represents you, and letting them know that's what you're doing. It shapes the party.

All of a sudden people who don't straight ticket vote are terrorists? I confess I am lost. This wasn't what I was talking about. I was talking about out IN THE REAL WORLD where people DO think for themselves, what information besides scare tactics like terrorism and racism and classism and commis and hitler and whatever else you mentioned are we going to use to get wavering base voters to be rah rah gung ho for the democrats?

Ya betcha we're going to have to go "door to door" figuratively, or we sure as hell aren't going to be placing bets on winning. Political capital doesn't fall in your lap - you earn it.

I drifted into a conversation about Nader; sorry. If Ned Lamont can get more people to vote for him than a Republican can then so be it. But if you send someone to the general election who loses, what have you done for yourself and others?

...when the answer to this is posted several times over this thread and dozens of others? And why should I respond to someone who isn't receptive to something that has disproved them over and over again?

it's about broad philosophies in the party. What some "true believer" dems here think is that questioning WHY you're a democrat is wrong, that it weakens the party instead of strengthens it. It's the same idea that fervid religious people use whenever someone questions their faith.

I'm a democrat because I believe in high moral principles - that the government is an elected administrative body that manages our shared resources, our safety, our wellbeing, and our interface with other sovereign nations, be it economic or cultural; that our government, of its citizens, represents the broader interests of all its citizens fairly.

I don't want two senators whose votes cancel each other out on every single major issue - that's weakness. Having standards and laying the groundwork for a stronger party is much smarter than just voting for any idiot who claims to be a democrat.

The way things stand right now we're already a three party system: the republicans, the DLC and the rest of the democrats.

the future. We need separation of powers NOW! We need subpoena power NOW! We need Democratic chairs of all committees in the House and Senate NOW!

We can't afford to lose a single Democratic seat. We need to get behind every Democrat that is positioned to win in the general -- hold our noses, if necessary -- and support them. Because our democracy is hanging in the balance. Lieberman won't bring a theocratic dictatorship to the country. But these Repubs might. How can anyone think that's worth the chance?

The sky is not falling. Or rather, it has been falling forever. I think there are two conversations going on here - some doo doo about Lieberman disguised as general principle and voting on principle being characterized as "not democratic enough".

The reason we're in this pickle is because we didn't lay the groundwork, because we had democrats elected to office who canceled out each others votes. What you're saying sounds like, "we lost all this money at the races, quick give us some more so we can win this time!"

The answer is, this ain't a horserace. This is a construction zone. If you don't have a blueprint for the finished building, or if you plan to build a house using some real wood, cardboard, and styrofoam beams, it's not worth building the house. So laying the groundwork is a good thing, and selecting the materials that go into the construction is a good thing, not "quick, build it with whatever's laying around because there's a storm coming".

I suppose I responded after all.

of Dems in committee chairs will result in anything other than what's already been happening (i.e., nothing)?

They've had opportunities to speak up, but instead they pull the bold members down. And not being the chair of the committee doesn't mean we don't have members ON the committees - but you'd never know it from watching what they do. Feingold is the only one who actually points out the absurdity of the entire process. And HE's left to dangle in the wind.

I guess I just don't have the faith in the current crop of Dems that you do. And I personally believe it's because we've sacrificed principle to expediency and strategy. We don't stand for anything, unless the polls say it'll be helpful in getting elected. That's just not what I'm about.

If with a Democratic congress with influential DINOs proceed to act like the repuke-lite congress and makes no attempt at holding anyone in the administration accountable - what then will you say or do? Who can vouch that a democratic congress with influential DINOs/DLC sycophants is not going to be tethered to the aprons of big corporations and MSM? Unless we have principled democrats with spine to be true to the principles of the party and the constitution, we will be wholly disappointed - this time very badly.

:hi:

:hi:

that someone would vote on principle.

Democrats have been defeated and downtrodden so long (in their minds) that at this point the ends justify the means.

The fact is that people really vote against DINO's because their higher value is to shape the party into something more cohesive than a bunch of people from diametrically opposite ends of the political spectrum with a D stamped on their forehead; a value higher than merely getting a bunch of people with "D" behind them to sit in office and cancel out each other's votes.

Saying stuff like "is simply out to destroy the party" is certainly not true. If they were out to destroy the party, they would be voting against all dems, not just bad dems. The fact that we have such a deep schism in our political ideologies within the party means that we're the only ones who are destroying ourselves by not having party standards. Democratic wedge issues are INTERNAL. That's what a wedge issue means; we diminish ourselves by not taking a unified stance on personal freedom and equality, whether that means equal marriage; right to work, or right to own your own reproductive processes. Supporting the war and corporatism are not wedge issues. There is nothing in immigration that is a more pressing problem today than it was two months ago. It is simply not a "wedge" issue, except that we make it so ourselves.

Why can't we be cohesive? I support equality issues as my top principle, above all else. If you're not an equal American, then the party who claims to support "all Americans" doesn't deserve your vote, and voting for the least worst option is not participating in the political process.

I'm starting to hate these threads - because all they do is complain about how wavering base voters are going to vote without giving a solution for securing their vote. It drives people away, rather than unites.

If people have a reason to be wary of a candidate, then we need to understand that dynamic and deal with it in a way that is convincing and supportive.

Sadly it seems that the level of political debate has fallen so low that even the webs sites of BOTH parties are filled with platitudes. A meager statement of intent - which the GOP seems much more adept at actually putting into practice than the DNC, no matter how egregious said intentions are.

Someone pointed to a "liberal rating" of Senators as if one's voting record is an accurate gauge of progressiveism or conservatism. If I'm not mistaken, this was a conservative tool a few years back.

While I am far from desiring a monolithic party or the party loyalty of a parliamentary democracy, the DNC does need to position itself. The DLC, with its embracing of neoliberal economics and even indirect participation in PNAC - is anathema for me and far from being a unifying factor.

If the real issue is just to get people in office who have Ds behind their name, then let's just forget the platform, forget the ideals, and run solely on what's popular at the moment. If gay marriage is a loser issue - dump the gays! If polls say people don't care about the poor or social justice, screw the minorities and immigrants!

Wait . . . that's sort of starting to sound like the DLC already . . . hmm.

(I'm not speaking for you, sui generis - this is just my own rant.)

I never said anything along the lines of "forget the platform, forget the ideals, etc." If I had, you'd be justified in making that argument.

If you can, please respond directly to the content of my post.

...on ideas that have no reference and nothing to do with what I wrote in my OP?

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

issues I care about.

I have been very disappointed with Lieberman's statements about our needing to support *'s policies, and disgusted by his recent statement that religious hospitals in Connecticut should be allowed to not provide the morning-after pill for rape victims because rape victims can go to another hospital to get the drug (the evening they are raped). I am further dismayed that Lieberman's campaign manager has admitted that he rarely visits Connecticut to interact with constiuents. My favorite pols - Russ Feingold, Dennis Kucinich, Bernie Sanders - are the one's who have very frequent meetings with constituents.

I think Lamont sounds like a breath of fresh air...

Here are the first three issues on Ned Lamont's issues page...

* The war in Iraq has diverted far too many of our dollars, and too much of our attention, from our needs back home. The crisis in health care, lack of progress towards energy independence, and struggling public schools are examples of how our government is not leading, but allowing lobbyists and special interests to write the rules.

* Washington needs creative solutions to old problems. I am an entrepreneur who has built a successful business from scratch. More than 20 years ago, I founded a company that competes successfully against cable conglomerates. I am running with the support of Connecticut citizens, not corporate or special interests – and I bring real business experience that government needs.

