Ousting DINOs shouldn't be a priority until after we have the majority

[ArtVandaley]

I've read a lot of threads talking about how defeating Lieberman or other conservative dems in the primaries if a top priority for 2006. While I agree that we should try and get ride of these bastards, I really think a sense of perspective is needed. We're down significantly in both the House and Senate. If we want to have any chance whatsoever of retaking Congress, we need to put ALL our resources into supporting the Democrats, regardless of who it is.
Don't get me wrong, I don't want a republican-lite party. I'm not a moderate, I'm a committed liberal. I am enraged at every senator who voted for that God awful bankruptcy bill, and I think we needed to put up a much better fight.
However, right now we are at war with the republicans. If the GOP maintains a firm majority after 2006, there will be nothing at all stopping Bush from passing horrific legislation on his way out of office. We need to control the floor of the Senate. We need to control what gets voted on and what doesn't. Even if some of the Senators basically vote like republicans, as long as they vote for our party for leadership they will be valuable. There is no room for screwing around here.
I am not in favor of recruiting DINOs who praise Bush, I think we need to get strong progressive candidates. But cleaning up our own house shouldn't be our top priority. Destroy the republican's should be. After we've got the majority back, I would be very much in favor of trying to oust DINOs in the primaries, but right now all my donations are going to Dems running against incumbent Repubs, for I want us to have some control.

[Richardo]

1. Thank you!

Good one, Art :thumbsup:

[amazona]

2. I'm with you

A voice of sanity, thanks.

The conservation movement is a breeding ground of communists
and other subversives. We intend to clean them out,
even if it means rounding up every birdwatcher in the country.
--John Mitchell, US Attorney General 1969-72

[ewagner]

3. At least you're thinking

strategically............

We need to be smart about how we go about this..........

[iconoclastNYC]

4. DINOS are making us the minority

We need unity around a true progressive vision for American and DINOS who vote for corporate values over middle class values bismirch our party's reputation.

Short term loss is acceptable for long term gain. We are allready in the minority and Bush is going to get bad judges on the bench, filibuster or not.

[blondeatlast]

29. Then Bush is completely unhindered in any agenda he wants to

put forward in his last 2 years in office. If you think the last 4 1/2 were bad, you ain't seen nothin' yet if there's no significant opposition on leadership issues.

[ClassWarrior]

40. So what's more likely to change the DINOs?

A brand new fillibuster-proof majority for the Republicons because we've weakened some of the DINOS just enough to lose their seats?

Or a bunch of new Progressives in the formerly-Republicon seats around them, demanding Progressive answers from them?

I mean, honestly.

NGU.

[PROGRESSIVE1]

5. I agree 100% Let's get back into power first.

[madfloridian]

34. We were in power, we voted for their values, and now we are not in power.

We have losing by having our Democrats voting with Republicans.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

6. That's pragmatism.

Pragmatism is unwelcome by a lot of people here on DU.

[PassingFair]

80. Yeah! And just LOOK what pragmatism got us last election cycle!

Oh, er, nevermind.


Every election puts us 4 more years away from cleaning out the stench of the stables.
Dems won't wake up and clean it out themselves, they're too busy eating the corporate oats.
Unless Dean can work FAST, a third party will be necessary.

[onehandle]

7. Yep. nt

[Rowdyboy]

8. Very good points......

Once we take back the senate, we can start practicing party discipline.

[Zhade]

9. When Dems collaborate, there's little to stop the horrific legislation.

It's kind of a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" situation.

[Just Me]

10. Finally, a post embracing reason rather than reaction!!!!

:kick:

The pendulum can only be PULLED back. Pushing just forces the pendulum further to the authoritarian/corporatism that is damaging our people, our country, our world!!!

Moreover, we have a common opponent we MUST defeat!!! The only way to overcome the neoCON Bush bastards is to take back Congress!!! Let's do it!!!!

[w4rma]

11. I disagree. That gives those DINOs a reason to prevent Dems from becoming

the majority party again. Primary elections are where these DINOs must be challenged, not the general elections. Now and after.

Think about it. The DLC is getting alot of their agenda passed through Republicans. You don't want to give the DLCers *any* reason to believe that a Democratic majority would hamper their ability to keep their power more than their own actions will.

