Why DINOs are worse for the party than the GOP…

[blueinindiana]

The DINO of DINO’s Joe Lieberman is the classic example. Clowns like him are perfect for the GOP. On one hand they can bash them as being LIBERAL then the next moment when they vote with the GOP they can use them for cover when things go wrong.

I know DU frowns on bashing Democrats but these people are not Democrats they are traitors to the party and deserve to be thrown out.

[bluestateguy]

1. In some states and districts they will only elect DINO Democrats

But Connecticut is a solidly blue state. There is no excuse for Lieberman's mugwumperry.

[killerbush]

20. You miss the point

Lieberman can take stances like being for the war simply because the people of Ct. are more than one issue voters. Lieberman has soild backing from Democrats, Independents, as well as Republicans. Yes. most disagree with Lieberman on the war, but in a state that's reelected him since 1988, he can get away with it. Ned Lamont has no shot!!!!!

[xultar]

2. Blah blah blah, there are more POSITIVE things to discuss that bring

us together rather than tearing us apart.

This is DEMOCRATIC Underground.

I know Joe isn't the best but lets discuss defeating the Republicans and not each other. I'd rather let the Democratic voters in CT determine who they want their representation to be.

[kaygore]

5. But the Dinos do us more harm on several fronts

than do the Republicans. At least the Republicans have identified themselves for what they are. People like Lieberman and other Dinos undermine our message and muddy the water.

[LiberalVoice]

10. DINO

"Democrat in NAME ONLY" Defeating Joe Lieberman is the same as defeating a republican. He needs to be taken out with the rest of the trash.

[BlueCaliDem]

18. But doesn't Lieberman's voting record show he really is a Democratic...

...Senator, "moderate" though he may be?

If Lieberman's constituency give him such high approval numbers, that tells me they believe he's doing a good job in doing what he was sent to Congress for: to represent his Connecticut constituents. That is their first and foremost responsibility, right?

Now with the "internet{s}" gaining power for us average American voter, our Democratic Senators are easily reached, and they know we monitor everything they do. Perhaps the so-called "DINOs" in our party will finally get off their guffs and represent Democratic values--all thanks to the opening up of the internet for which Al Gore fought hard to fund.

I, for one, would LOVE to see Sen. Dianne Feinstein replaced. She's done nothing for her California constituents (but a helluva lot for hubby and herself) and I wish Cindy Sheehan hadn't pulled out of wanting to run for Feinstein's seat.

To date, Feinstein's even too chicken-sh*t to support Feingold's Censure against Bush! That, while she's undoubtedly received thousands of emails from her California constituents, but she just ignores them all.

All she does is do a fake effort to show she's still a Democratic Senator by throwing up the abortion issue when she has to.

There's no support for other Democratic ideals, and bills from this woman. At least, none that she supports openly.

[killerbush]

21. I live in Ct

And will vote for Joe again. He has my trust.

[dolstein]

48. But doesn't Diane Feinstein have high approval numbers too?

If her constituents stand ready to reelect her by a large margin, doesn't that mean she's doing a pretty good job of representing her constituents?

[yurbud]

63. no, it means we don't have a choice. We are a heavily Democratic state

and she has no primary opponent.

We'll probably have to wait until she retires to get a real progressive in there.

[onenote]

79. because California only elects progressives?

Like ah-nold?

onenote

[yurbud]

36. I think Democratic voters in CT will decide on Ned Lamont

the Democrat who won't send their kids to be killed for oil companies, and vote for bankruptcy bills that screw average Americans and reward credit card companies.

[yurbud]

39. What does a democrat have to do before you'll support primary opponent?

this is to all you "unity at any cost" people.

Is there anything a steaming pile of corrupt shit like Joe Lieberman could do before you would support his primary opponent?

[Ken Burch]

82. And a weird definition of "unity at all cost" many of them have...

Since you never heard the people who are apologists for Lieberman and others of his wing of the party condemning the Democrats for Nixon or the Democrats for Reagan. Instead, they condemned those of us who stayed loyal to the party for the defections of the rest.

Can anyone still seriously argue, for example, that the "hard hats" the mythical right-wing construction worker/building trade types who hated hippies and loved war, actually GAINED anything from Nixon and Reagan's victories, or from Dubya's? Can anyone really argue that the party is better for having moved towards Nixon and Reagan's views?

[Ken Burch]

83. self delete

duplicate post

[Don1]

76. Hmm...

Actually, this is Democratic UNDERGROUND. We should define what being an underground means. It doesn't mean just being typical victims, does it?

[kaygore]

3. Amen!

If we can't speak with a single voice on the very critical issues, then the public at large won't listen (they get confused too easily).

The single voice has worked for the Republicans for that very reason. Joe and other Dinos need to be honest and become the Republicans in fact as opposed to by voting record!

Joe Lieberman is no Democrat and he is no patriot.

I pity the poor people of Connecticut for having such a low-life bastard represent them.

[jamesinca]

4. The DINO with integrity, Zell Miller

He at least changed parties and he apologized for being a Dem. Sen. Nighthorse Campbell also changed parties. It gives the air of bipartisan support when they vote, but it is all Repug when they do.

[stray cat]

6. So what exactly makes a person a DINO

How many and what stances in particular do they have to disagree with the dems on and which dems are considered the real dems in terms of their stances and on which issues. Also if moderates in conservative states elect DINOS because they represent them are we better off if they elect people more like Tom Delay and Bill Frist.

