Sunday Discussion Group

September 9, 2007

MoveOn.org asked its membership, via email, a highly provocative question this week: whether the group should support primary opponents for Democratic lawmakers who have been insufficiently forceful in opposition to the Republicans’ Iraq policy. MoveOn asked supporters to help decide how to proceed on this “really big decision.”

“Deciding to support primary challenges is a big step — some folks have argued that we should keep our focus on Republicans, the primary architects and supporters of the war,” the e-mail read.

The powerful liberal interest group said the Democratic majority has failed MoveOn on some issues, “usually because too many of them were afraid to fight.”

In a survey attached to the e-mail, the group asks its supporters whether they want to begin backing Democratic primary challengers and, if so, how much money they would put toward that effort.

“There are a few key things to keep in mind,” the e-mail said. “We would only get involved in a primary race if MoveOn members in the district or state wanted to — and a majority supported that primary challenger. And we’d focus on races where a progressive had a good chance of beating the sitting Democrat and also winning the general election.”

As a rule, the left has shied away from primary challenges, at least over the last couple of decades. When Ned Lamont took on Joe Lieberman last year, it was more the exception than the rule.

Is this a worthwhile endeavor? There’s clearly more than one school of thought on the matter.

For some, it’s a no-brainer. Democratic incumbents who don’t face pressure will be far less reliable. Primary opponents, or even the threat of a primary opponent, will help instill some discipline in the caucus. This is about using democracy to demand accountability.

For others, it’s equally obvious. The Democratic majority in Congress is narrow and could easily disappear. By launching primary challenges from the left, activists may make it easier for the GOP to pick up seats and spread the left too thin. The focus in 2008 should be on defeating Republicans. A bigger Democratic majority will make it easier to advance a progressive agenda.

There are also long-term consequences to consider. For proponents of more primaries, there may be a risk that Dems would lose seats, and maybe even their majority, in 2008, but over the course of the next few years, the Democratic Party overall would be more progressive.

There’s also the question of criteria. How does one decide who has been sufficiently forceful in opposition to the war? Clearly, a lawmaker like Rep. Brian Baird (D-Wash.) — who opposed the war until reversing course a couple of weeks ago, saying he’s decided the “surge” should continue — would qualify, but from there it gets a little trickier. What if a Dem is an enthusiastic backer of a withdrawal timeline, but opposes cutting off funding?

So, the floor is open. How would you answer MoveOn’s question? How many Democratic primary challenges would you like to see next year?

The Democratic majority in Congress is narrow and could easily disappear.
No, it can’t. And even if it did, what the hell is the point of having a democratic majority if they won’t get us the hell out of Iraq?

The way the system is now, with incumbents winning their primaries 99+% of the time encourages people to be weak and complacent. A few serious primary challenges in a few areas that are safe or even likely democrat shouldn’t be a bad thing at all.

Too many especially in marginal areas would definitely be bad, since primaries can damage their winners in terms of money and image, and open seats do tend to cost more money to attack or defend, but the democrats are swamping the republicans in fundraising anyway.

The biggest problem I see here is polarization. Iraq is a single issue where the country has pretty much reached consensus, but if something like this goes further, democrats might become like the republicans have become. This is especially noteworty given the “blue dog” democrats and their stances on the war. Plus nearly every potential democratic gain next year will be coming from fairly moderate or even conservative areas.

  • How many seats ought to be challenged?

    The seats of every legislator who voted to support Bush’s refusal to end the war by continuing to vote for the funding, to start with. The seats of Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid for taking impeachment off the table. The seats of those who voted to give Bush permission to conduct an invasion of Iraq, for not removing this option from the bill.

    Democrats must not make the mistake of thinking that they can fly in the face of the hopes of those who elected them without very real consequences. Those progressives who voted for them are not “malignant conservatives” who slavishly follow their leaders no matter what they do — unlike substantial numbers of conservatives. Once elected, what Democrats actually DO once they’re in Congress matters to those who supported them. They don’t seem to have learned this lesson yet, riding high on just being there and caving in on the Bush agenda from the get-go. They may be headed for a well-deserved fall. Maybe they don’t understand their progressive constituents or how to likely ensure their loyalty. Keeping promises is a good start.