[DancingBear]

12. Hey, what are you doing??

You mean, if we actually put up a true progressive Dem candidate in the primary, even if he/she didn't win it might send a message to the DINO that perhaps his behavior might not be welcomed?

I am just hanging around waiting to see how many more "false choice" threads get started lambasting all the progressives for doing our best to ensure Republican rule for the next millennium.

(Note: We can do both - capture the majority AND regain our core values. We really can).

It's interesting, in a madly saddening sort of way. :)

[Zhade]

13. Maybe some of those pushing such false choices...

...don't have the core values we assume they might. If you get my drift.

[DancingBear]

24. I believe it's drifting over to me as we speak

:) :)

[Telly Savalas]

38. It's not necessarily a false choice, though.

It's a question of allocating resources.

If I have a fixed amount in my budget to donate to political campaigns, every dollar I give to a primary challenger to Lieberman is one less dollar I can give to a Democratic candidate in a red area. So while we can obviously pursue more than one goal at a time, decisions still need to be made about what our priorities should be.

It would take an enormous amount of money to unseat a Lieberman or a Biden in a primary. I agree with the original poster that such resources could be better spent. In particular if we focus on getting Brian Schweitzer types elected to seats held by the GOP in red areas and progressives elected to open seats in blue areas then we simultaneously win back a majority and dilute the power of DINOs by making them a smaller percentage of our House and Senate caucuses.

[Zhade]

59. "It would take an enormous amount of money to unseat a Lieberman..."

My question is: WHY? Do his constituents really love how he helps fuck them over?

I agree with most of your post, though. Makes sense. I think Lieberman and Biden would get the message - assuming we run Dems, not DINOs, in red areas. Otherwise, we're reinforcing the "collaboration = success" meme that is so pervasive in the Dem party these days.

[Salviati]

14. "capture the majority AND regain our core values"

Indeed, the question is can we even do the former without doing the latter.

[ClassWarrior]

41. I'm sure they'll enjoy getting your message once they've been retired...

...because we've weakened them enough to lose their seats to Republicons.

And don't you EVER put yourself up as more Progressive than me just because we have a difference of opinion. Where I come from, Progressives are empathetic and open-minded.

NGU.

[Hippo_Tron]

28. But they will never get any power in the minority

As much as they may get the corporate agenda passed with the GOP in power, they will never get a committee chairmanship or some other powerful position and that is really what most politicians are in it for. If they were interested in helping the GOP, they would've joined the GOP, espeically after the Jeffords switch, in exchange for a powerful position. These Dems may be in it for the corporate interests but I do still believe that they are working against the GOP, if for no other reason than to give themselves power.

[BlueInRed]

15. I would agree with that statement, even though I think there are some

who ought to have the dickens scared out of them, like Lieberman. I'm not near as concerned with the DINOs representing red states as I am with the people I know are safe Democrats, like Stabenow and Kohl, but yet they felt free to abandon ship on a bill like the bankruptcy one.

I would never ever consider Stabenow and Kohl as DINOs, but I'm also really ticked off at them at the moment and I want them to know it. I realize that most DINOs (but not all) have a more conservative consituency, and ultimately, people are elected to represent their own constituents and we have to deal with that reality.

I draw a big distinction between a DINO in a red state and a DINO in a stongly blue state, where they really have no excuse for abandoning ship. I guess that's why I get so fed up with Lieberman, but not Salazar, because Lieberman's constituency is probably quite a bit more liberal than he is.

Just my two cents.

[sadiesworld]

26. The problem isn't moderate vs liberal...

it is the corporadoes/elite vs the people. Obviously, there is genuine disagreement among average people on cultural issues, guns, etc., but where are all these "moderate" people who support cc companies charging 30%+ interest rates? Where are the moderates who supported "free" trade and media consolidation in the 90's? It makes sense for a red state dem to be somewhat conservative on cultural issues (we may not LIKE it, but it makes sense), but how does representing a red state justify being a corporate sell-out?

[BlueInRed]

27. I agree about moderate/liberal actually

I've gotten in the habit of saying liberal as shorthand for a point of view, but personally, I want moderates with backbone and a commitment to the working stiff. And I think moderate is a very ambiguous word that means different things to different people.

