Okay, it appears Joe is going down. Who might/should be next?

[Stinky The Clown]

I don't think there's a chance in this cycle to repeat what is happening to Holy Joe with any other candidate. For the most part, the field is set for the November elections and there's no serious chance to get anything started now.

But what's happened to Holy has implications for the future.

Who might we - or should we - target in 08? Or should we just be happy with what we have for now and wait a year to assess the impact this has had on the other elected Dems? There might be, in your mind or mine, some who just need to start saying and doing the right thing and there might be others who, like Holy, just need to go.

Discuss.

[skipos]

1. Lets take down Santorum, Burns, Dewine, Talent, Chafee, Allen and Corker

[Stinky The Clown]

4. Uh ... have they changed parties?

How are they analagous to Holy? You know ... a Dem ousted by Dems.

[skipos]

12. No, but we do want to take down republicans, right? nt

[PassingFair]

20. Let's clean our own house first...

we have to LIVE here.

A Lamont victory will put corporate dems on NOTICE.

Viva Lamont! Viva Progressives! Viva the People!

[skipos]

30. You got to own the house to do the renovations.

And as the minority party, Democrats surely do not own the house right now.

Really we can both challenge Dems in the primaries as well as work to get the Dem nominee elected. I don't see it as an either/or situation. Ford, Webb, McCaskill, Casey, etc need to be elected, just as Lieberman or Hillary need to be challenged in primaries.

[Stinky The Clown]

36. Who said, or even implied, that it is an either/or equation?

[1932]

106. The analogy does make sense. You want to clean the house. But you do need

to own the house before cleaning it. Otherwise you're doing free labor for someone else -- meaning, you're doing the work of Republicans who want to get rid of Democrats by giving them weaker opponents in the general election. As I said below, you should worry way more about whether Lamont is going to win the general election than about which Democrat you want to destroy next. If Lamont doesn't win, you'll learn why a phenomenon like Joe existed in the first place.

[CTLawGuy]

62. the IWR passed the Dem senate

the majority is not the end in itself.

[JerseygirlCT]

126. Exactly.

Look, we can manage a normal primary system wherein a Dem candidate who has disappointed his constituents loses his job at the same time that we can concentrate on flipping control of Congress.

But if we take too much time to "clean house" the primary objective -- control of Congress -- is lost.

Let's get in there, and then we can worry about who in the party wields the power.

Right now, it's all about D's after names.

(And in CT, either way, there will be a Dem -- Lieberman will caucus with his former party if he is so foolish as to run as an I).

[LittleClarkie]

48. Both/And

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2757848&mesg_id=2757848

[Name removed]

52. Deleted message

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

[PassingFair]

88. If you have mush for brains to begin with, I'd say you've got a head start

"Because that what you are calling for if you are going to try and defeat Dems."

This is a PRIMARY. We are SUPPOSED to arrive at the
best candidate.

"So getting back the house and senate are the only issues."

So WE are not going to "get back" the house and senate
unless we run the BEST candidates.

And we will not "get back" ANYTHING unless we give the
people a reason to get out and vote.

People are WATCHING, for cripe's sake.
This is NO TIME for your politics as usual.

[Nederland]

69. Exactly

We should get rid of the people that vote with us 90% of the time FIRST, then work on getting rid of the people that vote against us 100% of the time.

Yeah, that makes sense...not.

[OzarkDem]

93. Time to move on, primaries are nearly over

[PassingFair]

97. Primaries are next week.

I'll MoveOn then....

[Name removed]

109. Deleted message

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

[LynneSin]

127. Oh so you're saying we should keep republican control while we clean house

I hope you sleep well at night knowing that this war will continue as long as the republicans have control. The Lamont/Lieberman primary has been a wake up call to democrats to start paying attention to the war. At least with democratic control we have a chance of a real debate to end this war.

You should be fucking ASHAMED of yourself to put your own personal political beliefs in front of the lives of our soldiers and Iraqi civilians dying out there!

[PassingFair]

163. Oh RIGHT, Ms. "I support the bankruptcy "reform" law"

I'M the one who should be "fucking ashamed".

:rofl:

When you count your own damn MBNA job ahead of the
common good.

Yeah, I'M ashamed.

:sarcasm:

[Name removed]

175. Deleted message

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

[ScreamingMeemie]

180. But, sadly, not with the Dem representation I have seen of late.

It is because of many of our current batch that so many of our soldiers and innocent Iraqi civilians have died out there in the first place. Insider politics has no place in my life. No fucking shame here. Pride in our soldiers, my country...and very little for our current government... on both sides of the aisle.

