Please be advised that I'm gonna touch a big nerve here, but...

[derby378]

...should we start actively seeking out Democratic primary challengers to run against any Democratic US Representative or Senator who voted to give George W. Bush all the money he wanted for Iraq with no accountability and no strings attached?

And you thought all the threads about Cindy Sheehan were cantankerous...!

[proud2BlibKansan]

1. YES!!!

Where do I sign up?

[Telly Savalas]

15. I'm game.

Dennis Moore continually fails us on the issue of the war.

I think members of Kansas's 3rd district are seeking someone with anger management issues, a poor credit rating, a checkered past, and a residence about a mile and half on the wrong side of the state line.

I am that man!

[proud2BlibKansan]

29. LOL You got my vote!!

Hell, I'll even be your campaign manager!

[tblue37]

43. But this is, after all, Kansas. (eom)

[EFerrari]

2. Okay! Time to walk my puppy.

lol :)

edit: If it were up to me, my vote would be YES

[proud2BlibKansan]

30. Let that dog shit inside for once

We gots work to do. :)

[southerncrone]

3. We should at least make a short list for each of them. Maybe

That might get their attention. We've got to do something to get them to do OUR bidding.

[derby378]

8. There are five US Reps from TX who voted to continue the occupation...

At present, none of them have any Democratic primary challengers that I'm aware of. And I think I ruffled some feathers among their supporters.

[tbyg52]

96. Mine voted for it

and I'd like to ruffle *his* feathers. I was outraged that they rolled over, and continue to be outraged that impeachment is "off the table."

I just read in the paper that a couple of people asked him about impeachment in a question-and-answer the other day. Here in former DeLay land!

http://www.herald-coaster.com/articles/2007/05/30/news/news01.txt

Two audience members asked about the possibility of an impeachment of President George W. Bush or Vice President Dick Cheney.

Lampson said he would rather "do our job" in Congress and he would only watch and see if impeachment becomes necessary.

News flash--it has been necessary for some time now.

[leftchick]

151. the problem is

the DLC throws their money and media connections at the ones they choose which are always war mongering conservatives. I watched in pain as it happened in 2006. Expect it to be worse this time. :(

[jgraz]

4. Abso-friggin-lutely

Start with Rahm Emanuel.

[Truth2Tell]

55. Amen.

I've seen the name of Chicago Alderman Tom Tunney mentioned as a potential primary challenger to Emanuel.

Anyone know anything much about him?

[jgraz]

56. Yes -- his most important feature:

Not. Rahm. Emanuel.

[Divine Discontent]

92. YES!

his most important feature! loll

NOT. RAHM. EMANUEL.


wonder if he knows or even cares that he's quickly becoming quite unliked.

I support this thread's premise, but Cindy did bring this discussion about, and I thank her for it, we need a NON war supportive candidate, like Edwards, Gore, Kucinich, who now knowing there is no US intelligence showing a real reason to be involved in their civil war and we must leave asa humanly possible.

www.cafepress.com/warisprofitable <<-- check it out, top '08 stuff

[jgraz]

93. I don't even think he realizes how unliked he is

His corporate masters should be perfectly happy with him, and that's all he cares about.

[Clark2008]

134. Ummm... Edwards voted for the war and he HAD the intelligence.

Sorry - he won't fly.

But, I'll take Gore or Kucinich (or Clark). Each of whom were against this fiasco from the start.:)

[Usrename]

66. That's a great start.

Someone needs to toss him aside. That guy is as dangerous as some of the loyal bushies.

[More Than A Feeling]

5. Go for it.

Everyone should have a primary challenger every year, just to remind them who they work for, and that we can get rid of them if they step over the line.

[southerncrone]

25. It WAS the American Way! Now Dems have trouble funding

1 candidate to go up against the REpukes. Once again it boils down to campaign financing. We just don't have the SUPER DEEP POCKETS the REpukes do.
Until we have nationally funded elections from money that is donated just for the election, WE are at a disadvantage.

[More Than A Feeling]

31. Hey, you don't have to sell me on the virtues of public financing

I'm right there with you!:thumbsup:

[dweller]

6. certainly

and recommending this thread will add other voices.

rec#2
dp

[Pushed To The Left]

7. There's nothing wrong with a primary challenge! It's a much more positive way to handle

this situation than leaving the Democratic Party, staying home on election night, or voting third party. I believe that Democrats.com has already put something like this into motion.

[Wickerman]

9. .

:popcorn:

confoundit rabble-rouser...

:hi:

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

10. No better way to make wayward Dem leaders sit up and listen...

...than to get openly and aggressively serious about replacing them -- excellent idea.

[Wisconsin Larry]

11. Of course we should. The sticking point is how do they get funded? n/t

[MonkeyFunk]

12. Like Jack Murtha?

Robert Byrd? David Obey? Barney Frank? Jerry Nadler? Charlie Rangel?

No thanks.

[derby378]

17. As Cindy Sheehan once said...

"Why should we suport Democrats who support the war just because they aren't Republicans who support the war?"

If you support our continued occupation of Iraq, that's one thing, but if not...?

[MonkeyFunk]

24. How about

I don't support the continued occupation of Iraq, but understand that pulling the funding was not ever gonna happen last week, and people who actually believed it might were incredibly naive?

[Le Taz Hot]

63. How about country before party.

N/T

[derby378]

67. What do you want the most for your country?

If you want to bring it down to brass tacks, that is.

