If MoveOn Starts To Attack Democrats ...

[Mark E. Smith]

In a recent e-mail to members MoveOn asked if it would be acceptable to its members if it went after those who are considered to be "right wing Democrats."

So if MoveOn were to start attacking selected Democrats, would you:

[LincolnMcGrath]

1. Should they go after Zell Miller?

:shrug:

[Silverhair]

91. Why bother? He doesn't hold any office. He is retired now. NT

[Mass]

2. Other - All depends who they go after and why.

Somebody right-winger is somebody else left-winger and one year on DU led me to think that people have sometimes weird ideas of who is RW and who is not.

[mrgorth]

21. Agreed

This needs to be DINOs who are CONSISTENT DINOs.

[katinmn]

3. I support MoveOn in this.

Right wingers aren't real Democrats -- are they??

[worldgonekrazy]

72. I say focus on getting a Dem majority

THEN purge the DINOs, when feasible.

I think its just stupid to do this right now though. We need to get a Democratic majority in the House and Senate so we can do shit like launch a real investigation into Bush for the wiretapping. Furthermore, with a Dem majority the DINOs can no longer pretend like they are just going along with Bush because they have to. They will risk truly exposing themselves, and if they do, THEN you go after them.

[nmliberal]

94. I agree. We need a Dem majority first nt

[vi5]

4. Well if they do it...

let's hope they are more successful and effective at attacking them then they were at attacking Bush. We know how well that turned out for us all.

Cue all the responses of "The election was stolen", thus negating any need to discuss anything else.

[seabeyond]

11. democrats are much better attacking dems than repugs. n/t

[Bandit]

49. Sounds like you would rather they stayed silent during 2004

I think they had a major impact. No one is ever going to change the mind of cult followers without proper deprograming taking place. They broadcast the truth and let the chips fall where they may. You don't like that ...tough shit...

[vi5]

78. Did I say that?

I said I hope they were more succesful and effective than they (and for that matter, "we" as a whole on the left) were in 2004. Correct me if I'm wrong, but Bush is still president, no? Therefore I consider my own efforts unsuccesful as well.

As a matter of fact there's plenty of things I wish they were LESS silent about. Like the bankruptcy bill which they admittedly sat out. I also don't recall seeing too many (or maybe just not enough) Moveon Anti-Alito ads.

For the record I'm a moveon donor. I'm just not yet entirely convinced of their effectiveness. You don't like that......tough shit right back at ya.

[Mnemosyne]

5. I answered them with a note to get

Lieberman out of there. He's is a republican. imo

[Tesla]

6. Lieberman is a definate GO!!!

I would just be happy if I didn't have to hear him speak again.

[Mnemosyne]

7. I understand he had a nice time at

the WH Valentine's party. :grr: The suckup!

[Tesla]

8. I bet the Dems were happy he wasn't at theirs......

yawna,yawna, yawna.....

[Mnemosyne]

12. He could bore someone

in a coma! ba dum dum!

[AbbyR]

64. I'd like Mark Pryor gone, too...

but it's not going to happen

[Mnemosyne]

83. What state is Pryor? n/t

[AbbyR]

89. Arkansas n/t

[seabeyond]

9. who are they to decide to go after. i know dems that dont support kerry

are they going after him. how about hillary, feinstein, biden, anyone that voted for iwr, are all the dems up for grabs. people are ranting and raving about dems going after hackett within party, yet here we have the same dems supporting supposed dems going after fellow dems, and we dont even get to know what dems they are going after. are they going after nelson,.... in the reddest of states without a dem to take his place? are they making sure they have viale dem candidates to win these positions?

i am not contributing to moveon for them to take over dem party and decide who we run. i am support moveon to support dems.

[welshTerrier2]

14. "are all the dems up for grabs?" - NO !!

Should we challenge right-wing Democrats?

Our top goal is ending right-wing Republican control of Congress but to make progress on core issues we think MoveOn should challenge right-wing Democrats in primary elections. What do you think? Give us feedback.

Dear MoveOn member,
This year our top goal is breaking the right-wing Republican stranglehold on Congress. That is our main focus every day.

It is also part of our work together to hold Democrats to their Party's highest values on issues like foreign policy, economic prosperity and good government.

That sometimes means grappling with specific right-wing Democrats who consistently side with big corporations and right-wing Republicans.

One approach is to support progressive primary challengers to right-wing Democrats. We think this makes sense but it's a big decision so we wanted to check with you and other MoveOn members. What do you think? Click below to let us know.

The story about "the Democrat who sold out" has become too familiar. Too often progressives tip toe around these betrayals. But there needs to be real consequences for these Democrats.

Replacing a right-wing Democrat with a more progressive Democrat will help voters more clearly understand what Democrats stand for—and that will help Democrats win.

Many of these conservative Democrats we would challenge represent states or districts that are heavily Democratic—so we're not imperiling a Democratic majority by doing this.