* Government has a role in ensuring fundamental rights and equal opportunity for all Americans. Senator Barack Obama reminded Connecticut Democrats recently what a difference good, progressive government can make in people’s lives—from social security and Medicare to the national highway system and the Civil Rights acts. Rather than replacing the hard-earned social safety net with partially funded savings accounts, Democrats should be ready again to defend and build upon all that we have accomplished—equal rights and equal opportunity for all.

He has more about Iraq, Health Care, Energy, Constitution, The War in Iraq, Equal Rights, Civil Liberties, Reproductive Freedom, Energy Independence and the Environment, Jobs, Infrastructure.

eom

And I would personally prefer him over Lieberman in that Conn. Senate seat. But there's arithmetic involved when we talk about Congress; one way or another, the Democrats who are going to lead well won't be able to lead well if there aren't enough "D" colleagues who can support them, actively or not. That's not to say Lamont can't beat a GOP opponent in a Conn. Senate race, and actually, I do support the Conn. primary.

Lieberman's prioritizing of the fundie's right to withhold medical care over a woman's right to obtain medical care speaks volumes.

When men start getting told it's no problem for them to drive from hospital to hospital while they are in the middle of a heart attack or a kidney stone attack, then we can talk about my support for Lieberman.

we stand up. i am not saying so and so is not a dem. i am saying that it is up to the rank and file to decide, via the primary process, what our party stands for. it is our house, it is our job to keep it clean. the "any d is better than an r" are anti-democratic appeasers. no better than the thugs.

in historically Democratic states/districts, but then cozy up to Republicans when in office, as it suits their purposes. There's something clearly unethical about that behavior--false advertising on the order of Bush running as a moderate Republican but governing (if you can call it that) as the hideously deformed lovechild of Ronald Reagan and Jerry Falwell. It's also true, I think, that issues are sometimes more important than party affiliation--and I thnk the Iraq war is one of those issues. Lieberman's been a staunch supporter of the Iraq war and everything involved in Bushco's GWOT from day one (I'm guessing his support for the Iraq debacle is part and parcel with his strong Zionist leanings). I personally think Iraq, protection of civil liberties and rolling back the Bushco tax cuts for the rich are the three most important issues of the day, and Holy Joe and I differ on all three. That's why I'm feelin' the Nedrenaline these days.

1) Have a darn good reason to want a different Democrat in the incumbent Democrat's seat

So, what you are saying is that unless someone comes up with a reason YOU agree with, then they should not exercise their democratic right to vote for the person they think best represents them?

Nice. Party first huh? Sounds familiar.

I really love this shit. When lefties say "Vote Nader" they are told to shut up and try to change the Democratic Party from within. Then when they try to do THAT, they are told to shut up and just take it, which of course is why they said "Vote Nader" in the first place.

Bloody typical really.

with me.

If you think there's someone out there who could better represent you, then you've already satisfied my demand (a practically universally-held demand,actually) of having a "darn good reason to want a different Democrat in the incumbent Democrat's seat."

Yeah, we should hold incumbent-primaries only when there's a good reason. Why should the rank-and-file Democrats be forced to spend their hard-earned dough on costly primaries when there isn't a good reason? Do you know how much these things cost? There's also a Republican our guys have to run against, too.

Are you serious? You just got through bashing people for wanting to do exactly that! This is too funny. :rofl:

So I thought I better answer a bit more coherently -

You say no primaries unless there is a good reason - who gets to decide if there is a good reason? If people have no problem with the incumbent then he shouldn't have any serious challengers, should he? The only way to know for sure is to put it to a vote. Hey I know, why don't we call it a PRIMARY?

The circular reasoning was so obvious from the original post, I'm surprised it took this long for someone to point it out, step-by-step. Thanks!

Read my response.

Which is more or less what I was talking about in (one). However, there are posters here who have advocated holding Democratic primaries even when there isn't some widespread desire to replace the incumbent, but simply for the heck of it. Holding costly primaries just for the sake of erecting a "marketplace of ideas" is pretty dumb. That's why I wrote (one).

How are we supposed to know if there is a widespread desire to replace the incumbent UNLESS it is put to a vote? And, if it is going to be put to a vote, then you may as well combine the whole process into one - have a challenger or challengers and compare the votes they get to the vote the incumbent gets.

It is simple and effective, and its called a primary.

a great pleasure. And for that I am grateful. :toast:

You win the Best Response Award...

Indeed, shades of the 'shut up so we can win' 2004 starting early...big problem is that democrats are a more likely to be annoyed at the loss of their democratic rights than being cheerleaders for people who simply say, 'trust me...don't worry about policies until after I'm elected'.

MAN, do I ever hear you! How's that shutting-up-the-left shit been working out? Clinton's so-called triangulation didn't even work for HIM, he won because of a) the Perot spoiler in '92 and b) Bob Dole ran a non-campaign in '96. And it's failed for both moderates who've run since, with disastrous consequences. Fuck the DLC with a rake. I sometimes have to wonder if their apologists on DU are trolls or if they're genuinely that stupid.

of political animals: those that love democracy and those that support political parties. Some people want the system to work and some people simply want their team to win.

The gap is narrowing to Us vs. Them and yeah it sure does get a little tiring when the same people with the same interests simply keep saying 'don't demand we do anything, you'll just have to trust us and vote'.

As a phony dixiecrat punk once said: I feel your pain

;-)

and Lieberman has show very very little of that. He trashed Clinton on the Senate floor as the impeachment debate was on, he undercut Al Gore's attempt at a bit of populism in the 2000 campaign, he's not Fox New's favorite Democratic Senator because of his passionate defense of Democratic party principles - no he gets on cause he says we're wrong - wrong to criticize *, Wrong to be against the War in Iraq, wrong on Social Security, wrong on morality, etc. etc. Now he's making noises that if he loses he'll run as an independent - The man can't be trusted and for that he should be rewarded?

I think Hunter Thompson once said something to the effect 'there are times in politics when the knives come out and those are the the times you have to form a circle and trust the people stabbing in the dark with you. Lieberman sees all those backs as targets of opportunity and acts accordingly.

If the Democratic party retake the House and the Senate there are going to be very very hard fights after that - Lieberman is just too slender a reed to depend on. He'll sell the entire party out in a heart beat for some tv time.

Take a hypothetical - would he vote for the repeal of the Bankruptcy act? No.

And I'd hate to think of the posturing he'd do if * was actually impeached. Never mind that he'd never vote to convict - he'd be on the news everyday telling the world how angry and out of control all the other Democrats were.

He's a loose cannon and should be removed before he can do more damage.

How many here will not support him??

if the primary race even looks close? I wonder if the OP will still support him when he jumps ship.

the War Crimes Act, 4th amendment, Geneva Conventions, independent judiciary, a safety net,.... want me to keep going? If particular democrats can't adequately defend those basic principles, I'm against them just as I'm against the republicans and support primary challenges. Don't like it, then that's too bad.

that I just went over to Ned Lamont's website and gave him $100. Do post more on this topic.

http://www.nedlamont.com/

And once again: I will fight every damn war party democrat in every primary I can muster the strength to fight them in. If these asshats get through the primary I will support them in the November election. I hate them for their cowardly and/or morally compromised stand on the war, but I hate the Republican theofascists even more.

You are basically saying "you are a Democrat, therefore your voice doesn't matter because all we care about is winning."