[Le Taz Hot]

76. The usual list.

And in no particular order:

Out of Iraq.
Corporations no longer given the status of personhood.
Universal health care.
Election reform.
Outsourcing of American jobs.
Re-regulate industries that were de-regulated under Reagan, Bush, Clinton & Bush.
Bring back the fairness doctrine.
Bring back the windfalls profits tax.
Campaign finance reform.
Impeachment.

I could go on but you get the point.

Other than H.R.333 which Dennis Kucinich introduced WITH NO CO-SPONSOR, I don't see ANY of these even remotely on the horizon. Even if they were, it's all talk. Evidence? The recent vote to continue perpetual funding for Bush's and now Pelosi's war.

[Virginia Dare]

90. Don't you mean country before politics?

If you're looking to politicians for that, you're looking in the wrong place. The people move the politicians, and not enough of them have been moved yet, Democrats or Republicans obviously, but mostly Republicans.

[Le Taz Hot]

112. Nope.

Said it correctly the first time.

[defendandprotect]

126. Corporate control -- one party --

That's the message that Cindy woke up to two years down the road.

It's the message that Ralph Nader has been giving you for decades -- corporate-fascism.

It's got to be recognized: one corporate party::two wings

[LBJDemocrat]

36. Ditch Charlie Rangel

He's in the process of letting Bush get away with more trade agreements.

[John Q. Citizen]

119. I don't believe you will have to worry about Byrd running again, if it makes you feel

any better.

Primary challenges are American as apple pie. It's what democracy is all about.

America of late (the last 20 years) has a lower turnover in the House than the Soviet Union used to have in the Duma. That's pretty unhealthy, if you ask me. It leads to situations where the law makers are out of touch, except with the lobbiests.

Since all the primaries won't attract challengers, I would council concentrating on the DINOs. But if some of your favorites get a challenger, well that's what democracy is all about now isn't it?

[bleedingheart]

149. Jack Murtha is a pork king who spends a lot of money

spreading his name and his good deeds about...but his district isn't doing so hot and he is getting up there in age.

Finding a candidate to run against him in the primary wouldn't be a bad idea.

He's been playing the anti-war crowd for a long time...cuz he is a master of bullshit.

Anti-choice
Someone who lies in bed with whoever will give him what he wants...
not really that anti-war as much as he is "mr. redeployment"...gotta listen to what he says and read between the lines...he is still a hawk.

I think for democracy to work...we gotta keep it interesting and keep challenging the folks who run the government to make sure they don't get too complacent or that they aren't enriching themselves at our expense.

[EFerrari]

13. We need a second Democratic senator from California. Yesterday.

Okay, really going now.

[truedelphi]

16. Tired of Feinstein's pricey little

Sixteen and a half million dollar mansion that she entertains the George Schultz's at?

Are you as grumpy as I am that she never even INVITES us over for a drinkie-poo?

[EFerrari]

41. This whole war thing put me right off her. Her house

she can have, for all the good it will do her.

[Bluebear]

52. I'm grumpy over her stand on gay rights. nt

[truedelphi]

139. About Feinstein - I always imagined her as being pro-gay rights

So how is it that she gets re-elected?
She had a six month spell where her office staff actually answered her phones by demanding to know what corporation you represented - and you got put on hold for a long time if you were not calling her office as a corporate sponsor. I have never experienced that with any other Senator...

Her warm grandmoherly campaign ads sicken me. I keep wanting to see her forced to have campaign ads that go "Vote for me if you are a Big Corporate Mucky Muck - otherewise you'd be better off voting for Mickey or Minney Mouse."

Carol

[Pushed To The Left]

19. I wonder if Maxine Waters would be open to running for Senate?

She's one of the first people I thought of, and I think she would really light a fire under the California voters. Of course, I would vote for the Democratic candidate in the General regardless, but there is nothing wrong with a primary challenge, as long as they don't tear eachother up the way Westley and Angelides did.

[EFerrari]

27. Maxine could mount an awesome challenge.

:thumbsup:

[jgraz]

34. Or Barbara Lee

After all, there isn't a safer Democratic House seat in the country.

[derby378]

21. I'm afraid you're stuck with DiFi until 2012...

...unless Californians can recall Senators the same way they can recall the Governor.

[EFerrari]

42. You know, I don't know that we can, although God knows,

I've called her every other thing and way.

[az chela]

14. Yes a thousand times yes!!!!!!!!

This is a great idea

[melody]

18. No, we need to start being savvy and realistic

We need to target the GOP. There are many, many deeply important issues at stake here, only
one of them being the war.

[Pushed To The Left]

23. I agree that the GOP is the main target, but primaries are an important part of elections.

As long as the candidates don't smear eachother and keep the campaigns positive and issue-oriented, I think primary challenges could be an excellent idea. With so many people talking about voting third party, leaving the Democratic Party, or staying home on election night, this primary challenge idea sounds like a much more positive way to make the same point.

[melody]

46. Putting energy into challenging our own people takes energy away from the big fight

These are vicious people we're dealing with. They're out to crush us.
We need to remember that.

[derby378]

64. Are you saying it WASN'T a good idea to derail Joementum?

Yes, I know that Lieberman defeated Lamont, but it was only because Karl Rove intervened and got the CT Repukes to throw Schlessinger under the bus.

[melody]

91. Hell, no -- Lieberman and the DINOs are a different matter

They *aren't* Democrats -- and that was a time when doing this was not wasted energy when we need it.
With only 500 or so days to the election, if the only reason to go after them is one vote on one issue,
no matter how extremely important, it's political suicide to fractionate the party by going after own
The GOP is the reason the vote went against the issue. The GOP is responsible for this. Divisiveness
in our party at this point in time is only going to help the GOP. How does that help resolve the Iraqi
war?