Why is this a big decision? At some level it isn't—we've consistently held Democrats feet to the fire on a long list of issues. But challenging right-wing Democrats in an electoral setting would be new for MoveOn.org Political Action. That is why we're asking for your feedback. Click below to let us know what you think.

Who are the Democrats we would challenge? One example is Congressman Henry Cuellar in Texas. Cuellar is a right-wing Democrat infamous for supporting the Bush agenda and Republican legislation.

He is wrong on many core Democratic issues like the war and Medicare, he often undermines key Democratic initiatives and too often pokes progressives in the eye with his votes and statements. (More on Cuellar tomorrow.)

We would start with the worst like Cuellar and work to build a progressive majority one election at a time.

A Democratic majority will be a big step towards progressive reform. But at the same time we have to work to build a progressive majority that will work towards bold reforms.

P.S. Here are some key practices we'll follow:

Member endorsement. MoveOn.org Political Action only endorses candidates with the consent of MoveOn members in the state or district - surveying them before an endorsement. If members are split, we won't endorse.

Viable candidates. We don't want to waste your money—so we work hard to pick candidates who have a real shot at winning.

A progressive majority. We believe that all Democrats are not the same—and we work to elect progressive members of Congress when we can.

[sandnsea]

25. Brown is the Ohio Progressive

So what's the beef in supporting him.

This isn't about supporting anybody. It's a lynch mob mentality that just wants revenge against the Bushies and would support Hitler himself if he promised to bring down the House of Bush and Saud. Some people have really got to take a step back from the brink themselves.

[welshTerrier2]

28. the proposed program hasn't even started yet ...

first, and let me be clear on this, i made no endorsement in Hackett versus Brown ...

MoveOn has not even begun this program yet ... they have provided a very clear definition of what this would and would NOT entail ... frankly, their support of Hackett would NOT be acceptable under the proposed program ... the first candidate they want to run a progressive against is Cuellar ... it that OK with you??

their definition states that they would only support a challenger to a conservative incumbent Democrat where most of their members in that specific district agreed to support a challenge ... if the district is divided, they won't do it ... first of all, Brown is not an incumbent and secondly, they would not support a challenger in cases where their membership was divided ...

what's your big attachment to very conservative incumbent Democrats?? why are you opposed to helping OTHER DEMOCRATS run against them?? do you oppose having primaries?? do you want to automatically support every incumbent Democrat regardless of their voting record?? should citizens have the right to encourage more progressive candidates to run against incumbents??

asking local voters whether they want to support a primary challenge is hardly acting like a lynch mob ... just who do you think should have control over what candidates run in the primaries?

[sandnsea]

34. It's NOT about progressive politics either

If it were, the logical choice would have been Brown from the gate.

Perhaps Moveon's timing is the problem here, or maybe the tone of their message. I certainly support a primary challenge against Cuellar, I just don't like the sound of their scorched earth email.

I also am more than tired of the bashing of so-called (D) supporters, by people who consistently get behind the most centrist candidate, then turn right around and bash them as DLC sell-outs when they vote exactly the way anybody would have known they would, if they'd paid 2 seconds worth of attention to their careers.

Clark? Warner? Bayh? Even Dean. What does anybody think these people are going to do if they get into the White House. They're friggin' CENTRISTS.

Drives me batty.

[welshTerrier2]

40. "friggin centrists"

i have one word in response to those you characterized: "Yup" ...

it's amazing to me that many of the Dean people still believe he's the anti-war, McGovern-wing of the Party, progressive ... Dean called for continuing the US occupation of Iraq through the end of 2007 ... two f**king years !!!

trust me, when i attend my "left-wing, radical extremist subversive meetings", we don't endorse Dean's right-wing views on Iraq ... i hear your frustrations; i agree with them ...

[sandnsea]

44. bwahahaha

"left-wing, radical extremist subversive meetings" :rofl:

I hadn't heard Dean supports continuing the occupation through 2007. At the current military numbers?

I still say if we'd gotten behind 20,000 Home for the Holidays, it would have created a momentum and expectation that we'd bring all the troops home this year. Military disengagement, Sovereign Iraq, the exact when isn't as important as the how and that we start getting to it in a real way.

*sigh*

[welshTerrier2]

48. "my recollection" of Dean's war position

i believe what Dean said was that we should bring home all National Guard (and certain other categories) during 2006 (about 80,000) with the rest out by the end of 2007 ... i can't begin to tell you how disgusted i am with his proposal ... and how anyone believes he has a "liberal" view on Iraq boggles the mind ... it's like the media gave him the reputation and everyone just accepts it without hearing what he's actually proposed ...

as for the Democratic Party, has any Democrat even spoken about the war over the last month or two? i haven't heard anything ... it's like there's no leadership and no interest in the war at all ... some of the prominent Dems made their little speeches during all the big "Murtha hoopla" and have since moved on to other business ... leadership requires a daily commitment to educating the public and making the case ...

have i just not been paying attention or has Iraq been pushed to the Party's back burner???

