Umm, can I just say something? RE: DINO flame wars.....

[samhsarah]

"Support all Dems regardless of..." vs. "I will never vote for another Dem again if..." doesn't work. Neither side is right. Neither side will ever win this argument. Nobody should feel like they need to march in lockstep even if they don't agree or else they are a bad Democrat. On the other hand, if never voting for another Dem again is really an option on the table for you, then why are you here?

I haven't been a DUer for long, and I am assuming it is because there is a very important election coming up in November, but lately I have seen flame war after flame war about this and it's ridiculous.

On one side, we have to be able to be critical of our leaders. If they are not doing their job, or doing their job poorly, then we should be holding their feet to the fire and we should do everything in our power to remove these people during the PRIMARIES. But when the primaries are over, regardless of who wins them, we need to support the Democrats.

Think about it this way, if you don't like Biden and he is up against a progressive in the primaries, vote for the progressive. Campaign for them, if you have the means to give some financial support, then do that. But if Biden still wins the primaries, please vote for Biden. Even if you hate him. Even if he didn't vote the way you wanted him too. Because of the simple fact that the Dems need the majority. Hold your nose and just do it. Complain, bitch, but please just do it. The Dems need the majority to get subpoena power, be able to hold hearings, etc., etc., and having the majority is about quantity, not quality. If Barbara Boxer is your hero, or John Conyers, or John Murtha, or Russ Feingold, etc., those should be the reasons that you vote for Lieberman, Biden, Nelson, Landrieu, (all assuming they aren't taken out in the primaries, which would be the ideal situation, IMHO). JUST THINK ABOUT JOHN CONYERS BEING ABLE TO HOLD OFFICIAL HEARINGS!!!!!!

Sam Seder from Majority Report said it perfectly one day...."We need to get our foot in the door". Now I'm sure that's what most of you were gonna do, anyway. But I just can't stand to see good, smart people from both sides of this argument tearing each other up over this. Please, let us bitch, complain, disagree, and in the end when it really matters, let us come together and FIGHT LIKE HELL FOR THE DEMS! :dem:

[cali]

1. You make a lot of sense

but if you want people to read your post, you should use paragraph breaks. You might consider editing.

[samhsarah]

8. Done. Thanks for the advice.

[ClassWarrior]

2. I have never seen anyone here advocate the position...

..."support all Dems regardless of..." Never. So the premise of this thread is flawed.

NGU.

[samhsarah]

6. Well I was referring to one extreme vs. the other,

but you made a good point about the way I characterized one of those extremes, so I edited the post.

[ClassWarrior]

10. Still flawed. I have never seen anyone advocate supporting all Dems...

...regardless. So you're referrring to a fictional extreme vs. a factual one.

NGU.

[Lerkfish]

7. I have never seen seen any critics of the DLC suggest abandoning the party

and voting republican.

so the premise of the thread is flawed.

:)

[ClassWarrior]

12. Huh?

NGU.

[Lerkfish]

13. can you be more articulate?

makes it hard to answer a "huh".

[ClassWarrior]

14. How's this for articulate: What on earth are you talking about?

NGU.

[Lerkfish]

15. more articulate, but still not very helpful.

In case you're still having trouble, I simply mirrored your post but from the other POV.
to make a point. Which was lost on you.
sorry about that.

[samhsarah]

18. I got your point...

Seemed kind of obvious to me.:+

[ClassWarrior]

20. What the hell does the DLC have to do with it?

Personally, I'm a PDA guy.

:shrug:

NGU.

[Lerkfish]

22. I wasn't saying you were.

you were making a general comment on the discussions, and I was mirroring it from the other side.

:shrug:

its not rocket science.

[ClassWarrior]

24. Not rocket science. Sarcasm.

This is my point. Not legitimate criticism. Mewling ridicule. Which just plays into the RW meta-narrative that our values are weak and inferior.

NGU.

[snowbear]

28. Sorry... but what is "NGU" anyhoo?

[ClassWarrior]

37. Never Give Up...

...my personal motto since 11/03/04.

NGU.

[snowbear]

38. Doh!... No wonder no one else responded.. It's a "Class Warrior Classic!

Man.. I was going nutz trying to figure that one out Warrior.. Thanks for clarifying that!

