A choice between only a DINO and a Republican is a false choice.

[MikeG]

This country is split 50/50.

If you run a real Democrat, real Democrats will vote for him.

If a DINO keeps enabling Republicans he must go.

This is what the Republicans did to gain power.

[Lone Pawn]

1. Incorrect.

If you have a DINO vs a Republican with absolutely no 'Real Democrats' waiting on the sidelines, or if you have a DINO vs a Republican in a district with no chance in Hell of electing anyone left of Clinton, then trying to destroy the DINO will only remove a halfway-Democrat and replace him with a full-on Republican.

Christ, you all would rather have a Senate of 20 pure Democrats and 80 Republicans than a Senate of 60 Democrats of various degrees and 40 Republicans.

[MikeG]

4. No. A real Democrat will win because he believes what he says.

[AP]

21. Why didn't that happen in SD?

[GreenArrow]

31. lies and money and

probably becuause Daschle took too many middle of the road stances. Made 'imsef look all quishly-like, he did.

[Lone Pawn]

43. He wasn't painted as a quishy spineless nobody,

he was painted as a hard lefty. He was attacked as a hard lefty, and thrown out for being a lefty.

[Inland]

9. Would you rather have the status quo or

a senate full of Joe Liebermans?

Well, given that you can at least ask Joe to pull his head out of his ass and there is a chance he might, and that Joe is less likely to follow Bush for the purpose of making him seem invincible, I'd take the latter.

[Lone Pawn]

44. I'd rather have the Joenate than the Republican Senate we've got now.

[DancingBear]

2. See how simple it is?

Thanks - I've been arguing this 'choice' is nothing but a red herring for the last hour.

.

[sandnsea]

3. No

The Republicans pretend to be Democrats in swing areas. They run on pro-choice, pro gay rights, pro environment, pro public schools; and they win.

They do not run on anti-military, anti-corporate, free health care, jobs for all platforms. Anybody who thinks a "real" Democrat can run on that and win, well...

[MikeG]

5. The key is believing in what you say. Reagan did. It was his secret weapon

[sandnsea]

6. Suuurrre it is

You can believe in communism with every bone in your body, but you're never going to sell it to the American people.

[stray cat]

14. I really believe in raising taxes but that is not a popular platform.

[tx_dem41]

16. But, Reagan didn't really believe what he said.

The government under him did not get smaller, no? He was a huge spender, no?

[AP]

22. Yeah, Reagan believed he served in WWII, but he only acted in a movie...

...about WWII.

At least he believed in what he was saying.

[Rowdyboy]

7. When the Democrats in Colorado chose Ken Salazar over Mike Miles

they made a choice. They chose to nominate a moderate Democrat instead of a liberal Democrat. Possibly, they thought the moderate Democrat had a better chance to win. :shrug: They Did not nominate a "DINO"-they elected a moderate Colorado Democrat.

The Democratic party of Colorado made that choice and that is their right as more moderate Democrats. Just the same way the Democrats of Louisiana chose a moderate Mary Landrieu instead of more liberal alternatives. Not all Democrats are liberal. They never have been and they never will be.

Just because Senator Salazar's or Senator Landrieu's votes do not match some purist test does not mean they are Democrats in name only. It means that they represent a different wing of the party than you occupy. Wasting time and money trying to undermine them is counterproductive. The time and money should be spent on the real enemy-people like Sanctorum, Allen and McConnell.

[Frances]

10. Hear! Hear!

as the British say.

You expressed my thoughts much better than I could have.

Just one addition: At least Joe Lieberman & his kind would help the Dems have a majority in the Senate. If you are the majority in the Senate, you have power. If you are the minority in the Senate, no matter how "pure," you have no power.

[Rowdyboy]

13. As I recall, when Democrats had a majority in the senate, moderates

were far more likely to vote progressively. Perhaps they were emboldened by the fact that they ran committees, and held leadership positions, but the fact remains-when liberals controlled the senate, many moderates voted with them. Since then, moderates have seen many of their more liberal colleagues defeated and replaced with Republicans. Maybe thats why that now that conservatives control the senate, many moderates are voting with them. It's the nature of the beast to be re-elected.

