To Senator Schumer and the DSCC: Do Not Abandon Loyal Democrats

[Skinner]

I know it is likely that this message will be ignored by the Powers That Be as the rantings of yet another liberal blogger reading from the same page as all the rest. My case is not helped by the fact that I administer a discussion forum with a reputation (only partially deserved) of representing the rabid hard-left Bush-hating fringe. But I hope that my point will not be ignored, because I am not speaking as a member of the Netroots or the liberal blogosphere or whatever we're called these days.

I am speaking as a loyal Democrat.

I know we have lots of bomb-throwers on my website, but I am not one of them. As a forum administrator and not a typical blogger, I don't actually share my opinions very often. I am by nature a very cautious person, and when I speak publicly I usually weigh my words carefully.

To put my comments in a little context: I have never publicly stated a preference in the Lieberman/Lamont race, despite the fact that I know I could accrue big-time brownie points from my members by demagoguing this race to the hilt. And I honestly believe Joe Lieberman often gets attacked unfairly by people on my website and by other liberal bloggers, due to his high profile as a former VP candidate, and his position on the Iraq war.

Now that I've introduced myself properly, I can get to my point. If I'm lucky, you haven't stopped reading yet.

To Senator Schumer and the DSCC, I have this message: Please do not abandon loyal Democrats. This talk of endorsing a possible Independent candidacy by Senator Lieberman is dangerous.

I am a loyal Democrat. I have been for my entire adult life. I understand how politics works.

I understand the DSCC policy of automatically supporting incumbents in Democratic primary races. For an organization like the DSCC, whose sole purpose is to elect as many Democrats as possible to the United States Senate, the policy is a sensible one. In fact, I believe it is the right policy for the DSCC. I do not begrudge you for supporting Lieberman in the Democratic primary. In Connecticut, you are doing exactly what you are supposed to be doing, even if it puts you at odds with activists and bloggers.

But there is another policy that -- up until yesterday -- I thought the DSCC supported: To endorse and support any Democratic nominee for United States Senate. To be blunt: I thought we had a deal. Democrats are supposed to fight it out during the primaries, and then we all put aside our differences and support the nominee, whoever it is.

Senator Schumer, your public wavering on this (formerly bedrock) principle of supporting the Democratic nominee is deeply troubling.

I have been on the front lines for five and a half years, dealing directly with progressive activists who have repeatedly argued in favor of abandoning Democratic candidates -- official Democratic party nominees -- to support liberal third-party candidates in general elections. I have been crystal clear and rock-solid in my condemnation of this approach. I have insisted -- along with many other loyal Democrats -- that supporting third party candidates is a massive mistake. It inevitably splits the progressive vote and helps our Republican opponents. My position has always been: It doesn't matter who wins any Democratic primary, whether they're a liberal or a centrist the Democratic nominee will get my support, and I expect the members of my website to give that nominee their support as well.

Next time I tell another progressive activist that it is in our best interest to come together to support the Democratic nominee, I already know the response: Why in the hell should anyone be expected to support the Democratic nominee, when the head of the DSCC won't even do it?

Senator Schumer, please do not do this. You are turning your back on loyal Democrats. I thought we had a deal.

[AX10]

1. K&R

[Faryn Balyncd]

85. Telephone contact numbers of Sen. Schumer and DSCC

Sen. Schumer's washington, DC office
Phone [phone]
Website http://www.senate.gov/~schumer/SchumerWebsite/contact/contact.html

Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee
Phone [phone]
Website http://www.dscc.org/about/contactus/

[meegbear]

2. From Jesus' General ...

[rucky]

7. That about sums it up. Photo included. n/t

[dogday]

9. Bingo!!!!!

We have a winner

[LeftHander]

64. Loyalty is a two way street....

Sorry to rain on this love fest. (Sort of...)

But I have read it here on DU time and time again by many voices (many of whom are missing of late) if we REALLY are to build a strong Democratic party then Democrats elected to office should not simply assume our loyalty but earn it.

I don't see the reasoning to support any "least offensive" candidate simply because he or she is a "Democrat".

By bending to the right center we are leaving behind the core values of the vast majority of democrats and thus we weaken our ability to promote issues ALL democrats want.

Yes we all so badly want to regain control of the house and senate and ultimately the White House. And yes it is important to solidify the democratic party in this election cycle and carry momentum into 2008. But are we required to support a candidate that will tip the scales to the other side time and time again? What good is having a majority if we can't hold the votes together to pass legislation because we have such a huge spectrum of beliefs in the Democratic party? What happens is basically moderates and conservatives will still be control. And it is that control that has caused the damage to this nation that we see today. Oh sure we will control the legislative agenda but what good is it if we don't even have the votes in our own party to move the legislation forward?