[Lerkfish]

29. riiiiiight. now I'm a right wing enabler.

do I need to point out I'm being sarcastic?

[ClassWarrior]

36. That's the beauty of framing. If we're not careful, we're all RW enablers.

That's what I'm saying. We can and SHOULD criticize, but we need to be smart about it, lest we undermine our own position.

And no, I pointed out you're being sarcastic. Didn't you read my post? B-)

NGU.

[Lerkfish]

39. um, no, you're only proving that anyone else can frame us as RW enablers.

and that even you can frame me as such, for parroting your words back to you.
No need for freepers to do it as long as we are doing it to each other.

[ClassWarrior]

40. I repeat. Huh??

:shrug:

NGU.

[Lerkfish]

41. no problem

I'm sure you'll figure it out eventually.
I'm done with this subthread.

[The Magistrate]

17. Unfortunately, Mr. Lerkfish

What a number do suggest is either not voting at all in the general election, or voting for a Green, if the Democrat is not sufficiently "whole hog" for their tastes, and in a first past the post system like ours, such actions are tantamount to voting for the Repub;lican, since dimunition of the vote for the Democrat will have the inevitable effect of increasing the proportion of the vote the Republican recieves....

"LET'S GO GET THOSE BUSH BASTARDS!"

[Lerkfish]

21. yes, I've heard that assertion. I have however not witnessed it.

mainly I hear that assertion from DLC supporters. and then I look around, and I don't see it happening. Therefore, either I'm just not visiting threads where this is happening, or its a convenient slam to make on people who don't agree with the DLC agenda.
:shrug:

at any rate, I will clearly state: I am antiwar, antirepublican, and if able to choose between a DLC candidate or a progressive candidate in the primary, I will choose a progressive one. However, whichever democrat wins the primary will get my vote in the general, as always.

however, I never see anyone mention people like me. :shrug:

[samhsarah]

25. I am a person like you.

And I also think that probably the majority of people here are. I was just trying to insert that point of view into the debate. I am not very good at writing, so maybe the way I wrote the post was unclear. But "I am antiwar, antirepublican, and if able to choose between a DLC candidate or a progressive candidate in the primary, I will choose a progressive one. However, whichever democrat wins the primary will get my vote in the general, as always" describes how I feel exactly.

[Lerkfish]

30. oh, sorry, I had no problem with your OP

I was agreeing with it, just pointing out that one side's characterization is flawed. You were just quoting them, so I didn't mean to imply you were flawed.

[The Magistrate]

42. One Reason You Might Not See Such Comments, Sir

Is that they are considered violation of the forum rules, and we remove them.

Your attitude would seem to be the same as mine, though with the qualifier that if it seems to me the more progressive candidate would have no chance in the genera; election, my inclination is simply to sitb out the primary. That your view is certainly the most common one here, is in itself sufficient reason for it to be seldom commented on, for it is only the exceptional that draws notice....

"LET'S GO GET THOSE BUSH BASTARDS!"

[AZBlue]

26. I've seen it on DU. More than once unfortunately.

[tofubo]

59. abandon and voting independent, none ??

[SteppingRazor]

9. Actually, that's more or less my position...

Given the current state of the Republican leadership, I would vote for a conservative Democrat before I voted for a liberal Republican (even if there were such a thing). Each Democrat is one Dem. closer to a congressional majority. So, no matter how much I may disagree with a particular Democrat or agree with a particular Republican, I have to vote for the Dem. If that liberal Republican gets through, it means continued majority status for the Republicans, and given the politics of the Republican leadership, their majority status -- and getting rid of it -- is far more important than the election of a DINO or two.

Barring a truly bizarre election situation, I will vote for a Democrat, on the federal level, every single time. No matter who that Democrat is. State and local may vary, depending on third party candidates, the Democratic candidate, and many other factors. But even then, the Democrat in all likelihood has my vote.

[ClassWarrior]

11. Then you're a first. But...

...I really don't think what I'm saying IS your position. You're saying "always support the Dem's election" - NOT "never criticize the Dem." I don't know ANY true Progressive who would say ANYONE is above criticism.

NGU.

[AZBlue]

27. I believe she meant when it comes down to elections.

Not in the primaries, not in everyday business, but come 11/7/2006 or 11/4/08.