The Republicans figured out a long time ago that you win when you have an extremely loyal and motivated base. The base provides the money and the volunteer hours needed to win. Why do you think Bush (a business conservative) panders to the religious right? Because he understands that they put him in office. If he didn't they wouldn't donate money or work for him.

Democrats, on the other hand, take their base for granted. They calculate their every speech and move to maximize appeal. the problem is, opinion in this country is so diverse that you cannot do that. What you get are speeches that are nothing but platitudes designed not to offend anyone by putting forth a principle or a plan. The Dem base is thus demoralized (becuase the candidates refuse to stand for what they believe in) and they do not work or donate money to the same degree as the happy republican base. Independents, by nature, are not active in politics. That all adds up to defeat.

To keep a happy base is to win. You do that by including all voices as important. that's why primaries are good things. Empower the challenger to make his/her case to the party, and if they lose, they have no one to blame but themselves. They will still feel loyalty because the party gave them a chance.

by and large Dean people supported Kerry in the general. We were disappointed, but we knew we had to beat Bush, and that we got our chance. If you don't give people their chance, what loyalty do and should they feel? No voice = Nader.

That is a false statement, and your using of it betrays a lack of understanding of the point of the original post.

It's simply the logical outcome of your argument.

There are two opposing factions here. One is yours - the side that argues that the most important issue is getting people elected to office. The other side is composed of people who believe that it may be worth the risk of losing a seat to actually elect someone who supports ideals and principles they themselves support. Ergo, the example of Lieberman is appropos - he supported the war (which Lamont opposes), he opposes speaking out against the administration (a prohibition Lamont couldn't care less about). But, because you believe "winning" the seat is the be-all, end-all of the argument, you support Lieberman. So, you see - you are saying that all you care about is winning.

On top of all this, the poster did qualify his statement with "You are basically saying . . . " He wasn't implying that anyone had literally said it. But that's beside the point, as you - in fact - do say it.

One is yours - the side that argues that the most important issue is getting people elected to office.

That is not my opinion, nor anyone else's on this entire thread. You must know first what we are for before you can argue against it. Until then, you don't have an argument. You are setting up a strawman.

to support the position that we should not challenge Dem incumbents whom we feel do not represent us? That their feelings will be hurt? Of course it is about winning, that the theme of all who oppose Lamont's challenge "we need a Dem majority; we need to concentrate on beating republicans, we are only hurting our congressional candidates in CT".

What are other reasons for having the position the OP does?

Read post #8. There you have quantitative proof of that. If there was no difference between Lieberman and the Republican I wouldn't care about this, but it is a lie almost as big as the lie that there was no difference between Gore and Bush*.

The thing that floors me and at the same time doesn't floor me is the lack of rigor people have in analyzing Lieberman vs. any number of Republicans.

lamont is better than a republican and better than lieberman, so why not nominate lamont?

It's there.

"(Apologies in advance to any who may take this as singling them out personally. I post as forcefully as I can for a reason: My goal is only to help the Democrats regain power , so that there's at least some hope of overturning the atrocities enforced upon the nation by Republican policies.)"

everything boils down to winning.

or do you have nothing left to say?

You should also consider that I am there but found your post so asinine that I put you on ignore or just decided to go do something else. You shouldn't assume that I have nothing left to say.

thats why you attack me. I accept your admission of defeat

I love how people use the ignore feature to threaten people and to avoid "losing" an argument.

You have been proved wrong. You have no argument to counter the claim that the OP's theme boils down to "winning is what is important, so even if you don't like Lieberman, don't try to replace him with someone better"

Disingenuous and manipulative tactics are a disrespectful waste of my time.

I'm also aware that I will rarely get someone to admit they've been disrespectful, so any other ulterior motive they fabricate on my behalf, I'm likely to care fuck all about either. But you've got to remember, if the tactics are laid bare enough, everyone else can see them and leave with whatever impression they give no matter what you ascribe to my motives.

Im not even sure YOU know what they are. You keep talking about winning, but denying it has anything to do with winning. Im pretty sure everyone else is wondering what the fuck you are on about too.

My motives aren't simply to win. But it's necessary that the candidate that does help me fulfill the rest of my motives win.

Knowing what we know about Lieberman's record compared to the Republicans, yes, the goal is only to help the Democrats regain power. Knowing what we know about Lieberman's record. You cannot wrestle that sentence out of the context of our current political situation. Don't play these sorts of games; we have serious business to do.

Lamont's positions are better than the republicans' and better than lieberman's record, so why not nominate Lamont?

Waste my time any more on this, saying all this stuff without knowing what you're talking about because you don't want to go look it up and you're gone. I have shit to do for 2006.

oops you can't cause its nothing. but instead you play this game of "duh its so obvious".

Give me one legitimate argument that doesn't boil down to electability or winnability and I will leave you alone, but there are no arguments like that.

I'm not a "tout-the-DLC-line" Democrat by any means. But I do know that even Joe Lieberman is about 3-times as liberal as "Democratic" as the most moderate Republican currently in the Senate. Even Ben Nelson of Nebraska has a voting record many times more liberal than almost any Republican. The way the "Vote out Maria Cantwell! Vote out such-and-such!" agents provocateurs on these boards would make us believe, it was Ben Nelson of Florida who launched the Iraq invasion, Dianne Feinstein who signed the Patriot Bill into law, Hillary Clinton who authorized that Gitmo prisoners be tortured, and Joe Biden who sat on his a$$ while New Orleans turned into lake.

This is an assertion that even the worst dems are better than republicans, a slur against persons who are unhappy with certain democrats, and then an assertion that these people are blaming democrats instead of republicans for the problems of the republicans. this has set up the OPs argument by IDing the players in the game.


My personal preference for Democrats is that they are of the liberal-center mold, like say, Russ Feingold, John Kerry, Pat Leahy. But obviously, not every Democrat in Congress is going to be a carbon copy of my favorite type. How could they be? In the entire history of the United States, there has never, ever been a uniformly "liberal" Democratic bloc in Congress. Even during the Golden Age of liberal-center Democratic presidents (FDR through LBJ, and I include Ike as a de facto liberal-center kind of guy), the Democrats in Congress were the usual mix of conservatives, liberals, centrists, you-name-it.

The OP says that he is liberal in spirit and would like the same senators as these "agents provacateurs" He then says that it is impossible for every senator to be someone he wanted, or who agreed with him. he finally points out that the Dem caucus has always been a mix of ideologies. He is further setting up his argument by stating the unrealism of the goal of those wanting to replace certain Democrats.

What naive person could legitimately argue a uniformly "liberal" Democratic congress could exist now?

useless rhetorical strawman. No one demands a "uniformly liberal congress" people in certain states, like CT want a senator who represents them the best on important issues.

I'll just repeat something here that I posted on other thread last night:

Before supporting a primary challenge against a Democrat, it's the responsibility of that challenger's supporters to

1) Have a darn good reason to want a different Democrat in the incumbent Democrat's seat (just because somebody out there in the peanut gallery calls Democrat Joe/Jane a "DINO" does not necessarily make it so)

2) Have VERY good reason to believe that the challenging Democrat would have a very legitimate shot at defeating the GOP candidate.

he is now setting restrictions on when people should support primary challengers, (1) when there is a darn good reason (not elaborated upon), (2) when such challenger has a chance to win. The OP believes that challengers who can win but do not have a good reason for their challenge are illegitimate. These people will never come up because nobody challenges (and gets to where they are dangerous), unless there is widespread Dem unhappiness. See Lamont. If there is no unhappiness, they are no more than a blip on the radar screen.