  • I would like to see some of the more blatant “sore thumbs”, like Baird, get pounded by genuine progressives. But wholesale “cleansing” would be stupid (which isn’t to say it wouldn’t appeal to Democrats). Even today’s miserable excuses for Democrats are superior to the Myrmidon-like Republicans.

    It ought to be unnecessary to make such choices. If we had genuine leaders, instead of the “don’t rock our boat” types which we’re stuck with, they’d have the clout to keep renegades in line without tests for ideological purity. Unfortunately, we don’t. Has anyone heard anything of any kind whatever from Nancy Pelosi since before Congress went on its summer recess? All I’ve heard from Reid in he last month was one recent wimpish “threat” to challenge GOP funding of its war. Har, har. Yawn.

    This is leadership? Give me a break. Please. The game is really getting to be meaningless. Sort of like the Mariners: there’s no other game in town, but I’d almost do anything rather than give a damn. They don’t care about me; why should I care about them?

  • (1) In a true democracy—whether that form of government is by via Consentual Democracy or Republic—every incumbent should face a primary challenger (some deserve it, others just need it to keep them on their toes, and still others should face an opponent merely to keep the election mechanism running smoothly).

    (2) A Dem majority that caters to the whims, whines, and whip of this administration is no different than a Republican majority that does the same thing. No matter the title of the Party, they become the “blurred, gray area” of politics, and keeping them in power does nothing more than to promote a sense of “Party before People.” If the People desire this nation’s armed forces out of Iraq, then it is the duty of those elected to represent that desire to accomplish the goal. By choosing to do otherwise, they are effectively guilty of a dereliction of their duty as representatives of the People. They unilaterally redefine, for their own ill-explained purpose, what the People want—and that is fundamentally detrimental to the elemental concept—“WE, THE PEOPLE”—upon which this Republic is based.

    I say, “Let them face the challenge.” To think otherwise, thus further enabling this wrongful disaster, would be no less than hypocritical….

  • Well, let’s turn the question around and ask, “Should progressives support people who are elected on the Democratic ticket, regardless of what their voting record is?”

    It’s pretty simple to see the answer is “No.” Progressives were right to answer “No” to that when Ned Lamont challenged Joe Lieberman.
    This paragraph from Moveon.org’s email is hugely important:

    “There are a few key things to keep in mind,” the e-mail said. “We would only get involved in a primary race if MoveOn members in the district or state wanted to — and a majority supported that primary challenger. And we’d focus on races where a progressive had a good chance of beating the sitting Democrat and also winning the general election.”

    If progressives are going to be a significant force within the Democratic party, we need to flex our muscles. And, when the strategy includes the above provisos, I don’t see how it endangers a Democratic majority.

  • As soon as a so-called Democratic candidate makes it clear that he or she has no intention of ending the war, I think Moveon.org should shift their support to challengers. This may have started as Bush’s war, but those who voted to support it and continue to vote to fund it are also culpable. Enough is enough.

  • Morally, I don’t think we can oppose the Democrats so much for not standing up as early as they could have or as much as we’d like to when the media is so against them. During WWII, a lot of people didn’t oppose the Nazis who could have said or done something, merely because it would have been harder for them to survive if they did that. We don’t call them reprehensible fo rnot opposing the Nazis more.

    Strategically, I don’t think we necessarily want to do this either. A blackmailed candidate is less useful to the Republicans than a Manchurian Candidate, and makes up for Republican losses; it solves the problem of a public ready for a Democratic majority for the next ten years. But you have to get rid of the incumbent to get your man in there. For those who don’t believe politics is played this way: Zell Miller, Joe Lieberman. It’s very easy to conclude that a person will always do something that will benefit them if they can get away with it; to believe that it’s not common for people to act according to this principle is a fantasy.

  • If resources were unlimited (volunteer time and energy, money, organizational leadership) this would be a pretty easy question: make sure every election – primary or general – had a strong, well-supported progressive candidate.

