Where will you stand in 06 and 08 when the DINO's of the House and Senate

[kid a]

start blasting Cindy Sheehan as an extreme, out of touch, leftist radical?

Would your local DEM leader share a stage with her in your hometown? What are they afraid of?

I'll get back to you when Max Baucus and Cindy cohost our local Dem BBQ.

[William769]

1. I'll stand with the Democratic party.

[Union Thug]

2. If it comes from my senators and congressmen/women, I'll vote Green. N/T

[Somawas]

4. Me too. I've had it with pro-War Democrats.

[...of J.Temperance]

3. If Cindy Sheehan starts beating up on Democrats

Then I'm afraid I'll personally have to wash my hands of her. The first NEW rule should be: Democrats don't beat up on Democrats, at least NOT in public.

We ALL need to be on the SAME hymnsheet, at least in public.

[Atman]

10. Then YOU embrace Leiberbush

I don't think that "new rule" works for us as it did for the republicans. They are locksteppers by nature. A lack of critical thinking skills is part of what made them become republicans. They need to worship something, to have ultimate faith in their leaders.

Democrats, liberals, by our very nature, don't simply accept something because we're told to. I would sooner stick a flaming poker in my eye than cheer on the likes of Joe Leiberman, no matter who is standing next to him on the podium. Part of our mission should be to explain why we're democrats and what we're about loud and clear, and force the DINO's like Joe to explain to the crowds why they appear so far out of step with the rest of the party.

[William769]

14. The rest of the party does not vote for him

His constituents do.

[Atman]

18. I am one of his constituents!

And I've written him and called him and told him what I think. He always responds with the nicest form letters!

[Larkspur]

47. I'm one of Lieberman's constituents and I'm not voting for him in 2006

The only vote he gets from me is one convicting him of enabling a war criminal.

[msongs]

19. seems she has already started. maybe her crusade is running out of

steam.

Msongs
www.msongs.com/political-shirts.htm

[Cults4Bush]

24. Then you'd be wrong I think...

Cindy IIRC is not a Dem and this is still a free country and we are not the repugs who demand blind faith no matter what... of course thats just an opinion for the most part just like your post and most posts on DU.

[elehhhhna]

5. Show me a real Dem & I'll vote for him/her.

[oasis]

6. Dem leaders will neither "blast" Cindy nor embrace her. They'll do the

smart thing by keeping their eyes on the "re-election" prize. Bush will be the target of their blasts.

[Dogmudgeon]

7. Democrats not good enough for you, Bunky?

Well, you could vote Republican.

Or, you could stop griping about how bad the current bunch of Democrats are and actually run for office.

--p!

[Neil Lisst]

8. I'm a DEMOCRAT, and I hope you are, too.

What is this obsession some Dems have with carping about those in the party who don't agree with them on many issues? Do you think Montana is going to elect a vegan-green party-socialist? Elections are choices of the people who live there. It's ridiculous for city dwelling members of the party's left to think that Dems in the rural states can be DEMS and vote the way that will make urban Dems happy.

This party will not win the presidency or get the House or Senate back without middle of the road and conservative Dems. Alienating them is the best way to lose.

In 2006, I will support any DEM candidate who will support the ticket and the party. I could care less about Cindy Sheehan. If she's not supporting the party, to hell with her.

[Dhalgren]

12. So the progressives can't put forward their ideology, but have

to acquiesce to the moderate/right? Why is being a Democrat defined by the moderate/right? And if the progressives have to shut up and sit down, why don't the moderate/right have to, as well? If the moderate/right like Republicans so much, maybe they should just vote that way. Do moderate/right Democrats prefer Republicans over progressive Democrats? If progressives can't find a home in the Democratic party, they should look else where. And don't blame the progressives when the Democrats lose, blame the moderate/right...

[Neil Lisst]

17. How can you read my post, and react as you have?

Stop with all the labels!! They're words flying around your head that may or may not mean anything.

YOU have a set of values that can be objectively placed on a political continuum. So does everyone else. Winning elections is about finding the point in the middle that 51% will support, and going with whatever compromises that entails.