A couple of months ago, another poster and I were talking about how we used to think we were moderates, but we don't agree with the DLC / corporate point of view, so where does that leave people like us. Like you, I also think it is an outrage to allow people to charge 30% interest.

I'm definitely not defending a red state corporate sell out, but I do think it's better to have a red state sell out with a D by their name that helps us potentially control the House or Senate (and thus the agenda) than it is to have a sure fire 100% Republican sell out from the same state. Especially since Republicans seem a lot better at party discipline.

I think until the Democrats get their grassroots revival going and start building strength from the ground up in the red states (which I believe is completely do-able), we have to take the best we can get in those states. We've created a situation where we've basically abandoned a lot of states and now have to go back in and rebuild, and while we're rebuilding, we have a choice of a 100% sellout R or a D who sells out on some issues, but not others. Once we re-establish ourselves nationwide, then I say oust all the corporate sell out Ds you want. But we have a lot of work to do and I don't want to cut our nose off to spite our face while we're trying to rebuild.

[sadiesworld]

33. We may have to "agree to disagree" on this one.

I took a look around freeperville this a.m. to gauge the reaction to the bankruptcy bill. There were quite a few posters who saw it for what it was (a big smackeroo to the corporate elite), yet they were able to console themselves with the fact that it had bipartisan support. Thus, the freeps could remain in their "both sides do it, why vote for dems?" comfort zone.

If we continually have just enough dems crossing over to give the appearance of bipartisanship, what are we really gaining? At this point, the rethugs are only being stopped by fear of backlash from their own constituents, anyway.

I would prefer to have a truly committed opposition party (even if smaller) which presents a clear alternative to the corporate republicans.

:hippie:

[BlueInRed]

55. I don't really disagree with you

When I talk about cutting DINOs in red states slack, I wasn't actually referring to the bankruptcy bill, or the class action bill, but more in general. And I don't think what they did yesterday was at all okay, but I did sort of expect it, given their campaign platforms and past performance. And to some extent they can "justify" their actions as based on being responsive to their constituency.

But I get much more angry at people like Lieberman (cloture) and Stabenow (cloture) and Kohl, who in general talk the Democratic talk and I expect them to walk the walk. I know that their vote can in no way be justified as being responsive to their constituency. They don't have conservative constituencies to answer to.

I actually don't like any of the DINO votes, especially when the Republicans are so good at sticking together.

[sendero]

78. Exactly..

... these folks do more harm than just passing odious legislation, they give a BIPARTISAN seal of approval that prevents us from effectively using this come campaign time.

Personally, with regards to the original poster - there is a third way. If I were running the show I'd pick the most egregious violator, based on past 2-3 year voting record, type of constituency, etc. - and I'd target that person and only that person to lose their job in 2006.

Believe me, that would shake things up. The problem with these folks is that they dont' give a shit about protecting the working classes or the people who put them in office or anything like that. They care about their cushy ass perk-infested jobs.

And we need to fire some of them.

[blondeatlast]

32. You pragmatists just love to take the fun out of a good flame war!

Actually, a damn good thought on your part. :hi:

As a red stater with 2 repubs in the Senate, I can see your point very clearly. It's even present in the Repub party and we are apt to see the gap widening on both sides of the aisle as times progress.

As a liberal in a red state, I've kind of learned pragmatism by force.

[kentuck]

16. But it's a Catch-22...

so long as we have the DINOs, we will never have a majority. They have made the Democratic Party the Party of Wusses...

[mdguss]

17. Why not focus on beating Republicans:

Out yeah, that's right, there's nothing wrong with the American left; it's all Lieberman's fault.

Read "Thinking of Jackasses," in the April Atlantic Monthly. Great article that every Democrat should read.

[Beacho]

18. Ain't gonna get no majority with these suckahs

Sorry, that's the way it is, this isn't about republican/democrat anyway.

This is about the money faction controlling the political process. This has been part of the political process since the founding of the republic. The money faction controls the heads of both beast and the leadership develops ways to keep the unmonied at each others throats to dissipate their electoral strength, while their interests are implemented vial legislation and executive enforcement.

Corporate sponsored politicians have got to go, if we are to become a competitive party. the only way for that to happen is if people start giving a shit. If they don't, the party is dead anyway and just becomes an adjunct of the GOP.