[sandnsea]

51. I've noticed

I could be wrong, but my guess would be... Hillary. She's so bound and determined that she has to be tough on Iraq and defense in order to win the Presidency and her and her cross-country Hillary Heist has silenced half the people running this year. The Party has proven it can win fights when it wants to, ANWR, Social Security, a few others last year. They either don't recognize it or can't come together on the fights they really need to win. I still can't believe Murtha and Kerry couldn't get together and split the difference over their withdrawal plans in order to get it done. The whole thing is insane to me. We've lost more troops in Iraq than Americans on 9/11. Insane.

[welshTerrier2]

56. a glimpse of the monster ...

i've been kind of brewing up a post called "a glimpse of the monster" ... it's a good monster not a bad monster ...

i've seen it twice now ... the first time was the energy, and the unity, on DU when Kerry called for filibuster ... it was truly a sight to behold ... that's all gone now ... the turtle has gone back in its shell ...

and the second time, was a couple of weeks ago here in Massachusetts ... the Democratic Party had a front-runner for Governor ... he was "the inside boy" ... he was already annointed ... but, to coin a phrase, a funny thing happened on the way to the forum ...

an upstart candidate, a never-ran-for-office-before political neophyte by the name of Deval Patrick gained 2/3 of the available convention delegates during the local town caucuses across the state ...

there's a message here for our sleeping party ... Democrats want to fight harder; we want new ideas and fresh voices; we want a greater voice and greater representation ... give us that and then watch the fireworks ...

the Party's elite have been given a "glimpse of the monster" they could unleash ... but still, they are unable and unwilling to shake off their old ways ...

i'm going to write a post about this one fine day in the not-too-distant-future ... truly they could unleash a force that would change the country and put Democrats back in control ... their timid baby steps will not get the job done ... it's time to unleash the monster - sooner or later, as more of us awaken, it will be done ... let's hope it's sooner ...

[sandnsea]

63. I know exactly what you mean

Some days I think we've got it, like with the filibuster. Others I just sense it in the air, or wonder what will shake it loose.

It isn't the Party elite holding it back, not sure what it is exactly, and I don't think it's an unwillingness to shake off old ways. Who doesn't want to win?

They don't see, they don't know. People like Lieberman and Vilsack and Bayh. When this thing breaks loose, rises up, strikes out, it will literally be a Katrina sized storm. I hope somebody is ready to take the reigns so it does more good than harm.

[xchrom]

10. if i am against right wing republicans --

then i am also against right wing democrats.



i noted that you did not distinguish in your poll who moveon said they would oppose.

[rpannier]

13. And yours is a good point

People here tend to think Liebermann immediately. Could it be House members? Governor's? Who are they opposing? What's their criterion? I mean, Liebermann has a more liberal voting record than many other Senate Dems. It's just that he can't bring himself to shut up about Iraq.
I would like to know who they're after and what their criterion is.

[OzarkDem]

15. That email was way out of line

Those issues should be dealt with from within the party, not by outsiders.

I may be a liberal, but I'm also a very, very loyal Democrat.

[welshTerrier2]

20. "loyal Democrats"

why is it disloyal to run a progressive DEMOCRAT against a very conservative Democrat??

is your loyalty to incumbent Democrats only or to the things you believe in as a liberal Democrat?

[OzarkDem]

68. Its disloyal

to support someone outside the party trying to interfere in the process.

I prefer to advocate for change from within the party structure, I'm not comfortable with allowing someone from outside the party try to overtake it and govern it.

[jody]

16. MoveOn has supported gun-control efforts that oppose our Dem Platform

that says "We will protect Americans' Second Amendment right to own firearms, and we will keep guns out of the hands of criminals and terrorists by fighting gun crime, reauthorizing the assault weapons ban, and closing the gun show loophole, as President Bush proposed and failed to do." See http://www.democrats.org/pdfs/2004platform.pdf

"MoveOn.org triggers anti-gun petition" April 30, 1999.

If MoveOn is true to its principles, then it will oppose every Democratic candidate that supports the Democratic Party Platform. :shrug:

[MrBenchley]

18. Our Democratic platform supports gun control, jody....

But then that's why you said it was loaded with "anti-gun venom" and the like.....

[sandnsea]

24. Gun responsibility

Not gun control. Sometimes it doesn't matter what you think, presenting issues in a manner that people can hear them is more important.

[MrBenchley]

26. Gun control

"presenting issues in a manner that people can hear them"
Who but the lunatic fringe is opposed to gun control?

Even when the GOP put assault weapons back in the stores in 2004, they had to hide behind procedural bullshit. They couldn't come out and say "we think responsible gun owners ought to trudge around with assault weapons" or they'd be left with just the Randy Weaver Wannabe Club. And that's a fact.

[sandnsea]

27. I'm for controlling your aim

You said the words yourself, "responsible gun owners". Most gun owners are responsible and don't need to be controlled. We need to engage them to create laws that will get guns out of the hands of the irresponsible or create heavy penalties when gun owners act irresponsibly. It really isn't as much about the guns as it is the mentality of the gun owner.