[FrenchieCat]

7. At this point...I unfortunately must say!

[Hippo_Tron]

13. Haha good one

[MrBenchley]

8. Another swell "progressive purist" purge call...

SSDD....

[400Years]

41. Lieberman said he might leave the party and run as an independent

Are you going with him?

[MrBenchley]

44. Not me, but then I actually back Democrats

Now go snivel about yet another failed purge call to someone who giuves a shit.

[Name removed]

49. Deleted message

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

[MrBenchley]

51. Stick to the personal insults....it shows you have no substance

[400Years]

61. personal insults are your stock in trade

So when are you and holy joe headed off to wage your jihad against all of us unwashed masses?

[MrBenchley]

75. No, I leave that to our "progressive purists"

Now go snivel about it to somebody who gives a shit.

[Ken Burch]

87. If you DON'T "give a s---t"

Why do you respond with insult after obscenity after slur?

Why not just go away from DU if you "don't care"?

[Don1]

77. Believe it or not...

I agree with you on this. Whenever in the past, I wrote about DiNOs, I always qualified it with facts and arguments. This guy's shallow arguments and his lack of response clearly indicate he is trolling. He might even be a freeper here to just make us fight among ourselves. If we want to debate about issues, let's do it with some maturity (and in another thread).

[silverojo]

9. Amen to that!

Even if a state puts in a Republican in a DINO's place, who cares? The jerk will vote the same way as a DINO, so why reward a Dem who won't stand up for our principles?

[Neil Lisst]

22. Why? Because we're Democrats, and that's our side.

[William769]

11. People who go after "DINOs" in our party

Are worse than the people they hunt.

[wyldwolf]

15. yes, very true

they are on constant guard for political heresy and correctness. They loathe the perceived heretic in their midst more than their political adversary.

Fringe. Paranoid.

[Anarcho-Socialist]

12. I don't think Lieberman is quite GOP material

He's pro-choice afterall, and we know how the Right feels about abortion. If he did a Zell-like switch from pro-choice to "pro-life" it would only be then that the GOP would welcome him with open arms.

Rather than being a DINO, Lieberman is part of a wider symptom of spinelessness within the Democrats in Congress. Many Congressional Democrats still believe in the ideal of Bipartisanship for its own sake; but the Republicans use Bipartisanship as an easier way to screw everyone over.

If * goes to Congress for authorisation to use force against Iran, I would not be surprised to see many Congressional Democrats blindly walk down the war route once more. It won't be quite as many as who voted for war in 2002-3, but it will still be a large number.

[Douglas Carpenter]

35. I agree -- he may be awful-- but the phrase DINO is not realistic

Lieberman on War and Peace vs Lieberman on domestic issues

First let me say that I have donated to Ned Lamont's run in the primaries and I hope many, many others do the same.


http://www.nedlamont.com


Sen. Lieberman voting record on most domestic-social issues is essentially moderately liberal. However one must also keep in mind that he is a strong proponent of neoliberal economic ideology otherwise known as "free trade" and along with that a strong supporter of NAFTA and CAFTA.

The major problem many of us have with Sen. Lieberman is his staunch support for both the Iraq War and a militaristic/interventionist world view in general. Particularly annoying is his continual public support for Bush Administration war policies and public denunciation of Democrats who oppose them.

I don't think this is a minor point. Just as the Viet Nam War derailed the Democratic Party and the Great Society--the militarism and hegemonic philosophy of the GOP as well as Sen. Lieberman and Democrats who think like him may very well derail any serious advancement of a socially progressive agenda.

Here is a look at interest group ratings of Sen. Lieberman both on War and Peace issues and domestic/social issues. I have contrasted them with Sen. Allen and Sen. McCain; two REAL Republicans and according to Washington Journal's insider polling - the front runners for the Republican Presidential nomination in 2008.

War and Peace -- from Peace Majority -- a coalition of various peace groups - link: http://www.peacemajority.org/about.htm

Sen. Lieberman: Final Score: 13.0/52.0 votes = 25%

Sen. Allen: Final Score: 3.0/88.0 votes = 3%

Sen. McCain: Final Score: 3.0/85.0 votes = 4%

__________________________

This is courtesy of project vote smart - link:

http://www.vote-smart.org/index.htm
_____________________

2004 Senator Lieberman supported the interests of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation 33 percent in 2004.

2004 Senator Allen supported the interests of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation 0 percent in 2004.

2004 Senator McCain supported the interests of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation 0 percent in 2004.
_________________________________

2004 Senator Lieberman supported the interests of the Peace Action 38 percent in 2004

2004 Senator Allen supported the interests of the Peace Action 0 percent in 2004.

2004 Senator McCain supported the interests of the Peace Action 13 percent in 2004.
______________________________________

2004 Senator Lieberman supported the interests of the National Abortion Reproductive Rights Action League 100 percent in 2004

2004 Senator Allen supported the interests of the National Abortion Reproductive Rights Action League 0 percent in 2004

2004 Senator McCain supported the interests of the National Abortion Reproductive Rights Action League 0 percent in 2004.
__________________


2003-2004 Senator Lieberman supported the interests of the American Civil Liberties Union 83 percent in 2003-2004

2003-2004 Senator Allen supported the interests of the American Civil Liberties Union 0 percent in 2003-2004.