The OP also beleives the more common type of challenger, one who is not "electable" but there is a good reason to support them, is illegitimate. This is a winning-based argument.


Anybody who supports replacing incumbent Democrats but doesn't adhere to those two requirements I just mentioned is simply out to destroy the party, and hand power permanently over to the Republicans.

Another insult to people who don't want to be voiceless in the party. Now we are trying to destroy (cause to lose) the party, and help the republicans (again, cause the democrats to lose)

It means that the "Let's all work to defeat the DLC!" people on these boards are essentially "Let's work to defeat the Democratic party!" Republicans, whether they are Republicans in disguise, or simply useful idiots for the Republicans.

Now those who don't want to be voiceless are again accused of trying to defeat the Democratic party. The implication from these accusations is that we shouldn't challenge incumbents, other than for the above reasons, because it will impair dems' ability to win. There is no other argument.

(Apologies in advance to any who may take this as singling them out personally. I post as forcefully as I can for a reason: My goal is only to help the Democrats regain power, so that there's at least some hope of overturning the atrocities enforced upon the nation by Republican policies.)

The goal is stated clearly: help the dems regain power (win).


---------------------------------
Now I'm sure you'll tell me that I'm missing the point, and not elaborate.

...and not elaborating, is that you keep asserting that you know what we believe. You don't. But you don't ask.

and you say "it's in the OP"

Please tell me what you believe.

...than the Republican candidate he is running against in the general election.

I believe that if Lamont cannot win against the Republican candidate as shown by polls, that people should not vote for him to be the Democratic nominee.

that is an argument based solely on winning, which you adamantly denied was the entirety of the consideration. Are you admitting that winning is why we should support Lieberman and not Lamont?

If so, then my original post which you objected to is correct.

Why do you do this? Read the first sentence?

What, did you take five hours to try to think of something clever to say and give up and just say this instead?

THE WHOLE THING IS PREDICATED ON LIEBERMAN BEING BETTER THAN A REPUBLICAN AND I SAID THAT CLEAR ENOUGH TO BE UNDERSTOOD BY SOMEONE HONESTLY SEEKING MY OPINION. You seem remarkably incurious as to how I think about this, and remarkably determined to try to fit it into this idea that I care "solely about winning". That is not based "solely on winning". It is based on getting more of what you want rather than less. Hear that? More. Of. WHAT. YOU. WANT. If that's not why you participate in the political process, then I have no clue what to say to you, and you should just go away because I don't want to talk to you.

If you want my opinion, I'll give it to you, but you don't seem to want it so much as you're trying to peg it as something it isn't, that's why I'm this close to caring not to hear any of your opinions until after the election. I don't have to take this kind of disrespect.

Shit, how many people died from Katrina? Global warming? All that shit? And you're sitting here playing these sorts of games? This is not funny at all.

If you reply to this, you will start making sense, or you will be put on ignore, because these tactics are serving as nothing but a time sink, and that is inexcusable to do to another Democrat in these times. It's up to you. Your tactics do not inspire confidence in Lamont, by the way. Does support for this guy come from such a dubious place that someone has to resort to this sort of manipulative behavior?

the simple fact that Lieberman is better than a Republican is not an argument which shows an underlying policy reason not to have a primary against him. If Lamont loses, we can still vote for Lieberman in the general election.

WHY should it be enough that Lieberman is better than a republican? This is where I think it is about winning. Lieberman can win, the argument goes, therefore, it is ok that he is better than a republican and not the best out of all possible candidates.

You are saying that there is another consideration that does not have to do with Lieberman's electability, but you are not saying what it is.

Why, other than electability, should we renominate an incumbent who is simply better than the republican, but not the best possible candidate? That is what I am asking. You say there is another reason, but you will not tell me.


I hope in future posts you will show that you can handle a rational debate.

I've tried enough. I'm not even going to read the rest of your post. The one sentence in the subject line is something I've never denied, and if the rest of your post rests on this, it is useless for me to read it.

You will not have the opportunity to waste my time further.

I clarified my question on it.

Why, other than electability, should we renominate an incumbent who is simply better than the republican, but not the best possible candidate? That is what I am asking. You say there is another reason, but you will not tell me.

We shouldn't.

This does not make electability the only consideration. It does make it a necessary condition to getting anything done though, because you cannot legislate without being elected first. You must be elected to do so. Why. do. I. have. to. explain. that. to. people. on. a. political. message. board.

consideration for why we should not challenge an incumbent who is better than a republican.

Is there another reason why someone like Joe should be immune from challenge?

(1) Has he earned some kind of moral right to be free of challenge?
(2) Should ordinary citizen dems not be allowed to choose the nominee due to incapability of choosing who can best do the job?
(3) Is the primary process inherently unrepresentative of the true wishes of the Dems?


These are the type of arguments I am looking for from you. So I guess I was wrong because after considerable thought, I was able to come up with the above plausible (though I disagree with all of them) policy arguments that don't boil down to winning.

As a caveat, most arguments against the challege DO involve electability as the main theme, if not the ONLY theme.

Do you agree with any of them or have any of your own?

I have given one example where I would hold to the exact principles I do now, and yet would not want the Democrats to win. You can no longer say that my beliefs are based on winning; they are not. I just happen to recognize that in the current concrete situation, we must win in order to get a better government then the Republicans would give us.

The thing is, most people agree with me on this. I could take a poll, "must a legislator win an election to legislate", and most people would remember enough from civics class to say "yes".

Actually, I'd like you to demonstrate how Lamont would get anything done without winning. If I could be disingenous as you've been throughout this thread for a moment, let me say that your strategy is based on losing.

"You can no longer say that my beliefs are based on winning;" No one said your BELIEFS are based on winning, they said your ARGUMENT is based on winning. There is a difference. If you don't know what it is go look at post #533 - ok just kidding, I'll tell you what the difference is: You are saying that if Lieberman was worse that a Republican you would want the Republican to win.We are saying that Lieberman is worse than a Democrat so we want the Democrat to win. See? In other words, if Lieberman wins, no one is suggesting that people vote for the Republican! Get it?

The point is, people want to see the best Democrat win the Democratic Primary. You on the other hand are willing to have the worse Democrat win the Primary based on an argument that the worse Democrat can win against the Republican, and that the better Democrat can not. Thus, your argument for the worse Democrat is based on winning! Q.E.D.

The problem you have is that you have not proven that the better Democrat can not win against the Republican. You are just assuming that, and from that assumption saying that the better Democrat should not even be allowed to challenge the worse Democrat.

...is shown by pre-primary polling to not be able to defeat the Republican, then neither Lieberman nor Lamont can be shown to have a demonstrated chance of taking office if Lamont wins. And they are both more desirable to me, and you whether or not you admit it, than the Republican.

I'm really not concerned about people doing the wrong thing because I've seen them do the right thing in the 2004 election. The polls showed that Lieberman and Kerry could beat Bush* and Dean could not and within two or three weeks support had shifted from Dean to Kerry. People in real life know the consequences of their decisions, people on anonymous Internet message boards might pretend they don't. So your point about how people want the "best" Democrat to win the primary really isn't true.

You on the other hand are willing to have the worse Democrat win the Primary based on an argument that the worse Democrat can win against the Republican, and that the better Democrat can not. Thus, your argument for the worse Democrat is based on winning! Q.E.D.