    Reality intrudes in two important ways, however: (1) resources are very finite; and (2) Iraq or no, the single most important issue Congress votes on is the organizing resolution. There are hundreds of subtle ways over the course of a term that having a committee chair or a majority on the committee makes a real difference in outcomes and lives — and most of these never make the news. Simply having the majority is of incalculable value. Even when Dems are not as progressive as we would like, and despite some overheated rhetoric to the contrary, a “bad” Dem is almost always still better across a broad range of issues than a “good” Republican. (I’ll make an exception for JoeLie).

    I am not suggesting that individuals should never run primaries against Dems, but the institutional support really should be rarely if ever used to promote a primary. The resources are limited and should be used against the structural “enemy,” the Elephants.

    Moreover, resources aside, primaries tend to do some long-term damage to relationships within the party – the very people we need working together. I may think Leonard Boswell deserves a primary, but plenty of progressives in Iowa would disagree. And what of someone like Harkin, who is far left on many, many issues but voted wrong on the AUMF? How “single issue” can we afford to be in such decisions (knowing we each may have our own single issue – Iraq, reproductive rights, civil rights, trade) without splintering the party so badly we never win another election again?

    Related to that, coming up with criteria is a challenge. Should the criteria be applied consistently? Do I hold Amy Klobuchar from Minnesota to the same standard as Heath Shuler? If I let Shuler vote with the R’s half the time with no penalty to him, but penalize Klobuchar for voting with the R’s 35% of the time (I making these numbers up for example), how is that fair to Amy and how does it really send the right message or get the right result? Yet if I hold Shuler to a standard that works in Minnesota, I likely achieve nothing but a return of that seat to the Republicans — in some districts, a DINO may be the only D we will ever get, period. Do we make exceptions for that? And if so how are our strategic compromises any better than the strategic compromises the individuals aor party leaders are making and about which we loudly complain? Are we really just arrogantly saying we have the right to make that compromise for them while they — with better information on their district and the innerworkings of the issues and Congress — have no right to make such compromises?

    I think supporting primary challenges of incumbents is very tricky and almost surely causes more harm than good. We are better off marshalling our limited resources for (a) taking our Rethugs and (b) making sure we have excellent ready-to-go, well-supported progressives for the Democratic slot any time a seat comes open.

  • A few well-funded high profile races might provide coat tails for other progressives around the country. A Connecticut recall petition would be lovely.

  • If the purpose of the candidate is to reflect the needs and opinions of their constituents then by all means support primary opponents. If a district is strongly against the Iraq occupation then the candidate (Democrat or Republican) should reflect that view. The Democrats will pick up the majority of the votes if they support the withdrawal from Iraq and it is very frustrating to see them not flex the muscles they grew in the last elections.

  • In MO. we have Senator Claire McCaskill Who won her new senate seat over a one term republican in ‘06. She votes democratic on lesser issues such as min. wage etc. “Safe” issues. She has voted consistently with the republicans on the war and war funding, on FISA etc. When asked to respond to her votes voters are ignored. She is one of 2 senators for MO and the only Democrat.. She has the support and the pressure from constituents to vote against the war funding, and against republican judicial nominations, and against FISA but still sides with republicans the same as her Republican counter part.

    It was a tight race she won here in MO. and without a major, popular primary candidate to replace her a new candidate would have a close race in the general election. But then again…she is new…1st term. Those incumbents who have been in office for years for years and have consistently voted with republicans I feel should be challenged because it’s like having a republican in office anyway. Their only democratic function seems to be the balance of parties in the House and Senate. But also, the democratic leadership has good intentions but they are about 2yrs behind the public. Reid and Pelosi both have it in their power to end this war but refuse to do what is necessary to accomplish this. Rham seems to be devoid of reality when it comes to progressives, and even John Dean, a party great, stands against impeachment and de-funding as impractical and distracting. He can’t see past ‘08 to see the party is being set up for a loss in 2012 because of being too weak to force Bush to end “his” war. They all talk a good effort but cater every time to Bush’s demands when Bush blows his terrorist whistle. I would like to see them all replaced because they refuse to debate or discuss the issues of funding or impeachment with the public.

