Maybe some can explain to me how voting against a Dem helps the Dem cause in the Senate?

[MrScorpio]

I missed that train

[dkf]

1. Joe Lieberman will no longer be the 60th vote pulling our chain

Republicans never had 60 votes but they got their crap passed. Instead of using that playbook we let shills like Lieberman dictate our legislation.

[Think82]

6. What's your alternative

Democrats didn't filibuster everything like the obstructionist repubs. They got the tax cuts through reconciliation because it was a budget matter.

It's not like Obama was like "Oh yeah, let's let Lieberman do whatever he wants." ITs that he needs lieberman to block a filibuster and get health reform passed.

[karynnj]

32. Exactly - and they couldn't get their SS changes because that would have

been filibustered and could not be done through reconciliation. Not to mention that we would then need Lieberman PLUS a Republican,

[dkf]

40. Well why can't we bribe Olympia Snowe like we bribe Nelson and landrieu?

Liebermans payoff will always be to corporations who fund him. At least Snowe and Collins are from smaller states so they aren't as bought as Lieberman

[Name removed]

18. Deleted message

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

[pnwmom]

29. No, it will be Snowe and Collins. Whoopee. In case you never noticed,

their records as Senators were much more conservative than Lieberman's.

[johan helge]

31. Lieberman is bad but

his Republican opponent is even worse. Is that so difficult to understand?

[dkf]

39. Why are you talking about liebermans republican opponent? Joe isn't a democrat.

He lost the democratic primary.

[johan helge]

43. I see. My bad! (nt)

[dkf]

46. Oops. Shouldn't be expecting you to know that.

Sorry to be harsh.

[johan helge]

47. No problem

I knew he was an independent or something, and should have checked that something!

[Fumesucker]

2. It depends what you think the Dem's "real" cause is..

Quite a few of us think that the DLC at least will breathe a huge sigh of relief if they lose 60 in the Senate, it will take the pressure off for them to move to the left, then they can blame the status quo on the Repubs..

If you are delud.. err.. idealistic enough to think that the Dems really want to move progressive/liberal legislation through the legislature then obviously voting against a Dem for the Senate is a bad idea.

[MrScorpio]

4. Oh, Please

So you think that the DLC would rather shoot themselves in the feet to spite their toes?

How's that tinfoil hat doing for you?

It's a numbers game and Coakley, despite her apparent lack of ideological purity, is in our number.

I can't see any good can come from throwing away the majority, in the minority they can't do shit except bitch.


There's politicking and there's politicking... Anyone who wold be willingly planning to toss away the keys to the keep is an idiot.

The DLC may not be as progressive as Dems as we wish them to be, but they're no idiots.

[Fumesucker]

10. The Dems still wouldn't be in the minority..

They would have to go under fifty for that..

But going under sixty would certainly give the DLC political cover.

Like I said, you have to know what their aims are and we really don't know that.

[Skink]

3. It works. It really does.

It's only when democrats like Gore win that there are problems.

[Ozymanithrax]

5. In our system, the only way to punish a party that does not do what you want is remove it from power

But you have to be willing to live with what the other side does.

The other reason to vote against a Dem is because you feel that there is a more qualified person. If that person is a member of a third party, you have to be satisfied with the vote knowing that he won't win. If the more qualified person is a Republican, you are screwed, because the Republican party will not act in your best interest, even if one Republican is a decent human being.

Personally, at this time in history, the Democrats will be at least marginally better than Republicans on most issues and a lot better on some issues. But there are valid reasons to vote against the Dems, even if it amonts to cutting off your nose to spite your face.

[Think82]

8. That is not a reason to vote against the dems

Repub win means no healthcare
No climate legislation
No tax on big banks
None of the basically good things Obama is trying to get done despite a broken system and an obstructionist, hard-right minority.

The answer is not to "send a message" but to give Obama more allies.

Would you rather have had Gore/Lieberman or Bush/Cheney?

Stop whining. Get the fuck out there and vote for democrats.

[Ozymanithrax]

23. I agree with all your points...

But there are many here who do not. I think more and better Democrats is the right path, but I've talked with a lot of the disillusioned around here who feel that sending a message is the only cure for their disapointment.

I am not whining, just pointing out that not eveyrone has your point of view.

[MrScorpio]

9. I don't think that Mass. at this date and time is the right joint to make that point

Because, as you say, if it does go their way, we're screwed

[Ozymanithrax]

24. Exactly. If I were voting in Mass. I would vote for Coakely

But i'm not.

[JVS]

7. I don't advocate it, but I can understand the twisted logic.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

11. Maybe some believe that politicians have to earn votes.

Some of the founders seemed to think it was a good idea when they made the country a democracy rather than a one party state.

"I never submitted the whole system of my opinions to the creed of any party of men whatever, in religion, in philosophy, in politics, or in anything else, where I was capable of thinking for myself. Such an addiction is the last degradation of a free and moral agent. If I could not go to heaven but with a party, I would not go there at all." Thomas Jefferson to Francis Hopkinson, 1789.