[MrBenchley]

29. Gun rights is basically right wing racism hiding under a new sheet

and not fooling much of anyone....

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/176458_focus06.html

"It really isn't as much about the guns as it is the mentality of the gun owner."
Suggest anyone interested in viewing "the mentality of the gun owner" opposed to gun control go to any gun nut forum and read the idiocy and bigotry expressed therein (The RKBA ring links to dozens such cesspools)....

There's no better argument for gun control than a glance at the sort of turds OPPOSED to it....

[sandnsea]

30. Go sell that to the country

Yeah, the NRA is the gun manufacturing lobby. I know that and you know that, but that isn't going to win elections. Not right now anyway. So you plot a path forward. Chip away at their gun grabber meme by positing a value gun owners respect, responsibility. Move forward on that while you educate people on what the NRA is really about and the real traditional values of gun ownership in this country. Reagan didn't even hunt, probably didn't even own a gun. There wasn't a wild west shoot 'em up mentality in this country 30 years ago. How'd we get from there to here? The NRA, because they wanted to sell guns because they're a gun lobby for cryin' out loud.

[MrBenchley]

32. Easy to do.....

"There wasn't a wild west shoot 'em up mentality in this country 30 years ago. How'd we get from there to here? The NRA, because they wanted to sell guns because they're a gun lobby for cryin' out loud."
Yup. And it doesn't take much selling to say the truth about that. There's a reason why even the GOP has to pay lip service to gun control.

[sandnsea]

35. Knock down objections first

One of the first rules of sales. Until we knock down "gun grabber", we're not going to be able to sell anybody anything about guns.

[MrBenchley]

36. Again, who but the lunatic fringe says "gun grabbers"?

80% of the American public WANT assault weapons grabbed.....a sizable minority wouldn't mind seeing handguns grabbed.

Who doesn't want .50 caliber howitzers grabbed, besides the trigger-happy screwlooses?

[sandnsea]

37. Democrats

I hear it all the time and so do you.

I'm not disagreeing with your goals, I'm saying there's a better way to get there than to use the term "gun control", that's all.

[MrBenchley]

39. Do they, now?

"I hear it all the time and so do you. "
We sure hear it here...but then not only do right wing gun loonies troll DU regularly on this issue, they're stupid enough to boast openly about it on their cesspool forums.

"I'm saying there's a better way to get there than to use the term "gun control", that's all."
Again, why? It's a commonly accepted term for a concept that most citizens support and understand.

[sandnsea]

41. Aaah, you live in Jersey

I live in rural Oregon. You see, there's the difference. Let me help you help the country get a handle on gun crime. Ask your rural friends to help you, by being responsible with guns so they don't get stolen and used in crime that kill your kids.

Trust me, I hear gun grabber regularly out here and not just by the fringe. Gun control is just as bad. Almost all gun owners want responsible gun laws though.

[MrBenchley]

42. I live in rural New Jersey

where a cop got paralyzed a year or so ago because he was shot with an assault weapon some punk bought in Pennsylvania.

[sandnsea]

45. Yeah, NOW

I was referring to when it was illegal. And how to get around rural voter mentality. South and West rural voter. Are NJ & NH rural people the same?? I don't know. I grew up in rural California, it's not the same as rural Oregon or Montana, where I've lived my adult life. But you still get my basic point, there's ways to talk about guns that we aren't currently doing, including cops killed and wounded by these guns. Lots of ways to do it so people can hear, but gun control just ain't it.

[MrBenchley]

47. It's called the gun show loophole

and it was in effect now and then....look up "grandfathered" assautl weapons.

"And how to get around rural voter mentality"
You mean the folks who believed that "Democrats want to ban the Bible and force you into a gay marriage" flyer that the Republicans were sending around? Beats me. But those yokels aren't voting democratic unless Strom emerges from the garave with his Dixiecrats. They hate blacks, Jews, gays and uppity women as much as they love them guns.

"there's ways to talk about guns that we aren't currently doing, including cops killed and wounded by these guns"
Who isn't currently doing? Ask Carolyn McCarthy.....

[sandnsea]

53. This is pointless

I don't really know your purpose, but you aren't really trying to affect change if you resort to labels when somebody is trying to have an honest conversation. All I can tell you is that you need to travel more because you don't know anything about rural America.

[MrBenchley]

55. It's not a label to point out that the RNC targeted rural idiots

with that flyer....



85% of the population does NOT live in a rural area...why the fuck whould we Democrats alienate that 85% to pander to a small bunch of yokels?

Want to know what I find perhaps the least honest part of the gun control debate as it''s presented here on DU: We're supposed to beleive that there are hordes of rural fuckwits perfectly happy with the GOP's corruption, war-mongering, and bigotry who would switch parties in a heartbeat if only Democrats pretended they ought to be able to play with popguns unmolested by considerations such as public safety.