2003-2004 Senator McCain supported the interests of the American Civil Liberties Union 22 percent in 2003-2004.
_____________________________


2004 Senator Lieberman supported the interests of the Americans for Democratic Action 75 percent in 2004.

2004 Senator Allen supported the interests of the Americans for Democratic Action 15 percent in 2004..

2004 Senator McCain supported the interests of the Americans for Democratic Action 35 percent in 2004.
__________________________.

2004 Senator Lieberman supported the interests of the AFL-CIO 83 percent in 2004.

2004 Senator Allen supported the interests of the AFL-CIO 17 percent in 2004.

2004 Senator McCain supported the interests of the AFL-CIO 33 percent in 2004.
_________________________

2004 Senator Lieberman supported the interests of the United Auto Workers 92 percent in 2004.

2004 Senator Allen supported the interests of the United Auto Workers 9 percent in 2004

2004 Senator McCain supported the interests of the United Auto Workers 9 percent in 2004.
__________________________

2003-2004 Senator Lieberman supported the interests of the National Education Association 88 percent in 2003-2004.

2003-2004 Senator Allen supported the interests of the National Education Association 25 percent in 2003-2004.

2003-2004 Senator McCain supported the interests of the National Education Association 35 percent in 2003-2004.
______________________


2003-2004 Senator Lieberman supported the interests of the Human Rights Campaign 88 percent in 2003-2004.

2003-2004 Senator Allen supported the interests of the Human Rights Campaign 13 percent in 2003-2004.

2003-2004 Senator McCain supported the interests of the Human Rights Campaign 25 percent in 2003-2004.
_____________________________________


2003-2004 Senator Lieberman supported the interests of the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights 95 percent in 2003-2004.

2003-2004 Senator Allen supported the interests of the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights 7 percent in 2003-2004.

2003-2004 Senator McCain supported the interests of the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights 14 percent in 2003-2004.
_____________________________

2004 Senator Lieberman supported the interests of the Arab American Institute 50 percent in 2004.

2004 Senator Allen supported the interests of the Arab American Institute 0 percent in 2004.

2004 Senator McCain supported the interests of the Arab American Institute 0 percent in 2004.
__________________________

2003-2004 Senator Lieberman supported the interests of the League of Conservation Voters 56 percent in 2003-2004.

2003-2004 Senator Allen supported the interests of the League of Conservation Voters 0 percent in 2003-2004.

2003-2004 Senator McCain supported the interests of the League of Conservation Voters 56 percent in 2003-2004

____________________________

2004 Senator Lieberman supported the interests of the Christian Coalition 0 percent in 2004.

2004 Senator Allen supported the interests of the Christian Coalition 100 percent in 2004.

2004 Senator McCain supported the interests of the Christian Coalition 83 percent in 2004.
_____________________________


2004 Senator Lieberman supported the interests of the American Conservative Union 0 percent in 2004.

2004 Senator Allen supported the interests of the American Conservative Union 92 percent in 2004.

2004 Senator McCain supported the interests of the American Conservative Union 72 percent in 2004.”

[Anarcho-Socialist]

38. Good post

You have shown well that significant differences remain between Lieberman and the typical GOP Senator.

The Democratic Party is supposed to be a 'big tent' and the last thing we need is a dose of ideological purity in the guise of 'if you're not with us 100% of the time, then you're against us'.

BTW - I've been enjoying your journal, many good, well-considered posts on there.

[Douglas Carpenter]

42. thank you very much

being a pragmatic anarcho-socialist is being part of the reality based community

[ShortnFiery]

59. Before The Reagan Era there was a substantial percentage of the

what was considered Republican Conservatives who were SOLIDLY "pro-choice." They have since gone underground and/or have turned Libertarian.

[Ken Burch]

88. Actually, I don't think Zell DID go "pro-life".

He just became irrationally enraged at John Kerry. Why Zell wasn't expelled from the Democratic Caucus for giving the keynote speech at the 2004 GOP convention will always be a mystery. He was totally disloyal and suffered no consequences for it whatsoever.

[Hippo_Tron]

14. Just a bit of advice

People will take your post more seriously if you back up your argument with more than three lines.

[skipos]

16. The GOP is worse for America than "DINOs."

That is why we should be focused on removing the GOP from power.

[wyldwolf]

17. Great DINOS of the Democratic party

John F. Kennedy who, after a major election year loss, distanced himself from the liberal/progressive wing of the party, declaring, “I’m not a liberal at all... I’m not comfortable with those people.”

His father told a leading national magazine, “How could any son of mine be a god damn liberal? Don’t worry about him being a weak sister. He’ll be tough.”

In a Senate race, he refused to endorse the Democratic candidate and instead endorsed the Republican!

As president-elect, he appointed high level Republicans to prominent cabinet posts!

His most well-known catch phrase was a rebuke of the welfare state and a promotion of individual responsibility.

Another phrase was a Woodrow Wilson-like call to arms for “Liberal Internationalism.”

A master of the New Democrat perfected "triangulation," he alienated Labor Unions by not siding with them on a number of issues, saying disputes must be settled with what is best for the public’s interest.

He considered our tax system obsolete and advocated massive tax cuts.

A leading Republican characterized him as “a Democrat by accident of birth; he is more of a pragmatist than a Democrat.”

Congressman John Lewis (D, GA) a civil rights hero, said his civil rights actions were "too little, too late"

Jimmy Carter, Time Magazine said of him:

A catalog of contradictions: Liberal, moderate, conservative, compassionate, ruthless, soft, tough, a charlatan, a true believer, a defender of the status quo, a populist Hamlet... A Democrat who thinks like a Republican... he also considers himself a fiscal conservative...