[NoPasaran]

108. Derby, Schlessinger was a Nutmeg Gene Kelly

The Connecticut repubs nominated him because they couldn't find anyone who wasn't crazy to run against Lieberman. Karl Rove hardly had to lift a finger.

[AnotherDreamWeaver]

38. Are you suggesting we register for the Grand Oil Party?

and find candidates to run in their Primaries?

I agree, "we need to be savvy and realistic", but that covers knowing the press is a propaganda machine for the corrupt corporations and their agents that have taken control of our government. I used to imagine that someone "on the inside" (Like Daniel Ellsberg with the Pentagon Papers), would release all the evidence and free us from this band of thieves, but even as I see evidence released (9/11 explosions and building demolitions) the "press" dismissal of it or just refusal to mention it has shattered my beliefs in democracy returning to the US of A anytime soon. Just don't know what to do about it.

I have to answer the OP, Yes, and we need to round up candidates.

ADW

[melody]

45. If we take steps, then it needs to be toward a Constitutional secession

If the system is THAT beyond redemption, then we're on the cusp of a civil war.

This is a very vicious game of poker with sociopathic opponents. It's not going to be
ideal for a long, long time. Otherwise, they pull our strings and we dance.

[nadinbrzezinski]

53. We are

in fact, we have been in the midst of a COLD civil war for a while

I pray it never goes hot, but you know what? We are inching towards that precipice ever so slowly

[melody]

54. I'm afraid I agree n/t

[truedelphi]

142. I know that the idea that civil war could end up occurring here

Has been on the back burner of my mind for quite a while.

Look what happened in Russia in 1917 when the aristocracy refused to see what the common person was experiencing.
The Czar had lost touch with what the average person was thinking. The Revolution (and its attendant Civil War) broke out.

Somoza in his final days was jsut randomly bombing the populace - his aristocracy was so far out of touch that it had never for a moment believed that the 72% there in Nicaragua could eventually take over through the Sandinistas

[melody]

148. Personally, I think this is a planned civil war happening

I think it has been guided and shaped for sometime by putting pressure on the American faultline. Bush is
just the latest chapter.

We'll just have to hope the rupture isn't a violent one.

[truedelphi]

140. Nope, once you look at the money - the war is the only issue

The war monies could have financed a national health insurance system for years.

The war monies endanger Social Security. They should not endanger it - as the two funds should be totally separate, but since they aren't, the fact that we have wasted what looks to be more than a trillion dollars on Iraq - that will strengthen the Repukes point that the money isn't there

The war monies mean that if a national disaster hits your area of the country - well where is the money going to come from? Where are the National Guard Ground Troops going to come from?

The war is also making it more likely that we will have another terrorist attack.

The war is also making it more likely that should some other military emergency arise, we have no way of dealing with it.

Wars are also inflationary - some economists have theorized that the economy ground to a halt in the late 1980's because of the money that was spent in Vietnam (and the money spent in Nam is a pittance compared to what we are spendingin Iraq) Coming soon to a country that you currently live in - the Great Depression of 2008. If that happens the war spending will also be to blame (although other factors are to blame as well)

Oh and education - well again - if you want books and butter, it is best to not have pointless mega billion dollar wars.

[melody]

147. That's a theoretical hair-splitting ... I'm talk real world contingency planning

If we don't single out the real threat -- the current-day Republican party -- we face certain defeat.

[truedelphi]

152. What if a majority of people in this country

Wake up one magical day and are all in agreement that both -- yes BOTH -- political parties are not serving the needs of We The People.

If you take the Republican Party to be the neo cons then I would agree with you. But every day that the war continues, more and more average main street Republicans are examining what has happened to their party and how they need to either 1) re-determne the course of their party or 2) look somewhere else

In fact, all across this country, people are starting to wake up to the fact that the national party interests are not what the average person has in mind when they say that they are a Democrat and/or that they are a Republican. I heard this sentiment constantly on the talk shows today. Glenn Beck of all people was saying that although he disagrees with Cindy Sheehan about the war, he thinks she is right on in stating that the Democratic party used Cindy and that the Democratic party is not any less a party of war than the Republicans. He said that the Democrats say they want to stop the war but don't; and that the Republicans want to win the war but they could care less. He said that he saw the two parties as being the Republicrats.

This is increasingly what people are starting to believe.

And that will be a grand and glorious day. When we wake up and divorce ourselves of the notion that these political monsters who shape both parties could care less about the average person. That if our Republic is to be returned to good order, then we have to get off our butts and see to it that our respective parties begin to be more of We The People and less of We the Lobbyists.

[BeHereNow]

20. I'll go you one further...

We should be willing to vote for ANY candidate opposing the war machine.
I don't care what party, as long as the seats are filled with the SANE among us.
BHN

[proud2BlibKansan]

35. A friggin Men!!

[Pacifist Patriot]

95. *sigh* I so wish I were in the position to run.

[eridani]

22. Only if you can find candidates with serious street cred in public service

So many progressives gave up on electoral politics in the 70s that there really aren't enough people in the pipeline.

[StudentsMustUniteNow]

26. Yes. Push Left, or get pulled Right

It's that simple.

[me b zola]

105. Yes! That is exactly it!

:thumbsup:

I recently spent several paragraphs attempting to say what you said in a few words. :blush:

[merci_me]

28. NO!

Maybe a few, but not just wholesale.