    I support any means that would replace them, especially the so called ‘Bush dogs’ and ‘blue dogs’. BUT this is the time to do it because Democrats across the country will have an easier time winning elections in ‘08 than in the recent past because of the horror of Bush. “Electability” is not an issue in this presidential election because whoever wins the democratic primary will be the next president (if there are fair elections, and we are ‘allowed’ to have them***1st time in history voters have been this paranoid of their president). Our party leaders are waiting for a democrat as president to save them, but if they don’t act now then that president will be blamed for Bush’s failures and we will lose elections in 2012. Or are we the people being set up for more of the same…patriot act, FISA, MAC, funding an occupation on a lesser scale?…Many Democrats in office already support these issues and these should be targeted to be replaced…but not by republicans who are the same or worse. I wish we had contracts with our representatives that they would have to debate these issues with us and vote as their constituents demand. Just saying.

  • Ultimately, this is a matter for the voters in each state or congressional district. If a senator or representative is out of line on Iraq with the people who actually cast the votes, then they may be fair game. However, I think it is a bit late in the game to be doing this. Advertisements should have been running in the home states and districts of the Democratic senators and representatives who are wrong Iraq for the past six months or more. If you start now, without that ground work, you run the risk of weakening the Democratic candidate in the general election.

    I think it Ed Stephans has it right-how many times have I typed those words?-this is not a failure of individual senators and congressmen, this is a failure of leadership. They should have been doing more to hold the caucus together on Iraq, as well as FISA and the federal judicary and it should have fallen to them to lay the ground work for challenging the Bush Dogs.

  • Swan, did you just apologize for Democrats who pander to the administration by drawing a parallel to those who faced a life or death proposition in deciding whether to openly oppose Nazi rule? I know BushCo plays dirty, but that’s absurd. Pelosi did not take impeachment off the table because she was afraid Rove would put a contract on her head. Enough apologetics; it’s past time to make the Blue Dogs and other timid Dems sweat.

  • So we find out that there’s more to electing politicians than just going after the one with the ‘D’ after their name. No surprises there.

    I think MoveOn’s got a point that ain’t being emphasized here: they’ll only back a primary when a politician’s own constituents want a primary — if I’m pissed off at some Depublicrat way out there in B.F. Crackersville, yet the Crackersvillians themselves like the guy just fine, maybe I should just shaddup and mind my own household — but if you get a Brian Baird who gets his ass handed to him by his own voters, and he still won’t change, then definitely, some targeted attention is well deserved.

  • Mudfunk:

    I didn’t say anything about Democrats that pander to the administration- I think Lieberman is a Democrat who panders to the administration, and he should face a primary challenge whenever his seat is up for grabs. I don’t think there are too many other Democrats who pander to the administration, really- I think Baird has become one, and maybe in certain circumstances, others will show their striped. Take my comments to mean Democrats who oppose the Iraq war, but didn’t do it as early or as comprehensivley or as vocally as we would have liked.

    I’m not saying they weren’t being cowardly, sometimes, perhaps, or that they shouldn’t have done more, sometimes, perhaps. But sometimes, maybe we couldn’t have expected them to have done more with what they knew at the time. It would have been too high expecations. At least, you can’t at all expect someone to do something they, practically, can’t do, no matter how praiseworthy it might be for them to do it. I can’t risk what I have to save you from a danger if I have every reason to think my efforts will be squandered and I won’t end up accomplishing anything.

  • If Democrat incumbents are going to be a lot more capable than replacements, and they couldn’t have been expected to do more in the situation they were in, it may be a bad move to replace them if all they need is for the political trend to continue for them to start being better again. Maybe incumbents should face some primary pressure, though.

  • I’ll go the idealistic route and say that I think the primary should be a marketplace of Democratic ideas where the person with the best take on the issues should be the winner. If MoveOn can identify some states where the incumbent has been spineless in supporting what their constituents want and another candidate exists who has more fire in the belly and better ideas in their head, than by all means support the challenger.

    Our Democratic representatives in Congress need to realize that they are there to bravely represent the best interests of those that put them into office. If they have turned chicken and played it safe in order to retain their seats at the expense of what is best for their constituents, then I think they need to be sent the message that the party that put them where they are can work to unseat them. It’s the old Bill Cosby line that these spineless politicians need to understand: “We brought you into this world … and we can take you out.”