Other facts concerning him:

A former State Senator, he was elected Governor by running to the right of the other Democratic candidates. "I was never a liberal," he told state voters that year. "I am and have always been a conservative."

He campaigned against school busing.

A supporter of the Viet Nam war, as Governor he declared "American Fighting Man's Day" in support of Lt. William Calley after his court martial on charges of massacring civilians.

At the 1972 Democratic convention, he was a delegate for Henry "Scoop" Jackson's (said by some to be the father of the DLC) presidential campaign, and he worked with Al From of the DLC on economic issues as well.

One of his campaigns was endorsed by Pat Robertson, who aired a profile of him on the 700 Club.

Other great DINOS:

Bill Clinton
FDR
Howard Dean
John Kerry
Wes Clark
John Edwards
Mark Warner

... and many more.

All have been called DINO or have exhibited traits that would be considered "DINO" by purists.

I just have to ask, where did you get your misguided notion of "DINO?"

[killerbush]

23. Both FDR and Howard Dean are no DINO's

[wyldwolf]

32. By DU standards, they are

[SaveElmer]

47. Really...

FDR:

Ran on a platform of a balanced budget, in fact Roosevelt and Hoovers positions on most issues were almost indistinguishable

Incarcerated an entire race of people into internment camps

Cow towed to southern racist congressmen, Senators, and Governors on race issues to get their support for New Deal initiatives.

Restricted Jewish immigration into the United States during WWII


Howard Dean:

Supported Anti-flag burning amendment.

Opposed Gay Marriage.

Known as a fiscal conservative while Governor of Vermont.

[flaminbats]

26. the objective of neocons is to dominate both parties..

neoconservatives rejected the regional and puritan partisanship of Calvin Coolidge and Bob Taft. Their objective wasn't merely to make Republicans the majority party. The conservatives fought to have leverage and influence within both parties. Why bother to run as a supply-sider unless some of the leaders in the opposing party want to make this a reality?

Making Democrats afraid of touching liberalism, terrified of criticizing Republicans, and proponents of the impossible...then Republicans have finally turned something long considered flaky to be "politically mainstream."

Liberalism is what must be saved and brought back into the Republican Party, otherwise it will slowly continue to weaken and lose leverage within a powerless party.

[loyalsister]

29. Good observation

Absolutely true. The only way the seeds of fascism could possibly take root in this country the way that they have is with the cooperation of both parties.
If we elect Dems who compromise on Democratic principles we hold dear, on the promise that they will stop compromising once they have power, we are taking a big risk. I think they have a responsibility to stick to their guns, and lead by example-- now. If they don't, I am not going to trust them unconditionally.

[Ken Burch]

94. Neither JFK nor Jimmy Carter were the best candidates the party could have

chosen in their respective years.

Kennedy(and even Arthur Schlesinger backs this up)was seen as a lightweight. He did defeat Nixon(barely)but there is a very good chance that a renominated Adlai Stevenson would have beaten ol' Milhouse by a solid margin.

Carter was a good man, but he didn't need to run away from the progressive base of the party to win.
Had he not done the "lust in my heart" interview, Carter would have won by a larger margin. And Morris Udall or Frank Church would both have been credible candidates against Gerald Ford in the fall.

FDR was not totally liberal, although he was certainly to the left of JFK on a number of issues. But FDR(unlike Carter or Clinton)was open to progressive arguements and increased his popularity(witness his larger margin of victory in 1936 than in 1932)by carrying out a populist, redistributionist economic policy. And FDR won more votes in 1940 than in 1936(although with a somewhat narrower overall margin in the popular vote due to the presence of liberal former Democrat Wendell Willkie as his running mate)with the progressive Henry Wallace as his new running mate.

So no, it is not so simple as "moderate-conservative Democrat electable/liberal Democrat unelectable".

[Neil Lisst]

19. No, they're not.

[QC]

24. We must purge the kulaks and counterrevolutionaries now!

All hail blueinindiana and the glorious people's revolution!

[Ken Burch]

96. Get over yourself, QC...

Nobody is calling for a "purge". It would be ludicrous to think that the progressive wing of the party as a whole(let alone DU'ers)has either the ability or the inclination to do that.

We are just fighting for our principles. And the problem has been not candidates who were conservative on one or two issues but good on all the others. The problem has been with candidates who treated the progressive wing of the party as a plague, as something to be silenced and marginalized at any cost. This has left the Democrats dangerously lacking in any core values at all at times. On all but a handful of issues, it was hard to identify the administration that held power in the Nineties as Democratic. Ok, they were somewhat better than Bush the first(who wouldn't have been?)but they weren't able to stop the right from pushing things further right. In fact, they lack of core values in that administration did more to aid and abet the right than anything else. There is no way, for example, that liberals bear more of the blame for the rise of Newt Gingrich than "moderates" do, since it was the moderate wing of the party that defeated Clinton's health care plan and pushed for the party to make itself less and less distinguishable from the GOP, a situation that made it difficult, if not impossible, to rally people to go to the polls in 1994. "Vote for us, we're slightly less reactionary" is not a winning Democratic slogan.

What we need is a fighting, progressive, populist set of values and the strength and determination to DEFEND those values. "Hugging the center" has exhausted itself as a political strategy.