"Were parties here divided merely by a greediness for office,...to take a part with either would be unworthy of a reasonable or moral man." Thomas Jefferson to William Branch Giles, 1795.

[MrScorpio]

12. Because we're all having fun when Republicans the share power, right?

Some of those Dems maybe sons of bitches... But at least their OUR sons of bitches.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

13. I manage to have fun no matter which SOB's are in power.

Illegitimi non carborundum

[villager]

14. The problem is when a large chunk of your "base" no longer sees any "cause" that pertains to them

When all the "causing" is simply to continually fellate one's corporate masters.

Obviously, fake-populist rightwingers are never the answer. But when you fail to give a chunk of the dispossessed any reason to support you, arrogantly imagining they have "nowhere else to go," well, guess what? They don't "go" anywhere. They just stay home.

[MrScorpio]

15. OK, the Democratic Party isn't perfect

I guess that's as good of a reason as any to spank it.

Not feeling it at this time.

[villager]

16. It's not about "isn't perfect," it's about anathema to the interests of working people

They sense it, can't quite articulate it, but when the Dems have only two modes -- enabling rightwing lunatics, or being too feckless to mount any actual, tangible "change," then people are turned off by the whole process.

It's entirely understandable, if regrettable, and ultimately, more damaging viz. having fascists in office, instead of mere weak-kneed apologists.

[Hansel]

26. There are very few Dems as you describe them

The majority of Dems are NOT into enabling right wing lunatics or feckless. The majority would give us some damn good legislation. There are only a handful of Dems like this and they need to go. Blue dogs need to go. But to pretend that all Dems are worthless is ridiculous. They need more progressives working with them to stop filibusters.

Putting a Tea Bag advocate in a formerly progressive seat is not going to help that. We need more progressives and I think it is unfair to not acknowledge that we have some very strong progressives in the congress who can't get what they want done because they are just short of the numbers.

Blue dog Dems are Republicans who ran on the Democratic ticket to increase their chances of winning. There is no evidence whatsoever that Coakley is a Blue Dog and quite frankly I think it say volumes about Democrats in MA and how much they think of Kennedy that they would fall on their faces and allow a right winger who plays to the Tea Baggers to take his seat when the "cause of his life" is on the line. Pathetic.

[villager]

37. Well, we *have* a majority, and don't really get "damn good legislation" out of them

btw, as much of a critic of the Dems as I am, or of this still too-timid and too-corporate administration, I'd be voting Coakley, were I there, simply because it's imperative we head off the rightwing crazies.

Offering a bona fide alternative to corporate stoog-ism would be the next great political task, but we're still emerging (?) from our current neo-fascist era...

[rateyes]

21. That's the problem. You nailed it. And, I for one

at this moment am planning on staying home. The leadership of our party needs to be sent a message, painful as it might be.

[Hansel]

27. The message you will be sending then is "lean more right." nt

[rateyes]

36. I disagree. The message is, if you want to remain in power,

pay attention to your base.

[treestar]

41. "Senator Brown"

would be my answer to every one of your posts complaining that nothing of substance is getting done.

[Name removed]

44. Deleted message

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

[Laelth]

17. It may not help, but what can we do about it?

People staying home and not voting is the natural and predictable result of the way the Democratic Party is currently behaving.

Or so says ... http://firedoglake.com/2010/01/16/ma-sen-weve-seen-this-movie-before/

:dem:

-Laelth

[Spazito]

20. LOL, you use FDL, the Hampsher/Norquist/Schlafly headquarters for your link, wow!

I see FDL is fast becoming the Naderite headquarters so it's 'interesting' affiliations and 'advice' shouldn't be surprising I guess.

Sitting on one's hands instead of going out to vote is 1) giving the repubs a proxy vote and 2) an abrogation of one's responsibility to the democratic process, imo.

[Laelth]

22. I thought it was a really good essay.

Did you read it? I mean, even if you're right and your ad hominem argument against FDL is accurate, even a broken clock is right twice a day. On this subject, I think that author's argument has merit.

:dem:

-Laelth

[Spazito]

25. I have NO doubt you thought it was a good essay...

as it reflects your philosophy but I think it has little merit and a big agenda. It is written from the perspective of a third party supporter advocate so the intent is to sow dissent, try and demoralize in the vain hope a third party will rise from the ashes like a phoenix and we will live happily ever after, NOT going to happen.

As you can tell I DID read it and knew it was from a Ralph acolyte even before I got to the part where he gives his Nader 'credentials'.

[Laelth]

28. Fair enough.

And its motive may be to sow dissent and create demoralization. I don't know. But there's also an implied course of action that follows from the piece. If we don't want a repeat of 1994, the Democratic Party had better start serving its base and stop serving corporate interests. That, it seems to me, is good advice, regardless of the hidden agenda of its author.