That's the name of the game folks.

Suck it up

[mdguss]

19. You ever think that it might be politicians representing their state:

That MBNA is located in Dover, Deleware. That thousands of Deleware citizens work at MBNA. That it is in the interest of the state (where lots of credit card companies exist) to reform the bankruptcy rules. It's natural for both Deleware Senators to vote for the bankruptcy bill. But people here will tell you that they sold out to the credit card companies. No, they sold out to the thousands of people who live in their state and want to keep their jobs. Politics is not a conspiracy, it is merely a clash of interests.

[Beacho]

20. clash of interest/conspiracy

same thing

Hell, we're engaged in a 'conspiracy' to argue on a forum.


Was it thos employees that contributed the big dough to those politicians?

Was it the employees that were sitting in the offices and restauraunts of D.C. crafting the "Reinstate Debtors Prison Act"?

No, this is about money and power, as it has always been through history.

Your naivete that the legislature voting for this piece of crap legislation, while charming, is wholly unjustified.

This is The Guilded Age v.2

[Just Me]

21. Oh, good lawd. EVERYTHING need not be pulled down to the,...

,...lowest most cynical perspective precluding ANY REALISTIC CONSIDERATION OR EVALUATION of a complex and nuanced life.

Naive? BAH!!!

It's naive as hell to pretend like any human being will be pure to anyone's form on any given day!!!!

Geez,...I am disgusted at so many asinine conclusions based upon assumptions pulled out of the asshat. :grr:

[dryan]

23. Here in Florida....

the Democratic Chair of Orange County got mad at an elected Democart named Sherri McInvale. It was her first term in the legislature and she tends to vote along moderate lines. I have met her on several occassions and she is a nice person who is trying to be fair to everyone. Anyway, the Chair decided that she wasn't "Democratic" enough and recruited the Vice-Chair (another woman) named Marni Berger to run against McInvale. Well guess what, McInvale won the primary decisively and is now mad at the local party and I don't blame her.

[Just Me]

64. I totally understand separating the pure hearted from the "politicos".

When people start demanding that principles rather than power guide politics,...it will mark the emergence of a true democracy.

The emergence of a true democracy is such a threat to those who have manage to maintain their reign of power. We are living through incredibly interesting times.

[AntiCoup2K4]

22. OK, so that "justifies" two votes.

Now what the fuck were the rest of them doing?

[DancingBear]

36. Could you provide facts to back the MBDA claim up?

I live in VA, and I am not aware of "thousands" of Delaware citizens working for MBDA (not trying to be confrontational here - I just am not aware of such a thing).

I would assume, however, that MBDA will at some point (if they have not done so already) outsource even more of their work.

What will Mr. Biden's "excuse" be then?

[applegrove]

25. Nice to know we have picked up the bully meme from the brown-shirts

You know it really is our decision how we react to Bush & his sociopaths as they teach their followers to scapegoat and attack for fun and practice.

In fact our defense should be to dig deep, put away childish utopias and act and defend America like adults. That would clean Bush & his adolescents followers right off the slate. It is the knee-jerk response and the copying that they hope to see in us. Then they really - truly have control over the country.

Those of us who see Democrats as a big tent are very sorry to see each and every one of the posts where we attack our own. Trust me - if the support is there for your beliefs... there will be elected members. Many, many people who vote Democratic and did so in this last election are fiscal conservatives (do not want Treasury to be in too much debt) and would fight to keep SS, Medicare, Medicaid, unemployment insurance, taxes on the rich, ....

Many, many fiscal conservatives who call themselves Liberal are disgusted with Bush and will fight along side you - just as they always have - to make the USA and fairer and better place.

[bvar22]

42. The Democratic Party may be big tent,

but there is no room in the Democratic Party for those who would advance the agenda of Corporate Management and the Super Rich at the expense of Labor and the Middle Class.

The "Big Tent" meme is a poor excuse for sliding toward CorpoFascism.
There is already a party for CorpoFascists, they don't need to buy their way into power in order to corrupt ours. Pandering to them and NOT holding our represenatives accountable has bought us our current situation.

Time to drive the money changers out of our temple!