It's as simple as that.

[Douglas Carpenter]

25. I personally don't believe the term DINO is intellectually honest

There has always been a conservative wing of the Democratic Party. Back in the 60's the party of Eugene McCarthy and George McGovern was also the party of George Wallace and Lester Maddox.

There has always been a pro-war wing of the Democratic Party as well as a pro-corporate wing of the Democratic Party.

I disagree with Mr. Wyldwolf on many, many things but I have to agree that he is absolutely right that President Kennedy was significantly more centrist and A LOT more hawkish than many progressives today realize.

From a progressive viewpoint there are some very basic political advantages to seeing a Democratic majority win this November even if some, perhaps many of those Democrats fall far short of what I would desire to see as members of the U.S. Congress:

If the Democrats take the House this November

10 members of the Progressive Caucus would become chairmen of committees

John Conyers becomes Chairman of the Judiciary Committee

Even a vote for a conservative Dem is a vote for Conyers and the 10

https://www.democrats.org/page/contribute


This is REAL political power for the progressive cause.

[loyalsister]

30. I agree to a point

We are a big tent.
I am all for making every effort to elect a Democratic majority, and I see the important advantages. And, I support the Dems in the general.
On the other hand, I feel like it is important for us to use the primary process to demand a clear progressive agenda. An evaluation of voting records and rhetoric in order to get a sense of the commitment of our elected officials vs. challenging candidates to a progressive agenda is healthy for the party.
This is where we really get to use our power.
If you don't like Democrats in safe seats, get on the ground and find a primary opponent who you like better. The incumbant will be forced to defend votes and rhetoric, just like Lieberman is having to do. Pay attention to this at every level of government, and we can move the party left.

[Douglas Carpenter]

34. I ABSOLUTELY agree!!

Use the primaries, caucuses and state conventions to advance real progressives and the progressive agenda. This is the closest thing to proportional representation we will ever have in our life time.


http://www.nedlamont.com



" Sen. Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut reproached fellow Democrats for criticizing President Bush during a time of war.

"It's time for Democrats who distrust President Bush to acknowledge that he will be the commander in chief for three more critical years and that in matters of war we undermine presidential credibility at our nation's peril," Lieberman said."

link:

http://edition.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/12/08/democrats.iraq/?section=cnn_latest

and this interesting comment from Sen. Lieberman while in Baghdad

"Time magazine Baghdad bureau chief Michael Ware on Morning Sedition this morning:

I and some other journalists had lunch with Senator Joe Lieberman the other day and we listened to him talking about Iraq. Either Senator Lieberman is so divorced from reality that he's completely lost the plot or he knows he's spinning a line. Because one of my colleagues turned to me in the middle of this lunch and said he's not talking about any country I've ever been to and yet he was talking about Iraq, the very country where we were sitting."

link:

http://atrios.blogspot.com/2005_11_27_atrios_archive.html#113328407009752558

Again, I myself have pointed out on numerous occasions that Sen. Lieberman has a moderately liberal voting record on many domestic issues along with his enthusiastic embrace of neoliberal economic ideology.

His comments regarding the Iraq War must reveal that he is either being disingenuous or seriously delusional. The Democratic constituency of Connecticut needs the chance to express their disapproval in the Democratic Primary; win or lose.

Sen. Lieberman's very public position on the Iraq War and those who oppose it and what appears to be an embrace of a slightly modified form of neoconservative ideology is not some insignificant wedge issue. It goes to the very core of the direction of the country. Someday America will have to decide whether it wants to continue down the path of ultra-militarism or whether it wants to maintain the social fabric of our own society and some degree of moral authority in the world. It appears that Sen. Lieberman is choosing the very wrong side of history.

[Ken Burch]

97. Look, we all agree that a Democratic victory this fall is essential.

But committee hearings by themselves won't beat the right. If all the conservative Democratic candidates would at least commit to voting for impeachment no matter what(and also to voting for a major electoral reform package that included abolishing the Electoral College)that would at least help.

I'm not holding my breath on those, though.

Some conservative Democrats still think we should never have pulled out of Vietnam.

[Neil Lisst]

27. I would say a DINO is someone who says they are Democrat

but votes for Republicans in the election.

How someone votes in Congress is primarily a function of who elected them and backed them.

People who run as Dems and get elected as Dems are Dems.

[Ken Burch]

89. Most of the old Southern wing of the party would have been in that group

Civil Rights activists tried to get the party to invoke the rule that any Democratic Congressmember who did not support the Democratic Presidential ticket would forfeit a committee chairmanship.

The gutless cowards never did.

[Ken Burch]

90. self delete

duplicate post.

[Name removed]

28. Deleted message

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

[skeeters2525]

31. Sorry BlueinIndiana

Useless blather like this is worse for the Country.


We have real problems here. And all you can do is blame. What are you doing? You think calling out Lieberman accomplishes anything. Go work for Lamont.

Organize, Organize, Organize.

If you want to take back the party. Get out there and do it.

Lead or get out of the way.

Damn, those wonderful Mexican Americans are really making us look like lazy citizens.

Can we trade them for the Reich Wing Limball listeners.

[Neil Lisst]

33. If you voted Democratic the last election, you're a Democrat.

If you didn't, you're not.

That's my view of it. The litmus test is voting the party, which I always do.