In the scenario you describe where both Democrats are better than the Republican, yes. I am shameless in my belief that someone cannot legislate unless they hold a legislative office.

The problem you have is that you have not proven that the better Democrat can not win against the Republican.

That's true; I have not. But I didn't say that Lamont could not win against the Republican. I said that unless you show that he has a better chance of winning than Lieberman, or at least a safe margin over the Republican, then it's an unwise and irresponsible thing to do in terms of getting more of what what you want rather than less.

I can't believe you can be so dishonest with yourself. You KNOW that the underlying argument is "better to vote for Lieberman, because we know he can win, than Lamont, because he might not." That is an argument predicated SOLELY on the chances of winning. To try and claim it is NOT all about winning is just dishonest.

Then you make the "put on ignore" threat which is the equivalent of saying "unless you agree with me, I'm going to put my fingers in my ears and sing 'lalalala I can't hear you'!"

Your tactics do not inspire confidence in Lamont, by the way. Does support for this guy come from such a dubious place that someone has to resort to this sort of manipulative behavior?

Manipulative behaviour? Well don't that just beat all - you have done nothing but deny the obvious, then threaten the opposition, and now attempt to say that the opposition's preferred candidate must be somehow tainted because of behaviour exhibitied by a poster on DU, behaviour that did not actually occur but was wholely invented by YOU.

Let me say that YOUR tactics do not inspire confidence in Lieberman! :P

If in some hypothetical world which DU posters seem to be fond of creating, the Democratic incumbant candidate wanted to shred the constitution and institute a fascist government, and the Republican challenger didn't, I would not want the Democrats to win. My purpose is not to get a Democrat elected despite their platform being worse than the Republican one. And thus, it is not based solely on the Democrats "winning".

All of this is a distraction from the demonstrated fact that Lieberman is better than a Republican.

Your purpose is to prevent a Dem challenging an incumbent Dem, because the incumbent has a better chance of winning. No one here is talking about voting for the Republican.

If Lieberman vs. the Republican polled at, say, 66%-34%, and Lamont vs. the Republican polled at, say, 62%-38%, I really wouldn't care if Lamont wins.

mean we should vote for him?

if not, why not? What is special about being an incumbent that makes it ok to just be "better than a republican," even if your challenger is also better than a republican?

That's what I am trying to ask.

1. Does the fact that Lamont is better than a republican mean we should vote for him?

No. If he cannot win against the Republican, it does not matter if he's better than the Republican, because he likely will not hold the senate seat he is seeking, and the Republican likely will.

Besides, I'm better than Lamont. Will you vote for me? Has Lamont proposed free college tuition? I have. My platform is basically the same as Lamont's, except I am better at that one thing. So why won't you vote for me? I don't live in Connecticut, by the way, but that should not stop you from writing my name on the ballot. So why not? Are you afraid of students getting a college education?

and then turn around and not talk about anything else.

I believe Lamont would have a better chance of winning than Lieberman because he is exciting the people and opposes a war that 70% of CT citizens oppose, while his opponents blatantly support that war.

...is because we already know it's in our best interest to win with either candidate, and it is not in our best interest to lose. Knowing that, the thing to do now is win. But people want to keep discussing whether or not it's important to win or not. OK then, we can have a discussion about the benefits of winning that goes on for upwards of twenty-four hours. I didn't think the need to win in order to get anything done was such a controversial issue that it needed to go on for post after post.

This is annoying. Again, people wonder why I have so many people on ignore. It's for the good of this country that I have such an ardent desire to prevent my time from heading down a sinkhole on junk like this. Would you please take a few steps today and respect the people of this nation and their current political situation.

Hey everyone, it's not about winning but unless LoZoccolo thinks you can win, it doesn't matter if you're better! So don't dare try running against a guy whose major selling point is "at least he's better than the Republicans!"

Because its NOT all about winning - its just that we have to win!

the problem is LoZoccolo does not give any underlying policy reason other than winnability why just being better than the republican entitles an incumbent to be immune from a primary challenge.

I understand that if Joe were NOT better than a republican (I agree that he is better than a republican, though not by much) LoZoccolo would favor a primary challenge.

However, that does not show why being better than a republican is good enough.

I understand that if Joe were NOT better than a republican (I agree that he is better than a republican, though not by much) LoZoccolo would favor a primary challenge.

I did not say that; you continue to set up a straw man. There is another circumstance where I'd at least accept a primary challenge. Try to figure it out by what I've written and what the original poster has written. It's actually in the original post, and at least one of mine. Doing so on your own will demonstrate that you actually want to understand this debate rather than push through your side without acknowledging the other.

what this other circumstance is! You have been asked multpile times but just keep insting that people find it for themselves. Well we can't so why don't you just tell us? What is this other circumstance where you will accept a primary challenge, that doesnt have anything to do with winning?

If polls showed Lamont could get 62% against a Republican, and Lieberman 61% or less, I would accept a primary challenge.

If Lamont got 62% against a Republican and Lieberman got less than 50%, I would definately be in favor of a primary challenge.

that is really annoying.

The only circumstance I've heard is if Joe were NOT better than the republican.

That's why I'm tired of belaboring my points; they're already all there. I don't feel like typing them again and again.

That's right. If you can't win, you can't do anything you promise or propose. I stand by that notion. Thanks for clarifying it to the people on this board.

Make up your mind, this is getting confuisng :)

I was fighting the continued and persistent implication that it was solely about winning. It is not solely about winning. Winning is a necessary condition of getting Lieberman's or Lamont's agenda done.

You don't have to use curse words like that.

The main argument is we need a majority, so we should vote for whomever will win (the incumbents almost always have a better chance of winning the general than the challenger), and then supposedly, we can deal with who is in power.

but if we need the centrists to get into power, we will also need them to STAY in power, which will be the NEXT argument from the centrists as to why we can't have candidates that represent us.

So, I don't buy that argument.

No one said that winning is all we care about. You are injecting a false assumption into your argument, or setting up a strawman.

Spend a little time reflecting to find out where your argument falls apart. Try to identify the strawman.

Im being told not to support challengers without "a darn good reason" and unless "they have a legitimate chance of beating the REpub."

Since it is required that both elements are satisfied under the OP test, just having a darn good reason will not suffice to support a challenger. Thus, winning is the at best overriding consideration if not the sole consideration.

A candidate who meets element 2 but not element 1 is not likely to happen unless the OPs standard for "darn good reason" is very stringent (which is likely).

...only caring about winning. To say that the position is only caring about winning is a strawman because it's not his - or my - opinion.

You've hit it right on the head. We've given a dozen "darn good reasons" but obviously none will ever be good enough. And then to deny that it's all about winning is just being intentionally obtuse.

all I get is screaming about how I'm wrong.

Here's the original poster's challenge:

"Before supporting a primary challenge against a Democrat, it's the responsibility of that challenger's supporters to

1) Have a darn good reason to want a different Democrat in the incumbent Democrat's seat (just because somebody out there in the peanut gallery calls Democrat Joe/Jane a "DINO" does not necessarily make it so)

2) Have VERY good reason to believe that the challenging Democrat would have a very legitimate shot at defeating the GOP candidate."

_________ I left off the bolding.

Now, the arguments have raged for quite a while. Many people have given a lot of very good reasons for number 1 - and we're talking about two Dems here, not whether Joe is better than a Republican. So this point is met.