  • While the 90% re-election rate of all incumbents makes me gag I think that this is a bad idea.

    I don’t like purges. The decision of whether or not to challenge an incumbent Democrat solely on the basis of their Iraq funding vote is likely to do more to paint MoveOn as one-issue interlopers than it is to get more courageous Democrats elected.

    Most politicians would rather ride the waves than make them. Maybe if enough Democrats were elected to Congress they’d find the strength in numbers to vote more progressively.

  • MoveOn’s qualifications are extremely important, and I’d add another consideration.

    I’d give Webb a pass, because he’s a principled centrist, and we need a ‘bigger tent’ than the Republicans.

    As much as it makes me cringe, if her constituents are still with her, I’d also give McCaskill a pass, because I think she’ll just go along with whomever is in power, so with a Democrat president she might be okay. Also, her seat is at risk. If she’s not looking like a winner, however, I’d rather loose with a genuine progressive.

    At the risk of being a bit overly convcerned with a single issue, I’m tempted to go after (or threaten to go after) Feinstein and Mikulski, if either is up for re-election, ‘pour encourager les autres’, and to make them sweat a bit, as punishment. They’re visible, they should have known better, their districts would have supported a negative vote, and their seats are comparatively safe, even with a newcomer running.

  • To clarify, I’m upset with Feinstein and Mikulski over their FISA extension votes, which I consider a more serious problem than the Iraq war. The Iraq war is bankrupting us but will end eventually, whereas we only have one constitution, and Bush has been allowed to set absolutely terrible precedents that could last indefinitely.

  • We need to concentrate on the Main Enemy. If we defeat enough Republicans that we have a 61-vote Senate and a 280-vote House, it won’t matter if some are “weak” or not.

    Circular firing squads are the first act of standard-issue political morons, and lefties left to their own devices are usually even more moronic than righties (as witness the “Greens” in 2000).

    Back off, MoveOn, if you want any more of my money.

  • As always, I enjoy zeitgeist’s (#10) informed level-headedness.

    The American political system gives the impression of being very out-front and exposed. Transparency is good, but so is discipline. Having your fight expensively in a primary doesn’t seem very skillful. Are there not some minimum requirements to assuming the Democratic label? Don’t you have to meet some agreed policy positions and standards?

    What is the role of whips in congressional voting and decision-making? Are those who caucus in the Democratic fold not obliged to accept official Democratic policy on key issues? Is every vote a free vote? If the latter is the case how are the electorate ever going to know what they are voting for?

    I don’t know, but it would seem that a political party standing for office should have some agreed policy positions. Otherwise, what is it? What use is it if people don’t know, when they vote, what that ‘Democrat’ on the label actually stands for?

    I think it is a very personality oriented democracy in America. In other countries, each party agrees on its own policy agenda, which is presented to the electorate in the form of a manifesto, which is then honored if the party is elected. Candidates standing for election under a particular party banner have already made their choice about policy, which is the policy of that party. If they are elected they no longer have the choice about how to vote — they made that decision before they were elected.

    Although it appears that American democracy runs on a two-party basis, it really is not so. There are almost as many parties as there are representatives, since every representative is free to vote as he chooses. Maybe what the Democratic Party needs to do is to take a leaf out of the Republicans’ book. Republicans vote lock-step on every issue, and always in support of their president. It’s not nice, and I wouldn’t wish it on my worst enemy — but it works.

    So, in conclusion, as a general principle, I believe what needs to happen on the Democratic front is tighter discipline, more discussion and agreement on official Democratic policies (which candidates have to accept if they want to put a ‘D’ on their card), and less of a free-for-all.

    Policy without power is useless. Power without policy is criminal.

  • Until recently I have been far less inclined to support primary challenges. Living in a dense urban area — Los Angeles — I had experience in 2006, if not direct involvement, with a few of them in my district and adjacent districts…. against Jane Harman, Howard Berman, etc. There’s little question that Harman’s attitude has changed noticeably as a result of a remarkably strong challenge by Marcy Winograd. And Harman is a long-term, powerful Democrat in the House in a relatively safe district. Without going into more detail, the challenge to Berman, though sincere, was a joke.