[Vinca]

30. There's no point in keeping the DINOS one minute longer than

necessary. They side with the Republicans and vote Republican and make mincemeat of everything Democrats stand for. I'd rather risk losing to a Republican by running a new, unknown Democrat, than to continue with some of the career politicians who have forgotten the people and can only suck up to the party in power. That, in a nut shell, is the problem. Lieberman and Biden (among others) are "career" politicians who "assume" they'll be voted into office again and again. That's the way it's always been until THE INTERNET ERUPTED! Now "the people" actually talk with each other and we're pissed!

[lonestarnot]

31. Barbara Boxer n/t

[welshTerrier2]

35. "cleaning up our own house"

nope ... this misses a key point ... perhaps by "cleaning house" you're referring only to kicking out repub-lite dems ... but to me, "cleaning house" means becoming a bit introspective, looking at how the Party conducts business and interacts with its supporters, and reforming its processes ...

But cleaning up our own house shouldn't be our top priority. Destroy the republican's should be.

i have no quibble with your "ousting DINO" arguments ... frankly, i'm not sure what that really means anyway ... if we could run a progressive candidate in the primaries who could defeat Lieberman or any of the other "too far right" Dems, i would support doing that ... to assume that entrenched conservative Democrats would fare better against republicans makes some very unsupported assumptions ...

but more importantly, i strongly disagree with the statement you made about cleaning our own house ... we all want to "destroy republicans" ... but to suggest that cleaning house is something that must come later because we have to "destroy republicans" first really gets it wrong ... i think job one is putting our own house in order ... that's exactly how we can "destroy republicans" ... the Democratic Party needs massive reform ... the Party has completely lost touch with its registered voters ... sure, many will continue to vote for the Democratic ticket ... but the Party has been on a very long losing streak ... what is needed is a more inclusive process ... get more Democrats involved by sharing power ... attract those who don't vote at all by truly listening to them and giving them a voice ... it seems like you've disconnected the importance of party reform from the results that reform could yield ...

[Cuban_Liberal]

37. Amen!

:thumbsup:

[kentuck]

39. Yes, a few should be challenged in a primary....

Primaries tend to weaken a candidate for the general election. But Mojo would have no problem - he has a lot of support from Repubs also...I have no idea why?????????????????????//

[ClassWarrior]

43. It worries me, though, that so many go straight to the "nuclear option"...

...of a primary challenge, without first actually trying to gather a group of five other Progressive Dems together and make an appointment with their own DINO Senator to sit down and hash it out. Or without first joining their own county parties and getting involved. A product of a corporate-induced instant gratification, I fear.

NGU.

[ulysses]

54. you're assuming that a request for an audience

from a handful of progressives is going to make a difference in the balance against the corporatism of the DLC.

[ClassWarrior]

57. I was told by my state party chair that even a handful of letters make...

...an impact, because the Dem elected officials hear from us so seldom. You seem to be assuming that nothing will work short of scorched-earth tactics.

NGU.

[BeachBuckeye]

65. My state party chair doesn't answer his mail or phone calls.....

so why would he suggest sending letters to someone else?

[ClassWarrior]

66. Sounds like you need to unseat your state party chair.

I smell Progressive opportunity...

NGU.

[depakid]

44. You're missing the point completely.

Dems will NEVER win the majority back UNTIL they oust most of their DINOS.

The sell out Dems ARE the reason why the party has been losing for over a decade... and by now, the evidence on that is pretty damn irrefutable.

In the short term, this may mean ceding some seats to the Republicans, but in the mid-to long term, it would mean a solid majority in Congress and a better than even shot at the executive.

Republican policies are going to be so damaging to the country over the next several years (under anyone's objective analysis in every area) that anyone who has stood up to them will be viewed down the line- when the chickens come home to roost- as men and women of courage, foresight and integrity.

Corrupt DINO's who have gone along with them taint the party's image- and Republicans can almost justifiably claim that you can't blame us "it was a bipartisan effort."

Bottom line- if the Dems want to continue losing- then keep pandering to the right, and keep apologizing for and supporting those who betray their constituents and the party's former priciples.

[Padraig18]

46. Who gets to define what's a 'DINO'?

That's the crucial question.

[ulysses]

48. each one of us.