[sandnsea]

59. You think that mattered?

I only heard of that flier in a small portion of West Virginia. Believe me, the rural west IS NOT that tiny portion of West Virginia. Further, because we have a representative government, 99% of the country can live in cities, and you're still going to have to deal with the reality of rural states and rural voters. Just like you have to deal with the reality of marginalized terrorists in foreign countries. It doesn't matter where you are, if you're on the planet, you matter. And rural people who live in towns where there hasn't been a rape or murder in 20 years need to understand why they should up-end their entire life because YOU can't figure out how to live as peaceably in your neighborhood and larger city.

[MrBenchley]

60. Of course it mattered....

"And rural people who live in towns where there hasn't been a rape or murder in 20 years need to understand why they should up-end their entire life"
Their entire life is upended if they have to go without an assault weapon? Puh-leeease.

[sandnsea]

61. rotflmao

You have been as duped by spin as you think they have. Next to nobody voted because they believed anybody was going to ban the Bible. That's just ridiculous. You also don't understand that what gun owners say about assault weapons is in some cases true, some of those banned guns actually are good deer rifles. But besides that point, if they aren't killing each other with them, what difference does it make. It's not their problem, it's YOUR problem. What's wrong with you city people that you can't stop killing each other? Why should rural people care? And why don't you just lock your criminals away and stop letting them out of jail on technicalities?

[MrBenchley]

62. Yeh, that's why the Republican National Committee put it out

because it was so ineffective, and all.....(snicker).

And believe me, I've heard all the horseshit about assault weapons...and it's no more true than it is mint-flavored.

As for the rest of that gibberish, forget it.

"Pressed by the National Rifle Association, a House subcommittee will be holding a hearing Wednesday afternoon on what the NRA is scurrilously calling "abuse" by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), as well as state and local law enforcement, in an investigation of Virginia gun shows.
Those that were allegedly "abused" include wanted felons, drug abusers and people who sold guns to murderers.
The NRA wanted these hearings because they are unhappy with an ATF crackdown on crimes at gun shows, particularly a series of investigations into gun shows in the Richmond, Virginia area. One reason this is odd is that the investigation was part of the effort called "Project Exile," which was launched with NRA support and fanfare some years back. But even more odd is that the results of the law enforcement scrutiny of the Richmond area gun shows was a startling number of arrests for significant crimes and misdemeanors. As the ATF stated in a letter to the Chairman of the Judiciary Committee:
As part of ATF's role in reducing violent crime and enforcing firearms laws, we have been involved in investigations at gun shows. Such investigations have shown that prohibited persons, such as felons, buy firearms at these shows. ATF's enforcement efforts at gun shows also indicate that firearms illegally diverted at or through gun shows have been recovered in subsequent crimes, such as homicide and robbery. For example, since May 2004, firearms used in four homicides have been linked to transactions occurring at gun shows in the Richmond area."

http://releases.usnewswire.com/GetRelease.asp?id=61003

[sandnsea]

65. Travel, all I can say is travel

You're trying to fight a lifestyle with inconsequential statistics. It's like trying to fight bacon in baked beans with heart attack statistics. Rural people are never going to stop putting bacon in baked beans, probably not city people either. Don't you see that? It's the human connection that needs to be made. Let's get together and save the lives of cops and kids. Simple.

BTW, conceal and carry has done MORE for gun responsibility, education, and registration than any gun control law ever could. Did you never notice that?

[MrBenchley]

71. Been there, done that....

And you don't have to tell me gun loonies aren't connected to reality and don't respond to facts.

"conceal and carry has done MORE for gun responsibility, education, and registration"
Bullshit. It's put guns in the hands of a handful of neurotics with Chuck Norris fantasies...as well as criminals, crazies and the like. VPC discovered that concealed carry permit holders in Texas were committing crimes at a faster clip than ordinary citizens; the GOP and the gun lobby's response was to have Texas stop collecting such stattistics.

[sandnsea]

17. I quit them a while ago

They came out with some sort of attack a year or so ago, don't remember on who. But that's when I quit them. They haven't proven they're capable of winning a single election. Go win something and then get back to me.

[rman]

19. Moveon has 'lost' two elections, the same ones that the DLC lost

And for all i know fewer the the DLC has 'lost'.

Moveon was founded in 1998
http://www.moveon.org/about.html

[sandnsea]

23. Oh no

Lots of elections were won across the country with the help of the DLC, DSCC and DCCC. Schweitzer, Salazar Bros, Kaine, Herseth.

Has Moveon focused on a single election in this country and made the difference?? Hackett lost his House race. Let them win something against a Republican.