If we can't operate from a core of shared values which have been listed on this board numerous times then what is the point? Does it matter who is in charge? Democrats were in control of the senate and still they disenfranchised MILLIONS of people by given Bush the green light to go to war. Universally that was seen as a HUGE mistake. Democrats deeply regret that vote and frankly are still to pay the price for it. You can't vote contrary to your values and succeed in this modern political climate. For as wrong as the Republicans are they have been wildly succesful in getting every loony idea on the floor and getting the party rank and file to vote for it. Is it wrong to think that sticking to our values would be a better solution for America than the Neocons? It is clear to 70% of America that Bush and the GOP are failures...We need to jump on that and offer a vision! Americans will support ideas they may not agree with if their is honesty and integrity backing them up. the GOP failed on that regard and are losing support of the American people. (Evidence Fiengold's success in Wisconsin...he proves Republicans will vote for Democrats with integrity)

We have to think longer term than the "next election" we need to be thinking of how we can reshape the party to truly reflect Democratic values. (Which I believe share more with liberal third parties than it does moderate Republicans...but I could be wrong and maybe it is progressives like me who simply don't belong to this party?)

I for one would not be surprised to see the Republicans flagellate themselves in Washington until all they leave is bloody smear on the beltway. When that happens (already well on their way) Democrats will be able to step in and take charge because America will be sick to death of the Republicans. I'm hopeful that the Democratic party will be made up of STRONG progressive ideas and values including same sex marriage, corporate reform, campaign finance reform, election reform....etc etc...and not more corporate giveaways and handouts for campaign money, pork and bloated defense budgets and continued conservative apologist positions on the environment and global warming. (The yesss but...speeches I have heard over and over again coming from centrists)

It may take another 4-8 years of Republican mismanagement and scandal to ultimately clear Washington of the neocons. ...but in the long run the Democratic party will be stronger and more effective if we let go the more conservative moderate wing of this party. What may be vitally more important is getting a Democrat in the WHite House to clean up the military of it's PNAC/neocon sympathizers before we can do ANYTHING.

To me that is where the real danger is as long as we have nationalist hawks running the military and military industrial complex we WILL have war.

So I am for some long term goals for the Democratic party and I have yet to see any Democratic leaders really take a stand on this. It is business as usual being twirled around and around reacting to the GOPs every whim and Karl Rove's sickening media blitzkrieg.


In the mean time I continue to support candidates I believe in...and right now most of those are Democrats. So we are headed in the right direction. Lets keep it up.

[Bryan]

3. Thoughtful and carefully written, Skinner.

I can appreciate the position Schumer is in-I seem to recall that he and Lieberman are even tight on a personal level-but pointing out the danger of his stance is important.

[Grateful for Hope]

4. K&R

Very well said.

[madokie]

Thanks Skinner, to me this is required reading

Recommended

[JeffR]

5. Magnificent post

:kick: :kick: :kick: :kick: :kick:

[TomClash]

6. This is entirely correct

And for the head of the DSCC to suggest he would support an independent candidate is absurd.

How many liberals and progressives voted and worked for Clinton in 92 or 96 even though for many he was not their ideal candidate? How many moderate Dems supported Kerry even though they had reservations about him? As I wrote in another post, Schumer's position is tantamount to disqualifying any candidate who wants to run against an incumbent in a primary. What's democratic about that?

[saltpoint]

8. Yes and yes. Please copy & email to Schumer's office. He is sometimes

"out there" on some things, but he is a keen strategist and may listen to a soundly-argued position.

[wicket]

10. Well said Skinner!

K & R

:kick:

[Rose Siding]

11. "I thought we had a deal"

We do -and not just with some lousy committee.

A legitimate government is based upon the consent of the governed. Elections -even primaries- are an expression of that consent. To thwart them breaks the fundamental bond of trust. (It's one of the reasons for the jam we're in today) And you're right; that's dangerous.

[JeffR]

16. Very well said

And deserving of its own thread.
:thumbsup:

[Cassandra]

I just phoned Schumer's office...

as well as the DSCC and asked, very politely, if Senator Schumer had gone insane. I told them that he has made a series of political decisions lately, in local races as well, that are ridiculous. I told them that I voted for Schumer, which is true, and that I am extremely disappointed in him right now.

[wyldwolf]

12. Yes and Yes

As you said, Joe Lieberman does attacked unfairly by people on (DU) and by other liberal bloggers.

And yes, the winner of the primary should recieve the endorsement.

[spag68]

30. schumer

I e-mailed him just that yesterday I was promised a reply, but so far nothing. This time as never before we must use anything we have to get these thugs out of office. I don't think much of Joe L. and his hawkish stands, but the nominee from the primary should be supported. I'm 64 and this is the most important vote of my life, so let us have constructive discussion and unite behind our party.

[cali]

13. Thank you so much Skinner,

I feel the same way about all the points you made. It's disheartening that Schumer made those remarks, and detrimental to the party.