Gotta love democracy. :D

[Padraig18]

49. So, it's possible to disagree on who is or is not?

What a concept, uly!

;)

[ulysses]

50. we do all the time.

It's just that I'm right. :D

[Padraig18]

51. *smack*

Yeah, yeah, yeah...

:pals:

[ulysses]

53. here's the thing.

There's been a rift for a long time in the party, and trying to say that one man's DINO is another's blue dog in good standing does nothing to solve the problem.

I know where I stand. I am a progressive Democrat increasingly unrepresented by my own party. I've found that conservatives of both parties generally stand in the way of things I believe to be important - thus I oppose, not Republicans per se, but conservatives and conservative measures.

The bankruptcy bill? Conservative. Welfare "reform"? Conservative. The invasion of Iraq? Conservative. School vouchers? Conservative. I suspect you can fill in the litany.

We fight the battles we fight because we believe it right to fight them. You believe that it's right to scratch out Dem majorities as best we can (insofar as I understand your position - I may well be wrong). I believe that it's right to fight for necessary legislation, even when and where it is unpopular to do so. That's pretty much the state of the current party split. There will be a lot more of this kind of thing before any resolution comes, if it does come.

[depakid]

52. Assuming its not obvious from public statements and actions

like giving Bush a kiss, you can do it objectively by compiling voting records, weighting them in rational ways to reflect bona fide home state constituent concerns and come out with a set of scores.

Any grad sudent in political science worth their salt could do that-

You could also look at campaign "contributions" and link them to corrupt voting patterns and actions- again, that's not too hard.

Dems who vote for and advocate irrationl and destructive policies- and betray their party can be identified and targeted. And- if the party show a modicum of integrity, they can do it smarter and better than Republicans do it....

[FightinNewDem]

79. Aye, there's the rub

Imagine the hue and cry if those of us of the New Dem persuasion started succumbing to this malarkey.

Maybe we could challenge Kucinich, since he did flirt with the Green Party in 2003. Purge him!

Or we could call for Ellen Tauscher to challenge Barbara Boxer just for the hell of it (never mind the fact that the two regularly help each other out politically). Purge her!

We could threaten to vent our wrath on candidates who have failed to show insufficient support for charter school funding, Individual Development Accounts, or AmeriCorps. Purge them all!

[ulysses]

47. yup.

Besides, what's the point of being in charge again if we wait until the GOP has dismantled every social and environmental protection we've ever put into place?

[AP]

58. Republicans have majority with RI & ME "RINOs"...probably because of it.

[DaveinMD]

60. yep

Spector, Collins, Snowe, Chafee. Without them, we'd be within one seat of a majority.

[fujiyama]

62. And the nutjobs

in the party are trying their damdest to kick them out. Why I don't know. Those supposed RINO's the freepers are always bitching about rarely stray from what the administration wants.

So 4 repuke senators are pro choice. Big deal. On the issues regarding corporate dominance and protecting the middle class, they will go with their corporate masters. Chafee, the two Maine senators, and Spector all went along with the bankruptcy bill, the tax cuts, and most major pieces of Bush's agenda.

Democrats no longer have a concept of a party line vote, because there is not even the slightest bit of discipline. There is no accountability, because in the end, when it comes time to vote, after some half assed whining, which passes off as opposition, our own majority leader sides with the puke policies.

[Hippo_Tron]

68. McCain, Snowe, Chafee, and I believe Specter all voted NAY on the tax cuts

The Club for Growth can try outsting them one at a time because the GOP has 10 more Senate seats than we do. But when this wasn't the case, they acted quite differently. Trent Lott offered Jeffords a sweet ass deal to keep him from bolting over to the dems. We all know that Jeffords is a progressive. He votes with us like Zell Miller voted with the GOP. Chafee arguably votes better than some of the more conservative members of our caucus do, as well. John Breaux once joked that, "Chafee would make be better Democrat than I am."

But when the GOP didn't control the Senate, their first control was to get back the Senate. Even after they got back the Senate, their goal was to increase their majority so that it was harder for Democrats to sustain fillibusters. Now that they have a 55 to 45 majority plus the House and the White House, they can bitch about the RINOs all that they want.