[Inland]

62. I dunno. I come pretty damn close.

Leaving out someone indicted and the larouchies who get nominated by accident, I'm pretty much there. I can't think of a dem that I wouldn't vote for over a republican now.

[saracat]

3. Well said. You are so right.

I have often wondered about this constant threatening to change parties, quit, etc. It does no good.We must attempt change from within. And change is happening. Most who complain haven't been involved for long.I wonder if they can imagine the frustration many of us lifers feel? Change isn't going to happen overnight! But it is happening and now is not the time to abandon ship! That being said, I would seriously consider moving abroad if Roe is toppled, but I am not a spring chicken and have paid my dues. I also wouldn't change my party affiliation!

[TallahasseeGrannie]

4. Good point.

and you know what? I personally would vote for a Republican if one ever showed up that satisfied my criteria. Hasn't happened yet and I don't see it happening anymore soon.

[Lerkfish]

5. for the most part, I think that's a mischaracterization.

There are some who say they'll stop voting democratic in a fit of pique, but by and large, most of those appalled at DINOs are suggesting fighting them in the primary and say so.
Its a strawman argument you're getting sucked into there: whenever anyone criticizes a DINO, a DLC candidate or the DLC organization in general, the first of several things slung back is a personal attack and the straw man that they're wanting a republican instead of a democrat in office.

[samhsarah]

16. in the interest of full disclosure....

I am one of those who are appalled at DINO's and hate the DLC, and that is what makes me think a lot about the most rational way to remove them from within.

[LittleClarkie]

19. Always and never

Doesn't often work anyway.

Well said.

Recommend and kick.

[snowbear]

23. ~~~ AWESOME Post samhsarah ~~~~

If we continue to BICKER, BITCH, and BELLYACHE about not voting for "candidate B" because, although "candidate B" is kicking ass and is far ahead of "candidate A" in the polls, we can't support "candidate B" because... =gasp= ..they are affiliated somehow with the DLC!

Well hellz bellz, I'm not a DLC'er either.. But what's the deal..

With all the "kudo to Gore" posts I read on here recently after he kicked Bush's ass in the NSA eavesdropping scandal, I don't recall one person blasting HIM for being DLC.. What's up with that?

When we do finally have a Democratic majority, we will finally be able to get more "left of center" Democrats in. We have to get there first!

We're not in the majority of crap.. We HAVE to support the Democrats who can W-I-N regardless of whether they are DLC, DNC, DCCC, or D-cup..

[snowbear]

31. ********* SOMEBODY, PLEASE RESPOND ********

I'm going nutz here... Ok, I should know.. :shrug: .. but I don't...

What does "NGU" stand for?

I'll keep asking till someone finally responds...

[samhsarah]

32. I wish I knew...

I have been wondering the same thing.

btw - great smiley butt guy:rofl:

[AZBlue]

33. Excellent Post!!

You are really new here but I've seen several of your posts and threads and you've already made a positive contribution here - thank you!!

[samhsarah]

34. Thanks!

And thanks for noticing!

[snowbear]

35. Excellent post that deserves MORE Votes... C'mon guys!!

And someone please....... ... for the love of God, please tell me what the heck "NGU" stands for? :crazy: :crazy: :crazy:

[AZBlue]

50. Done!

Yes, I second that - I didn't know but I'm still a little new here (under a year) and sometimes abbreviations throw me, but I don't always ask.

[welshTerrier2]

43. let's clarify a few things

first of all, part of your post is self-contradicting ... consider the following two statements:

1. "Support all Dems regardless of..." vs. "I will never vote for another Dem again if..." doesn't work.
2. But when the primaries are over, regardless of who wins them, we need to support the Democrats.

your second argument implies that we should "support all Dems regardless of ..." during the general election ... whether one agrees with this position or not, your statements are nevertheless self-contradicting ...

now, as to your main theme, the votes of all voters must be earned ... all the "Nader's an ass and so are the people who voted for him" threads usually miss the point ... the point is, regardless of whether voters support third Party progressive candidates or not, it's clear that many voters, i.e. many Democratic voters, feel estranged and unrepresented by many elements in the Democratic Party ... the point is NOT whether they are right or not and the point isn't whether their voting strategies are right or not; the point is that the Democratic Party has done very little to reach out to alienated voters ...