[Pithy Cherub]

14. It is a horrible irony that Schumer, the supposed loyal Democrat,

is a senator who is doing the bombthrowing - right into our house. There were house rules and it seems that the little people are told what to do - and those who have dipped themselves in political money get to choose for us. How about those who chose to give money to democrats via the DSCC to find that money and organizational resources may go to a third party candidate? I'd be a bit pissed.

We all had a deal and now we find that it may be a marriage of convenience and in name only.

[glitch]

65. Sounds like fraud. They'd better be damn careful about what they are doing

"How about those who chose to give money to democrats via the DSCC to find that money and organizational resources may go to a third party candidate?"

[Freddie Stubbs]

15. What about Bernie Sanders?

:shrug:

[Cassandra]

24. Bernie Sanders has no Democratic opposition.

Dean made a deal that the Dems wouldn't oppose him in exchange for his support for a Democratic candidate for another office (I think, for his replacement).

[Freddie Stubbs]

27. There is a Democrat running for that seat:

http://www.drownforvermont.com

[Cassandra]

42. Well, anyone can get into the primary, I guess.

Bernie can win without DSCC support.

[Freddie Stubbs]

47. Lieberman can probably win without DSCC support also

[mhatrw]

111. Maybe. If he runs indy against Lamont, he should have to try. (nt)

[cali]

48. Larry Drown doesn't count

He's a slightly nutty perennial candidate in Vermont, and I don't think there's a single prominent dem in the state who's backing him.

[Cassandra]

61. Such an unfortunate name, too.

[ulysses]

70. "drownforvermont"

"Why would I do that?"

[Cassandra]

80. He should move to...

New Orleans......no....I didn't say that......did I?

[recovering democrat]

35. Requires VT State Dem Party Endorsement

Quoted from article in Hotline - While we're trying to get some legal clarification on this, there is something "official" that a state Dem party has to do in order to allow the DSCC to transfer money to help a particular candidate. For instance, the DSCC made sure the VT Dem Party endorsed Bernie Sanders in VT SEN before the DSCC could publicly touted its support of the "independent" member of Congress.

Link to article: http://hotlineblog.nationaljournal.com/archives/2006/06/schumer_vs_kos.html

[Norquist Nemesis]

17. Give this man a KickAss Trophy!

Thank you Skinner! :toast:

[ninkasi]

18. I agree with you

Another consideration is that if Lamont wins the primary, that means the voters prefer him to Lieberman. Shouldn't Schumer endorse the candidate the voters choose? After all, we pay the salaries, and the whole point of a democracy is to have politicians chosen by, and representing, American citizens.

[Bretttido]

19. Agree 100%

No bridges are burned if he says, at this point in time, that he will endorse whoever wins the Primary.

[mmonk]

20. Great post Skinner

If the democratic party supports democracy, then its leadership should honor the will of its constituency's vote.

[question everything]

21. I hope that you will have a similar letter to DUers who have

bashed Lieberman for so long now.

I will take pro-choice Lieberman any day over Casey.

[Jack Rabbit]

22. Were I a resident of Connecticut . . .

Were I a resident of Connecticut, I would vote for Lamont in the primary and (holding my nose) for Lieberman in the general election should he win the Democratic nomination. The idea is to take control of the Senate and start investigating the crimes of the Bush regime as they ought to be investigated.

I would expect the same of the DSCC should Mr. Lamont win the primary.

[autorank]

109. Jack...

...I, asked in a friendly fashion, what would you do were you a resident of Connecticut, voted for Lamont in the primary, Lieberman in the general and Lieberman caucused with the Republicans?

[Jack Rabbit]

115. I would feel very betrayed, wouldn't you?

One could say to Lieberman, paraphrasing Skinner, "I thought we had a deal."

However, that's idle speculation at this point. I hear people who oppose Lieberman suggesting he might do that, but none who support him and certainly not from the Senator himself. On the other hand, some of Lieberman's supporters are suggesting that he run as an independent should he lose the primary to Lamont; Lieberman hasn't categorically ruled it out and Senator Schumer's remarks can only be read as encouraging that kind of mischief.

[Me.]

23. Schumer & Others Do So At Their Peril

And I don't mean this in a threatening, but rather a realistic way. It would not only fracture the party but divide loyalties and set people up against each other thereby dividing votes.

*shadow government*

[still_one]

54. no question about it, I am very close to becoming non-partisan

and this could be what breaks the camels back for me, however, I will wait and see what develops for the time being

[hfojvt]

25. a message they might get

I get letters from the DSCC, almost weekly it seems, asking for money. I can send it back with a message like "Lieberman sucks. $100 to DFA" or "Joementum must go. $50 to DFA"

Money talks. They might hear that.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=2663128#2663196

[PassingFair]

94. They have paid fund raisers calling me once a week...

some of them have never HEARD of the DLC or the DCCC.
They last one that called was anxious to get OFF the line.
I told him that my money went to DFA, the DNC, and individual
progressive candidates. And that
the DSCC, the DCCC and the DLC could go begging in the streets
for all I cared.