PF has nothing to be ashamed of.

[jobycom]

22. No.

We are all about eating out own. The other party should defeat itself. That's our motto.

Personally, I'd take Lieberman and use the money and energy to defeat a few Republicans, but I guess I'm just old fashioned in that way.

[PassingFair]

23. I don't like traitors in my own house.

The logical thing to do is to clean them out.
They obviously won't go willingly, nor will
they change the voting patterns that make them
the antithesis of "representatives".

We can't and shouldn't vote in 'puke primaries,
but we can damn well demand representation from
our own.

I'm saddened that the clean-up has to take place
from the bottom up, but that is the reality.

[jobycom]

34. What does that have to do with us wasting all our time bashing Dems

instead of fighting the Republicans? It's all an ego trip, the fury of a voter scorned. These Dems that we keep attacking are not as bad as the best Republican out there. Lieberman isn't even the worst Dem out there, not even close. This isn't house-cleaning, it's the Cult of Personality on steroids.

I won't be sorry to see Lieberman go. But to be honest, I'm starting to wish he would win. I'm more afraid of the Democrats who are fighting him than I am of him. He sided with Bush on one big issue, but these Democrats have no interest in fighting the Republicans, and are going to lead to the Repubs maintaining power for much longer. To me, it looks like a choice between keeping a weak Dem, and keeping the Republicans. Same damn mentality that gave us Bush in the first place. Hell, it's the same mentality that gave us Reagan, for that matter. After the fact people go revisionist, they forget that Carter was attacked for being too conservative, that Gore was attacked for the same thing. But that's the bottom line. The Liberal Fundies can't tolerate diversity. They would rather kill their own and let the Repubs rule than accept differing opinions and defeat the real enemy.

Clean house if you want. A clean house is so much more important than a better neighborhood.

[WildEyedLiberal]

41. .

:applause: :applause:

[PassingFair]

87. This is not about ego trips.

This is about VOTERS having REPRESENTATION.

The voters will get behind the nominees.

They always do.

The hardest working volunteers I met
while working for Kerry were proponents
of other candidates during the primaries.

"Clean house if you want. A clean house is so much more important than a better neighborhood."

Take another look down the street, you're not OFFERING a better neighborhood. We cannot
afford your status quo.

[OzarkDem]

95. Primary fun is over, time to get to work and beat the GOP n/t

[NCarolinawoman]

100. You have some very good points here.

I cannot stand Leiberman, but if you ever studied the French Revolution you can get a good picture of the "eating your own" phenomenon. Where does the "purity requirement"actually end?

I say, "Leiberman goes and then we concentrate on Republicans",

[sendero]

125. A scorned voter..

... should be furious. If America had as many furious scorned voters as it should have, we'd be a lot better off.

That said, there are no other obvious traitors to the Dem ideals that come to mind. The next step is to get rid of the folks who do nothing, of which we have a boatload. Of course, the idea is to replace them with Dems who will DO SOMETHING.

[fujiyama]

137. I think it's possible to do both

Why can't we clean our house and the neighborhood at large?

I have to take exception to the idea that "Lieberman backed Bush on one big issue". It's beyond the war. Lieberman deserves to go, not just because of the war, but for so many other reasons as well.

The main problem with Lieberman is a huge ego with a sense of sanctimony. When he goes on TV, it's all about making himself look like a decent, bipartisan guy, regardless of whether or not he hurts the party's message. On so many occassions he has gone on and undercut what other Democrats are saying. Of course, the best example was his "Democrats risk irrelevancy by attacking the president" op ed several months ago. That had a huge impact.

The moment that did it for me was during the campaign when he literally apologized for the torture at Abu Ghraib asking why "terrorists didn't apologize for 9/11".

Joe's main problem is using RW talking points when attacking fellow Democrats. By pandering to fundamentalists and others, he insults those on the left as well.

But ultimately, I think some are making too much out of a potential Lieberman loss. It's worth keeping in mind that CT is a small blue state, with little chance of a republican winning the election.

[OzarkDem]

94. Focus on November n/t

[MH1]

110. "Traitors" ????