When a Max Baucus comes from Montana, your choice is not him or Dennis Kucinich. It's him or some Neanderthal like former Wyoming Senator Simpson. It is WRONG for Democrats in one part of the country to judge harshly Dems in another part, and that is true of San Franciso and Montana. That which is being a good Dem in SF is not being a good Dem in Helena.

[Dhalgren]

21. I understand your point, but I disagree with at least some of it.

In the fifties the Democratic party made a stand on civil rights and many southern Democrats left the party, because they could not bring themselves to accept African Americans as equals. I could care less that they left - good riddance. I am glad that the Democratic Party stood on principle, on a nation-wide platform, and said, "This is who we are." The division within the Democratic Party between the pro-war and anti-war groups is fundamental. It cannot be that it is ok to support the war if you are from Alabama, but ok to be against it if you are from New York. The Party needs to decide, as a party, where it stands on the Iraqi war. Then the people can choose where to place their allegiance.

[creeksneakers2]

23. Progressives should run candidates too

Progressive candidates in open races are welcome. The candidate that is nominated should be supported by everybody on the left, whether he is moderate or more progressive. Third party challenges against incumbents only hurt the cause.

If Democrats ever have a large enough majority, we can then afford to let a few of the less liberal go.

[ComerPerro]

25. Good post

[INdemo]

9. Local politics..

there are a lot of Democrats(I'm sorry to say) in my county that will talk the talk but when it comes right down to it they sshhhhhhh (be quite) "I don't want anyone to know I'm a Democrat"..I found this out on a couple occasions raising money for Democrat candidate's. I tell it like it is and I don't think there is any question that when I see a Republican and I don't have to say a word ..they read my mind..The Bush White House is crumbling..and they are waiting for me to say I told ya so..

[Larkspur]

11. In regards to Iraq, I'll stand with Cindy and I'm the secretary of my

town's Dem Committee.

I've already resolved NOT to vote for Joe Lieberman in 2006. I'll write someone in. Lieberman is a war criminal along with Bush and Cheney.

As far as other issues, I'll make my decisions after I hear hers and the Dems viewpoints.

[Neil Lisst]

20. So, DU Rule 1 doesn't mean anything to you?

1. ... Members are expected to be generally supportive of progressive ideals, and to support Democratic candidates for political office.

[Larkspur]

30. The Nuremburg Trials strongly suggest that I don't support war criminals

Lieberman is a war criminal, and the Nuremburg Trials and Geneva Convention are stronger princples than DU Rule #1.

When this chapeter of history is written, Ahmed Chalabi will go down as the greatest con artist in history. He fooled the world's only remaining superpower into a war based upon deceit and delusions. Lieberman called Chalabi, a convicted embezzeler, a "principled man," and sided with Chalabi's delusional views on Iraq.

DU can not force me to vote for or support a Dem I abhor. They can suggest it, but they can not enforce what I do in the privacy of the voting booth, nor can DU force me to donate time or money to a Dem candidate I abhor.

I've consistantly stated my opposition and dislike of Lieberman on this board for a long time, and I'm not alone in my antipathy towards Lieberman.

[Neil Lisst]

39. I support the Party, I'm a Democrat, win, lose, or draw.

I'm not looking to make every Dem think like I do, and I certainly don't consider pro War Dems to be war criminals. That is the kind of talk that gets Dems defeated every two years.

[nadinbrzezinski]

41. We are talking of VERY SPECIFIC people in the party

who hold the views of the PNAC folks, and Joe happens to be one of them.

From what I have heard from DIFi she is also one of them, and her hubby works for the Carlyle group...

[Larkspur]

46. The 2003 Iraq war is a war crime and the Dems, like Hillary, want to keep

the slaughter going, but they don't want to sacrifice their kids to their war god in Iraq. That's the same mentality of Lyndon Johnson and Robert McNamara who eschalated the slaugher in Vietnam.

Your attitude is not much different that the Repukes who blindly support Bush hell or highwater. I held my nose and voted for Kerry in 2004, not because I liked him, but because Bush was driving this nation into disaster. I don't think Kerry would have been able to resolve Iraq and he would have been hounded 24/7/365 by a extremely hostile Repuke Congress.

