Russ Feingold is a DEMOCRAT

Russ Feingold would never, ever want to hear other Democrats make noises about abandoning the party.
Even though he disagreed with the Iraq war he supported the Democratic ticket in 2004.

"So I am a proud Democrat. I'm for Kerry and Edwards, but I know the war in Iraq was a serious mistake."

He may be upset with his Democratic family, but like all families he wouldn't abandon them or want others to talk trash about them.

And remember this: If he runs for President, he will run as a DEMOCRAT.

Just sayin'.

Just askin'.

:evilgrin:

People like Lieberman and Cuellar get where they do when people like you and me fail to take action. With Lieberman, it's the Democrats in Connecticut who need to get more active.

Rather than gnashing our teeth about "traitors" (as so many of us do), we should look at the Joementums as indicators that we haven't been doing enough. Rather than threatening to leave the Party, we should settle on ONE such "traitor" to defeat in the next primary. If there was a movement to take out one single big-league defector, the damage to the Party would be insignificant, the gains would be considerable, and the lower-echelon defectors would be put on notice -- strongly.

We should also reassure ourselves that it's not the end of the world. The Democratic Party has made steady progress in the last decade. It's frustrating that they all can't become fire-breathers overnight, but the equation is surely changing. Let's not convince ourselves that slow victory equals certain defeat. Among all of our setbacks, history is still ours to make.

--p!

And I agree with you that traitors need to be taken out before they do real damage to the solidarity and true message of the party.

The thing I find amazing is that Lieberman is only STARTING to be denounced by the party faithful. Looking at his record, he's been like this for YEARS going back to the PMRC in the 90's.

I know it's important to have a 'big tent', indeed, it's the one thing that the Democratic Party has going for it. Differing opinions and intelligent compromises are what make good government.

But, then there are people like Cuellar, Lieberman and Zell Miller. In the name of party peace, these guys are allowed so much latitude that they end up actually working for the opposition.

And they're never called on it until it's blindingly obvious.

There is always hope. Start small, build on your mistakes. And recognize the true damage when difference of opinion becomes a grand canyon.

Sometimes you have to cut your losses in EXTREME CASES. I'm not recommending general purges, just coming to grips with hopeless cases before it's too late.

He's a lot better for the Democrats than the extreme left is.

... what defines how they are "extreme left", and why that's bad. With the way that Fox News is successfully moving the bar on what "extreme left" is, you might be talking about people that could have been Republicans not too long ago as "extreme left". A lot of what I consider good progressive values that should be fought for, Fox News would like to have defined as "extreme left" to marginalize them. If having a bankruptcy bill in place that projects people from being wiped out by an emergency medical condition is an "extreme left" position, then I'm sorry I think that being extreme left is a good thing, and I would wager that a big majority of Americans would be "extreme left". Might be an "extreme left" position amongst "corporate persons" that both political parties are increasingly serve as their constituents, but not to average Americans!

I'll just let our progressive purists stew in their own rancid juices, calling vainly for purges.

My plan is to concentrate on ONE single individual -- like Lieberman. And I also recognize that there may be reasons to keep "Joementum" and to concentrate on someone else.

The idea is to flex our muscle in a precise, efficient way, that gets the most attention and does the least damage. Period. A "surgical" removal, not a purge.

This is entirely different from tens of thousands of us screaming "WHORE! TRAITOR!" and calling for blood. Signaling the ability to remove defectors in a simple, no-nonsense way, and to replace them with people who are a little more firebrand-like, will be far more effective than an intra-party bloodbath. It will also force us, as a Party, to figure out ways to "rehabilitate" our backsliding members.

In spite of some of my rhetoric, I am not talking about enforcing party conformity. I'm sure we can find one outlier who is hurting the Party, who we can de-elect.

As for "Progressive Purists" (against whom I've also ranted), the same fate could befall the worst of them.

The emphasis, however, ought to be on our ability to replace politicians who materially hurt the entire Democratic movement. A single, targeted de-election will help us accomplish what we need to do. It will prove to the world that we are willing to focus without infighting to achieve our objectives -- without turning it into a wholesale slaughter.

Consider the alternatives -- anarchy and/or a political Thermidor.

Of course, I might be wrong, but it seems to be a workable idea. We ought to consider it -- and try to come up with something even better if possible.

--p!

The post I responded to clearly said "traitors need to be taken out before they do real damage to the solidarity and true message of the party." Which indicates nothing but a gloriously out of touch with reality silliness.

"The idea is to flex our muscle in a precise, efficient way, that gets the most attention and does the least damage."
Hell of a job so far. Cuellar's the candidate in Texas and "Deport 'em all" Paul Hackett recognized futility and dropped out (throwing a Nixonian snit and blaming everyone else for his failures as he did).

"It will also force us, as a Party, to figure out ways to "rehabilitate" our backsliding members. "
Got a flash for you, chief. Most Democrats are moderates.

With the possible exception of Zig Zag Zell.

Unless the senate democrats begin lending more public and vocal support Feingold's bill will never reach a floor vote. Somehow I suspect that a lot of democrats will breath a sigh of relief if it doesn't.

Why are they stabbing him in the back?

Are they the cowards that Feingold alleges? Afraid to go against BushCo.?

Or are they concerned they'll lose the gravy train of corporate funding? Feingold is known to speak his mind and take little - if any - from major corporations in terms of fundraising.

Or do they genuinely think Bush has done nothing worthy of censure?

I haven't commented on many posts regarding the Feingold issue even though I agree with him and signed his petition, but I've been sitting back watching the supporters of others (those who are either keeping mum or aren't rushing out to support the censure) pretend to know what's in their candidates' brains.