Gee, who is the traitor in this equation, I wonder. :eyes:

:puke:

[ScreamingMeemie]

183. Certainly not a person who would like to hold our Congresspeople

accountable for their actions. :eyes: That somehow makes us traitors? :puke:

[calico1]

46. The situation in CT is not quite like that.

We have a strong candidate who is poised to defeat Lieberman in the primary. But it is switching a weak Democrat for a strong one. But they are still both Democrats. Now if people were trying to get Lieberman out without there being a viable DEMOCRATIC alternative to replace him, then I'd agree with you. We don't want to lose the number of Democrats we have. We want to keep them and increase the numbers. But if there is an opportunity to weed out Democrats that do not represent their consituents properly and replace them with better Democrats then it should be taken.

[Name removed]

89. Deleted message

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

[OzarkDem]

92. Lets focus on the GOP now

primaries are almost over and November is just around the corner.

[skeeters2525]

54. Right On Skipos

Dewine would be huge to take down and that is a close one.

Do you think the Nutroots will put up the same venom to take down Dewine. We will see.

But seriously, I see more nutroots wanting to get rid of Durbin and Obama.

If you figure that out, we may take back the Country.

[1932]

105. I like your list of awful Republicans. Those are the people who need to go

[adigal]

184. Hillary - warmonger, opportunist, taking $$ from health care industry

A complete and total Whore. I know the language is harsh, but she is. And her husband, he of NAFTA and the Welfare Reform bill, was no better in that way. They would sell their souls to be in power.

[Doctor_J]

2. I am hoping some of the *-loving Dems in Congress will see this

and make some adjustments. Maria cantwell and Diane Finestein pop to mind immediately.

[Skittles]

129. thank you

that is what I am hoping for - Lieberman is not the only spineless ass-kissing Dem but he is the highest-profile one

[PassingFair]

3. Off hand, I can think of a couple of Nelsons....

But not THESE guys!

[TwilightZone]

7. Ben Nelson is one of the highest-rated members of Congress.

He's not going anywhere. His approval rating among *Democrats* in Nebraska is more than 70%.

Plus, his opponent is Pete Ricketts, who is infinitely worse. We're stuck with Ben for the foreseeable future.

[skipos]

25. Most DUers don't like to admit that Nelson gets 70%+ approval from

DEMOCRATS in NE. That is as high as what Feingold and Boxer get from Democrats in WI and CA.

[TwilightZone]

39. Yes, and it's largely because the Democrats here simply aren't the same

as Democrats on the coasts, for example.

Democrats here in Nebraska - and in SD, ND, IA, and other Midwestern states - are pretty moderate. It tends to drive those of us who are really liberal crazy, but it's a political reality. If you're not a moderate Democrat, you simply will not win a race here.

[JPZenger]

174. We Need to Understand the State They Come From

We need to understand the state where each candidate is running in. In some states, such as Nebraska and Indiana, it is suicide to run a liberal for statewide office. We might as well run Fidel. For example, Bayh had a very moderate voting record, but if he did not, we never would have had a Democrat governor or senator in Indiana.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

28. Whomever said that we should take down Ben Nelso is a fucking moran.

No question about it. I'd be surprised if a "real Democrat" has even sniffed the right side of 40% in Nebraska in 100 years and you're being picky about the kind of Democrat we have in the seat? Are you fucking kidding me?

:grr: :argh:

(Note, the actual message is on my ignore list, which is why I'm not responding directly.)

[skeeters2525]

53. Good Point Vash

I can't do anything but laugh. Let's vote out a Dem and guarentee a Republican takes over. Makes perfect sense.

[ncteechur]

119. Yeah, part of the issue is although he may not appeal to democrats

nationally, he obviously appeals to Nebraska democrats.

[bullimiami]

10. i agree.

but annoying as gunner and mat are im thinking these 2

[SteppingRazor]

11. I disagree...

Florida and Nebraska are not Connecticut. Different demographics call for different campaign strategies.

[Stinky The Clown]

13. I agree

[longship]

27. Bingo!! That's what I'm talkin' about.

You are right.

For those who think targetting Nelson-NE and Nelson-FL is a good idea:

NE is the 4th most Repug state in the nation. Any Dem elected Senator there is going to be conservative.

FL is right smack dab in the middle of the political spectrum. Any Dem Senator there is going to be likewise.

And that's just what we have with the two Nelsons.

If you target the Nelsons for defeat and attempt to replace them with progressives, you're going to get two new Republican Senators. How is that good?