[adwon]

37. Just to give the dead horse one more kick

People who use the term DINO don't seem to realize that the Democratic Party didn't start 30 years ago. I sometimes honestly wonder just how many who use the term don't seem to realize that southern segregationists in Congress passed the various Democratic programs of the 20th century (even if they didn't vote for them, they let them come to a vote, civil rights excepted). Hell, Paul Douglas could find things to admire about Richard Russell. And Russell could appreciate the brilliance of Humphrey. Essentially, considering that some common ground could be found between opponents of one of the great moral struggles of American history, I don't think it's asking too much that the same be done today.

[yurbud]

40. Corporate Democrat DINOs criticize Democrats more than we do

Any time a Democrat goes out on a limb and says what the rest of us are thinking and clearly know is true, the DINOs practically sprint to parrot the right wing talking points in criticizing those providing moral leadership and demanding Congress exercise their constitutional responsibility of oversight.

There is nothing admirable or even pragmatically useful about having someone on your team who carries water for the other side on major issues like when we go to war and whether we protect or eradicate the middle class.

[wyldwolf]

43. evidence?

[Ken Burch]

86. Well, any Benchley post about Dennis Kucinich or Cynthia McKinney

for a start. In fact, ANY Benchley post, for that matter.

[LWolf]

45. "Traitors to the Party"

Does that include me? You see, I'm not a "Party Purist." I don't put party before issues, I put issues before party.

Party is not, and will never be, the goal for me.

I don't really care what party, or not, I work with as long as I feel that progressive issues are well represented. While I am a registered Democrat, my support is not for party, but for those who will work for progressive issues.

When the party is working for the issues, I'm happy to support it. I don't consider that being a "traitor." I think traitors to the party are those who allow partisanship to take precedence over results, myself.

Lieberman? I voted for him once, in 2000.

My question is rhetorical; the only time I can be a "traitor" is when I betray my own values, and that is not for anyone else to decide.

[galatea]

46. I agree

Lieberman is not the only one, however. Add Kerry to the list, the Bush enabler who voted for war and quit the fight so quick election day even his running mate was shocked. And depending on how Hillary manages her campaign, I'll add her name to the list too.

Dean, Kennedy, Gore, Kucinich are examples of real Democrats.

[Name removed]

52. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

54. Deleted message

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

[wyldwolf]

58. Why not reply to my post #53?

[galatea]

62. it made no sense

and that's why it got deleted.

[wyldwolf]

65. Wrong and wrong

Post #53 was not deleted.

And I'll explain it to you:

I can point out things from Dean, Kennedy, Gore, and Kucinich's record just as offensive as anything from Kerry's.

[galatea]

69. I doubt it

not as offensive as quiting an election so fast even your running mate is shocked.

Instead of SAYING TWICE you can point out things from Dean, Kennedy, Gore, and Kucinich's records just as offensive as Kerry's, why don't just go ahead and DO IT?

[wyldwolf]

71. I'll start with Gore

Instead of SAYING TWICE why don't just go ahead and DO IT?

Because apparently you didn't understand it the first time.


1. Conceding an election
2. Backing faith-based intitiatives
3. A chief backer of welfare reform
4. A chief backer of NAFTA
5. Anti-choice until it became a political liability.
6. Had his own version of a private investment social security alternative.
7. Al Gore was a proponant of the Iraq Liberation Act and believed, quote: "Iraq does, indeed, pose a serious threat to the stability of the Persian Gulf region, and we should be about the business of organizing an international coalition to eliminate his access to weapons of mass destruction."

...and...

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to completely deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power. We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country." (from 2002)

More on Gore or should I move on to then next guy on your list?

[galatea]

72. Gore conceded

after an entire month of fighting, genius, unlike Senator Coward, who concede 12 hours later. The fight went all way to the Supreme Court in 2000. THAT's the basic difference between both. Gore fights, Senator Coward flees.

As for Iraq, it was Senator Coward who voted to give Bush war powers, didn't he? How dare you criticize Al Gore who was not even in congress then?

[wyldwolf]

78. LOL!

"How dare you.." LOL!

Tell the Black House members that.

Kind of hard to notice that you ignored the other DINO-like actions of Gore.

So I'll ask again, more on Gore? Or shall we move on to the next one on your list.

[Ken Burch]

91. And the result in the Electoral College proves Gore's centrism didn't work

That's the thing. Had Gore run as a progressive, or at least as a person who didn't see progressives as a pestilence to be avoided at all costs, he would very likely have done better.

[wyldwolf]

95. Like McGovern?

[Ken Burch]

98. McGovern lost because YOUR wing of the party deserted

And did so for no reason, since McGovern was a good man who had done them no harm.

You would agree that every Democrat for Nixon should eternally hang his or her head in shame, I hope.

You would agree, I hope, that there is nothing McGovern could have done that could possibly have been worse than the Nixon to Ford period and what it did to the country.

It's time to stop blaming progressives for a completely unjustified mass defection.

[wyldwolf]

100. Gore lost because YOUR wing of the party deserted

McGovern won exacty ONE state - Mass. I believe it was many more people shunned McGovern than you are supposing.

[Ken Burch]

101. Yes, a lot of them did...and largely because

Your wing of the party refused to defend the man who, unlike Humphrey, won the nomination DEMOCRATICALLY. Your wing let Nixon's lies go unchallenged. Your wing wanted McGovern to lose so that progressives could be kicked out. Are you proud of what that led to in the next four years?