I told him to WRITE IT DOWN and pass it on.

[TahitiNut]

26. The question: Who is the "party"?

Is it really the People (demo) or their 'representatives'? When a constituency expresses THEIR will, just what theory of 'democracy' says a 'democrat' doesn't honor that choice?

More significantly, where the f*ck did these establishment politicians stand when McKinney was opposed by Majette? It seems they have more than a little hypocrisy to deal with.

It again makes me glad I'm an independent liberal. :shrug:

[itzamirakul]

43. "Where the f*ck did these establishment politicians stand

when McKinney was opposed by Majette?" Whenever an African American Democrat needs some support, the powers that be like Schumer and Hillary) seem to disappear. Just like they did in 2000 and 2004 when so many black votes were disallowed or simply stolen. This alone answers your question, "Who is the Party?"

Schumer is one of my senators. I voted for him. He makes good promises. But I think Schumer has other considerations in mind rather than just pleasing the Democratic Party. I think there are others he must please first.

[BrklynLiberal]

46. I did not vote for Schumer the last time he ran, and would never vote for

him in the future.
I am not sure whose interests he has at heart, but somehow, I do not think it is ours.

[mconvente]

28. You speak for me Skinner

You're beautiful and elegant letter is exactly how I think. Let the voters decide in the primary and then support whomever the winner is. Why is the DSCC so myopic - Lamont is who the people - not the machine want!

[kentuck]

29. Senator Schumer is playing with fire....

If the people throw out Lieberman, they can also throw out Schumer.

[mconvente]

31. Gotta believe you on that one

Lieberman was very popular in Conn. until his Iraq war badgering, and he still has a good amount of support. People, we are seeing the true grassroots of democracy here - if we can get Lieberman outta there, then sooner or later no big-name "rank and file" DLCer is safe. Kudos to the blogosphere!

[BrklynLiberal]

41. and believe me, if they feel the I do, they WILL!!!!!!

:grr:

I would not vote for Schumer for dogcatcher.
His comment on Dimson's recent "sneak in/sneak out" to Baghdad was that it was a"good idea".

[dpbrown]

32. That's exactly the way I feel

Same in Minnesota with Erlandson and Lourey.

Thanks.

[geardaddy]

37. You forgot some other candidates in MN..

who are not abiding by the endorsement in the CD 5 race: Junge, Ostrow, and a woman who's name I've forgotten.

[dpbrown]

82. If they expect us to 'get in line' then they'd better do the same...

Their self-interest reigns supreme when it comes to getting elected.

[Czolgosz]

33. K & R

[derby378]

34. Hell yeah, Skinner! Represent!

I agree with your sentiment - I thought we had a deal, too. And, as Auntie Entity once said, "Bust a deal, face the wheel."

Senator Schumer, the "wheel" you will face is the wheel of change as it rotates the old guard out and the progressive grassroots in. Make your choice.

Schumer -> :spank: <- DU

[William769]

36. One of the best posts I have read in a long time!

After getting slammed about the VA race I feel vindicated. Thank you.

[DinahMoeHum]

38. Skinner, AFAIC, your sentiments also go for Rahm Emmanuel

on the Congressional side, the DCCC.

Folks, if you REALLY want to make a statement, DO NOT GIVE YOUR $$$$ to either the DSCC OR the DCCC.
Fuck 'em. They're LOSERS.

Instead, direct your $$$ to candidates on an individual basis.
Or give $$$ through DFA (Democracy For America), PDA (Progressive Democrats for America), DailyKos, BandofBrothers2006, etc.

If you insist on giving $$$ to an official Democratic channel, then go to DNC (Democratic National Committee). At least Howard Dean has put together startegies to rebuild the Party from the grassroots up, at every level, in every state, every district.

:kick::kick::kick:

[BrklynLiberal]

45. Excellent idea. Support your candidates!!!!

[bleedingheart]

62. I stopped giving to the DSCC and the DCCC a long long time ago

because of this shit.

[Orion The Hunter]

39. Well said, Skinner!

Hopefully the DSCC has its ears on!

[KoKo]

40. Thank you for this Skinner.....

It's really appreciated.... So many tombstones...over this issue.

You've stated your position clearly and it's hard to understand how we netroots activists working to rebuild our Party into a Winning Party wouldn't find Lieberman's threats of running as an independent and Schumer's seeming endorsement of Liberman's position as not a clear signal to all of us to just "Bug Off."

It really means alot to those of us on this site who became active because of our involvement with this Forum to know that you are supporting our concern over the DSCC's apparent new position.