It's the second one that seems to be giving a few of you trouble. You seem to believe that Lamont doesn't have a legitimate shot at defeating whatever (sic) the GOP candidate is. Why is that? Because Joe will run as an Independent and split the ticket if he loses the primary? And that's something to support? I say Lamont has just as much chance of winning as any GOPer in a blue state.

how about talking about the PLATFORM of the DLC and why the PLATFORM is better for us.
explain why supporting the illegal war in Iraq is a good thing, why allowing Allito without a fight and Hayden are good for america. Explain why the bankruptcy bill was good for america and not just the lobbyists. explain why no single DLC candidate is fighting against torture.

I somehow only see the DLC telling me to abandon my own platform to win elections.
:shrug:

I kind of prefer my own platform ideas.

oh, and I always love the strawman of if you don't vote for a DLC candidate in the primary, you're voting for a republican.

you people are a real piece of work. The only people you convince are yourselves. The rest of us aren't buying what you're selling.

Your response doesn't reflect the content of my OP at all.

of working against the party? that post?

...sticking with their guns: http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20060521/wl_afp/usvotepoliticsconservatives_060521100821

1. If they do that, and...
2. If it gets them what they want.

If #1 doesn't happen, it's moot. If #2 doesn't happen, then you have your answer about "sticking to your guns". Either way we already know what happened in 2000.

...how you can get more done by electing Democrats instead of Republicans. If all you hear from the DLC is predicated on that point, it's because people should already know it.

contempuous? ashamed?

as I pointed out, all that ever gets discussed is election chances, never WHY they support the illegal war, refuse to stand against torture, etc.

mainly because its indefensible.

and THAT should be all you have to know about the DLC.

And you're right, the DLCers are all about polls and win-ability and sell-ability. But without the WHY, what are we getting even if they DO win?

Well, you get Lieberman.

I haven't yet heard any of these "pieces of work" talking about any of those issues (Alito, Iraq, Hayden, bankruptcy bill, etc). It's all, "if we don't get people elected, we won't be able to pass anything . . . " arguments. Well, pass WHAT? When you elect and re-elect these unprincipled politicians who happen to have a "D" behind their name - what are you getting? Anything worthwhile? Are they suddenly going to demand the reasoning for the war? Or course not - they voted for it! It would only hurt them to bring any of that up. Ditto with all the other issues.

For being so "strategy-minded" - they really are quite dense.

1) I support Ned Lamont over Lieberman because Lamont doesn't support this illegal war and Lieberman does. Lamont doesn't undermine the democratic party's attempts to distance itself from Bush on this illegal war. Lieberman does. Lamont doesn't say that I need to get behind Bush on this illegal war or I'm helping the enemy. Lieberman does.

2) Connecticut is a very blue state and any Democrat that wins there has the uper hand, especially since the GOP is under the assumption that Lieberman will be the nominee and isn't really fielding anybody to challenge him. Lamont is a charismatic speaker and is very personable. Almost everybody that I know has met him, said that he is the real deal. If that's not enough to convince you, Lamont has plenty of his own cash to spend on the race. That is always crucial. The ONLY person that could be Lamont is Lieberman himself if he ran as an independent.

(for the most part, in my opinion)

Not only do you describe how Lamont differs from Lieberman, and how Lamont as senator would be better than Lieberman, but you also describe positive qualities that Lamont has which would make him electable. Excellent.

It's that kind of constructive "DINO opposition" that I was trying to communicate in my post.

I disagree only on the point that Conn. is a solidly blue state; they elected a Republican for governor who turned out to be a crook (Rowland), and now his Republican replacement is extremely popular in the state, and will have no problem winning election (Jodi Rell).

But that does not mean that other Republicans in Connecticut share her popularity. Governorships are different, Wyoming and Kansas have Democratic Governors. On the national level, Connecticut is a very blue state (at least for the time being).

and she signed a civil unions bill last year (when other states are banning gay marriage).

Frankly I would like to see a caucus with more party loyalty, but there really isn't anybody challenging other dems who support the war. People can complain all they want about Ben Nelson, Bill Nelson, Maria Cantwell, or Dianne Feinstein but the fact is that there aren't really any serious people challenging them for their nominations. Not only that, but Lieberman is a loud vocal supporter of this war and as I said above it undermines party strategy. At least those other senators keep a low profile on this issue for the most part.

I think that it is in the party's best interest as a strategy to promise to set a date for withdrawing the troops from Iraq as soon as we take back congress. Then there would be a clear reason for people to show up and vote for us on election day, which is something that people are having trouble with now. Lieberman undermines such a strategy, thus I think it would be a powerful message that we are serious about this, if we were to unseat him in the primary.

Click.

When I read threads like this, that phrase comes to mind, but instead of the relevant eponymous film, I think I'm about to watch a horse race.

Some of our commentators are wont to intone that term, "the usual suspects....", when the race about to start is between a bunch of old nags who are too wise to bust a gut, trying to win a race, simply staged for the amusement of human beings.

that there are many non-Democrats communing here at DU that don't like any Democrats at all and are simply here to stir up discontent and unrest within the party. They use the moniker "DLC" as a weapon, and that strategy is an age-old ploy in lieu of a substantive argument. The problem with that sort of opposition is that most people are able to digest complex analyses and see that sort of attack for what it really is, lame and pointless.

Primary challenges are democratic, but there is a substantive argument to be made why sometimes they are of questionable plus net benefit in the final analysis. It is much more complex than DLC versus not; as a matter of fact, DLC really has nothing to do with it at all. Just another red herring.

"they" use DLC as a weapon?

How about "they" use it as an example. How about you can really be a democrat and care about your party and question it, except apparently on DU where you will be clairvoyantly ferretted out to be a non-democrat who hates other democrats?

I hate that crap but it appears to be the modus around here for some. Is it conceivable that people who disagree with you disagree BECAUSE they care?

It's like if someone kept telling their spouse that they loved them but didn't do anything else to show it. I really don't believe that third party advocates genuinely care. I believe that they enjoy feeling like they do, even more than people like me enjoy feeling that they care, but I don't think that can really be considered caring.

if you are in a relationship where someone keeps saying "if you love me you'd just support me", and then boinks your neighbor, again, it ain't love; you're being used.

Sometimes it's tough love too. If your spouse is constantly making bad decisions that impact your life, then you have an obligation to yourself and your marriage to try to positively influence the situation if you believe in your marriage, but your spouse has to figure out what she/he wants more - you or your neighbor, and but not both. Just going status quo to keep from shaking things up is not good enough.

People who say they wouldn't vote for a "DINO" or a DLC'er or whatever "label" you put on it are almost always referring to a specific candidate who has specific stances that they disagree with. If in the democratic party there are candidates whose stances are so opposed to their candidates that they are at odds with the people they need to support them in the general election, it's not a sign of strength. I believe we SHOULD be encouraging people to vote their conscience, and let our politicians know it.

Your vote is their report card.

If the alternative is that you and other people who you are morally responsible get hurt, that's worse. The way you're using the metaphor there doesn't hold up because you could have one many available spouses, where in the election you can choose an abusive one or one that is imperfect but still does things for you.

Your vote is their report card.

No it isn't. Your vote is a decision with consequences that effects the life of everyone on this planet, and one you are responsible for.

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

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

Voting is so much easier when your incumbant is a Republican.

If you can't beat a Democratic incumbent in the primaries without resorting to smear tactics, then you really don't have anything to run ON and should therefore sit the fuck down and shut up until you do.