The Repuke machine had to collpase from within from their own corruption. That was the only good thing about Bush winning re-election. It would finally unmask the Repukes to the American public for what they are -- robber barons who have little care for the welfare of ordinary Americans. But the Dem Leadership has not shown courage in our current moral crisis, so it's no wonder polls show Dems not gaining ground on Repukes.

[nadinbrzezinski]

35. So we are to fall on the side of war criminals

just becuase they are Dems?

Even the military has sections on ilegal orders... and Lieberman and Feinstein are NOT democrats, the are DLC, big difference... even if tehy have a D behind their names.

I will NOT vote for Feinstein either... and people are STARTING to realize that this is part of taking back the party from these people who put their wallets and the coprorations before the people... they are just far more gentle about it than the Cons... the end result is the same.

[Neil Lisst]

45. Oh, Please! They've been Democrats longer than those who claim

they are not Democrats!

I'm amazed at the number of people who think the Democratic party is what they believe or nothing, and many of those same people will tell you they will abandon the party and vote Green if the party doesn't adhere to their beliefs.

You don't have to like Feinstein or Lieberman, but saying they aren't Dems is factually incorrect. They ARE Democrats, duly elected by the citizens of their state. That makes them certifiable Democrats. On the other hand, those who claim to be Democrats but will not commit to back the party nominee, no matter who it is, those people are not Democrats.

I will back the nominees of the party, whoever they are. I'm not a Democrat who bails if my point of view doesn't prevail.

[jonnyblitz]

43. and what if the DEM candidates do NOT support progressive

ideals? my ideals come before supporting some cowardly party hack. I have been a member of DU since 2003 but feel free to hit the alert button on me if I am not behaving enough like a sheeple for you. I could really care less anymore. :shrug:

[Smarmie Doofus]

13. Sheehan aside, if they are still voting to fund this vile war...

I'll vote third party. I'm in NY, so we have a few alternatives to Greens... whose stupidity ( thanks Ralph, et. al.) got us into this fix.

I already stopped $$$ supporting NY State party because of Clinton's and Schumer's "judgment" and "leadership" on the Iraq issue.

If Weld ran as anti-war republican vs. Clinton( he won't), I'd vote for Weld.

[Catchawave]

15. Not from the Edwards camp....

http://www.oneamericacommittee.com/speakout/

Also, my local Dem (Va-2)is an iraq vet against the war!!!!

See:http://judybrowni.dailykos.com/storyonly/2005/10/11/20332/397

David Ashe lost to Tom Delay whore Thelma Drake who received 5,000 of his laundered money for swiftboating David! Can you believe he lost??!!?? Hopefully Paul Hackett raised the bar for "nice" Dems!!!

[Mark E. Smith]

16. No Democrat has "blasted Cindy Sheehan."

I understand the need for NID (Naderine In Disguise) types such as yourself to try and peel away Democratic voters for whatever mysterious agenda you're flogging at the moment.

But since DU is not a faith-based site by and large, try and keep your attacks reality based. It will help you to maintain any claim to at least marginal credibility.

[MadHound]

22. A great intelligent, telling, uncomfortable, question friend.

And one that cuts to the quick of the Democratic party. Do people put their ethics and morals ahead of their loyalty to the party? Is ending a deadly, immoral, illegal, in perpetuity war more important than electing anybody who has a D behind their name?

Sadly though, judging from the '04 election, party loyalty takes precidence over all, and we will be bullied and browbeaten to check that D box, even if it is for a Democrat with Iraqi blood on their hands.

The party has been at this crossroads before, and the impacts have been long felt. After Bobby Kennedy was tragically killed, the party spewed forth H. Humphrey, and thus became decidedly pro war. The anti-war wing of the Democratic party was suppressed, sometimes brutally as we saw Daley do in Chicago '68.

This rift sent many on the left away from politics and voting, some for a long long while, some until this day. After all goes the reasoning, it has been demonstrated time and again that it isn't morals that motivate both parties, but the almighty dollar. Even when it is blood money that they are bringing in.