:applause: :toast: :applause:

[BrklynLiberal]

44. Excellent post.

I heard Paul Hackett subbing for Jerry Springer this AM.

He had a lot to say about this. Gee, you think he may have some personal experience in this situation? He sounded VERY bitter toward Schumer, whom I think had a lot more to do with the OH situation than was originally perceived.

Hackett's position, like yours, was that Schumer and Emanuel were abandoning the core tenets of party loyalty.

Thank for this astute and pointed statement of the situation.

[zippy890]

49. I'm with you on this

:dem:

[kpete]

50. We need to be saying this over and over

Senator Schumer and the DSCC - must listen or we will continue to lose elections...

[bluescribbler]

51. Amen

As an elected member of my city's ward Democratic Committee, and as a delegate to my state's past three Democratic Conventions, I know the importance of party loyalty. In 2004, there was a three way race for State Rep in my district. A Damocrat, a Rethuglican, and a Green. I'm not entirely thrilled with the Democrat who represents me. He seems to be unresponsive. My state Senator knows me better than he does. The other state rep in my city knows me better than he does. Nonetheless, on election day, I held a sign for the Democrat, as well as the state Senator. When the person with the Green candidate asked me to hold her sign while she went to the ladies', I refused. All that the Green candidate was doing was taking votes from the Democrat. Just like Nader took votes from Gore and Kerry.

[Avalux]

52. I think WE (the base) have been forgotten somewhere along the way.

Does anyone else feel like we've been left on an island to fend for ourselves? It's difficult to think otherwise when our Democratic leaders remain silent to the atrocities committed by this adminstration and go along with their Republican counterparts. And now this.....where is our representation? Ugh.

[WI_DEM]

53. Perfect!

[meganmonkey]

55. My my, what a tangled web we weave...

Let's say Lamont runs as the (D). Lieberman runs as an (I) who will caucus with and be endorsed by the DSCC. Who would we be allowed to promote on DU per the DU rules? Obviously Lamont, but OTOH, if Lieberman is endorsed and Lamont would split the vote (eg play the spoiler), will we have to pick just one? Ohhh, the flame wars that would ensue...

:rofl:

Fascinating....Let's just hope they read and heed your letter!

[Jazz2006]

56. Excellent ~ K&R

"I thought we had a deal"

:toast:

[still_one]

57. Senator Schumer better clarify his position, and fast

before this gets out of control

[Minnesota Libra]

58. Skinner, let's hope they listen now. It amazes me that..................

....after living through the last 6 years of constant hell anyone left of the middle would do anything to hurt the Liberal/Democratic vote in the least.:banghead:

[TomClash]

59. I called his office in DC

For whatever good it does, I'm a constituent and I live on Schumer's street so I decided to call. The receptionist took the call and heard my polite complaint about his remarks. I suppose it gets recorded somewhere.

[Hubert Flottz]

60. Senator Schumer will gladly and proudly support the...

Nader/Lieberman ticket in 2008, if he doesn't first support the Ventura/Schumer ticket...



Hell afterall..."It's Just Politics!" It don't mean nothin' to the "unwashed" hordes like us...

Chuck and Joe have a lot in common...

[riona]

63. Excellent

When all is said and done, I think that the majority of the liberal bloggers will vote for the Democrat who wins their primary. It would be a monumental mistake for our elected party representatives to start the divisive precedent of supporting third party candidates.

[IndyOp]

66. SIGN JIM DEAN'S LETTER to Beltway Democrats....primaries are healthy.

Jim Dean's letter from DFA to Beltway Democrats....primaries are healthy.

[DemExpat]

67. Absolutely, Skinner

Agreed, and thank you for saying this!

:kick:

DemEx

[Ganja Ninja]

68. Let the best Democrat win.

How dare the DSCC go against the will of the voters in the Democratic primary.
How dare they threaten registered Democrats in Connecticut with an independent run.
Online progressives are watching this race. Quite frankly we have not been pleased with the record of Democratic incumbents when it comes to standing up to the Bush administration. Now Senator Schumer and the DSCC has the nerve to try dictate to the Democratic voters of Connecticut. Where's that nerve when your dealing with the GOP? It's bad enough the GOP has saddled us with crooked voting machines and usurped our democracy. Now the DSCC wants to take away our choice in the primaries. Do that and you can not only consider me gone, I'll go into the voting booth, hold my nose and vote Libertarian or even GOP if I must.

[Deep13]

69. Yeah, Chuck

Stay out of local races. Let CT pick their candidate. As active Democrats, our job is to support whoever wins the primary, not to second guess the wisdom of the primary voters. If we think one thing and the people think something else, then they are right and we are wrong.

[dragonlady]

71. They'll probably be calling for end-of-quarter contributions

The end of the second quarter is only two weeks away. We can probably expect the DSCC to call and ask for our money. After hearing what Schumer has planned, I'd give them a good talking-to, but not a dime. If you do get such a call, it's a perfect opportunity to let them know how you feel. Tell them you prefer to give to loyal Democrats only.