[welshTerrier2]

22. sheesh, what a deceptive poll

all the choices except one oppose MoveOn ... this is fair and balanced in the same way Fox News is ...

and the subject line is equally misleading ... yeah, MoveOn has decided to "attack Democrats" ... that's just plain deceptive and you know it ...

if you're going to take a poll, how about a little integrity ... how about presenting the issue fairly ...

the point of the MoveON campaign is not to "attack Democrats"; it's to run OTHER DEMOCRATS against very conservative Democrats with the approval of their membership in those specific districts ... if the local membership is divided, they won't support a non-incumbent candidate ...

what's your big attachment to very conservative incumbent Democrats?? why are you opposed to helping OTHER DEMOCRATS run against them?? do you oppose having primaries?? do you want to automatically support every incumbent Democrat regardless of their voting record?? should citizens have the right to encourage more progressive candidates to run against incumbents??

you make this sound like some kind of conspiracy to hurt the Democratic Party ... "attacking Democrats" is totally misleading ... all that's being proposed here is providing DEMOCRATIC VOTERS with another choice where very conservative Democrats currently hold office ... if you don't want them to have that choice, i'd be interested to hear why ...

[Mark E. Smith]

31. In the face of the grotesque monstrosity the Republicans have become...

...the last thing we need now is a Democratic ideological purge.

Let's kick the GOP out of their leadership posts in Congress first, shall we? And maybe win back the White House?

Then we can get back to beating ourselves up.

[welshTerrier2]

38. allow the primaries to reflect to span of the "big tent"

what you call "beating ourselves up" i call democracy ...

i hope you carefully read the MoveOn proposal before you posted your poll ...

and you really didn't answer the questions i raised ... let's boil it down to this: do you believe we should automatically back an incumbent Democrat regardless of how they've performed in office? why would you assume that an incumbent Democrat automatically would fare better than a more progressive challenger in the general election? if incumbents automatically receive their parties endorsements, what incentive do they have to represent the party's membership?

frankly, i'm more than sick of the many "ideological purity" arguments presented on DU ... this is a primary process we're talking about here ... what's wrong with offering Democrats a real choice in the primaries? that's not an "ideological purge", that's giving us, ya know, the Democratic voters, a choice in the primaries ...

we all want to kick the GOP leadership out of their posts and we all want to win back the WH ... that does NOT mean that we should have to support every jackass who's currently in office ... that's what primaries, and democracy, are all about ...

some of us go well beyond the MoveOn proposal ... we will not support conservative Democrats or those who have voted against our core beliefs even in the general election ... if you want to criticize our judgment on this, fine ... you're certainly entitled to your opinion ... but to criticize legitimate competition during the primaries seems crazy to me ... and MoveOn's proposal is even more cautious ... they've said that they will only support progressive Democrats against conservative incumbent Democrats under certain conditions ...

among those conditions are: 1. the seat has to be safe for Democrats and 2. they would only do this if their membership IN THAT SPECIFIC DISTRICT supported fielding an opposition candidate ... the goal is NOT to hurt the party but rather to help elect more progressive candidates ...

i think it's a false dichotomy to suggest that we can't beat republicans and run more progressive candidates simultaneously ... not every incumbent deserves another term ...

progressives have been largely ignored by the party hierarchy for a very long time ... you may be glad about this; you may not be ... but understand this, those who said we should "work from within the Party" are seeing the results of their requests now ... organizations like PDA and MoveOn and their memberships are trying to work within the rules to make the party more responsive to their beliefs ...

whether you agree with their politics or you don't, you should embrace their participation because it's the way democracy should work; and it helps the Party ... the alternative, should they be shut out by the party's machinery, would be the loss of votes to either non-voters or possibly third parties ... i'm sure you would be quick to criticize those who voted for Nader in 2000; the MoveOn and PDA activities are giving voice to the progressive wing of the party so that those who feel alienated will have a realistic chance to be represented ... you can embrace their participation or reject it ... politically speaking, reaching out to ALL constituencies seems like the wisest course to me ...

[Mark E. Smith]

43. Right

But I keep thinking back to the 2000 election and how much we all heard about there being little difference between Al Gore and George W. Bush.

Big old crock a shit that turned out to be. And to me what you're putting forward here is just a variation of that destructive conceit.

Quibbling over narrow ideological intraparty differences in the face of what the Neo-Con GOP represents is appallingly irresponsible in my opinion.

Forest and trees, you know? You really need to get some perspective.


The official patch of the Dick Cheney hunting trip.

[welshTerrier2]

46. "Quibbling over narrow ideological intraparty differences"

your characterizing the differences as "narrow" isn't very accurate ... is it narrow to support more war as opposed to ending the war immediately??? is it narrow to support Alito and his imperial presidency as opposed to voting against Alito??? is it narrow to oppose a woman's right to choose as opposed to upholding her constitutionally guaranteed freedoms???

is the Democratic Party a "big tent" or isn't it??? you can hardly say it's a "big tent party" if you believe the spectrum of views the Party supports is narrow in its span ...

do you really believe the differences are narrow??? someone needs a better perspective; on that we agree ...

[Mark E. Smith]

50. Yep.

Sorry, but there is nothing you're saying here that I disagree with.

But these are all consequences of not controlling the govt. Would there have been an Iraq war had Al Gore won? Nope. Would Alito have been nominated had Al Gore won? Nope. Would abortion now be threatened had Al Gore won? Nope.