[Padraig18]

17. A sensible enough explanation.

Furthermore, if the moderates aren't re-elected and are replaced by RW Repubs, the chances of their ameliorating the bad bills plunges to zero. Maybe they're 'keeping their powder dry', and thereby doing us a service.

[GreenArrow]

34. Moderates blow with the wind

they know which side their bread is buttered on.

[Rowdyboy]

39. Yes they do, and all politicians share one over-riding goal-re-election

Democratic moderates have seen their most outspoken liberal colleagues defeated at the polls in recent years. Hell, even moderates like Daschle are being beated by hard right conservatives. Moderate Dems are scared and they're acting like it.

[DancingBear]

12. Two questions

1) Do you think Colorado Dem's are having "buyers remorse" (I am not from Colorado, but I sincerely am wondering if the Salazar that sits in Congress is the Salazar they though they were voting for)

2) What wing of the party would that be? I'm not aware of one that equate torture and lying under oath with Cabinet positions, but if there are Dems out there that agree with it, give me their names.

[Rowdyboy]

25. Two answers

1) I have no idea. Since Salazar has only made a relatively few major votes, I imagine he's still pretty well respected by the Colorado electorate. I know from this board that some Colorado liberal activists are angry, but there is a huge difference between activists and the general electorate so I would think he's still in a "honeymoon" with average voters.

2) Once again, there is a difference between activists and the general electorate. I honestly don't believe the average Democratic voter wakes up in the morning angry that Alberto Gonzales is attorney general. In truth, I doubt the average Democratic voter could even tell you who Alberto Gonzales is. From the senate vote on Secretary Gonzales, it would appear obvious that there is indeed a substantial wing of the party that is willing to give the president his choice. 90%+ of all presidential cabinet nominees are routinely approved and have been for decades. This is the reality that we face, so this vote isn't particularly shocking, at least not to me.

[DancingBear]

33. Thanks for your well-reasoned responses

I agree with your wholeheartedly on #2 - I am guessing most of the electorate has no idea of Gonzalez's beliefs, hence they feel no anger toward him or Bush for the choice.

I must say, however, that the Congress DID know, and for them to confirm on the flimsy excuse of "well, it's been like this for years" holds no sway with me. It is this wing of the party who should be held accountable, and again we as a party have been remiss in not holding to a united front against such an appointee.

If his decisions come back to haunt, what can we say then??

[Rowdyboy]

38. When Gonzales backfires on Bush (and he will), it will be Bush's problem

He made the nomination and he'll bear the entire blame-not the senators that approved his choice. Same with this nutcase Bush has nominated to head the UN. Hell, after raking him over the coals during his confirmation, Democrats should just sit back and watch the implosion when he starts throwing hand grenades in the UN General Assembly.

Give George Bush enough rope, and he'll hang himself.

[AP]

24. Do informed Republicans try to sabotage NE Republicans, btw?

I have a feeling that they don't.

[Rowdyboy]

28. Hell, Olympia Snow, Susan Collins, and Lincoln Chafee routinely

defy the party and the Freepers smile and nod. Oh, they may bitch a bit, but its nowhere near as nasty as we treat our moderates.

[Inland]

8. Nice, but meaningless slogan.

You never say what race you think would be won, or what the "real democrat" is. Since everyone counting themselves as a democrat, which would be all the real and the fake, are still a minority, how do you get to victory?

So it's a slogan, not a hypotheisis. I could pretty much guess that your idea of a real democrat wouldn't win in my district. But why guess at what you meant.

[stray cat]

11. I'll take a DINO over a Trent Lott, W, Frist, and many other repubs.

A DINO as as a senator of Texas or Missisippi would really be great. Since states elect senators - a moderate democrat representing a conservative state would be a vast improve over having a radical republican elected instead.

[DancingBear]

15. But would you take a real Dem over a DINO?

A DINO would never beat Lott, or Frist - so why not run real Dems against them?

Don't make the mistake of equating "pure" Dems with ultra-liberals, as many here have. I worked my ass off for Wes Clark in the primaries, and he is as "pure" a Dem as I can find.