And most progressives actually supported Gore rather than Nader. Gore brought his loss on himself by sticking to the Clinton strategy when it was clear that it no longer worked. If he had kept making speeches about "the people versus the powerful", if he had clearly denounced the corruption and distortion that corporate domination of politics was bringing to this country, Gore would have won. Those who supported Nader did so when the party disowned them, treated them as the enemy.
Their values SHOULD have been the values Democrats campaigned on.

Also, many Nader supporters proposed a "vote swapping" strategy in which Democratic voters in safe states would vote for Nader in exchange for Nader voters voting Gore in marginal states. The Gore campaign refused to even consider this approach, even though it would have meant victory.

[wyldwolf]

102. more of your fantasies

Not an ounce of proof to what you say.

[Ken Burch]

103. In the California primary of 1972, Hubert Humphrey

who already knew HE had no chance whatsoever of being nominated, made vicious attack ads falsely claiming that McGovern was too soft on defense. Those ads were quoted word for word by the Nixon campaign in the fall.

No one in the moderate-to-conservative wing stood up to denounce the Republican claim that McGovern stood for "acid, amnesty and abortion"(McGovern was moderately pro-choice, believing the issue should be left to the states, he favored decriminalization of marijuana, not legalization of LSD, and as for amnesty, it was wrong to make young people choose between lifetime exile and a long prison sentence for refusing to kill in a war they morally objected to.)

And there was the refusal of every leading Democratic senator to be McGovern's running mate, a decision that drove him to choose Thomas Eagleton. Now, it would have been better for Eagleton to be upfront about his successful treatment for mental illness, and it would have been better for McGovern to defend Eagleton and stand his ground when that issue broke, but most of the moderate-to-conservative wing had already decided that McGovern's electoral humiliation mattered more than saving the country from Nixon.

You would agree that they were wrong to do the above, wouldn't you?

(sources for the above include "The Making of the President 1972", by Theodore White, btw)

[wyldwolf]

104. see, this is my new deal with you

It appears that, on the left, facts are stretched and often fabricated to fill in the holes of history or to revise what is on the historical record. Then people like yourself pick those "facts" up thinking them to be the truth. Post after post I cite sources and links only to get more "this is how it is because I said so" replies from you.

This thread is such a case.

So, hell, I should do it, too.

McGovern was only nominated after the far left successfully changed the rules of nominating.

[Ken Burch]

106. I would agree with your stated observation. "Far Left" was a bit

excessive, since the McGovernites were left-liberals, not Maoist cadre, but otherwise it was a valid description.

Yes, the rules were changed. Because they produced, in 1968, an undemocratic and unrepresentative result. The primaries of 1968 showed that the majority of Democratic voters, everywhere they were allowed to vote, wanted the party to nominate an antiwar candidate. The prowar candidate was nominated that year only because the party leadership intervened to block the nomination of the type of candidate the majority of Democrats preferred.

Had the party nominated McCarthy at Chicago, and done so on a peace plank, or had the party even nominated Humphrey on the McCarthy peace plank, the police riots in the streets would not have occurred, the convention would not have become a battleground and the party would have defeated Nixon solidly.

I would argue that we can, in fact assume that McCarthy would have held virtually all of Humphrey's vote(and remember, Humphrey lost by less than 1% in a race where Democratic turnout was severely depressed compared to 1964)and added to it millions of new voters who were attracted by the idealism and hope provided by the "Dump Johnson" movement. The party leadership, in my view, CHOSE to lose that election rather than win with the votes of people they disapproved of.

You aren't really saying that it would have been legimate to strip McGovern of nomination at the last moment and shove Scoop Jackson in instead, are you? You know perfectly well there would have been no way to expect the McGovern supporters to vote for the ticket if that had occurred, or if a prowar conservative had again been nominated on 1968-style rules.

In 1972 the tables were turned, and, despite the fact that the moderate wing of the party had no real grievances against the nominating process, since for the first time it gave ALL Democrats an equal say, the moderates either sat on their hands or actively worked to reelect the most odious figure in American political history, just so they wouldn't have to admit that the idealists might have had it right. In fairness, there were a few excesses and some disorganization on the McGovernite side of the equation, but these were minor compared with the arrogance the party leaders had demonstrated in Chicago(arrogance they initially repeated AFTER the election with their incredibly stupid proposal to hold the 1972 convention in Chicago, despite the fact that this would have guaranteed more riots and, in all liklihood, an even LARGER defeat.)

[Name removed]

67. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

70. Deleted message

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

[wyldwolf]

53. You must be joking

I can list things just as "offensive" about Dean, Kennedy, Gore, and Kucinich's records as you listed about Kerry.

[Name removed]

55. Deleted message

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

[paulk]

66. sure are a lot of them lately

pretty obvious stuff

[Stinky The Clown]

50. DINO's give us one thing NO repug can ......

Committee chairs.

Like Conyers on House Judiciary ..... just fer openers

Or Charlie Rangell on Appropriations .... just fer another .....

[Douglas Carpenter]

56. well yes

If the Democrats take the House this November

10 members of the Progressive Caucus would become chairmen of committees

John Conyers becomes Chairman of the Judiciary Committee

Even a vote for a conservative Dem is a vote for Conyers and the 10

https://www.democrats.org/page/contribute


WE ARE TALKING ABOUT REAL POLITICAL POWER FOR THE PROGRESSIVE CAUSE FOR GOODNESS SAKES!!! ISN'T THAT WHAT WE WANT?

