Should the Democrats start ejecting people from the party?

[Trek234]

Do you think this would be a good idea in theory? Obviously it should only apply to people who are enablers and collaborators that have massively helped Republicans while dealing a serious blow to the Democratic party and democracy in general.

For example, Whitmire down in Texas who has now allowed the Republicans to finally move to complete the power grab they have been working on.

Also certain members of congress who support the Republican agenda to consolidate power/shred the constitution every chance they get.

I personally don't see why these people should continue to be associated with the Democratic party when they are working against it. The Democratic party should issue statements against these people, and refuse to support them in any future elections. This would most certainly provide motivation to not behave as they have been.

Granted not supporting them anymore may mean someome with a Republican tag has a better chance of taking a seat, but is that really better than having a handful of defectors destroying any organized movement the Democrats try to carry out when they all of a sudden decide they like to play ball with the Republicans better?

That's really what it is too - just a handful of these people here and there that blow everything out of the water.

[quilp]

1. Yes I do.

I think the Dems contain too many crypto-Republicans like Leiberman and Whitmire, who enable the Republicans to claim their reactionary policies as "bi-partisan".

[CarlBallard]

2. Nothing says variety of thought like a party perge (n/t)

[knight_of_the_star]

4. Well put (nt)

[Trek234]

5. Oh please

By your logic the Democratic party should be called the independent "party".

The Democratic party represents a wide variety of thought, but it most certainly should NOT represent the thought of the Republican fascists. That is why it is a political party. It shouldn't be the "everyones invited" club - including those who act to destroy it.

A political party has some set platform. People who run on that partys support should do so because they (mostly) agree with the partys goals, not because they will act to see it fail.

[CarlBallard]

9. The people you describe do "(mostly) agree with the party's goals"

Lieberman is great on the environment, supported CFR, is fighting hard to save ANWAR, took some steps against Enron, and was the party's #2 guy 2 and a half years ago. You're saying kick him out?

Whitmire spent what, a copule months breaking quarum. This had a real cost on his ability to make a living. It was time he didn't get to spend with his family. And no, he didn't see any end in sight so he eventually left. Kick him out?

Christ on the cross! If you start to kick these people out of the party, you think it's going to just be a small number?

[Trek234]

12. Read the first post again

I said they must SERIOUSLY injur the Democratic party in some way while seriously helping the Republicans. Do you really think that's going to be a large number of people?

Don't lie for Whitmire. Those were NOT the reasons he stated. His reason was essentially "Well I don't think people in my district like it".

EVERY Democrat that went suffered. They made this clear in several press releases. One of them had a family emergency with a child, but she took the hit because she knew what was at stake. Whitmire KNEW what was at stake, and he knew the many potential consequences of his actions. He chose to accept those consequences by leaving in the first place, then screwed EVERYONE over because HE couldn't take the heat. (or got some nice offer from the Republicans)

Furthermore, if Whitmire stayed the courts still could have eventually ruled in his favor costing him NOTHING. In fact, they very well could have.

Whitmire also received - a long with the other Democrats - donations from people supporting them. He also could likely have petitioned wealthy Democrats for supporting money.

[CarlBallard]

25. I wasn't trying to defend either of their actions

I was saying that you set the bar rather high. If a good environmentalist who was one of the first to make hay after Enron, is good on labor issues (with the exception of trade), who supports the Democratic position 80% of the time can be kicked out of the party, there will be a lot more people kicked out. Same with Whitmire. He's been a Democrat for longer than I've been alive. My point with the paragraph about him was that he has endured hardships for the party. Perhaps kicking him out wouldn't be the proper response, but if the Democrats of his district want to, I won't complain.

The post was an argument against the asertion in the first post that it would only be a small number by saying where the bar was where you put it.

[illini]

3. Um not a good idea.

Let voters decide!!!!!!!!!

[CarlBallard]

6. Amen

Don't like Lieberman? It's not like there isn't a primary election. I'm all for primaries against incumbants, heck I've helped in insurgant campaigns where the state house could've been on the line if the seat went to a Republican. I just don't see the need to decide for the voters.

[Trek234]

8. So in other words vote Republican?

Don't like Lieberman? Vote Green! Vote Republican! Vote independent! Hell even vote "Democrat"...

Either way you're going to get the same result - a Republican.

[CarlBallard]

10. No vote for a primary opponant

Don't like Lieberman, there's 8 other candidates, 9 on Wednesday. If you can't convince the rest of the party to vote against him in the primary, maybe he's not the one who should be perged (kidding you can stay :) ).

[Trek234]

17. Lieberman and the primary

in question are not what this thread is about. He will loose the primary, of course.

He may not loose the primary for his senate seat (if there is one), however. If he lost the support of the party he would be out of luck on two counts.

[mndemocrat_29]

11. Primaries are what decides who are nominees

I'm all for Lieberman getting a primary challenge (preferably Rep. Rosa DeLauro). Ditto Whitmire.

[Trek234]

15. Yes the primary true

But it's a different situation.

He has damaged Democrats nationally, and as such the party should nationally be able to decide rather or not he should continue to receive the support of the party. In the primary this is not the case. (unless he is running for President)

Also, a primary only occurs soon before an election. As a senator you can screw up for 5 years before you are faced with a primary. The Democratic party as a whole should be able to denounce a person before such time, and pull support.

The lack of support will almost mean a certain primary defeat, thus only causing more consequences for such actions.

[Code_Name_D]

23. But Whitmire is a different case.

Whitmire has actively worked against the party. Because of his action, taxes will lose all but one Democrats seat, and dollars to donuts says that it will be Whitmire's district that survives a gerrymandered re-mapping. An act that I might remind you is ILLEGAL (Regardless of the Texas court staying out of this.) Thus Whitmire is complicity in conspiracy against the Constitution of The Unites States of America.