I think we need to follow the spines, the money and the alligences here: it's an excellent opportunity to note which direction the party needs to be tugged, kicking and screaming, which is toward the spines, away from the corporations and toward the truth.

Edited for clarity.

Excellent comments!

I think the more pertinent question right now, judging from the behavior of his fellow Senators, is will the Democratic Party establishment abandon Russ Feingold?

Many wives live in denial when their husband beats them, and breaks apart their families from within. The women that speak up and point to these problems aren't trying to break apart their families (even if the end game may force them into divorce), but in many cases are trying to preserve it and restore it to what it might have been before the battering took place, by forcing things like counseling to take place, etc. and dealing with the problem.

That is what Feingold is doing. He's telling us all to wake up and DEAL with this problem, not just continue to ignore it like a battered housewife in denial that's rationalizing by doing so that she's trying to hold together a remnant of her family, when she's contributing more to its destruction by continuing the denial.

But what if the endgame does end up in a "divorce?" If a significant number of people, including Feingold, as alleged by a few on this board, end up leaving the Party, it splinters our votes. To use your analogy, it depresses us economically (votes and fundraising in the political vernacular) much the same way that a woman with children usually ends up much poorer after a divorce.

Are we better off? Can we survive the splintering that will occur and, unfortunately, put more Republicans in office if we cannot force the DLC-types into counseling to find a cure?

Sure, we wouldn't be battered by our "spouse" in the right-wing of the Democratic Party, but we might end up on the streets, starving.

I'm not saying I think this will happen. I'm just asking for some further conjecture.

But to not talk about it in some instances is to continue the denial, which can cause more harm than going through the divorce.

I think for most of all of our lives, the Democratic Party has represented an entity that we all feel enables viewpoints we want to have acted upon. It has been good to us. But like anything else that's good for us, it can change into something that's not good for us. To continue to try and make it something it isn't, if it deteriorates to a state that's unrecoverable, and waiting for it's slow death, may be worse than picking up and starting fresh with something new, without the older baggage that will also enable our viewpoints.

The big question is whether we have that option of "practically" starting something new that represents our values. At this point in time, that's a very thorny question in our two party system. It has happened in our past when we had the Whigs, Bull Moose Party, etc. but today, that's a pretty heavy obstacle to overcome. But we may at some point be forced to do so. We should continue to measure how we might overcome it if there ever is a chance to free ourselves of this burden that won't force worse sacrifice on us that throwing away the Democratic Party today would imply. Ultimately it isn't so much "the Democratic Party" that we stand for here, it is the values that it has espoused and that we continue to want some entity to represent for us.

I think Skinner should control those posts that basically say that the Democratic Party is something a poster just wants to bring down, without any attempt to fix its values prior to wanting to "throw it away". That's counter to this board's ideals. But I think it is a completely American ideal to make sure that what we have works, or forcing ourselves to fix it if it isn't working, to the point of starting over if that becomes necessary.

The battered wife that thinks practically of her options before going into/continuing denial or trying to remedy her situation is what I'm talking about, not just one that blindly accepts her condition without thinking about her options. She doesn't want to wind up starving on the streets, as do we not want to do so either. I hope we don't feel forced to "comply" or starve at some point. Then Democracy really is dead.

If they really believed Kucinich would leave the Dem party, then they don't know DENNIS Kucinich AT ALL.

to get behind Feingold.

It is beyond comprehension why they would hold back since a huge majority of the American people have finally caught on to Bush and his lies.

As Congressman Murtha said, "The American people are way ahead of the Congress on this issue." He was, of course, referring to Iraq, but the same line of thinking applies here.

Bush can get a warrant to do what he says he wants to accomplish. So, why is it so important for the lying bastard to be able to do it illegally?

Logical people everywhere are having trouble understanding why we are being governed by morons. Never would have thought it would have happened.

Stir up your Senators!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Seeing that you took to the floor of the Senate to chide President Clinton for lying about a personal matter. A matter that would lead to an Impeachment trial. I can not see how you can not do the same to a President that has lied in two State of the Union speeches to the American People. (Iraq's un-manned attack aircraft and Yellow Cake from Niger). A President that has also admitted lying about WARRANTLESS eavesdropping. This issue is in direct violation to the current FISA law. Impeachment would be the only course to correct such a matter. I feel, Mr. Lieberman, given your history of honesty when speeking on such matters you should give support to Sen. Russ Feingold's Censure measure in the Senate. Politicians should not change the law to give President Bush a pass. National Security is NOT hampered by the FISA law. And our Constitution deserves to be respected not tread apon by ideologues.

Sincerely,

Dr. Fred

The gist of my message was that, as Congressman Murtha has observed about Iraq, the American people who are way ahead of the Congress on the issue of censuring (or impeaching) the President.

The administration is chipping away at all the things that has made this country great and our Senators and Representatives have be complicit by their inaction.

Keep up the good fight.

heard *in* the party.

Yeah, there'll be other opinions among Democrats and he knows it, but he is clearly doing what he feels is right as a Democratic Senator.

I appreciate that.

... for daring to stand for something ...

trashing Democrats here at DU. I would think the Republicans have that pretty well covered.

More specifically is the immature response to frustration exhibited here at DU with lines drawn in the sand and the word "hate" thrown around so capriciously. Perhaps some people missed learning to get along with others in sandbox in kindergarten. If throughout our lives we drop-kicked to the curb people that said or did something not to our liking, we'd be pretty lonely people. We simply cannot expect to agree 100% of the time with anyone.

As the saying goes, open your mind and your ass will follow.