There is a great advantage to the incumbency and if we challenge our own incumbents and "win", we'll have spent the money and then we face a general election in need of a lot more cash and no power of incumbency. Plus we will have to finance the 2008 presidential and some senate and all the congressionals who did vote our way. We have enough Repukes to beat, don't start by trying to beatup on ourselves......yet!

Right now, we have both Houses and all the chairmanships. Do you know how many years we've not had ANY chairmanships? Right now, it's about the numbers to hold the majorities. For cripe sakes, let's hold on to what little inroads we've made and spend our money and efforts expanding on those before we start weeding out the bad ones. The election of 2010, with a Dem secure in the WhiteHouse, is time enough to get cocky. For now, if you want to kick some Democratic ass in the primaries, start with state elections, where we don't have the majorities/chairmanships anyway.

[jgraz]

32. We're not talking about going after Democrats

We're talking about going after the pro-choice Republicans masquerading as Dems. Intimidating the Congress into moving leftward can only win us seats, IMHO.

[merci_me]

40. As long as they call themselves Democrats

for right now, it gives us the chairmanships. Hell, we're stuck with Lieberman (for now) but it's him or no chairs. We need another Dem senator in 2008 and we can kick Lieberman to the curb, but right now, we have to deal with it. It's the same for 2008. Hold every number we can and then sort it out, once we are comfortably in charge.

I guess that's my old age showing, but I've seen this game played out for years. I've seen us gain and lose the chairs. Believe me, holding the chairs is a lot more important than revenge. If we play our cards right, we can have it all. We have before and we can do it again. We just can't do it with a razor thin majority, where we are now in the senate, where one SOB has us over a barrel.

Not to mention, if one of our current senators becomes president or even two with the vp slot, we are down one or two senate seats and lose all the chairs, unless we take into consideration, how that senator(s) will be replaced. So, we damn well need to be putting money into electing more Dems to the senate to cover our asses.

Let's get this next cycle behind us and a secure cushion and then it's time to make our move. Remember, we ended up in Iraq with no exit strategy. You don't just rattle sabers and go to war without knowing how to finish it.

[jgraz]

44. Tell that to Zell Miller and Joe Lieberman

These guys should have ben kicked to the curb years ago, instead we waited until they turned on us. The Progressive Caucus needs to start flexing its muscle, stepping off the reservation and calling out the corporatists. My guess is that it's the pro-corporate Dems who are the most spineless and easily intimidated. Instead of letting the rethugs pull them rightward, we should be pulling to the left.

[Individualist]

87. DLCers call themselves Democrats

"This is why the DLC is dangerous. For all their claims of supposedly wanting to help Democrats, they employ people like Marshall Wittman who specifically try to undermine the Democratic Party, even if it means he has to publicly defecate out the most rank and easily-debunkable lies. They reguarly give credence to the right wing's agenda and its worst, most unsupportable lies. They are the real force that tries to make sure this country is a one party state and that Democrats never really challenge the Republicans in a serious way."

www.huffingtonpost.com/david-sirota/why-the-dlc-is-so-dangero_b_13640.html

[bemildred]

33. That is what primaries are for. nt

[TwilightGardener]

37. No. I won't punish them for a tough vote. Save your

energy in INCREASING Dem presence by picking up R seats, NOT by simply replacing good ones who did not vote the way you liked this particular time. Some of them may have felt the other benefits in the bill were worth it, since Chimpy would have eventually gotten his money anyway, somehow, or would have deliberately jeopardized the troops somehow to get back at Dems for defying him, and then trumpeted that to the public. I seriously believe he's a sick enough fuck to do that, and I guarantee you that Rove and Co. had all the talking points prepared in case the Dems decided to either keep resisting (thus delaying money) or to defund (No canteen for you, soldier! Ask Harry Reid why!).

[Virginia Dare]

70. McConnell has already conceded that the Repubs...

are very unlikely to take back the Senate in 2008, and things are looking quite good in the House right now too. I think that barring something large and unforeseen, the Dems are going to be in a pretty good upswing over the next few years.

[rasputin1952]

39. Talk of a "purge" like this does not produce positive results...

While I am against this war, and have been since it's inception, I do not believe a "purge" is necessary of wise.

There are many problems facing this nation, and the war is problem #1, but there are more and more R's coming together with D's on opposing this war.Regardless of what one thinks about how long this may take, it is progress, far better than what we had under an R Congress. I do not think that giving the R's another chance at destroying this nation is a good idea, and a "purge" would set that up.

[lapauvre]

47. Is there an American potential politician who CAN'T be bought?

These people are disgusting me. I feel really let down by this gathering of wusses. This is not the first time. It won't be the last time. And "Impeachment is NOT on the table." is about as justifiable excuse to keep on screwing the American citizenry as "We can't set a deadline for troop withdrawal" is to keep the insurgents going strong.

It's a lose-lose proposition all the way. If I had any democratic reps or senators I would say yes, but I live in a red state and there ain't any. Lindsey Graham, Jim DeMint and Joe Wilson are all among the liars or braindead. My opinion is, if you have one you can get rid of, get rid of him/her/it.

Who cares if it's petty. Representation that doesn't represent the people isn't representation. It's a farce.

[UrbScotty]

48. Perhaps for some of the more conservative ones, i.e. Pryor

If they also voted for, say, the torture bill, then perhaps we should look into it.

Otherwise, it would be a waste, IMO.

[progressoid]

49. That's just what we need.

More in-fighting.