[ClassWarrior]

70. I don't apologize for or support any DINO...

...but I still don't get how taking what few Dems there are OUT of the system is a higher priority than removing Republicons so we can add to our numbers with Progressive Dems. And with limited resources, we do need to priortize.

You say, "The sell out Dems ARE the reason why the party has been losing for over a decade..." But HOW are the DINOs keeping Progressives from winning? How would the presence of Joe Biden in the Senate, for instance, keep a Progressive from claiming John Sununu's Senate seat? I don't get it...

NGU.

[ClassWarrior]

81. So no one can answer this?

NGU.

[Guaranteed]

75. Yes, yes, yes. Listen to depakid, folks. nt

[Padraig18]

45. You mean we have to disband the circular firing squad?

We won't know how to act!

:wow:

[depakid]

56. No- we have to educate people

who hopefully will be ble to look at trends and make connections that are pretty well indisputable.

You might be able to argue aout what precisely needs to be done about the situation- but it's a fools errand to blindly support the DINO's when they are responsible not only for screwing average Americans (over and over) but also for the continuing decline of their own party.

:wake up and smell the coffee:

[Padraig18]

63. Speaking of fool's errands....

It's also a fool's errand to assume that every Democrat who cast a vote we don't happen to agree with is, per se, a DINO. Senators represent their constituents, too, and to ignore the fact that different states may at different times have competing interests is naive.

:prefers tea:

[fujiyama]

61. I agree

and I feel that's a good strategy overall.

But we're aching for some accountability for our own party members as well.

I'm not expecting purity. I'm not expecting them to even speak out.

But I'm expecting them to do the most basic thing - oppose this administration by voting against its policies. We're not voting for Democrats to have them turn around and give a rubber stamp on Bush's policies.

Why bother putting ourselves up for disappointment? Atleast with the repuke you know what you get is a stinky piece of shit.

[EST]

67. My first impulse, on reading the opening post of this thread,

was to reach for the keyboard and agree with you.
On a couple days reflection, however, I seem to have come down on the opposite side, and here's why:
If we wait until we are again in the majority, assuming that might happen while I'm still on this planet, we will find ourselves in the same position as before. To wit-we would need a few wolves in sheep's clothing to keep in check some of the other sort of shark that always shows up, the predator who does great works of vast humanitarian intent and steals the system blind, enriching themselves and their cronies. This has happened before, and will again (at least I hope we will someday recover enough to be in a position of considering humanitarian programs.)
It is right here, right now, that the absolute necessity of having people whose support we can depend on becomes so very important. Right now, we need a strongly liberal and proudly independent moral majority of our own, since that, essentially, is the heart and soul of the progressive.

We truly are the majority, even though, in these dark hours, it often seems that the evil spirits reign supreme. We stand for honesty, integrity, and a sense of responsibility for our fellow beings. There must never be a time when we back down from these standards, especially when it comes to whom we choose to represent us. Right now is the time when clarity of purpose is of such terrific importance and dinos, or those who overwhelmingly appear to be, are a liability we simply can't afford.

We need no brakes, no one whose natural response is that the thugs might have a valid point. When anything comes from these criminals (the neo-cons and their minions), even when it looks like something valuable, or most especially when, we always have to look for the dark side-because it is there. If the person who wants to be my senator or representative does not automatically look at the horrors being visited on us as harbingers of an even more oppressive and repressive regime to follow, then that person is just too unobservant, perhaps willfully so, to take a seat at the table on the side of the good people-out they go!

The only hope we have as a party, a country, or a world community is to stand up for truth, integrity and dignity. The choices are rather stark and we cannot have business-as-usual with the pseudo dems willing to sell us down the river to maintain their own power or position. These wobbly gray coats are of little value in the battle to create a world wherein people are more valuable than things and corporations do not have the rights of citizens.

[Illinois_Dem]

69. We need to think stategically about this.

The first thing we have to do is to agree on a working definition of 'DINO', and that in and of itself will reveal how deep the split is within our party; those making the most noise about DINOs may not be in the majority, so let's be VERY careful before we start purges.