[babylonsister]

16. They'd both get my vote, and no, not those guys. nt

[0007]

143. The halfwit and nitwit from Nebraska and Florida have got to go!

[John Q. Citizen]

5. Max Baucas votes Republican much of the time. I would love to

see him actually have to account for it.

In his last race (2002) he ran pictures of him and bush together signing bills and just really good pals.

Max needs a good primary opponent.

[sandnsea]

103. If Tester wins, Max will be fine

He's had absolutely no backup in Montana since Pat Williams retired in 1996. Now that it's returning to its Dem roots, Max will be a lot freer to vote his conscious. If the three of them do a good job, we might even be able to get a Democrat back in the House and put Montana back where it was before the Reagan lurch to the right.

[John Q. Citizen]

124. I'm not sure about that. Max votes Repo for a lot of banking bills

like the bankruptcy bill. He was crucial in passing the industry written prescription drug bill, that means MT seniors can no longer take bus trips to Canada with the governor to buy low cost medication,
among a long list of other bad bills.

I know a couple of friends who have worked for him as aides , and they don't much appreciate his voting record in a lot of areas.

His votes place him as one of the top 5 conservative Democrats in the Senate, and that's not including gun votes which I understand completely, being he's a senator from MT.

I think we as Democrats should hold him accountable. We need to remind him that we exist, because it seems as though he's forgotten us in a whole lot of areas.

[sandnsea]

128. Check it before 1996

I don't think you will find it was as conservative when he first got elected. He's voted against partial-birth, for hate crimes legislation, for NEA funding, for protecting ANWR. He's really been the lone Democrat for years, in a state where logging, ranching and mining jobs really are important. You're never going to get a Dennis Kucinich out of Montana, but as more Democrats get in office there, he will be able to move more to the left and I think he will.

[John Q. Citizen]

130. Well you have more faith than I do I guess. The thing is, no

voters cared if Max were to vote against the bankruptcy bill, in fact they would like it. But his corporate sponcers love that stuff. Conservative Montanans didn't beg him to support bush's pharmacuetical give away but the CEOs loved him for it. In fact, not long after he was one of the key Democrats it took to pass it, he was back tracking publically bad mouthing the bill because he took so much grief for it from so many in the state. He acted like he wasn't key to passing it.

So I have a hard time believing that some of his worst votes are a reflection of a conservative constituency, but rather a reflection of his fealty to corporate America.

Max gets high ratings from the NRA and that doesn't bother me a bit. Those votes for sure reflect the voters wishes. But regular voters aren't demanding that credit card companies be allowed to screw them. Yet Max seems to like it.

That's my analysis.

[sandnsea]

131. Wyden voted for prescription drug bill

Some Democrats supported it because it transferred state medicaid disability patients to full Medicare, where they belong. It was a strictly economic vote for the state. In addition, when AARP came out in support of it, it was kind of hard to tell a senior population how bad the bill was going to be.

Main Street supported that bankruptcy bill, and all sorts of small business associations and chambers of commerce. They are VERY important in Montana, ignore them at your peril. In addition, low income people can still file bankruptcy, anybody under the median income does not have to go through all the new red tape to get it done. I would have preferred a different approach to bankruptcy, but the bill is really going to hurt upper income people a whole lot more than it hurts lower income people.

There were valid reasons to vote for both those bills, especially as it reflects on the state and the constituency. It really is not always a matter of corporate masters.

[John Q. Citizen]

132. Who wrote the bills? What has happened to AARP membership

since they backed this thing?

60% of Americans say the country is on the wrong track. I don't believe those bills are considered the exceptions to that sentiment.

But maybe I'm wrong. It will be interesting to see how Joe Lieberman fairs this coming week.

edit to add - If a decent candidate comes forward to challenge Max in the primary in '08, I would back them in a New York minute.

[sandnsea]

134. I think people are different in different places

And I think people take the whole of a person's political ideology to decide whether to vote for them. Montana is not Connecticut. While I'm sure the right person could present a more left leaning platform and win, like I said before, it'll never be a Dennis Kucinich type person. So you may find somebody who can beat Baucus and hopefully not lose the seat, but it still won't meet your expectations. People can be very unhappy with how things are in this country, but still not think that far left liberal politics are the answer.

[John Q. Citizen]

136. I'm not suggesting a Dennis Kucinich type person. I'm suggesting

a populist instead of an elitist. Tester is a good example, as is Schweitzer.

I think the main reason both Max and Burns have done well here is because they both bring home the bacon, and people know that. Nobody particularly likes either of them though, but to some degree, burns came across more as a populist until his very un populist association with Abramhoff came out.