It is past time that we the people actually hold our leaders accountable for their actions. Rewarding people who violate our moral sensabilities time and again is not a strategy the will improve our country or society. Sacrificing one's morals on the alter of political expediency only insures that we, both singly and collectively, will be sacrificed on that self same alter.

The conventional wisdom states that this is a losing strategy, yet time and again we have seen just exactly how successful Democrats can be when they put the collective ethics of the people ahead of political loyalty. FDR, Kennedy, Wellstone, and many more provide the model for us.

In a democracy our leaders are supposed to represent OUR views, OUR collective ethics. It is abundantly clear now that the American people are against this war. Any candidate coming up for election in '06 and '08 should be decidedly, demonstrably against this war, and should pledge to end it ASAP. We shouldn't be rewarding those who would shed ever more innocent blood in the name of party politics.

Otherwise it is we the people who will have that innocent blood on OUR hands.

[Dhalgren]

26. Well said! And absolutely right!

[Democrat 4 Ever]

27. We cannot begin to fix this country until we get back in power.

There, I said. Don't like, hate to admit but I'm a realist. We cannot do diddly squat until we are in the majority. If it takes re-electing some DINOs, then so be it. We are doing the repugs job for them by constantly dividing and arguing among ourselves.

No, I don't like any politician that voted for this war, no I don't like anyone who took part in the ballooning of the budget, cutting programs, etc. etc. etc. I want them all gone. But if you think that by standing on the "higher moral ground" while getting out butts kicked election cycle after election cycle you are wrong. That is what we have been doing and it isn't working. When you are cleaning house you start with the dirtiest and lowest parts first and work your way up.

I'll work on taking out the repugs first. If we don't there won't be anything left to clean. I respect Cindy, I support Cindy, but not if she is going after Democratic politicians. There is a clear distinction between the lesser of two evils and I'm going with the Dems right now. The stakes are too high to split the party.

[Larkspur]

31. The problem with this theory is that it condones supporting corrupt

Democrats, who will do to the Dem Party what the Delays are doing to the Repuke Party.

No, Democrats need to support Dem principles, which are largely progressive, and Dem leaders who do not meet those principles should not be supported.

[MadHound]

42. And while we play politics, tens of thousands continue to die

Day in, day out, year in, year out, democrats in, democrats out. What good does it do to be in power if that power is continued to be used in illegal, immoral, and deadly ways?

Besides, I propose that we can do both, regain power and retake the higher ethical ground, end the war. The majority of Americans, vast majority are sick of this war, they want it to end. How does taking the popular opinion and running on it equate to a losing position? This is, after all, in a nominal sort of fashion, still a represenative democracy that we live in. Our respresenatives are supposed to follow the wishes of their constituents. And if you do so, again, how is that a losing proposition?

You don't like voting for pro war Dems, I don't like voting for pro war Dems, the majority of Democratic voters(not to mention Republican) don't want to vote for a Democratic candidate who is going to perpetuate this war, so you know what? DON'T! This is what primaries are all about! I don't care if it is Lieberman, Clinton, Kerry! They voted for the IWR, they continue to nod in favor of the funding, they're gone! And then gee, we have an anti-war slate with which to face the prowar 'Pugs. And again, let me remind you, the majority of Americans want to bring the troops home, and it is the highest priority item on most voters minds. Sounds like a winning strategy to me friend.

As far as Cindy goes, nothing but good on her. She is a part of our collective conscience in this country, and the job of one's conscience is to force you to face up to things that you know are wrong and immoral. This is what she is doing, and the state of one's conscience should not be a partisan one, otherwise you are engaging in that most acidic of moral shortcomings, hypocrisy. Hypocrisy eats at your base, your foundation, the very collective moral fiber of the party. And thus, due to past and ongoing hypocrisy within the Democratic party, we all wind up voting for evil, and at times we're not even sure whether it is the greater or lesser that we're voting for.

And finally friend, to compare the political catastrophe of splitting a part with the ongoing horror that our country is engaged in Iraq is a bit of a stretch by any measure. Splitting the party is a short term political disaster, though it might be the best thing for this country in the long run. The war in Iraq is killing innocent men, women and children on a daily basis, a tragedy that will not end until generations from now. To buy into that false comparison is to compromise one's soul in ways that I shudder to comprehend.