Anything I have to donate is going to Bryan Kennedy (www.bk2006.org), who will be replacing Jim Sensenbrenner next year, and my state assembly candidate, Bill Elliott (www.billforwisconsin.com). They won't let me down.

[Deep13]

81. 'nuff said

I give to candidates, not committees.

[ulysses]

72. agreed, Skinner.

:thumbsup:

[rateyes]

73. Damned straight....

Rec. #50 coming your way.

[JerseygirlCT]

74. Totally agree. Let us decide, then support the guy with the D. nt

[paulk]

75. well said -

you've expressed my feelings on this exactly.

[autorank]

76. Total UNQUALIFIED SUPPORT for you position. Taming the excesses

of power.

The statement in Tegan Goddard's site represents an excess of power - it was serious "talk" and you
nailed it.

For an organization to bend rules to accommodate a preferred individual denies the meaning of the
organization. DSCC is Democrats. If Schumer pushed DSCC to endorse an 'independent' Lieberman
over a primary winner, any primary winner, that would be both anti democratic and anti Democratic.

On a deeper level, it must be closer than we know in CT. Schumer is making the statement pre
emptively.

Lieberman chose to excoriate Bill Clinton for immortality on the Senate floor for lies
about sex, yet fails to to the same for Bush for starting a war filled with death and injury based on
lies about WMD and every other rationale. Losing is appropriate.

We'll see what Schumer does. If he's smart he'll listen to this advice.

[DainBramaged]

77. Hear hear, the money stops when the fools walk

And MoJoe is walkin' the fools walk. Is Schooner (pun) next (the answer my friends is blowin in the wind).

[Time for change]

78. Excellent - I agree 100%

I can't imagine why he would do something like this.

[Crewleader]

79. Skinner,thanks for all your great efforts as a loyal Democrat

and seeing you these past five and a half years on the front line,
this longtime Democrat knows you couldn't say it any better to Senator Schumer and The DSCC.

[jsamuel]

83. the little guidance you have given has been good for us

thanks...

makes what you do say that much more powerful :)

[Divine Discontent]

84. I thought we had a deal

that whenever you wrote a great post you'd put "I found this great post from the themartyred"

:) thank you for putting in to words what all of us non-bomb throwers feel
democratic party means PARTY and loyalty.


www.cafepress.com/warisprofitable <--- Check it out - top ANTI-Republican PRO-Democratic 06 stickers!

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

86. I Read This On The Front Page During My Lunch Break. What A Great Job.

I wish you'd post stuff like this more often in here Skinner. This is extremely well written, thought out and has some great points in it.

I hadn't even thought about the DSCC supporting him as an independant rather then the Dem nominee no matter who it is in the light you spoke of it. That is 100% true and on point. The DSCC would support an independant over the Democrat? WTF is up with that?

Very good post Skinner.

:thumbsup:

[WestMichRad]

87. Thank you Skinner for this…. but….

Skinner, you’ve hit the nail on the head in describing what the party nomination system should do, and what it should mean to be a party loyalist.

But not everyone out here who supports Dem candidates is a Dem party member. I’m not a party loyalist, and never have been. Reading this from the perspective of a progressive independent, you’ve described exactly why i WON’T become a Democratic party member. I’m not going to commit my vote to any candidate based on their party affiliation, or their campaign platform, or my cash to a party for ambiguous uses. I can and should have the liberty to place my vote for the candidate whom I best feel will represent my views - and that may be a choice that is independent of the party, or what a candidate may SAY in a campaign. I feel that it is important that I be free of the obligation to vote for a candidate who SAYS one thing when campaigning but DOES otherwise as an elected representative (am thinking of examples of DINOs here).

I’m not one who is wedded to this American illusion of a two-party system. When the system has evolved to where the two parties are Corporate Plutocrat and Corp. Plutocrat Lite, is often appears that voting for either party’s candidate is a wash. What difference will it make, esp. when the CP Lites don’t attempt to provide any meaningful opposition to hardly ANYTHING that the majority Plutocrats do? (For instance, exactly how many filibusters have the CP Lites attempted during the 5+ years of this administration? It HAS to be less than 5! Amazingly obedient little lap dogs, aren’t they?)

With conformance like that by the minority party, I have no regret at all about “wasting my vote” on a progressive third party candidate when the Democrat has proven that he/she isn’t interested in providing me with progressive representation, except for posturing during the campaign season. With more support of a progressive third party, it is true that we may concede the majority to the CPlutocrats yet again, as ugly as that is. But electing CP Lites may not give us the representation that I feel we should have (esp when they are DINO lap dogs); what difference does it make whether my rep is a CPlutocrat, or a CPLite? None, really! Perhaps by supporting a true progressive, the future outcome will be favorable: the minority party could eventually get the message that they’ve been too cooperative with the majority, or perhaps it will help further a groundswell of support for a truly progressive political party. I’ll keep dreaming the latter, because I’m not sold on this two-party system – we need MEANINGFUL choices, and if supporting a third party is a way we might get them, so be it, I'm with them.