I also think Max would have struggled last election if the Repos had run a candidate who didn't completely self destruct.

I canvassed Montana for a year or two with MPA, from Libby to Round Up and everything in between talking to people at their doors and raising money for health care reform, so I have an idea of who lives here.

And of what people say. The old time Montanans are a fairly liberal bunch. But you are correct, not liberal in a Dennis Kucinich way. More of in a Pat Williams or a Paul Wellstone way. Many of the newer residents are considerably more conservative, in my experience.

[sandnsea]

138. And Max Baucus is an old time Montanan

So if Tester can get in, and Schweitzer continues to perform well, then Max will be able to shift left which I think he would be more comfortable doing anyway. He is just not a Ben Nelson type Democrat, Montana is not as conservative as Nebraska or the Dakotas either. I think you'll be surprised at his leadership if we can just pull this country a couple of jerks to the left.

[furman]

6. Any Democratic leader who still supports Joe after he loses the primary ..

as long as there is a better Democratic candidate to put up.

[skeeters2525]

51. String Up All Lieberman Supporters

Brilliant. Democrats must defeat anyone that likes Lieberman.

We are truly the Idiot Party.

So if Durbin and Obama say they like Lieberman I should work to defeat them.

Even though I consider them the two best Senators here in my lifetime. Two guys that actually listen to us when we show up at their office. And in Obama's case, even change his votes on certifying Bush and voting for Alito.

Sure makes perfect sense.

Let's get a 99 to 1 Repbulican advantage in the Senate.

Wooo Hoooo

Obama is a friend of Lieberman and I really don't give a fuck. Work against him, but please, let's put a bet up on the winner. I'll take Obama over whatever moron you find stupid enough to run against him.

[Name removed]

90. Deleted message

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

[MH1]

112. Huh? You're accusing the poster of being Joe Lieberman?

:rofl:

Just a little over the top?

[NoPasaran]

122. Starting with that traitor Barbara Boxer!

I remember when we were sending her roses. How DARE SHE spurn our affections now!

:sarcasm:

[SteppingRazor]

8. I don't think we should target any Dems in '08...

in fact, if Lieberman does lose the general election -- and I'm not wholly convinced his independent run will fail, though it does look as though he'll lose the primary -- I think we should wait and see what the reaction is among other Democratic politicians. This could send a strong message to them to start representing their constituents better. So, I think we should wait and see what sort of affect Lieberman's defeat has on other Democrats before we start plotting their downfalls.

Edited spelling errors :P

[Stinky The Clown]

17. Again I agree

[SaveElmer]

9. Yeah...

I concentrate on Republicans!

[davidwparker]

14. Feinstein. She is in a blue state. She has a seat that will stay blue when

a real democrat comes along.

It has to be someone in a safe state who votes DINO.

When does Feinstein face a primary?

[FreeStateDemocrat]

24. Your right but too late she is Dem nominee in Nov for 6 more years

of arrogance. I don't understand her political philosophy, has she drifted right or has she always been a closet dino?

[Cronus Protagonist]

67. I agree.

Educate Your Local Freepers!
Flaunt Your Opinions With Buttons, Stickers and Magnets from BrainButtons.com
>

[calimary]

101. Feinstein has been relatively useless, until lately. She finally started

talking tough, I'm guessing, after she saw the challenge to Jane Harman. Marcy Winograd made her actually get out and campaign hard to keep her job, and Marcy was STAUNCHLY anti-war and anti-bush. All of a sudden, you saw quite a change in Li'l Miss Jane. Suddenly she just didn't sound like such a mindless rubberstamp anymore. Even issued a campaign commercial denouncing the domestic spying program - quite a surprise for Miss I'm-ranking-Dem-on-the-House-intel-committee (even though I vote like a CON every time). I think she thought her seat would be safe and she wouldn't have to get her hands dirty so soon, but guess what - she did have to defend it. I think Feinstein noticed that, because she's gotten a tiny bit more contrary in the bow-to-bush department. She'll probably win again in November. I'll be holding my nose and voting for her, but it would be SO beautiful to see the signal sent by a Lamont victory over lieberman. Feinstein WILL notice that, too. They'll all notice it. They're gonna realize that they'll HAVE TO. It'll be a HUGE wakeup call - NO MORE PLAYING FOOTSIE WITH bUSH!!! DAMMIT!!!