Instead, embrace the moral highground, and the people, vote and power will follow. Paul Hackett, among many others, have the model to follow. Will it be easy, no, doing good rarely is. But in ways beyond our comprehension, embracing the moral high ground and fighting to achieve it will profoundly effect us, the country and the world for the better.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

28. I'll be voting (anti-war) Green in '06. Probably Green in '08.

My senator who is up (Cantwell WA-D) voted for the war. She won't get my vote. If the Dems are suicidal enough to nominate a pro-war candidate again, I'll be voting (G) in '08.

[CHestonsucks]

29. No election should boil down to one issue.

If Sheehan has an issue with Dems that support the war, she should say so and speak clearly. I couldn't blame a mother that gave her son's life for something she never believed was right. This seems like the true Hell on earth, to sacrafice a child on the altar of the current administration's troglodyte approach to foreign policy, and I use the term most guardedly.

Since I'm from a blue state, the one right next to idiot Liebermann's in fact, I don't expect my representatives at the federal level to make an issue of Cindy Sheehan, not when the real culprits are Bush and his awful cronies.

Politicians, bless their timid little hearts, are afraid above all of Controversy. Principled stands on any issue always seem to fail in the face of non-stop propaganda, just the sort of "cultural issue" politics that have allowed Republicans to acquire a disproportionate number of seats in the Congress, not to mention win elections, since 2000. I'm not discounting fraud, viz Tom DeLay, either.

Politics is the art of the possible and a principled politician will win when a majority of the voters place true value on principle rather than sucking up propaganda.

[nadinbrzezinski]

32. I've said it repeteadly I will do the best I can do to show `

my displeasure, I will vote for somebody else. Oh and it is not becuase of Cindy, but because that is a symptom of how much they are attached to the corporate tit

[MrBenchley]

33. Me, I'll stand with the Democrats...

[onenote]

34. Tell me how you tell if someone is a DINO

What makes a Democrat a DINO. If a Dem has 90-100% scores from the ADA and other liberal organizations (and scores in the 20's and below from the American Conserv. Union and their ilk) are they still "DINOs" simply because there may be one issue on which they deviate from someone's orthodoxy?

Can't tell a DINO without a scorecard....

onenote

[nadinbrzezinski]

36. Ok lets take dianne feinsten

She has started to vote the "right way" in the recent past because she is an uncanny politico and can smell the winds of change. But lets review her voting record on things that matter to me....

The bankruptcy bill for it
NAFTA For it
IWR for it
I could go on...

She has done things that are not personal orthodoxy, but that in my view are not helping me and the people of the US... She is also a member of the DLC, and her husband is a member of the Carlyle group. Is she better than a Moderate Republican? Probably not, but they are a rare species, because the DLC is what the Moderate Repubs used to be. Is she preferable to the run of the mill Repub? yes... but that does not mean that I, in good conscience, can vote for her.

In the end this is an individual decision, that is why they are called elections. But at the end of the day, I will not do what the Repubs do, hold my nose and vote for them just because they have a D behind their name... sorry will not do it... for me it is about the individual and a choice between a Dem or third party... notice not republican or for that matter libertarian, but the D or third party.

[onenote]

37. hold your nose or cut it off to spite your face? which is worse

I'm not going to help elect repubs. Period. The lesser of two evils is still less evil.

onenote

[nadinbrzezinski]

38. If you say so

the history of this country is clear... the New Deal came from a revolt from the base. It is called the Populist party and we are at a very similar moment. Notice I am not saying form a third party, but voting for the DLC is not going to help you either

So you hold your nose ok... I take my cue from US History and the only way they are going to get it, is if they see a full fledged revolt

[Greyhound]

40. I'd vote for Riordan before I'd vote for Feinstein.

She's one of the worst politiwhores in D.C. and that aint easy to do.

[mmonk]

44. I stand against any democrat that backs

the present foreign policy. I do so because I support the constitution of the US above political power and will not support illegal war that conflicts with standing international law that the US helped establish. This crap has to end.