The best way to stop the right is to throw the GOP out of power. And if instead of doing that the Democrats decide it is a wonderful time to have a big old intraparty ideological brawl and make that necessity an impossibility, then we have all lost.

Forest and trees. Get a fucking ladder.

[welshTerrier2]

52. you're missing my point ...

your references to Al Gore are not at issue ... i voted for Gore and did not support Nader's third party candidacy ...

but i do understand that the Democratic Party lost votes because we failed to be more inclusive ... if you live in a district with a very conservative Democratic incumbent, and the party refuses to allow challengers to have a fair chance of competing IN THE PRIMARIES, you run exactly the risk you're complaining about ...

your answer seems to be "STFU and just go along" ... many didn't ... and many won't ... you keep making the argument that the best way to stop the right is to throw the GOP out of power ... i couldn't agree more ... you don't do that by alienating the left wing of your own party ... these Democrats want a level playing field during the primaries ... they want an honest competition so that someone who represents their beliefs has a real chance to win the party's nomination ...

i see this as being more inclusive; what you're calling for is a "progressive challengers need not apply" exclusion of voters we want to support our eventual nominee ... a party that only supports incumbents regardless of their voting records runs a real risk of alienating part of its base and losing in the general election ... what you see as an "ideological brawl", i see as inclusiveness ...

[Mark E. Smith]

54. Can I Go Now?

This is stupid.

[welshTerrier2]

57. yes, you may go ...

i'm glad you agree it's stupid and that you shouldn't have posted this deceptive poll ...

see ya ...

[Lorien]

85. Republicans have been getting a lot of aid on their initiatives

from conservative Democrats. What good is supporting someone with a (D) behind their name if they vote with the opposition? We deserve a better option. That's what Moveon is proposing; politicians who represent US, not large corporations at our expense.
It doesn't mean that we'll be running two Dems against a repug, so let's not use the same rhetoric that is used against the Greens.

[mmonk]

33. Not pay much attention though I agree

with their premise the democratic rightwingers that help hide the illegal acts of the administration and are presiding over the dismanteling of our constitution need to go.

[methinks2]

58. Sounds like a good idea,

some of the supposed democrats vote like they are repukes.

[WildEyedLiberal]

66. There's only one incumbent Dem I oppose

Joe "I love Hannity" Lieberman.

[applegrove]

67. I don't think you can attack within a party that is not yours. I think

the left needs to accept that exploiting differences between parts of the big Dem tent is on the GOP agenda.

They should help Dems get power back. Then people can judge once dems are back in some form of governance.

Judging is called elections.

I don't know that someone in Hollywood with money should be spending money and organizing Americans across the country to attack the Senator from New York City. Because the people of New York City keep electing her.

And that is their right.

Move On is acting elitist.

[Greyhound]

69. More support for honesty here.

[wyldwolf]

70. "If?" I though they already were

[msgadget]

73. If they don't they're the tool of a party that's ashamed of them n/t

[iconoclastNYC]

74. Nice framing there. They'll attack DINOS

The enemy within is a legimate target. We have to take our party back from corporatists.

[wyldwolf]

76. You mean they'll attack themselves?

We have to rid our party back of the progressive-purists.


Remember Steny Hoyer (D-MD)?

MoveOn was raising money and running commercials to help defeat him (D-MD) for his yes vote on the bankruptcy bill. I suppose they wanted to chance a Republican winning? I dunno. BUT... this is the kind of leftist litmus testing that has the potential to klck the Democrats back into the dirt.

MoveOn said, "It’s not acceptable for a Democratic leader to take a position opposed to protecting the middle class.”

Yet they raised over $800,000 for Senator Byrd, who also voted for the bankruptcy bill.

[nadinbrzezinski]

77. And this is why you will see a THIRD PARTY

folks are tired of a duopoly suporting the goals of the corporations... the pubs go right, and the dems follow.

[welshTerrier2]

81. let's poke at this a bit, shall we?

first of all, you've told me several thousand times about the essentially irrelevant 1% of lefty extremists ... but here, you refer to MoveOn's efforts as having "the potential to kick the Democrats back into the dirt" ... either the left has political clout or it doesn't; you can't have it both ways ...

now, instead of tossing around all your inflammatory labels like purists and litmus tests, how about addressing what you think the Party should do, if anything, in response to MoveOn's proposal ???

i understand your hostility for the left ... you don't like our values ... you see our political strategy as destructive to the Democratic Party ... and on and on ... but, that does NOT change the reality that we exist however much you wish we didn't ... so, labels and insults aside, it seems likely MoveOn intends to become a player in Democratic Party primary politics ... that's no small thing ... and an eventual coordinated effort with PDA would make things even more interesting ...

what's unhealthy here are two situations (perhaps more) ... first, whether it's 1% or 2% or 10%, there are many potential party supporters who, rightly or wrongly, feel alienated by what the Party's been doing ... this can't be good for a party, any party, that wants to win elections ... and the longer this divide festers, the more likely it is that alienated forces will strengthen and become more confrontational ... first it was a small group who "went Green" ... perhaps no big deal ... then PDA emerged and they seem to be having at least some clout ... and now MoveOn and its national membership base including serious funding sources is jumping into the battle ...