and i'm not just talking about the progressive left here ... close to half of eligible voters, many of them former Democrats, don't vote at all anymore ... the point is that instead of offering the "don't let the door hit you in the ass" snide remarks, maybe someone who gave a damn about broadening the Party's support might want to look at actually trying to understand alienated voters ... but that's no fun and it's not the DU way ... too many like to just toss around useless insults that do nothing to change minds ... you cannot DEMAND loyalty to the Party; it has to be earned ... that's as it should be ... this isn't to say that each of us doesn't share the responsibility to get the Party moving in the right direction ... we do ... but to expect anyone to hold their nose and vote for Democrats who they see as selling out the causes they believe in doesn't make any sense ...

i've decided not to make any future contributions to the Party's fundraising organizations (DNC, DSCC, DCCC) ... i don't like my money paying for things i don't believe in ... to me, it makes far more sense supporting only progressive candidates ...

and from now on, i will not vote for war supporting candidates ... i'm done with that ... i understand the "we have to take back control" arguments ... that's "hold your nose" voting and i just won't do it anymore ... because, using the exact same argument, "we have to take back control" ... if we continue to support conservative Democrats and the Party keeps moving to the right, what result can we expect from "going along"? i don't see that as a process for change; i see that as a vote for the status quo ... and i see the status quo as a Party drifting further and further to the right ...

i'm currently active on my town's Democratic Committee ... i agree with the argument that we should fight for our beliefs inside the Party ... i have no problem whatsoever with those who have "gone Green" or who just don't feel represented by either major party anymore ... i'm still hopeful there are enough progressives left in the Democratic Party to make a difference and that's why i'm still a Democrat ... when that belief is gone, i'm gone ...

the black and white, love it or leave it paradigm you established in the OP really misrepresents how many people feel ... i think very few DU'ers would not vote for a progressive Democrat ... the battles you're observing are often more narrow than that ... i think many of them are focussed on either future Presidential elections (e.g. if Hillary is the nominee i'm voting Green) or on specific issues (e.g. if the Dems don't filibuster i'm leaving the Party) ... i might leave the Party myself because of the Democrats' shameful stand on the war in Iraq ... but saying that, i would want it understood that my highest priority would be to support and vote for progressive Democrats ... it's just not as black and white as some would have you believe ...

increasingly, i find it's rarely worth engaging in these back and forth battles ... at this point, given the support of most in the Senate of the war in Iraq (and hopefully not Iran on which the Dems have said far too little), i think it's unlikely i'll be supporting too many Senate Dems ... but there are still many progressive Democrats in the House, and some first time candidates, i'll consider supporting ...

i don't see a major movement of people who hold the same views i hold ... i plan to do what i plan to do because that's what i believe in ... still, it's important to understand that Democrats need every vote they can get ... if the Party's "political class" remains out of touch with many potential constituents, they do so at their own peril ...

[samhsarah]

44. the OP did have contradictions,

and these are contradictions all of us as voters struggle with. many of us want the same thing, and we have differing opinions on how to get there. this is just mine. if you disagree with it, then please, give us your ideas. i was trying to say that neither side is right. in fact, the reason i posted it in the first place is because i was bothered by people that lash out on people who hold your views for holding them. you have the right to hold them. and more than that, i believe it is our duty as voters to be extremely critical of those we put in office regardless of what comes in front of their name. but the point i was trying to make when you said i was contradicting myself, is that, even those few dems who are trying their best to do the right thing have no power right now. if that is ok with you, then fine. if it isn't, maybe we should stop arguing and figure out what to do about it. if what i said is wrong, then it's wrong. but i wasn't trying to take sides, it was more of an effort to pull differing opinions together towards a solution. apparently, from your reaction, it was a bad effort.