Dang, I hope Lamont wins! Because, as another DUer put it, here somewhere, it'll be a HUGE in-yer-face unavoidable notice - that Democrats better start OPPOSING bush - if they value their political survival.

[Guaranteed]

133. Yup. She needs to shape up and show leadership in a VERY important

blue state, or she's next.

[welshTerrier2]

15. what does this say about where the Big Dog is at?

i truly wish this didn't have to be about "who else needs to go" and rather could be more positive ...

what will it take to awaken the Clinton wing to the fact that we need our party to be more inclusive of the "Lamont wing"??

instead of a witch hunt, we should be pushing for reform ... perhaps chopping some heads will be necessary but it seems to me that better communication might be the way to go ... united we stand; divided we fall ... we need to try to find a way to be united ... because if we're not united, our delta will kill us ... i apologize for this momentary lapse to everyone who just read that and to anyone who does not ...

[Auntie Bush]

99. I like your attitude. nt

[Greeby]

18. Here are the Senate Dems up for re-election in 2008

Baucus
Biden
Durbin
Harkin
Johnson
Kerry
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Levin
Pryor
Reed (RI)
Rockefeller

Assuming none of them retire or run for President

[SteppingRazor]

26. None of them are the DINO-in-a-blue-state alchemy required...

to replace a Dem with a more-progressive one, as far as I can tell.

[Totally Committed]

19. I feel like I'm making a Chrstmas List!

Harman, Bayh, Bean, Cantwell, Lincoln, Nelson, Nelson, Hereseth, Sebelius, Baucus, Stabenow, Bean, DiFi.... and on and on (there are, sadly, many more) though every DINO-Republican Party-colluder/enabler in our Party. One by one, as the opportunity arises.

TC

[Totally Committed]

38. Oops! I forgot one:

Nader.

He's more of the problem than the solution these days.

TC

[RFKHumphreyObama]

139. Huh?

You want to get rid of Stabenow -who voted against IWR, the confirmation of Roberts, the confirmation of Alito and against cloture for the confirmation of Alito?

And Kathleen Sebelius, who vetoed concealed handgun legislation, who is pro-choice and opposes capital punishment and who enjoys high ratings in a red state despite having these views?

To each their own I guess but I can tell you that you'd be losing some very good Democrats. And possibly gaining some very bad Republicans in their place

[Freddie Stubbs]

21. Cynthia McKinney

[GreenArrow]

29. Feinstein would be my choice

but it won't happen.

[skipos]

31. Yes, because she gets approval ratings that are as high as Boxer's

nt

[SteppingRazor]

33. I'm not really for knocking off Feinstein, but...

I would point out that Lieberman enjoyed very high approval ratings in Connecticut until very recently.

[rinsd]

40. Actually they are higher

http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollReport.aspx?g=1953a4fd-a3b0-4bd0-ae46-6a55d0fced77

With the exception of self identified liberals, (where Feinstein still scores a 63% to Boxer's 74%)Feinstein beats Boxer.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

32. No one. We need to win first. Then clean house.

Not the other way around.

[PassingFair]

167. Yeah!

How's THAT strategy going?

We need to field candidates that
will bring people out to the polls
in order to win.

And THEN they need to vote like DEMOCRATS.

These are PRIMARIES, for cripe's sake.

Who are the "purists" now?

[wyldwolf]

35. LOL! Okay, it appears McKinney is going down. Who might/should be next?

[greendog]

37. Baucus the Schmaucus.

With the right candidate Montana would be the IDEAL place to organize a grassroots challenge. A small population situated in a handful of small cities...and, with the recent successes of Schweitzer and Tester (it's in the bag, folks!) we have a template for progressive success.

Off the top of my head, I'd say the perfect challenger would be David Sirota who very conveniently resides in Helena.

[AlGore-08.com]

42. If people are really concerned about the influence of the "Clinton Wing"

on the party, then they ought to be helping Hillary Clinton's primary challenger, Tasini. There's almost no way that he can beat her (right now he's only polling at 13% and has very little money), but polls have shown that over 30% of her supporters would vote for a hypothetical anti-war Democrat over Hillary Clinton. If Tasini takes a significant chunk of the vote from her (at least 25%, although 30% or more would be better), then the "Clinton Wing" and the DLC can't use her re-election to a safe seat to "prove" their 1980s era strategy of drifting rightward is the only way Dems can win. The media and the pro-war Dems couldn't treat Lamont as a fluke.