[XOKCowboy]

50. I proudly present my Representative Ed Perlmutter - He stepped right up!

Now my Senators were a different matter. Wayne Allard I expected to lock-step with the NeoCons but I held out hope that my newly elected Democratic Senator Ken Salazar would do the right thing. Just like when he nominated Gonzo for AG he disappointed me again.

[nadinbrzezinski]

51. I have a better question for you

since I did consider it

Do you have a spare 1.3 million?

That is the average cost to run for the House right now

Oh the Senate is 7.1 million

[derby378]

65. Take another look at the OP...

If we try to boil it down to "money, money, money" then we're no better than some of the Carlyle Group puppetmasters who enabled this whole Iraq mess in the first place.

Besides, I suggested we look for primary challengers, not necessarily become the primary challengers. Although if any of us have the means to run for Congress, now might be a really good time to consider it.

[nadinbrzezinski]

150. I considered it

until I came across the cost

Unfortuntately the way the system is set right now, it is about money

[Major Hogwash]

57. But what about the Republicans who voted to give Bush all the money?

Shouldn't we be focusing on removing them from office?

[maddezmom]

58. I think that would be a better plan

:thumbsup:

[JNelson6563]

59. Not very realistic

For instance here in MI there's no way anyone would consider challenging Carl Levin. He voted for this bill but has been an outspoken opponent of this war from day 1.

Julie

[Edweird]

60. HELL YES!

let's DO this!

[DIKB]

61. I agree.

MAKE them Campaign. Make them make promises.

FUCK Complacency and Security!!! I want our reps and senators to worry about the base first and foremost, NOT the swing voters.

[Le Taz Hot]

62. Good goddess, yes!

This is SUPPOSED to be a representative Democracy. When the representatives no longer represent the people who elected them, they need to be replaced.

[Virginia Dare]

68. We just got rid of the racist fuck George Allen..

in a very close race, and you aren't going to get a more liberal Senator than Jim Webb here in Virginia, so no thanks, I'll stick with Webb for now.

[derby378]

75. Of all the Senators who voted Aye, I'm willing to give Webb a pass...

He's obviously concerned about the safety of his son, especially after Herr Decider's "How's yer boy?" threat.

[jgraz]

122. Yep, Webb's got absolute immunity from Iraq criticism, IMHO

I'm not happy about his vote, but the guy is the only one in the Senate with any moral authority on this issue.

[truedelphi]

145. Me too! I would not wanna be his kid in a war zone for love or money!

Not that I would wanna be anybody's kid in a war zone.

[Beelzebud]

69. Why bother? Lieberman taught us primary results are meaningless.

[derby378]

74. Two-word response: KARL ROVE

The only reason LIEberman defeated Lamont in November is because Karl Rove instructed the CT Republicans to throw Schlessinger under the bus. Lamont may have simply underestimated Rove's reach in CT and didn't plan accordingly.

[Beelzebud]

79. People give Rove WAY too much credit...

[LSK]

84. and how many GOP votes did Liebermann get? 70%???

Some people ignore facts....

[Beelzebud]

86. Rove had little to do with that. The CT Republicans knew who their candidate was.

And he didn't have an (R) behind his name...

[Usrename]

135. The GOP didn't elect Lieberman.

They didn't ever have enough votes to elect a candidate.

The dems defected at the request of the party leadership.

Grow up!

[pat_k]

80. Meaningless? It taught us the opposite.

It shattered the pompous complacency of incumbency (no one would dare challenge. . . Huh??)

When the voters told Lieberman to go home, nd he refused go, he exposed himself for what he is -- an anti-democratic autocrat (yeah -- a fascist).

The beltway elite circled the wagons around him, so we go to see who was driving the wagons.

He is a joke. Disdained by the Democratic rank and file. Within the beltway he may still have his "friends" but even there, the aversion to him -- from all sides -- is, at best, thinly veiled.

And when they see him, the rest think "there but for the grace of voters go I."

[endarkenment]

100. Not true.

Connecticut has a loophole that allows refiling after a primary defeat. Most states don't have that particular corrupt idiocy. We won that primary and in doing so we shocked the living shit out of the corporate-creep democratic beltway establishment.

[Senator]

71. Better Than a "Purge" Would Be A "Lesson"

And it should be over Failure to Impeach, rather than the (more muddled) War Vote(s) Controversies. Impeachment crystalizes the conflict between the insiders and the rest of us as one of principle -- and as one of Americanism over Corporatism/Fascism/Bushism. It is far less exploitable by the other side (the word itself wakes Rove up at night).

The best use of the power we have -- which we must recognize is limited -- would be something similar to the "Lamonting" of Lieberman. Even though not "fully successful," it achieved a great deal by the message it sent and continues to send, particularly every time Lieberman makes a public ass of himself.

We need to target another "Poster Boy" -- or rather, Poster Girl.

Yes, we should take Nancy Pelosi down. She is the current symbol for beltway power giving the back of their hand to people power.

But almost as important as the message it would send is our likelihood of success. A single district primary is much more winnable than a Senate primary. A combined effort on that one goal would greatly increase our chances of making a national impact.

In addition, we may be very fortunate in a potential challenger being ripe for the picking. His name is Matt Gonzalez. (Calling sfexpat2000!)

Yes, derby's right. Perhaps ...psychotic, but absolutely right. We gotta take these bastards. Now we could do it with conventional weapons. But that could take years and cost millions of lives. No, I think we have to go all out. I think that this situation absolutely requires a really futile and stupid gesture be done on somebody's part.