I might agree with you that throwing out persons from the party is indeed a purge. However, the Democratic party has a right to maintain its own integrity. By permitting Whitemire to remain within the party is contrary to that, especially as he is engaging in criminal activity AGAINST the democratic party.

The question should be, do the Texas Dems really have a choice? I might remind you of certain facts. One: The party douses not have the authority to remove Whitmire from his office. If he should be expelled from the party, Whitmire would retain his office. But it would mean that Whitmire would have to find another party to bankroll his campaign, and that he will be running against a Democrat. Two: The Democratic party still has a right to recognize its own members, and to organize its own message as it sees fit. If representatives are to be recognized by the party as members, that recognition comes with a defacto right to withdraw that recognition. Three: The Republicans have been doing this for some time. And FOUR: The DLC is already purging members from the Democratic party. Remember Cynthia McKenny? The Democratic black caucus withdrew their support from her, effectively withdrawing their recognition of her as a Democrat. They did this because McKenny was getting to close to Democratic Representatives secret deal with Bush family diamond mines in the Cogo. (As reported by Greg Plast.)

Holding up Leabermn as an example, only seeks to dismiss the damage that Whitmire, NOT Leabermen, has done to the Democratic party. Leabermen is not on trial here, Whitmire is.

[Trek234]

7. How can voters decide?

If the main party (other than the Republican party) is supporting the guy who works to support the Republicans?

What are they going to do? Vote Green? Good plan... That will help us all. In fact, that's why a good number of people vote Green at times. (my self included)

I think Democrats should hold yearly (for example) internal elections in which any Democrat can vote to determain what individuals, if any, should be cast out of the party.

Purely letting the voters decide.

[Freddie Stubbs]

13. It's called a primary

Run a 'real' Democrat against them in the primary. Incumbents do get knocked out in primaries, just ask Gary Condit, Tom Sawyer, Cynthia McKinney, and Ed Hilliard.

[Trek234]

18. See my post regarding why the primary is not enough

nt

[joeybee12]

14. Don't Eject BUT Twist Arms Often and Hard!

Seriously, you don't want to get anything done, tou have to stop some of them from straying--you can offre incentives as well, but the Dems as a whole do a lousy job of keeping unity. Sure, we want diverse ideas and thought, but we also want to win elections!

[Clete]

16. I don't know how you turn a political party into a country club

because that is what you would be doing if you disallowed them from being members. The best way is to stick to your platform and those who don't agree will probably join another party or form their own.

[Trek234]

19. So then we have a Green situation

Which only hurts the Democratic party more.

[Clete]

20. True, but that's democracy.

The party that appeals to the most members in theory should get the most votes.

[DemBones DemBones]

24. Who decides on which Dems are purged? Shouldn't all Party

members get to vote on an important matter like that?

Well, they DO, through caususes, primaries, general elections.

[Trek234]

29. Still not the same

All party members should be able to vote on rather or not they want party resources to go to a candidate. If you're in CA you can't vote for Lieberman in a primary, even though his actions through the support of your national party are screwing you and the nation over.

I agree everyone should be able to vote.

Loosing a primary is different than ejecting a person from the party because

1. They loose all future support.
2. Actions are denounced by the party officially. (this would do well to bring more Greens in)
3. Other dems thinking about assiting the repubs will think twice about loosing that support.

[Gman]

21. It's actually been tried before

I know of several instances where local executive committees tried to expel legislators or other elected officials that are Democrats. Unfortunately, it cannot be done legally because a person chooses if he/she is a member of the party rather than the party deciding if he/she is a Democrat.

[Trek234]

22. Is it not legal though

for a party to refuse to support a person, even if that persons claims he/she is a Democrat?

i.e. lets say tomorrow Rick Perry decided he wanted to call him self a Democrat. That is all fine and good, but the Democratic party can still choose to refuse to support him or be affiliated with him, correct?

I'm not saying people should not be allowed to call themselves Democrats, but that the party should decide rather or not to support them.

[Pepperbelly]

26. purges are so ...

passe'.

Who decides who goes and who stays?

No way.

[Yupster]

27. I'd nominate Lyndon Larouche

I don't think he's really a Democrat.

You can be a liberal, moderate or conservative Democrat, but I don't think LaRouche is any of them. He just uses the party for his own opportunism.

[dudeness]

28. when do we start building the gulags?

n/t

[Trek234]

30. Nice extreme

The Republicans don't tolerate people in there party behaving this way. If a Republican consistantly dealt major blows to the Republican party you can be DAMN sure they would loose the support of the pary quickly and effectively.

You don't see very many Republicans betraying the party. I wonder why?

Last time I checked they also controlled the majority of the state legislatures, the governorships, the national congress, the white house, and more and more of the courts. They don't tolerate people from within destroying them. Too bad Dems haven't picked up on this yet.

[robbedvoter]

31. YES! LaRouche, Koch should be pilloried in a public place

or at least denounced clearly to all democrats as the frauds they are (only keeping the membership to discredit us). There are a few more names but I can't think of now. LaPore moved out.

[quaker bill]

32. It is simple

Let's just elect someone who stands for democratic values. If we actually get that going on these folks will get uncomfortable and abandon the party on their own.

[einsteins stein]

33. Oooh! Oooh! A Purge? Pick Me! Pick ME!!!

If there were to be a purge in the party, I would want to be included. I volunteer for early removal.

Democracy should not be an exclusive club, with membership determined by a party elite. That's why I left the Repuke paty so many moons ago.

I don't always agree with the Dem party line, but I always feel welcomed, which is why I know that the Dem party is my political home. I would fight to keep it that way, and leave it rather than compromise on that issue. :-)