Maybe this all means I should not be posting on DU, but regardless of affiliation (or lack thereof), this site has excellent opinion writers and information links, and it helps me stay informed.

Peace.

P.S. By the way Sir, you should be careful not to say “I know we have lots of bomb-throwers on my website…” I know what you meant, but the wackos will eagerly take it out of context. Recommend editing to “I know we have lots of verbal bomb-throwers…” or “verbal assaults”, or something similar. Wouldn’t want anyone accusing you of sheltering terra…. you know, them bad guys.

[lefthandedskyhook]

88. What happened to "Country before party"?

I'm sure that Lamont has his faults too, but Joe has got to go. Anybody who supports this illegal, misguided war and refuses to admit the mistake is flat wrong, regardless of party affiliation.

[charlie]

91. Ah, the DLC has anticipated your complaint

Joe is the true country-before-party patriot, we're the reckless partisans.

http://bullmooseblogger.blogspot.com/2006/06/stalwarts.html

[AuntPatsy]

89. Interesting Skinner and I enjoyed the insight you shared on this board..

Kick to help your message stay afloat in such times that it's pretty crucial to focus on even the little issues at hand.

[UTUSN]

90. Why pro-Iraq-Attack Dems do what they do: Israel. n/t

[chimpymustgo]

92. K & R. Thanks. nt

nt

[hootinholler]

93. "representing the rabid hard-left Bush-hating fringe"

Hey I'm part of the hard-center Bush hating fringe...

The republicans just call me left.

-Hoot

[thatsrightimirish]

95. I agree

Democrats are there to support Democrats. It is wrong for Schumer to support an Independent run by Lieberman and it will be equally as wrong for him to support an independent run by Lamont

[sandnsea]

96. Agreed Skinner

It's completely unacceptable for Schumer to even threaten to do something like that.

[im10ashus]

97. GOD I love you.

Thanks for so eloquently stating the obvious, or what should be obvious at any rate. I'll sign that letter!

Kick and Nominate!

:kick:

[im10ashus]

98. Kicking again.

I just sent an e-mail. How insane has this senator become? To support that hack? For what? I just can't wrap my mind around it.

[patricia92243]

99. Schummer needs to be replaced NOW. n/t

[WestSeattle2]

101. I second that motion...... n/t

[robbedvoter]

100. DSCC has no business interferring in primaries - rank&file dems

should decide who gets to confront the opposite party candidate, and DSCC should then support the Dem candidate against the other party candidates.

[Pale Blue Dot]

102. Thank you, Skinner

And this answers my question. :thumbsup:

[Zhade]

103. Yeah, right. Like his little speech about selecting candidates in races...

...didn't tip off their mindset.

I totally agree with you, but let's be honest - they don't give a rip what you or I - or the primary voters - think.

It's a machine. And it's corrupt. Not as bad as the Republicans, but I don't see how it can't become as bad.

But, curious - if Lieberman does run as an indie, DUers will not be allowed to promote his candidacy, correct?

That, at least, would be a bright spot.

[snot]

104. Great letter -- thank you.

I'm not sure they realize how close we are to seeing a Dem. schism.

[k.rose]

105. YES!

I have been feeling this way, even before this incident with Schumer! I am sick to death of these WIMPY DEMS, who DO NOTHING, and who DO NOT listen to "WE THE PEOPLE," their constituents, about ANYTHING! Time and again, I have written to my 2 NJ DEM Senators, and they just IGNORE my wishes. It's as if I were invisible! They listen only to their CORPORATE CONTRIBUTORS. It is apparent what must be done! With the exception of only a very few, such as maybe Senator Russ Feingold, we must THROW THE BUMS OUT, and start anew, Democrat or not. If they do not listen to us, they must go. They are OUR representatives, and are in office to do OUR BIDDING! It is time they learned THEIR lesson!!!

[IndianaGreen]

106. The DSCC mission is "to elect more Democrats to the United States Senate"

About the DSCC

Our mission is to elect more Democrats to the United States Senate. We are the largest organization committed to electing a Democratic Senate in the country. From grass-roots organizing to candidate recruitment to providing campaign funds for tight races, the DSCC is working hard all year, every year to increase the number of Democratic Senators.

http://www.dscc.org/about /

That's the DSCC's mission statement above. It is not Skinner's rules, it is not my rules, it is the DSCC's mission statement, period!