That's the one and only requirement there needs to be.

connecticut is pretty darn blue if ned lamont wins the primary i think it is very unlikely that they would vote for a republican instead. And since most are opposed to the war in iraq that is even less likely. But do you know what would bring in a republican? If Lieberman runs as an independent. The vote will be divided.

And I think the Iraq war is a good reason to stage a primary against someone. This isn't Utah it's connecticut, and again, since most people in Connecticut are opposed to the war, and obviously the democrats, I think it is worth it. If Lieberman wins the primary that is fine but I think it is worth a shot at holding him accountable for the things that he does. Iraq is the #1 issue! HELLOOOOOO!

It annoys me when Dus are always attacking Dems and saying they are DINOs for 1 or 2 votes and supported people to run against them that have no shot at winning.

We just want them to obey.

Get rid of Lieberman and gain a majority.

the country. Every time he goes on the Sunday talk shows and parrots the repyublican talking points, he undercuts the party.

The Dems would be much better on the whole if and when he's sent packing- even if a Republican takes his seat.

PRIMARY ELECTION: GET RID OF BAD DEMOCRATS
GENERAL ELECTION: GET RID OF ALL REPUBLICANS

I'm not advocating that anyone has to support a democratic candidate they don't like back in the primary. If you don't like your representation and they are a democrat then find a candidate to run against him/her. But when the primaries are overwith and your state/district has spoken then it's time to get on board and support the party.

We don't have the luxury of keep giving the republicans control. Some people on DU thinks that's a strategy. It's the "I'll teach them a lesson and not vote for the democrat" and thus enabling republicans to win. Guess what - I know I'm sick and tired of that strategy and so is the vast majority of DU. It's not done shit except get our country in the biggest quagmire since the Civil War.

Here's a concept. In November if you don't like the democratic candidate you're voting for then think of the democrats you are supporting by 'pulling that lever'. I'm not the keenest person on Tom Carper, my DLC democrat here in Delaware, but when I vote for him, I'm voting for Harry Reid, Russ Feingold, Barbara Boxer, John Kerry, Ted Kennedy, Barack Obama and a host of other progressive democrats who are fighting for change in the senate. Many of them will have committee chair seats that could help get this country turned around. And by voting for Tom Carper I'm sending a big message that I want our Judiciary Committee to protect our courts from activist judges - something they did quite sucessfully in 2001-2 when we had the slim majority. Our Judiciary committee united together to stop almost 10 extremist judges from making the floor for vote and thus preventing us the hassle of a filibuster.

So please, remember the motto:

PRIMARY ELECTION: GET RID OF BAD DEMOCRATS
GENERAL ELECTION: GET RID OF ALL REPUBLICANS

When we start getting a majority in control then we can clean house - but right now we do NOT have the luxury.

And one last note on Tom Carper. I'll vote for him for one main reason - I've lived in Pennsylvania and suffered with Rick Santorum. After you've had someone as horrible as Santorum it all goes uphill.

its just some people think dem incumbents are entitled to the nomination, no matter how they vote or act.

He's the one who won't rule out an independent run.

I could make would satisfy some folks.

Let's just say I'm glad ol' Joe isn't my Senator. I do not care what continuum of liberalness is used as a measuring stick. Too much weighs against him. It starts with the war and it ends in corporate whore.

Yes he is more liberal than the radical rednecks that have invaded the Senate. You know the Klan took over my state's legislature and governership in the early 1900s. Those just to the right of Lieberman fit that mold today, and it disgusts me. So yes he is more liberal than Santorum.

It's just a stupid thing to do that will get you less of what you (and people who depend on the Democratic Party to keep them safe) want if you use it improperly. And that people who bash Lieberman and DLC candidates have to lie if they want to make it look like there's no difference.

fits my definition of proper I vote. I have never seen anyone use a different logic when voting in primaries.

Hmmm.lie?

...if there was every indication that the challenger would lose, and the opponent in the general is worse then incumbent? What. does. it. do. for. you. and. what. you. want.

This is like, arithmetic. This isn't art. This is like, something that has a definite answer, and yet I have no clue why people who dedicate as much time as they do to politics cannot figure it out. I can speculate as to why they can and pretend not to, but I don't understand why they can't figure it out if they truly can't.

Electioneering be damned. In truth there has only been a handful of times I have done so but I have done so with the conviction that the incumbent was too much of a careerist to be a good political leader.

In my state I would happily vote for a challenger to Evan Bayh, if that challenger was in my mind someone whose principles reflected my own. No such challenger has popped up. I will not however play strategy during the primary with my vote just because...i don't like reproducing the electioneering cycles of professional politicians on a permanent reelection campaign (Evan Bayh). I'll vote for him in the general election but in a primary I'll let my voice be heard with my vote for someone that better reflects, IMO, the values I share with the party. Sure I'm not a fan of neo-liberal economics within the DLC; it does not reflect the "workers party" mentality I bring with me to the voting both. However that is not the sole reason I would hope for a more progressive candidate, or even a fresh candidate. There are many institutional demands that place a premium on incumbancy; money, access, but most importantly for governance; seniority in committee. However incumbents from both parties are far too content with poll popping legislation. See the polls, submit the policy. this practice undermines trust in government and leads us here to this moment. I am here untrusting of many incumbents because they seem more concerned with personal job security than with community, but double that for those who vote in ways to further undermine that trust; even in the party I belong to. When a politician spends too much time on "the trail" and not enough time in her/his district or D.C. office then I turn off. If I vote for them just because it is good electoral strategy I play their game and compromise my principles. Bayh has lost that trust for a variety of reasons. But when it comes to voting for him or a republican opponent in a general cycle then I have no choice but Bayh because you can be sure the republican candidate is a fundamentalist firebreather who came here to steal from the poor and reduce our citizenship rights (g/l/b/t, minority, women, etc.). So then I am in a position to play strategy. In the primary that bet is off for me, becuase it is the only opportunity structure I have outside of letter writing to express my disgust within the system itself.

The below essay forms the foundation for why I vote the way I do and my distaste for any politician concerned more with campaigns than governance (and "more" being the operative word since both concerns must be had). It doesn't reflect what I thought about Lieberman, who has made some choices I can't follow (and I overstated by a long shot my opinion about the man in my post perhaps because of the condescending tone of the op, which upon-rereading my post I am sure my tone was unjustified as well), at least he seems to be a steady hand in his voting patterns.

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/izzybeans/18

or is it all "hang with us or lose elections"?

yup, yup. thought so.

I'd have a lot more respect for DLC apologists if they addressed the following:

1. why do their candidates support an illegal war of aggression?
2. why do their candidates enable the administration to ignore laws without consequence?
3. why did their candidates refuse to oppose Alito, and Hayden?
4. Why are not their candidates working to stop torture?
5. Why are their candidates not working towards election reform and limiting unethical lobbying efforts from corporations/
6. Why are their candidates more busy telling us to abandon core liberties? What do they offer in its stead?
7 Why do their candidates admit they are the minority of the party but slash and attack progressive candidates and grass roots movements?
8. Why is having a dem who like a republican better than having a progressive who does not?
9. Why are DLC incumbents automatically more worthy of support than their challengers in the primary?
10. Why do DLC apologists discourage primary challenges on the one hand, but tell progressives to challenge in the primary on the other?
11. Why do DLC apologists accuse progressives of being more like republicans than DLCers? is their irony meter broken?
12. Why do DLC apologists tell progressives to "get with the program" and vote their way, for the good of the party, or else they are working against the party, but fail to see that having a minority like the DLC force progressives to vote for them is working against the party?