And we're just the guys to do it.

And kidding aside, the attempt itself could actually bring about Impeachment of bushcheney. (Yes, really.)

--

[shallowthroat]

109. Excellent points.

But you know they would just take out anyone we got in. They have those crazy magic bullets after all. Who here can stop that crazy shit?

[Senator]

138. Nobody would bother

That's what good about taking down Pelosi. As a single congressional district, there's not enough Repubs to elect her as an independent like they did Lieberman. Once we take the nomination she's gone.

And while Senators have many friends and favors built up, congressional leadership is very competitive. There'd be far more people trying to become the next Speaker than concerned about her not coming back.

A single House seat is just not worth a lot of bother.

===

[Usrename]

136. Yep, to be effective this has to be well thought out.

I agree with your approach.

We need to either change her mind or replace her. She is a huge obsticle to any progress.

[tavalon]

72. That's basically what I said the day after the vote

It sunk like a rock. I guess I was ahead of the curve.

[Freddie Stubbs]

73. Even John Murtha?

:shrug:

[derby378]

78. Ask yourself: What do you REALLY want for the troops in Iraq?

Should they stay in the middle of a civil war? Or should they redeploy? Or better yet, come home?

[doggyboy]

82. Even John Murtha?

.

[Norquist Nemesis]

77. I'd rather spend time/money/effort on defeating the GOP

As far as Representatives go, I can't remember when (if ever) I've had a Democrat representing me at both the State and Federal levels. If there was, it was waaayyyyy before any memory of politics. :cry:

[NoPasaran]

81. No

Let's skip the foreplay and just vote for Ralph Nader instead.

:sarcasm:

[LSK]

83. no, we get 9 more Senate seats next election and ignore the GOP

A filibuster proof Senate and President Obama, Edwards, Hillary, Gore would be HUGH!!!!11

[NoPasaran]

85. Derby, why don't you beat Pete Sessions in your own district?

Then we can talk.

[derby378]

88. One-word answer: REDISTRICTING

But it's not like we haven't tried. I hosted a precinct meetup with Will Pryor and promoted his campaign every chance I got. But DeLay did his homework as far as the Dallas area was concerned.

[bvar22]

89. Absolutely! Though a targeted approach would yield better results.

Unseating Holy Joe was a national effort.
The Progressive community should target several of the most egregious Blue State insults to Democratic values, and build a NATIONAL campaign to send them home.

Rham Emmanuel/ Rep Chicago is FIRST on my list. I will be donating to his Primary opposition (with or without a movement).

DiFi would be a good target in the Senate.

It would be a mistake to:

1) Dilute the effort by a using too big a net. We should be selective and coordinated.
Most of the self-serving Democratic Professional politicians who are on the take from BIG WAR Profiteers (AIPAC, MIC)(DLC) are very aware of what happened to Lieberman. One more election cycle with properly targeted traitors will let the WHOLE Party know that they will ignore the Majority Left at their own peril. If they jump ship and crawl back to the Republicans where they belong, so be it! The Democratic Party will be better off and we will be better able to rebuild a party that actually represents Working Americans.

2) We should temporarily avoid targeting Red States for now, though exceptions could be made. There are plenty of Corporate/AIPAC owned politicians masquerading as Democrats in Blue States.

3) We need to protect REAL Democrats. The DLC, AIPAC, and the MIC are already planning efforts to unseat Anti-War Democrats. We must be able to respond with money and support for those REAL Democrats who speak for us. Dennis Kucinich is already a target of the Corporate War Profiteers, predatory FOR-PROFIT HealthCare(?) Corporations, BBV Corporations, K-Street, and their toadies inside the Democratic Party.


I WILL be targeting DiFi and Rham.
Join me, and lets build a stronger NetRoots Progressive movement!


"There are forces within the Democratic Party who want us to sound like kinder, gentler Republicans. I want us to compete for that great mass of voters that want a party that will stand up for working Americans, family farmers, and people who haven't felt the benefits of the economic upturn."--Paul Wellstone

[paulk]

94. go for it!

But leave out the "we".

I'm going to be spending my time here in CO working to replace Wayne Allard (R)with a Democratic Senator. Also Marylin Musgrave (R) is looking vulnerable up in Greeley. Another Dem. representative for the state would suit me just fine. Plus, of course, the majority of my efforts will be going toward putting a Democrat in the White House!

[Raster]

97. YES! Cowards, collaborators and accomplices! They are NOT serving the American people!

Fully 75% of Americans believe Iraq is a tragic mistake and want it over with. Some want immediate withdrawal, others phased withdrawal on a structured timeline. Irregardless of how it is achieved, American wants the Iraq debacle OVER! Congress, ESPECIALLY CONGRESSIONAL DEMOCRATS, asked for a free pass for voting for Iraq in the first place, claiming they were mislead. Well there is no convenient excuse now. Cowards, collaborators and accomplices.

The Iraq War: brought to you by the Texas-American Petroleum Cartel ("Sucking America Dry for 70 Years!") and the American Military Industrial Complex.

War is a good business. Invest a child.

[NuttyFluffers]

98. don't see why not. kinda wish "my" GOP "party" did the same

but they just about never do. gonna likely vote for Ron Paul for shits and giggles, but he'll probably be pushed out before i even get to vote in my primary. but you guys actually get to have some voice of change and reason during your primaries. that's really nice. i think you all should take advantage of that power.

[endarkenment]

99. Yes. It is called democracy. Challenges are what keep them honest.

Of course we should run primary challenges. Nobody gets a pass.