[stray cat]

19. In that case I do agree with you

I was equating "pure" Dems with ultra-liberals and I think a real dem like Clark could have a chance at winning amost anyplace.

Thanks for you work for Clark.

[DancingBear]

23. You're welcome

Say, do we even HAVE any ultra-liberals left?? :)

[GreenArrow]

36. no,

we have ultra-moderates.

[leyton]

18. Actually, it's a very important choice: committees.

I don't know the exact breakdown, but elect ten DINOs and what do you get? Maybe ten people who will vote with the GOP some of the time. You also get committee seats to fill at the discretion of the majority leader and if you reclaim the majority that's chairmanships. The number of Democrats in the Senate means a big deal. Throw out the DINOs and elect Republicans, you make a world of difference in committees.

And don't even get me started about cloture.

[tx_dem41]

20. Oh, now there you go interjecting common sense into the conversation...

shame on you.

[DancingBear]

29. No, you are arguing from a false premise again

Stating that if not a DINO, then a Repub. The question to be answered (and so far no one arguing in the defense of the DINO has come up with an answer) is why not a "true" Dem instead of a DINO?

When that questioned is asked, the committee question (and all other procedural issues) becomes mute.

I will use Wes Clark as an example here, since I know his politics and his positions well. Clark lives in Colorado, and runs for Senate instead of Salazar. Does he win? Clark lives in Louisiana, and runs for Senate. Does he win?

I say "yes" to both questions, and I say without question that Clark is no DINO. Rather, he is someone who defines what a 'true" Dem is, and makes no bones about stating it!

THIS is what we "progressives" are talking 'bout... :)

[tx_dem41]

32. Not trying to play games with you, but I don't believe Clark is a DINO...

...so your example kind of falls flat with me.

[DancingBear]

35. Just saying that we CAN win running real Dems

Using Wes as an example here.

[tx_dem41]

37. It all depends on what a "real" Dem is...and what state they are ..

running in, which runs counter to your point, I realize. Sorry, we'll just disagree.

[ktowntennesseedem]

26. I'll be anti-DINO in any primary election,

but if that's the best choice in a general election, I'll vote for the DINO a thousand times before I'd ever vote for the Repug, or before I'd stay home without voting which is almost equal to a Repug vote.

[Pepperbelly]

27. that's worked real well for you in PA, hasn't it?

You would probably prefer what you have in PA over the 2 Democratic Senators in my state since neither of the could possily elude the DINO label by the purists here.

So how do you like having 2 gop Senators? And whatever will you do if pro-life Casey gets the nomination next year?

[Rowdyboy]

30. LOL Good point! Perhaps Pennsylvania could learn a lesson from

that little red state, Arkansas (home of Bill Clinton, Wes Clark and J William Fullbright).

[Pepperbelly]

40. Arkansas Democrats are smart, tough, and always swimming ...

against the bullshit. Dale Bumpers, one the finest Senators, IMHO, in the history of the republic, has said that in each and every election he stood, he had to counter gops screaming LIBERAL! at him.

And he won every single election. Substantially. Tom Daschle should have talked to Dale in 04.

[Rowdyboy]

41. I followed Dale Bumpers through his entire career and its really sad

that he never ran nationally. He was a class act.

[Pepperbelly]

42. of course, he and Bill are good friends ... 2 luckiest men around ...

if i am ever in another plane crash, I want to be sitting between those two.

[FrenchieCat]

45. A "real Democrat" is relative to his state and/or his district

Here in California, we have Boxer and Feinstein. Now Boxer is a real Democrat, but I do think that Feinstein is as well. Boxer is more liberal than Feinstein, but that doesn't make Feinstein into a Dino, but rather, she is a moderate Democrat. My House Representative is Barbara Lee, who is most likely more liberal than either of my two senators (boy, I love living in Northern California).

My point? What a "Real Democrat" is depends on where one lives. It would be impossible these days, to elect a "liberal Democrat" in a conservative state.

Bottomline, when determining who to vote for in the primaries, always keep an eye on the prize; the general election. Democrats can no longer afford to vote for the most liberal, because that's who they like, but rather who can beat the Repug, cause that's really all that counts at the end of it all.