[welshTerrier2]

45. not at all ...

my disagreement with your post began and ended with your statement suggesting it was your view that after the primary battles are over, everyone should support the Dem candidate no matter what ... at least that's what i understood you to be saying ...

i have no problem whatsoever with your search for unity ... i commend you for it ... it is the very same goal i have ...

what i tried to explain in my post is that there will be NO UNITY if alienated voters don't feel represented in the Party and don't feel empowered ... those who "attack" this position, i call them the blind Party loyalists, fail to see and fail to care and fail to address what is a very real problem ...

every progressive and moderate on DU should support the idea of improving voter outreach ... insulting people who are fed up with the Party for one reason or another is not what i would consider to be effective politics ... a better approach, imo, is to propose a middle ground and try to build a consensus ... this almost never happens on DU and i see that as an unfortunate shortcoming ...

i'll give you an example ...

my position is that i will not vote for a war supporting Democrat (however i define that) ... am i a purist? no, i'm not ... am i inflexible? no, i'm not ... am i willing to seek middle ground? yes, i am ... for example, i have discussed a compromise position on Iraq ... seen many of those posted on DU lately? i haven't ... if Democratic candidates want my support (and my money) and my vote, there are two possibilities ... either call for immediate or near-term withdrawal (which is my strongly preferred position) OR open a real dialog with those who oppose the war ...

do you think it's fair to say that most elected Democrats are meeting regularly with their constituents to discuss this critical issue? my Senators are rarely seen in the state at "free", public forums ... that just plain stinks and i think it's far too common ...

oh, and what might a compromise position on the war look like? if we are to remain in Iraq and start withdrawing troops "based on benchmarks", i would want to see an absolute "date certain" ... i don't believe anything is being achieved in Iraq and citing benchmarks seems to be a perfect prescription for a never-ending war scenario ... so i say, if i am to yield on my preference for an immediate withdrawal, i would need to have a "not later than" date ... or, of course, i might be open to other yet-to-be-proposed solutions ...

as things stand now, the Senate Dems are buying into one flavor or another of a year or more of war ... Dean called for two more years of war ... if someone wants me to pull all the Democratic levers, they're going to have to do a whole lot better than that ... my Congressman, a progressive Dem will get my vote and my support ... and some in Congress outside my district will as well ... and the rest? ... not looking real good right now ... i truly hope that changes before it's time to campaign and vote ...

[samhsarah]

58. they do need to do more listening...

about the power thing, it just bothers me to see an American hero like John Conyers forced to hold his hearings in a basement. Or what about when Murtha gave his proposal on Iraq? That never made it to the floor. But what did make it to the floor the next day, well you know what happened. If the Dems had the majority, they would have at least been able to take a vote on his proposal. Would it have passed? I don't know. But at least they would have been able to cast a vote and we would know where they stand. That's what I mean about "getting our foot in the door".

[welshTerrier2]

48. "have no power right now"

sorry for the double response but i also wanted to comment on the idea that "Dems have no power right now" ... of course, i understand what you meant by this observation ...

but i also wanted to say that Dems have a huge amount of power, and responsibility, right now ... the power Dems have is not Congressional or Executive power ... beyond an occasional filibuster, there's not too much Dems can control legislatively or on major policy issues ...

HOWEVER, Dems have a hage amount of power ... they have the power to speak to the American people and they have the power to create a force for change ... republicans are plenty scared about the direction things are headed in this country ... Democrats need to talk to the American people about ending this damned war ... i think they've been way too tolerant of bush while more and more people are dying ... Dems need to stop Alito ... there is no alternative ... this is one of those areas in which there can be no compromise ... and Dems need to continue pushing the "culture of corruption" theme (and not apologizing for it as Reid did) ...

if we are to "take this country back", Democratic leadership is required TODAY ... you don't need to be "in power" to lead ... you might remember people like Martin Luther King or even someone like Daniel Ellsberg or the late Bob Woodward ... these people were not elected to office and yet their actions resulted in major changes in the country ... Democrats have lots of power and it's time, media excuses aside, that they started "taking it to the republicans" ... the dark days of appeasement are ending but they're ending a little too slowly ...

[radio4progressives]

52. Hear! Hear! Bravo! Dems DO have the Power to Take Leadership NOW

Yes indeed, indeed.

Martin Luther King's birthday was just last week, and Private Citizen Al Gore, gave the most brilliant, historical speech of his lifetime (thus far) I think, certainly one far superior to any other individual in recent memory, whether or not a elected official or a private citizen.

This is what we are so thirsty for, and what is so desperately needed.

editing to emphasize the point, that the time is NOW.

Not waiting until after mid term elections, or even the campaign road shows. The time is now. The world simply can no longer wait.

[samhsarah]

54. you are absolutely right about that....

don't have much more to add...just that i agree wholeheartedly about that. and I, for one, plan to work my butt off in the primaries to make sure that the so-called "leaders" of our party who are providing anything but leadership never make it to the general election.