    So, one important rule-of-thumb: if you’re going to support a primary challenge, only do so if there’s a strong challenger. Support for a weak primary challenger just wastes a lot of time, effort and money, and creates a lot of unnecessary animosity.

    I think Chris Bowers and Matt Stoller over at Open Left http://www.openleft.com have the right idea in analyzing this issue. It’s more than just looking at the Iraq vote(s). They’ve identified about 40 “Bush Dogs” who have supported, if not openly pandered to, Bush on not just Iraq, but also on FISA. (This can be expanded by considering votes on the Military Commissions Act (Habeas Corpus) and related capitulations to administration overreach.) And they also look at these reps relative to their districts vis-a-vis how Democratic-Republican it is.

    The Open Left approach is not to “purge” Democrats, regardless of electoral outcomes, for the sake of some standard of “purity”, but rather to bring pressure on those representatives who don’t represent either their district or their country on a range of issues that are just so fundamental to the current mood of the country and beyond, to the meaning of this country.

  • I also need to add that I have a grave concern that even if we elect a Democratic president in 2008 and also either maintain (or likely) expand Democratic majorities in Congress, that we’ll see little policy changes on these issues. That while the Democrats have, in theory, total control of the national government, there will still be enough renegades in Congress and no backbone within the party to fight on issues against the intense right-wing attacks.

    Face it, even with majorities in Congress, how much fight have the Democrats put up?? None. I think the “we don’t have the votes” excuse is pathetic. At least fight and lose if you really don’t have the votes and the party discipline on these critical issues rather than capitulate and surely lose

    I thoroughly disgusted by the whole bunch of them. I’ve put in probably thousands of volunteer hours for the Democratic cause in the last few years, but right now I don’t feel like lifting a finger to do any more for this party.

  • One has to choose one’s battles wisely. It is foolish to go after someone like Melissa Bean, since however bad she is, Phil Crane was ten times worse. Nevertheless, many Congressional districts today are not swing districts by any stretch of the imagination, whether we are talking about inner-city Democratic districts or exurban or rural Republican districts. In these areas, if there is to be any accountability, it has to occur in the primary rather than the general election.

    If Dan Lipinski has been bad on issues such as Iraq war funding and FISA or Al Wynn has been unrepresentative on issues such as bankruptcy and estate tax, by all means they should be challenged, since there is very little danger that their districts are going to go to the Republicans. This is especially true of people like Lipinski who was not chosen by Democratic means in the first place. His father and predecessor dropped out after the primary filing deadline.

  • Randy Gold:

    ….how much fight have the Democrats put up?? None. I think the “we don’t have the votes” excuse is pathetic. At least fight and lose if you really don’t have the votes and the party discipline on these critical issues rather than capitulate and surely lose

    I absolutely agree, particularly about doing the right thing anyway, even if you think you’ll lose a particular battle. At least the public then sees what you’ll fight for, what’s important to you, rather than concluding, with some justification, you’re quite okay with the Bush agenda. It’s an awful lot like easily capitulating and saying you just can’t resist rape.

    Most of the people I know really do believe the Democrats are getting just what they want right now and it’s identical to the Bush agenda. Because of that, they believe nothing will change after the 2008 election.

  • Anney (28)

    Most of the people I know really do believe the Democrats are getting just what they want right now and it’s identical to the Bush agenda.

    That may be true in your circle, but I don’t see that as nearly a majority opinion in mine. I will agree, though, that it’s accepted as an open secret to some degree.

    Personally, I still don’t think “The Democrats” in D.C. as a whole are getting what they want. I’m still inclined to believe — even as disgusted that I am — that they just don’t have a clue how to get it together. They’re just “running out the clock” on this administration and hoping for the best, which may work in a very shallow sense, but is obviously no way to win friends and influence people or to run government.

  • Randy Gold

    If the Democrats as a whole are NOT getting what they want, why have they supported every important agenda item of Bush’s? Nobody forces them to vote with a gun at their heads. Nobody prevents them from devising excellent rebuttals to support a No vote to reflect their constituents’ calls for getting out of Iraq, or constitutionally reiterate to him in law that he may not unilaterally attack Iran, or ending Bush’s FISA fiasco, or any of the other extremely important issues they’ve caved in on.