If Chuck Schumer is entertaining any notions of abusing his position in the DSCC in support of a Lieberman rogue candidacy against the Senatorial Democratic nominee, then Schumer should resign forthwith from the DSCC.

[Cocoa]

107. "next time I tell another progressive activist..."

etc. is exactly what I think.

If Schumer were to do this, it would be very hard to defend...

[Jersey Devil]

108. Thanks Skinner, but Chuckie's from New Yawk

In New Yawk there ain't no "subtle". You have to get in his face and say, "Yo, motherfucker, don't be messin' round with no primaries or I'll kick your ass, got it, babe?"

[SaveElmer]

110. Absolutely...my sentiments exactly...nt

[VolcanoJen]

112. Schumer already screwed over Ohio...

... by pressuring our Senate race and denying us a primary.

Great rant, Skinner!

[mod mom]

114. I agree. Let the voters decide!

[cynatnite]

113. Three cheers for Skinner!

I've felt this many times whenever I read bashing of a democrat at DU. Hillary gets it the worse. I know many here are not fans and that's fine. I respect that. But, I've read posts that bash her and it comes across as if we're eating our own.

I've been a loyal democrat for many years now. I strongly believe in this party even though the leadership isn't what it should be. When I step up to vote, it's for the democratic party.

If Hillary cinches the nomination, she'll have my vote. Period. I won't have to think twice about it.

And I will NOT stay home and refuse to vote or vote for a third party candidate. I will not assist in handing a victory to the republicans in no way whatsoever. That's what I would be doing and I would hope others feel the same.

The damn republicans have torn apart this country in favor of their war, their religion and their pockets. It's time to push them out of power and show them how the government is supposed to work for the people.

[Jeffersons Ghost]

116. Kicked and Recommended.. you don't post often at DU...

but when you do it's worth reading. :yourock:

[Strawman]

117. Opportunistic defection kills the idea of a party

If Schumer and the DSCC support an independent Lieberman candidacy, progressive, grassroots Dems MUST retaliate in some way or else they will continue to be exploited by the leadership when it suits their purposes. I'm sorry, but it's true. I'm all for cooperation within the party, but this would cross the line into exploitation of one faction by another. It would DEMAND retaliation.

If Lamont wins the primary, he is the Democratic candidate and deserves party support. This is a viable candidate who will have defeated Lieberman in a primary. If Lieberman wins the primary, progressives should not defect either.

A tit for tat relationship between the party leadership and progressive grassroots Dems can either be a boon to cooperation and activism for the party, or a destructive spiral of retaliation. I prefer the first option. Which will it be Senator Schumer? Do you really want to be the first one to defect?

[Crunchy Frog]

118. Giving this a kick.

Thank you for putting so eloquently into words exactly what I've been thinking.

If this were to happen, it would be an unthinkable precedent and would open a potentially huge can of worms as any disgruntled loser in a primary contest would feel that they could simply run as an independent. I can't begin to imagine the mess.

[roody]

119. I have sent their postage paid envelopes back

with a clear message that I will never give to or vote for a candidate who voted to give Bush war powers. I don't know if I can ever forgive Kerry or Harkin. Kerry has sent me to the Green Party after his quick concession.

[Voltaire99]

120. You've insulted us, Skinner.

Why dump on your own members ("bomb-throwers," "rabid hard-left")? Do you feel it a necessary act of contrition before Schumer?

At issue, after all, is Schumer's terrible caprice with DSCC contributions. Why not just focus on that, and make your case without the denigration?

[Douglas Carpenter]

121. excellent

It would be hard to make the case to never support third parties if Lieberman runs as an independent with DSCC support

[rhett o rick]

122. Great post. But please answer a question. Do you support all Democrats

equally?? All factions?? Or do you think one organization represents Democratic values better than others? Ok, ok so it was three questions.

[rhett o rick]

123. Will you share your response from Senator Schumer?? nm

[corporatemedia]

124. "Loyalty is a 2- way street. " They better not forget that. eom.

[Guaranteed]

125. Good subject on which to weigh in, Skinner.

And a good post. Thanks.

[Skidmore]

126. I don't know why I didn't get back to reading this thread when I

bookmarked it, but I have done so this morning after reading a blog entry on Crooks & Liars. Skinner, I really do understand your point about supporting party candidates. However, Schumer's statement is the best and most blatant example of why progressives are threatening to abandon the Democratic Party. We have office holders now who apparently believe that they somehow endowed with their seats in much the same way that fiefdoms were handed out to the lords and barons by the king. They have no loyalty to the voter and this is often reflected in the votes against the interests of their constituents in Congress. Schumer now underscores the prevalence of this attitude by making gestures that he may kneecap the party to preserve the incumbency of another entitled senator. What happened to democracy. If we vote them in, we still have the right to vote them out. Perhaps New Yorkers should be considering reining Mr. Schumer in a bit and reminding him that he is an ELECTED official not titled royalty.