And it would go a long way toward discouraging her from running for President in 2008 if she saw that she couldn't woo a significant portion of voters in the bluest of blue states.

I'm just sayin'...

[skeeters2525]

43. How About Defeating A Republican

Is that too much to ask.

Wish I could see the same activity towards that goal.

But no, we only want to defeat Dems.

Here's a thought. Screw this election.

Let's work to defeat Gore and Kerry like we did in the last two Presidential races.

Dems can only fight against their own.

And yes, I am glad Lieberman will lose, blah, blah, blah

Everything will beautiful if we just defeat all Dems.

[Stinky The Clown]

44. You have a point in there?

Who said anything about Republicans?

Multitasking.

Its a good thing.

[skeeters2525]

45. Multitasking?

Have you seen the same efforts in Ohio to defeat DeWine as you have Lieberman.

Not even close.

We can only defeat our own.

Think I'm wrong. Watch the sick and twisted gang up on Gore or whatever Democrat runs for President.

[ChipsAhoy]

55. You're not wrong.

And just because you don't march in lockstep shows that you actually think for yourself. Good for you, even though you'll notice some don't appreciate that quality. ;)

[Stinky The Clown]

58. 223 ... plus ..... 120 .... equals .....

yeah .....

[Totally Committed]

47. "Let's work to defeat Gore and Kerry like we did in the last two

...Presidential races."

Respectfully, I worked for BOTH those races, even though I had serious misgivings about Kerry last time out. Serious. I still felt he was better than Bush, so I worked even for that race driving people to the polls on election day.

I really believe we could all do without these sweeping, moralizing blanket endictments from people who don't know us, what we've done in the past for this Party, and what we'll do in the future. I admit it -- I want Lieberman gone. I have felt him to be a fox in the henhouse for a long time. I think it's time for a change. Why do I want that? BECAUSE I WANT A BETTER, STRONGER, COMPETITIVE DEMOCRATIC PARTY. So sue me!

TC

[skeeters2525]

50. Presidential Races

First off high five for driving people to the polls. That used to be a standard job of campaigns. Need much more of that. But I can't imagine why you wouldn't be balls out, forgive the cliche if you are a she, in favor of Kerry.

There is the problem. We had a primary and Kerry kicked ass. So he is our guy, end of discussion. He spent twenty years in the Senate fighting for causes every Progressive believes in. But still Progressives were not happy with him.

If the Progressives didn't want him. Then defeat him in the primary. Same with ahole Nader. He doesn't give a chit, he just wants his name out there.

So nothing shows me anything will change. Liberal and Progressives will sit on their ass and sulk if Che Guevera isn't nominated.

And last point. Ned Lamont is a hero of Progressives. Care to name me one thing he did compared to Gore or Kerry in the past twenty years. I won't waste my time waiting.

Keep driving. Get them to the polls. This what Democrat we should defeat is just a total waste of time.

[MH1]

111. Thank you skeeters - great post!

And TC may speak for him/her self, but there are an awful lot of people posting on DU that support the ravings of Counterpuke writers who most certainly DID work to defeat Gore and Kerry. And from their writings now, it seems very likely that many worked at it themselves.

[Clark2008]

115. Because he wasn't popular.

He won primaries because of media coverage out of Iowa and because of name-recognition: fact. Too many lazy people voting. And, yes, I'll blame the voters for failure to think past primaries.

The day after he won my state, there was an article stating a fact: he wasn't the best Dem to flip this red state. Duh.

That's why some of us who worked for Kerry did so reluctantly. In my state, he started 10 points behind, never visited (well, once, but it wasn't an open rally), conceded my state to the Republicans and then lost it by 20 percentage points. Ignoring red states - especially those with Dem governors and Dem state houses - is really very stupid and makes the voters in them apathetic.

[Bill McBlueState]

63. what's all this "we" crap?

"we only want to defeat Dems"

Maybe the OP does, but plenty of people have posted to this thread about the idiocy of such an approach.

[Outer_Limit]

102. Its a primary, for goodness sake!

:eyes:

[ChiciB1]

49. I Would LOVE To See A Democrat Replace Cruella!

Since she's giving up her seat and running for Senate, it would be a real coup!!

Don't think it will happen, I have yet to see a Democratic representative here.

[LittleClarkie]

56. Oh boy. Yes let's seek out another Democrat to oust

That's what we're about. Surely we must be, as I can't get arrested in my own thread regarding what folks here can do to actually get Dems elected.