and second, there are many, many voters, most of them former Democrats, who just don't vote at all anymore ... no, i think it's incredibly foolish to abstain from voting ... but that too does not change the reality ... we're talking about millions of potential voters ...

my view is that making substantial progress with both of these potential constituencies would not be all that difficult ... everyone has their very own view of how the world is and how it should be ... Democrats, and of course republicans as well, have become further and further removed from the constituents they're supposed to represent ... the last time either of my senators appeared at a free, public, non-campaign forum anywhere close to where i live was, ummmm, never? i'd certainly go to listen to them and i would hope they would exchange ideas with those who attended ... but instead, they call the tunes and we're all expected to just go along ...

where does your criticism of those who feel alienated lead? it's a dead end ... and none of this demands different policies from the party as a starting point; it only calls for dialog ... in the end, some who are now alienated will remain that way ... you're not going to win every vote ... but the disconnect right now is a very dangerous business ... the party, for far too long, has pissed off its left wing ... and the left wing has been disorganized and weak for far too long ... that's changing now and will continue to change ... ultimately, every citizen will demand representation and will challenge those who stack the deck against them ...

it seems to me that a new spirit of inclusiveness trumps the "you stupid lefties are destroying the party" ... it's time to sit down and sew up the holes in the big tent ... those who refuse to share power will be confronted ... we're too small? we're irrelevant? we're purists helping elect republicans? if that's what the party's offering, they better watch out, they better not cry ... somebody's coming to town ...

it's going to become much harder for the party to ignore the left ... seeking harmony through shared power seems a wiser course than inviting intra-party civil war ... perhaps you see the left as still too weak to concern you; you may be right ... but alienated constituencies are organizing to fight for power ... building unity and sharing that power seems like the best course to me ...

[Lorien]

86. If someone has a problem with those on the Left

then there's a good chance that they're in the wrong party to begin with.

I suspect that there are a good many "centrist" dems here (meaning right of center)who are pretty happy with the status quo. After all, the repugs will keep winning if nothing changes because "the people will vote for a republican over a democrat who acts like one" is as true today as it was when first spoken.They are here, working to squash dissent among our ranks with talking points like "circular firing squad", "irrelevant 1% of lefty extremist helping to elect republicans", and "liberal elitist and puritans demanding a litmus test", etc. etc. There's no use in trying to get them to come around because they have an entirely different agenda.

[welshTerrier2]

88. wise words, Lorien ...

you're probably right that "there's no use" in making the effort with many of those you described ...

still, always the optimist, perhaps even one or two might be encouraged to take a fresh look ...

[iconoclastNYC]

82. Progressive purists.

Cute.

Taking out the top 2 or 3 DINOS per cycle is a good start.

2006 : Liberman and that guy from Texas that the Republicans endorsed.

[Larkspur]

75. Definitely will need MoveOn.org's help with removing Lieberman

and helping Ned Lamont

[LittleClarkie]

79. Would depend on who, and why.

And whether or not there was a Democratic butt in the seat when they were done.

No Dem butt, Erica mighty pissed.

Yes Dem butt, Erica cool.

[Radical Activist]

80. In safe districts, there's no reason not to.

This is a good place for the left to pick its fights. Getting rid of conservative Democrats in liberal or heavily Democratic districts is a good strategy. When the DLC crowd howls we'll known that they're less concerned with electability and more concerned about pushing liberals out of office.

[LibDemAlways]

84. I'm all for it if they confine their efforts to

ousting DINOs in Democratic primaries. Lieberman should be at the top of the list.

[IndianaGreen]

87. Out with Joe Lieberman, support Ned Lamont!

Out with the Bush enablers and warmongers.

Russ is for US!

[ultraist]

90. I will NOT support moveon if they start attacking Dems

I don't care what Dems, Lieberman or whoever.

There is NO WAY they can engage in smearing and swiftboating Democrats without damaging our party. The Democratic party, as a whole, will be the collateral damage.


Leave the destruction of Democrats (and inevitably OUR party) to the Republicans.

[TexasLawyer]

92. Hopefully MoveOn would choose its battles wisely.

If that organization were to go after an anti-gun control Dem, simply on grounds that the Dem held that position, that would be plain dumb-- especially if that position on gun control reflected the majority view in the relevant state or district.

MoveOn strikes me as fairly savvy about things like that. If they start taking idiotic, doctrinaire positions against their own candidates, though, I would cancel my membership and cease my volunteer work with that organization.

[SteppingRazor]

93. I responded to that MoveOn poll with these comments:

I will support efforts to promote a more-progressive Democrat (and ONLY a more-progressive Democrat, not a third party candidate) in the parimary elections. But once the general election comes, I expect fulol support to be given to the Democrat, no matter who it may be.