[Hippo_Tron]

71. The problem is that we are literally in the TRENCHES right now

Those who argue that replacing anybody with an R next to their name with somebody who has a D next to their name is not a long term solution to our party's problems, are correct. It is by no means a long term solution to our problems nor is it a long term solution to the country's problems. But we can't just think about the long term right now, we need to think about tommorow, next week, next month, and next year. We need to think about whether we are going to have a Constitutional Republic or a Fascist Dictatorship by 2008.

Here's what I think about DINOs. DINOs are opportunists who don't truly stand for anything. If Joe Lieberman were truly interested in advancing the Republican agenda, he'd be in the Republican party. But Joe Lieberman is not interesting in advancing the Republican agenda, he's interested in advancing his own status. Lieberman gets absolutely no advancement in his status when the Republicans control congress. When the Democrats control congress, he has a shot at a committee chairmanship which gives him what he wants, power and status. The way I see it, Lieberman casts his votes based on what is going to give him the most opportunity.

Now let's face it, Lieberman isn't helping us advance a progressive agenda by any means. BUT, Lieberman in his search for his own personal gain, he has decided to be on our side of the aisle.

Lieberman and others are our reluctant allies that we need to use to fight the people that are in power. He may be just as bad as Bush but the fact is that he is helping us fight the Republicans by giving the Democrats his caucus vote and helping us sustain the fillibusters on the SCOTUS nominations.

Lieberman and others are like Stalin in World War II. Stalin may have been as bad as Hitler, but Stalin wasn't a threat to the rest of the world (at least at the time), Hitler was. Our alliance with Stalin was reluctant, but necessary to win the war.

Our alliance with Lieberman, Nelson, etc. may be reluctant, but it is necessary to keep Bush from totally ripping the constitution to shreds. Between now and the next election, we do need to play some defense. We need to keep Bush from appointing more Scalias to the Supreme Court, because they will totally rip what little is left of our freedom, to shreds. When 2006 and 2008 come around, we should campaign on progressive ideals and we should champion economic and social justice. We should get new progressive candidates who can appeal to people who are being screwed over by the Bush economy. And I think that we have taken the first step in making sure that this will happen, by getting Howard Dean elected chairman. But for now, we need Lieberman and Nelson to sustain fillibusters and save the country from complete destruction.

[Padraig18]

72. BINGO!

We are literally at a point in time where 'the enemy of my enemy is my friend'. We can worry about 'purity' when we regain a majority in one or both houses of Congress.

[Guaranteed]

74. If the best you can give the DINO's is that they're "reluctant allies,"

and that we have to make use of them, we're going to have to do better than that.

[ClassWarrior]

76. I'd rather use Joe Lieberman than let him use me. Wouldn't you?

NGU.

[Hippo_Tron]

77. Well that's genuinely how I feel about them

I agree that we could absolutely have a better senator than Joe Lieberman from Connecticut (although I would ultimately leave that up to the people of Connecticut to decide). But right now, focusing on outsting Lieberman is focusing finite money and resources in the wrong place. Remember, also, that the GOP has more money than we do in almost every single race and if that isn't the case, then they usually don't field a credible challenger.

We need to focus our very limited money on where it can do the most good for right now, and that is fighting our enemies.

Come election night 2006, I would feel MUCH better about our chances of saving this country from complete destruction if Rick Santorum and Conrad Burns were lame ducks as opposed to Joe Lieberman and Ben Nelson.

Like I said, this is something that we need right now to keep Bush from totally destroying the country. I don't think that Lieberman or Nelson should by any means, be given the reigns of power in our party or in the country.

[Guaranteed]

73. Sounds like business as usual. Yeah, that'll work. nt

[kentuck]

82. There goes any majority in our lifetime....n/t

:shrug:

[ClassWarrior]

83. Why?? Honestly, why??

The Republicons have a majority, even with RINOs in their caucus. Why can't we gain a majority if we have a handful of DINOs in our caucus? See post #70.

NGU.

[sadiesworld]

84. Perhaps we too could have a corporate toady majority...

but what would be the point?

[ClassWarrior]

86. Did I say elect "corporate todies" - or did I say Progressives?

And once the DINOs are surrounded by Progressives in former Republicon seats, the DINOs will start singing our tune - not that it'll do any good, cuz they'll be next.

NGU.

[lojasmo]

85. With the DINOs in we'll have a majority in NAME ONLY.

We'll never have an actual majority vote.