[radio4progressives]

47. excellent post...

you did a great job in de-constructing the false dichotomy contained within the premise posited in the op. so many of us registered party activists, (local/national groups and pacs) trying hard to break through the party sound barrier,(which often times resemble the paradigm of the msm) to modify Amy Goodman's moniker - taking 'exception to the rulers'...

If the results of all the work and support, (vis a vis labor and financial) does not result with a reasonable representation, instead simply maintaining the status quo, (i.e. the party elite establishing Dino's message/policies/goals/agenda)that is a message to the voter and grass roots party activist (who do the retail work of canvassing door to door, getting out the vote, etc) is considered more than just a mere slight or an insult, and the effect of all that builds and builds as it has over the period of the last several years. Which is the reason there are about a dozen so called "third" parties.

It's obvious result of being constantly abused, rejected and neglected. What is so difficult to understand about that?

Liken it to a typical abusive marriage. Some victims stay on with their abusers for years and never leave because they think they can't or have no where else to go.

Some stay with their abusers for a period of time, but finally manage to figure out that there is an alternative, and though they may not have quite the "security" that kept them in the abusive relationship, they deserve a better life and can manage to have one despite the lack of financial resources and so on.

And though there is a shared responsibility involved, the lyons share of the burden has been on the backs of the grassroots, while the party elite has reaped the lyons share of the benefits, yet unwilling to return the favor, except of course to their big donors to whom they owe their alligience.

[radio4progressives]

51. For the sake of Fairness..

I just simply want to commend the author for starting this thread on an obviously contentious issue, as the responses have clearly indicated.

These are matters that need to be discussed in order to reach a better understanding of the issues at concern. And whatever the outcome of this will be, i have to believe that it will be something of an improvement over what has gone on in the past.

So thank you, and welcome to DU!

[samhsarah]

55. thank you!

[iconoclastNYC]

46. I agree.

But there seems to be pro-DLC tolls on this site that do nothing but look for any DINO threads and start to attack yout you suggesting that DINOS like Liberman, or Ben Nelson should be punished (with a primary challenge) for voting with the Republicans or undermining our party. I think that's the bigger problem here.

The common response fom these DLC'ers is : "Oh do you have a Dem who can run in Nebraska/CT/ETC." Or to suggest that the party will fall apart if we excercise some discipline and punish disloyal dems.

We are shut out of governmetn right now. This is the best time to be bold and shake up the makeup of our leadership. The time is now.

If we don't grow a spine, cast off the corporate influence, and FIGHT TO WIN we're going to continue to lose large parts of support the Greens.

[depakid]

49. Short term vs. long term thinking

Allowing the DINO's to proliferate and betray traditional democratic principles over and over with no accountability is what led the Dems into irrelevancy in the first place. You can't keep doing what you've been doing and expect different results.

I for one- am perfectly happy to withold my vote from the DINO in my district come November and I'm going to tell everyone I know to withold their vote, too- or vote Green if someone runs.

I have written this guy about past votes- and I've spoken to him in person. He says one thing then does another. The man has no integrity at all. ZERO-

The way I look at it- continue to vote with Republicans- and even provide the deciding vote on the Meidcare scam- and then get treated like one. If more Dems saw this happenning- then the party as a whole would change its tune.

[farmbo]

53. On his worst day, Lieberman is incalculably better than any GOPer.

McCain, Snow, Chafe; at the end of the day, they will all line up to lick Bush's ballsack (and, indeed HAVE on numerous occasions) rather than stand up to protect American democracy.

One need only look at the rampant war profiteering underway in Iraq to see that these people are Republicans first and American Patriots a distant second.

[Jeffersons Ghost]

56. GOOD POINT

Thanks for these words of unity... It's always the outnumbered minority in a flame war that wants it over the most. It's sad that most boards criticize our leaders and there's so few to defend them.

[samhsarah]

57. HEY....I remember you....

thanks, JG.:toast:

[Jeffersons Ghost]

60. sometimes even when people start out disagreeing...

They can become friends if both people respectfully present their points, without acting childish right sam?

[samhsarah]

61. kudos to that!

:pals:

[LynneSin]

63. Primary-Get rid of bad democrats!! General Election-Vote out Repukes

Nuff said

Great post too!