[Lerkfish]

101. primary challenges are the sign of a healthy democracy. The only ones who don't think so

want a less than healthy democracy. IMHO.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

102. Only If They Can Win The General Election. If They Couldn't, Then No.

I'm all for using the primaries to send messages, but only when it does not put the overall election at risk. The latter trumps the former by far.

[treestar]

103. Those who are in Congress now

What platform did they run on as regards to Iraq? We may be underestimating their decision on the vote - ultimately any politician will want to be re-elected. Could be they actually thought their consitutents preferred this vote. Their constituency is not DU.

[mike_c]

104. yes, absolutely!

That is how democracy works. If democracy isn't working, it's broken.

[Name removed]

106. Deleted message

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

[NastyDiaper]

107. No nerve touched. I think it's the right approach.

We can try to steer the donkey. Or we can get off and shoot it.

[NoPasaran]

110. I tell y'all what

Let's meet back here in two weeks and everyone can share what they've done to mount primary challenges against all the bad Democrats, okay?

Time is short. By this time next year, primary season will be just about over.

[ncteechur]

111. Hey, Walter Jones (R) NC voted no--let's get him.

[AZ Criminal JD]

113. Probably too late

As the Presidential primaries have been moved up, so have most of the party primaries for Congress been moved at the same time. This means there are only about eight months left. Not very much time to mount a challenge to an incumbant. Also it would require a huge amount of money. Is this the best place to spend it?

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

114. It's the final step.

And it must be wielded every election cycle.

[BrklynLiberal]

115. Of course. That is what elections are for..to choose those representatives that reflect our choices

and vote that way.

You can be damn sure that Rekpukes that didn't follow the party line were opposed in the primary..and were just about guaranteed to lose.

[babylonsister]

116. 2008 Primary Challengers Wanted...

http://www.democrats.com/2008-primary-challengers-wanted

In 2006, we elected Democratic majorities to the Senate and House for one overriding reason: to end the Iraq War.

In May 2007, both the Senate and the House voted on amendments to end the Iraq War by setting a March 2008 deadline for removing combat troops. Those amendments would have passed if all Democrats had voted to end the Iraq War - but some pro-war "Bush Democrats" voted to continue the Iraq War forever.

As Democrats, we have every right to expect our Democratic Senators and Representatives to vote with us on the issues we care about deeply. And if they do not, we have every right to support candidates who agree with us in Democratic primaries against them.

There are two good reasons to support primary challengers. If we win, we get a better Member of Congress. But even if we lose, a competitive race often persuades the incumbent to change positions on the issue that fueled the primary. In 2006, two key anti-war challengers brought dramatic changes: both Jane Harman (CA-36) and Al Wynn (MD-4) voted for the war in 2002, but voted against the war in 2007 as a direct result of anti-war primary challenges by Marcy Winograd and Donna Edwards.

Of course, challenging an incumbent Senator or Representative is a huge effort. To run a competitive race requires finding an excellent candidate and a building a strong grassroots organization. Happily, the Internet lets us do both.

Use our map or list of Representatives who voted to fund the Iraq War forever. If you are represented by one of these "Bush Democrats," click on their dot and help us find a candidate to challenge them in the 2008 Democratic primary.

Together we can take back the Democratic Party from the "Bush Democrats" and end the war!

Update 1: Our benchmark votes are the Feingold-Reid Amendment (Senate 5/16/07) and the McGovern Amendment (House 5/10/07) because these are the "cleanest" votes on setting a deadline for Iraq. The later votes on the Supplemental (5/24) were more complicated and harder to use as a benchmark.

[Paladin]

117. Here It Comes Again: The Democratic Circular Firing Squad

Sorry, I'm just not into doing this kind of favor for the Republicans.....

[dave123williams]

118. Hit 'em from the LEFT! YES!

[roody]

120. You better because the Greens are gearing up

to challenge war supporting Dems.

[jgraz]

123. Who else thinks the Dem's timidity will cost them seats?

They're so busy trying to hold onto their jobs, they're not doing their jobs. My prediction: if we don't see impeachment proceedings before 2008, Dems will lose both House and Senate seats.

[mmonk]

121. If you want a different foreign policy.

[here_is_to_hope]

124. My sig line says as much....

[defendandprotect]

125. This is a corporate war --

This was a vote to keep the warprofiteers in power.

And, those who cast their votes are owned by these corporations.

The corporations will be making sure that the money they've already spent to get these people elected isn't going to be wasted. If you try to run someone else, they'll increase their spending.

We have to get corporations out of our elections.

Where's the League of Women Voters?
Why do we have these dumb debates?
Can people in states/counties organize to demand that candidates appear before them?
On our terms?

[Solon]

127. This thread is an example of hypocrisy...

Not the OP, or people supporting primary challengers, but those who deride the tactic. Let's see if I got this straight for those so called "party loyalists". When a Democrat does something stupid and wrong, we are obligated to vote for them, and cannot, under any circumstances, challenge them in a PRIMARY. How the fuck are we supposed to change the party from within in the first place? Are we just supposed to shut up and vote?

[derby378]

143. My point exactly...

We're not doing the Republicans a favor by supporting primary challengers - we're doing the Democrats a favor, and, by extension, democracy as well.

[ulysses]

144. oh hell, I saw that coming years ago.

First was "You must work within the party and challenge Dems you don't like in the primaries...if you can...(snicker)"

Now it's "You mustn't challenge Dems in the primaries any more because we might lose Congressional seats."