:dem:

-Laelth

[Spazito]

30. Hmmmm, don't you find it "odd" that those who advocate for third parties, specifically Nader...

are "concerned" about the Democratic base? It is beyond laughable that anyone would not see through their "concern" for what it really is, a pathetic attempt to demonize the Democratic Party enough to get more supporters for Nader.

I am surprised you are falling for it if, indeed, you are being genuine.

[Laelth]

33. Well, there's no doubt that Nader took money from Republicans.

And there's no doubt that Republicans push far-left parties and politicians in order to siphon off votes from Democrats.

But I still think the Democratic Party would be better served by abandoning the "Third Way," and I think it's insane to expect a different result when the Party behaves in exactly the way it did in the lead-up to 1994. Again, the implied advice is sound, even if the messenger is flawed.

:dem:

-Laelth

[Spazito]

35. I made no mention of republicans but specific mention of third party advocates in general...

and Naderites in specifics. To introduce the republicans into this debate is, imo, a red-herring. Back to the subject at hand, third party advocates including those who follow Nader would very much like to destroy the Democratic Party and by feigning concern over the Democratic base seems to be just the latest tactic but one that is becoming more obvious every day.

As to the "Democratic base", who exactly is that? From what I understand it is an amalgam of many sectors not just one but I would be interested in who you think is the "base".

[Laelth]

48. Interesting distinction (Republicans vs. third party advocates).

I was merely trying to show that someone, at least, has a reasonable motive to destroy the Democratic Party. I don't believe that 3rd Party advocates do. Rather, I suspect the Democratic Party will split once the Republican Party dissolves, at it looks like it will. That's been the historical precedent in the U.S., at any rate.

As for the party's base, I see the party split as being between the rich and the rest of us. The rest of us are the natural base of the Democratic Party. Allow me to quote Jefferson:

"The same political parties which now agitate the U.S. have existed through all time. Whether the power of the people or that of the (aristocracy) should prevail were questions which kept the states of Greece and Rome in eternal convulsions, as they now schismatize every people whose minds and mouths are not shut up by the gag of a despot. And in fact the terms of Whig and Tory belong to natural as well as to civil history. They denote the temper and constitution of mind of different individuals." --Thomas Jefferson to John Adams, 1813. ME 13:279

When the Democratic Party does things that clearly favor the wealthy, I say they are appealing to "centrist" and abandoning their base. I say that the Democratic Party is serving its base when it does things that clearly favor the working class, i.e. "the people."

I define "the base" very broadly, as did Jefferson.

:dem:

-Laelth

[Spazito]

50. Interesting, very interesting....

You don't see third party advocates as wanting to destroy the Democratic Party? It is the one thing I believe the repubs and the third party advocates have in common. Without the destruction of the Democratic Party how can the third parties grow both in membership and influence and without growth in these areas they will remain as fringe parties.

If the base is "the rest of us" how, then, can you take umbrage when DUers who are not wealthy don't agree with your take of the Obama Administration and the Democratic Party. Are they not also the "base" as you defined it or do you think anyone who does not agree with your view must be one of those wealthy people?

Edited to add: as to your reference to Jefferson's quote, we must also note that women and minorities were not in Jefferson's base, they had no right to even vote and African-Americans were slaves and considered to be, I believe, three-fifths of a person for tax purposes.

[malaise]

19. They're not Dems

just disruptors

[branders seine]

34. take a longer view.

the thought is that NOTHING can help the "Dem cause" in the short term. (Never mind that we may disagree what the meaning of "Dem cause" is. Some say just have people with a "D" by their name, no matter how they vote and govern. Others say, the "Dem cause" is a set of principles long abandoned by the current "Dems" in national power.)

In the Senate, 50 Dems were not enough. 51 were not enough. 60 were not enough. Most rational people no longer believe that any number of Democrats in the Senate will change the corporatist agenda AT ALL. Not 60, not 75, not 99, not 100.

Dems or no Dems, things will get worse and worse for people and for progressives. They'll get worse a little slower under Dems and much more quickly under republicks.

In the *long* run, the only possibility for real progressive change is for things to get worse--the faster the better.

[treestar]

42. Bullshit

There are 59 solid Dems and Lieberman.

60 solid Dems would do it.

Even then you would not get all you want. Some of the Dems are conservatives.

[branders seine]

45. Some of the Dems

aren't really Dems.

[girl gone mad]

38. What cause?

The cause of handing over all of our future earnings to cronies and fat cat corporations?

FWIW, I think that the people have seen what putting one party in control of Congress and the Executive gets them, and they would rather have gridlock.

[NJmaverick]

49. K&R

[donheld]

51. Cutting your nose off to spite your face

Real bright huh?

[applegrove]

52. It only heps the repukes. It means their tactic to disrupt congress worked.