I NEVER NEVER NEVER see any pro-DLC poster here address ANY of these platform and stand issues, instead, they ALWAYS bring up arguments about electability and how ONLY THEIR candidates are electable, and NOT VOTING for their candidates is working for the republican party>? I see a lot of accusations, but I never see anyone discuss platform.

HERE'S THE CHALLENGE: I am for gay rights, I am for ending the war in Iraq, I am against torture and for prosecuting this administration for all its illegal activities, I am against allowing the administration carte blanche in destroying the system of check and balances. I am against corporations (especially oil companies, insurance companies, banks and credit card companies) not only influencing legislation, but actually WRITING legislation. I am against making this country a theocracy.

Unless a candidate can match my core beliefs to a large degree, I see no reason to support them in the primary over someone who does match my core beliefs.

and I challenge ANY pro-DLCer to avoid mention "electability" and instead address the plaform, the issues, or my core beliefs and compare contrast their candidates against them.

crickets chirp

step up to the plate, pro-DLCers....c'mon.

http://www.ndol.org

You are genuinely curious about the DLC's positions, right? So you should have a look!

I've also started another thread on the DLC's goal of ending child hunger by 2012.

but it really just says you couldn't give a shit to even answer on your own, or your don't know the answers yourself.

still proves my point.

discussing isssues is NOT what DLC apologists want to do.

but I appreciate the half-hearted effort on your part.

you could help me out, though, and tell me where to find the DLC view on torture on that link,thanks.

I mean, I could copy and paste pages and pages of their positions on everything for you, but like, I really question if it's worth the effort because you seem remarkably incurious about what the DLC thinks, seeing as you made no effort to find out yourself. It's all there and you keep asking for it. So do you really want to know? Do you have a specific thing you want to talk about? Just what did you expect me to do, anyways?

Here's your answer on "torture":

One clear area where progressives can draw that line between themselves and the Bush administration is on the use of torture as an instrument of American military policy. The prisoner abuses at Abu Ghraib and the promotion of extreme interrogation techniques at Guantanamo not only invite others to mistreat U.S. prisoners; they also erode our moral standing with advocates of human rights and democracy abroad.

http://www.dlc.org/ndol_ci.cfm?contentid=253881&kaid=124&subid=307

It came up first in a search for the word..."torture".

I really doubt you really want to discuss anything. Even if you do, I don't care to type in searches for you when you're capable of doing it yourself. I really have better things to do for 2006.

People wonder why I have so many people on ignore. It's about little games like this. And the sort of laziness involved in making these blithely uninformed accusations of the DLC and Democratic Party. Give me one good reason why I should spend any significant amount of time arguing with someone who has handed me clear-cut evidence that they are not interested in even understanding my position. Why would I do that?

anyhow, you'll note the reference to torture you provided is ensconced in a treatise on how we need to export democracy, a bush administration policy.
nowhere does it say , beyond general terms, what the DLC intends to actually DO about torture, only that they disagree with it.

otherwise, the rest of the essay is straight down the line with the policy of hegemony and imperialism of this administration.


well, a good reason to discuss with me? It appears I had to post 7 times to even get this much from you, and every time I was trying to open a dialogue on the issues. You can project your own failings on me, if you desire, if it makes you feel better.

I"m not trying to make a game, I'm trying to make you guys discuss platform issues, instead of attempt to chide and extort us into siding with you.

Its really not that hard to figure out.

A Bush* administration policy, somewhat. So? Sounds like a Kennedy policy as well, actually. And Truman. You haven't told me what's inherently wrong with exporting democracy.

I was against the Iraq War, by the way, so if your response involves me being a neocon then you know you're already on the wrong foot.

primary, then the challenger has an excellent chance of defeating a GOP candidate.

In order to defeat an incumbent in the primary, a challenger, generally, must have very politically active, committed supporters.

Defeating an incumbent in a primary is a very rare occurence, and if a Dem incumbent is defeated, it is because they have done something serious enough to alarm Dem voters into wanting to work pretty darn hard at getting a better representative in office.

What alarms Democratic voters? Corruption, and a Democratic legislator that votes with republicans on important pieces of legislation, and for which there is no justifiable reason on earth for a Democrat to vote with republicans on that legislation.

Who are the real DINOs? They are pro-corporate, war-hawk Democrats that vote with republicans on legislation that a real Democrat should vote against, and then fail to offer a reasonable, acceptable explanation for why they voted with the republicans.

If one of the DINO types mentioned above is kicked to the curb in a primary, they deserve it.

What is destroying the Democratic Party are Democrats that vote with republicans for the sole reason that their corporate sponsors have required them to vote with republicans in the interests of their corporation, and against the interests of the people.

If a DINO wins the primary, yeah, I'll vote for them. If a challenger to a DINO wins the primary, well, that's great. I'll smile when I vote for them, knowing that there is a possibility that I have helped build a more honest government.

specifically starting a thread to bash other DUers for not being a party purist.

Just wait a few hours and another will appear...and another...all started by the same cadre of half a dozen posters. It really is quite revealing to see such a tiny minority so doggedly attacking the majority here.

After years of these posts, one would think that everyone has already made their mind up. I know I have.

CT is a Democratic state so yes we do have a reasonable expectation that Lamont would win the general election.

Your assertion that there's no reason to oppose Lieberman other than name-calling sounds willfully ignorant of the many complaints against him. There are legitimate reasons he is called a DINO, other than his hawkish views on foreign policy. His horrible stance on trade and slavish devotion to the insurance lobby are two good examples.

CT is a Democratic state so yes we do have a reasonable expectation that Lamont would win the general election.

I would not be satisfied with that expectation unless I saw a poll. There was a point in the 2004 presidential primaries where some candidates could beat Bush* and others couldn't. There is still a possibility that Lamont could not beat a Republican. And we can look up Lieberman's approval rating every week.

Your assertion that there's no reason to oppose Lieberman other than name-calling sounds willfully ignorant of the many complaints against him.

My assertion is that he is way better than the average Republican based on his voting record, and so we should at least be able to beat the Republican if we want to get more of what we want rather than less.

There are no sure things in politics. There's not even a guarantee that Lieberman will win. Clearly, there is a reasonable expectation that Lamont can and probably would win.

Your second point differs from the original post I was responding to which simply said "1) Have a darn good reason to want a different Democrat in the incumbent Democrat's seat."
Since there are many, many good reasons, then there's no question that the Lamont/Lieberman primary meets those conditions.

Are we going to see the "Hate Democrats" club go after Murtha for HIS stand?

Probably not, since that would require courage and actual principle.

That was a very narrow construction of the motivations of people who you probably have spoken with.
Primaries also serve the purpose of stimulating conversation and generating media coverage. Clean primaries do nothing but generate extra media coverage with necessary conversations we need to have within the party. We need to discuss the differences in ideas within the party. If nothing else maybe Joe can be talked down from his hawkishness. I'd rather see him explain himself on a stage where he isn't trying to appease Republicans for a change.
When you have a seat that is safely Democratic leaning, it is reasonable for a person to run in a primary and ask the hard questions if they are concerned about the direction he has taken his representation.
I have seen similar situations at the state level, and have encouraged primaries when candidates were elected by 80% margins, etc. Ambitious legislators abandon the interests of their districts, sometimes and need to be reminded of who they represent.
There is more grey area than you propose.
Some of us are simply interested in recovering our representation.