[AllyCat]

128. I'll bite. He** yes!

I'm tired of having to vote for someone who is a Dem, but not much better than the Repuke challenger. I want someone with progressive values. Unfortunately, here in WI, our only Senator or rep who voted for it (gleefully, I might add) was Senator Kohl, who, in his late '70s, just won re-election this past fall. I cannot imagine he will run again, but if he does, you can bet I'll be looking for someone else.

On the bright side, my wonderful Rep. (Tammy Baldwin) and Senator Feingold voted against the stupid thing.

I don't want to be told "hold firm for the Dems". I'm sick of it. If they aren't going to vote like Dems then I don't see why we should re-elect them just because they are the only ones running.

There are times I really think the 2 party system is a 1 party system, and the vote last week on the war spending bill is just one of them.

[Imagevision]

129. Excellant! YES!! especially send a message to the die hards that don't want to make waves...

perhaps the new crew will see, this is what happens when you jerk the people around who gave you your job!!

[sce56]

130. I would look at all of them with a careful eye did you hear Democracynow today?

http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=07/05/31/1412212

The Nation: Clinton Campaign Strategists Closely Tied to Union Busters, GOP Operatives, Conservative Media

Listen to Segment || Download Show mp3
Watch 128k stream Watch 256k stream Read Transcript
Help Printer-friendly version Email to a friend Purchase Video/CD
A new expose in The Nation magazine finds that while Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton is publicly trying to win support of unions in her presidential campaign, behind the scenes she is being advised by a team of strategists closely affiliated with unionbusters, GOP operatives and conservative media. We speak with the reporter who broke the story. In campaign news, Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton reached out to members of the Culinary Workers Union on Wednesday during a stop in Las Vegas.

The union represents casino and hotel workers. Senator Clinton said it should be easier for unions to organize and that private equity firms should honor union contracts after buyouts.

While Clinton is publicly trying to win the support of such unions, behind the scenes she is being advised by a team of strategists closely affiliated with unionbusters, GOP operatives, conservative media and other Democratic Party antagonists.

This according to a new expose in The Nation magazine titled "Hillary Inc." written by Ari Berman. Much of Berman's article focuses on Senator Clinton's top strategist, Mark Penn, who heads the public relations firm Burson-Marstellar.

Among other things, the company helps firms fight unionization efforts. Up until March, the labor section of Burson-Marstellar's website read: "Companies cannot be caught unprepared by Organized Labor's coordinated campaigns."

Mark Penn's list of previous and current clients reads like a who's who of Corporate America: Texaco, Eli Lilly, Microsoft, Proctor and Gamble, Monsanto.
<Snip>


I would not vote for her period.

[Zhade]

131. Without a doubt, yes.

They didn't even have to pass ANY bill, and the troops would still have been safe and fed - just not able to continue this illegal occupation.

[freefall]

132. Absolutely! n/t

K&R:kick:

[Canuckistanian]

133. The Status Quo will NOT DO

As much as we admire Reid and Pelosi, they have pretty much failed in their mission, given their mandate last November.

The Iraq vote confirms it. They not only gave up on any meaningful stand, but also STRENGTHENED Bush's hand.

If they expected to get any concession from the media, the Executive branch or the GOP in general, they're SADLY mistaken.

At this point, I'm not sure who's the most deluded group in Congress.

Change is mandatory if this is all we can expect.

[nealmhughes]

137. Actually, the Party could simply be taken over if everyone with progressive views flooded the state

and local apparatus with candidates for the various secretaries/board members.

Very few Democrats are active members in the sense that they run the official party, rather sedentary voters. A small cadre of attorneys and bankers, real estate dudes, and ladies who lunch tend to run the parties, especially lawyers.

There are few who show up at board meetings and other party functions, therefore, it is rather like an election for a new pope, where only cardinals get to vote. . . and a pope appointed the cardinals in the first place. . . ensuring that those with similar leanings get promoted to cardinal, therefore ensuring that the policies of several previous popes continue unmolested from the previous, even when a new one gets elected from their own ranks, even though there is no canon law that a person need be a cardinal to become pope.

If people care about the moral health of the Party, then I urge them to find out when the next party meeting is, try to get on a committee and also get their friends to do the same, then have one of them run for a slot, this will stop the sinecure of the committeepersons.

[truedelphi]

146. However the very few control the overall

If you are Suzie Q nobody as I was when I ran for City Council in the No Bay (San Francisco area) I found out that I had ruffled the feathers of one woman on Board of supervisors, ANnette Rose.

Why should she care?

Well, she had been helped/chosen supported by Di Feinstein and had gone through all the traditional hurdles, whereas I just said, I wanna bring the pesticide-ing of the local parks and schools to the attention of the community. I don't have time for the political hurdles (I literally didn't - the filing date was 48 hrs after I made my decision)

There are all these hurdles and all these ropes - and I advise everyone to think about their life.

If you have a message for your community, if you have an interest inserving your community, then your local DLC be damned.

Run for office. It will be the experience of a lifetime, and it will help things out on the local level. (I ran as a Green - and interestingly, I got as much support from Republicans who wanted to see change in the community - my Democratic friends were too busy telling me that my hair was not styled right and my wardrobe were wrong (I adopted a rich friend for the duration of the campaign so that under her tutelage and borrowed clothes I looked rather fine)

Progressives have to run and change things. School board level, and OH! by the way the big local commission right now is the Water Board. That is where the power is shaping up.

[DemBones DemBones]

141. YES, YES, YES! nt