[Name removed]

73. Deleted message

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

[Douglas Carpenter]

74. so what are you suggesting that should be done then?

perhaps I'm a bit naive about these things. But then again I even believe Elvis is dead.

[Neil Lisst]

57. that's what I'm talking about it

so we have to kiss a few frogs to get a majority ...

[ShortnFiery]

60. Sometimes we're mistakenly kissin' TOADIES? LOL n/t

[Neil Lisst]

64. you know what they say ...

you gotta kiss a few toads to find a prince

I prefer Dems who vote the way I would, but when it comes to getting a majority in the House or the Senate, I will literally take anyone.

Once we get a majority, THEN is the time to settle old scores with Dems who bent over too far and too fast for Bush.

First we get a majority, THEN we kick all the weasel's asses in the party.

[LynneSin]

93. If I could recommend a post - this one is it

To bad so many others can't see the logic behind this. Thank you for pointing out the obvious that so many people can't see

[Clarkie1]

68. You don't understand a basic principle of politics: It's all local.

Your "DINO" may be someone else's liberal Democrat in a deeply red area of the country.

Your entire premise is false.

[WillyT]

80. Hmmm...

Just sayin.

:shrug:

[onenote]

81. I missed the meeting where you were picked to decide who is a democrat

How exactly would you "throw out" Lieberman or anyone else from the party. Is there something I missed? The voters "throw out" candidates. If flippin' Ollie North announced tomorrow he was running as a Democrat, he'd be a Democrat, presumably one that couldn't attract the votes of others who regard themselves as a Democrats, but a Democrat nonetheless. See, that's how it works. Voters decide. Your post is actually quite insulting, since it suggests that people who regard themselves as Democrats in Connecticut aren't capable of deciding what they want in an elected official. Should we toss all of the Democrats who voted for Lieberman out of the party too? Then what...

sheesh..

onenote

[Donald Ian Rankin]

84. Of course they're not.

Not merely are DINOs not bad for either the Democratic party as an end in itself, or more importantly for the promotion of progressive ideals in America, they're very good indeed for them, and arguably vital.

DINOs and moderate Democrats can win in states which wouldn't elect any other kind of Democrat, and will otherwise return a RIMmorethanN Senator of Congressman.

Democrats in name still count towards making the Democrats a majority in the senate and congress, and retaking committees, helping liberal causes immeasurably; and even the most conservative DINOs votes more liberally than all but the most liberal RINOs, and arguably there's no crossover at all currently.

Without DINOs, America would be doomed to probably permanent and certainly much more frequent and extreme Republican (and more importantly conservative) rule. We may not like or admire them, but we should at least be grateful for their existance and do what we can to help them win in seats where a more liberal Democrat wouldn't.

[dolstein]

85. If that's true, it's also true of DINOs who are Green sympathizers, right?

Seriously, what good does it do for our party to have a bunch of people on the left fringe who scare off a lot of moderate voters, legitimize efforts by the Republicans to brand the Democratic Party as a bunch of God hating, "blame America first" elitists, and people who spend most of their time and energy attacking other Democrats and who'll vote for a third party candidate at every opportunity?

[LynneSin]

92. Yes please, we're a bunch of dumbshits for voting for DINOs when...

...there are perfectly good republicans we could help get elected. Anything else I can do to help enjoy my last 2 years with Bush running the white house?

Primary Elections: Get rid of bad democrats
General Elections: Get rid of all republicans


Scary concept huh?

BTW, Joe Lieberman is very pro-environment, pro-choice and it was his investigation as chair of the GOvernment Oversite that not only brought an end to the California Energy crisis but probably brought down Enron to boot.

[Ken Burch]

99. Nobody in the progressive wing is saying vote Republican instead of

Democrat. None of us have EVER said that. Stop spreading DLC propaganda.

And, whatever Lieberman may have done in the past, we know he'll never do anything progressive again. You can't be progressive on anything now and STILL be prowar. The human mind doesn't work that way.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

105. That's simply not true.

It's entirely possibly to be economically and/or socially progressive, and still support the war in Iraq. I don't believe many people do, but I'm sure there are some.

That Lieberman will never to anything progressive again is likewise just untrue.

And the title of the OP was "why DINOs are worse for the party than Republicans". That's not quite an incitation to vote Republican instead of Democrat, but it's getting pretty close.

As I've argued in post #84, DINOs are absolutely vital to the promotion of progressive ideals. We may not like or admire them, but we should be very grateful indeed for their existance.

[Ken Burch]

107. No, what that thread title, in my view, is actually saying

is that we should never renominate DINOs when their is a strong progressive challenger in the primaries. You wouldn't really quarrel with that, would you?

[Donald Ian Rankin]

108. Yes, quite possibly in some cases I would.

I haven't checked the actual numbers, so I don't know if there are any cases like it this year or not, but I'd far rather run a DINO with a non-trivial chance of winning than a progressive without, and I would not be surprised if there were some cases (incumbents, conservative states, etc) where this is the case.

Given a choice between a DINO and a progressive as *Senator or Congressman*, though, I'd unhesitatingly choose the progressive.

It's just not necessarily true of *candidates*, because in some cases what you may actually be choosing between is a DINO and a Republican for the Senate/Congress.

[Ken Burch]

109. Maybe he did a handful of good things in the past

But Lieberman is now permanently on the right. We all know he'll never hold a hearing like that again. You can't love the Iraq war and care about justice.