    I guess I must run in more radical circles than you! But that’s really not it 🙂 THOUSANDS of people are saying that now there’s really no difference in the parties, given what the Democrats support and give to Bush with their votes. It really isn’t too much to expect Democrats to stand up for what’s right, and they certainly haven’t done that. Since they have never been forced at the point of a gun to cast their votes as they do, one can only conclude that they’re okay with what they vote for, can live with it. But it’s causing further death and destruction of a country we illegally invaded, decimating the Civil Rights of America, and changing the world itself in a very negative way. One can only conclude they don’t care enough to vote against Bush’s agenda, even if they lose.

  • I’m one of Claire McCaskill’s constituents. In fact, I contributed money and worked to get her elected. If she continues on her current path of voting in support of continuing the occupation of Iraq and eliminating my Constitutional rights, I will be first in line to contribute and work for a progressive challenger when she is up for reelection. Don’t need a Senator who campaigns as a Democrat and votes as a Republican.

  • Didn’t Tip O’Neill say that “all politics is local”? Democratic reperesentatives that don’t vote with the party on a particular issue usually do so because they have local constituencies that won’t support the party on that issue. The bigger question is how do they vote across the range of issues? As bad as the occupation of Iraq is, it is not the only issue on which we must make progress.

    This reminds me of how a few years back the Republicans went hunting for RINOs and more or less purged the party of its moderates. Now that only the wingnuts remain, the party is much less attractive and competitive. I can’t see why progressives should want to emulate that behavior. Progressives should focus on beating Republicans and the best way to do that is to elect more Democrats.

    It seems to me that progress on a broad range of issues will ultimately help to move the country in the direction that progressives want. It may be incremental change, but I’m tired of revolutions anyway.

  • I sure hope no one is deluding themselves into believing there are a large number of “pro-war” votes coming from Democrats in safe seats. Here’s a news flash: good liberal states and districts tend to elect good liberal representatives and Senators.

    In more evenly split or republican-leaning venues, the best you’re going to do is pretty centrist or even fairly conservative Democrat. But spend some time looking through score cards from issue groups like the ADA, ACLU, LCV, AFL-CIO and NARAL and it’s hard not to come away with the conclusion that even a fairly conservative Democrat is pretty attractive alternative to the least offensive Republicans.

    Here are a few links. Try comparing Joe Lieberman’s scores to Chuck Hagel for the last congress, then count your blessings.

    http://www.adaction.org/votingrecords.htm
    scorecard.aclu.org
    http://www.aflcio.org/issuespolitics/votes/vr_memb.cfm
    http://www.vote-smart.org

    Now I will say that if all goes well this year, then by 2006 it should be about time to go back to putting the screws to Democrats and I’ll bring the beer. But first, we need to stop the bleeding.

  • Anney….

    If I’m not too late to pick up with this thread: It’s generally been only a minority — sometimes a small minority — of Congressional Democrats who have actively supported the Bush agenda. The problem is that the leadership and other spokesman have been totally incompetent (1) by being either unwilling or just plain unable to keep the minority in line and (2) in not being consistent, forceful and convincing in articulating the opposition line. And as I’ve admitted before, there are enough Democrats getting exactly what they want. Agreed. I just think the larger explanation is that the Dems can’t get over their inferiority complex and end up wussing out at every opportunity. I really don’t think that business interests, for example, that may have Democrats and Repubs in their pocket don’t care about how the Dems vote on FISA, and other than the military-industrial complex business interests are probably not happy about Iraq, both for its immorality and terrible waste of resources.

    In any event, I think we’re agreed that the status quo can’t continue. Bringing pressure on selective Democrats and the leadership through primary challenges and other ways has to be the way. We’re in a two party configuration, so we have to live with that.

    I run in a lot of circles locally. Some believe that there’s no difference between the parties and others disagree. I’m in the latter camp. I think it’s naive to say that they’re all the same, but I’m clearly convinced that the Dems too often act as a unit in terribly self-destructive, counter-productive and dangerous ways.

    • Comments are closed.