Nah, we'd rather talk about Dubya and horses and what Hillary's wearing.

Silly me. I guess I should go and tell Gov. Dean that no one gives a flying fuck about his plans, and he should just go piss off. Oh well, it was a nice idea.

[Stinky The Clown]

57. What the fuck are you talking about?

This was an invitation to **discuss** something. You seem to have taken it as some sort of posit. It wasn't and it isn't.

But overall, your post added exactly nothing to the discussion.

[LittleClarkie]

59. I posted two different threads about the 50 state plan

what people are doing and what they can do. I got ONE response. One lousy stinkin' response. As it sinks slowly down the board, I see threads about Dubya and horses, what Hillary is wearing. Important things I'm sure.

So when I saw your thread asking, now that we've gotten Holy Joe out of the way, who should be next, as if we were in the business of campaigning against Dems and were eager to find the next DINO to torpedo, it hit a nerve.

Can we campaign FOR someone for a while instead of AGAINST. Can we strenghten the party for a while instead of finding ways to divide it? I think that's a valid question. Sorry if you don't find value in it.

[Stinky The Clown]

61. First off, what I did was pose a notional question. The notion is neither

'for' nor 'against' anyone. I never asked 'who should be next'. I asked 'should anyone be next?' A small but critical difference.

I'm sorry your thread sank. But I'm more sorry you chose to piss in mine.

And for what its worth, many have campaigned **for** Lamont. Isn't that what primaries are for?

There are many who see a change in **people** here and there as a way to strengthen the party.

What on earth does **any** of this have to do with Dean's (very fine) 50 state strategy (which you mentioned in your post title but never got to in your post)?

[LittleClarkie]

65. Sorry. I think I'm having a menopausal moment. Sorry I shit on your

thread.

But I don't understand it. Why would a thread with "50 State Plan" in the title not garner any attention whatsoever? I see thing here in Wisconsin. We have 4 new advisors. We're becoming more competative in Republican strongholds. I just called the Bryan Kennedy campaign yesterday to see what I could do to get rid of Sensenbrenner. I also volunteered for the Dem Party booth at our State Fair. So I thought I'd ask people to say what they're doing to help the party. Garnering no responses to that one, I went to the DNC website and got some info about how people COULD help, action alerts and Dem Reunions and such. That one got even less attention.

So it leaves me wondering. How does one get attention for such things. Isn't this the place to talk Dean's plan and what we can do, or what we are doing? But instead it seems we prefer to play Spy vs Spy. I'm just really, really frustrated.

[MrBenchley]

66. How'd you like "Did they change parties?"

when someone suggest we might vote some Republicans out of office.

[madfloridian]

60. Not about taking people down. It is about having choices.

It is about changing the way the party operates, letting average people back into the room again.

It is not about taking Joe down, it is about allowing Ned the right to run without being forced out of the race.

It is about letting people speak more freely when they are running for office, not having the party leaders go on TV and condemn them if they don't speak properly enough.

It is about change.

[Name removed]

64. Deleted message

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

[Stinky The Clown]

68. Senor Benchley .......

You're wrong.

As I pretty much explained in *this* thread .... here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x2757306#2758164

You need read only the post title and the first line. The rest of the post was more targeted a response to someone else.

[MrBenchley]

73. No, I'm right on the money

It's another dreary stab at "ideological purity".....

[Stinky The Clown]

76. Well .... on this one we part company ......

.... it has nothing to do with purity.

[MrBenchley]

77. Irony is SUCH a wonderful thing

[Stinky The Clown]

79. Yanno ... I see a lot of your posts ... and generally I agree with you ...

.... you don't toe any line but your own. I like that.

But on this one, you're just off base. I know what I was thinking in starting this thread, and I tried to explain it to you in my first response.

I either failed to state clearly my case or you're being artfully obtuse. In either case, you've devolved to one line drive by silliness.

If you have a point, make it and back it up.

If not ... have a nice day.

[MrBenchley]

81. I made my point quite clearly

[Name removed]

82. Deleted message

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

[MrBenchley]

83. It's another dreary call for a party purge

[LittleClarkie]

70. You're not helping either

Just in case you didn't know.

[MrBenchley]

72. Tough titty....

I see no reason not to speak out against this glorious stupidity.

[LittleClarkie]

75. Except that I see little thought put into your responses

far left looney! far left looney!!

Don't suppose you could attempt an actual discussion.

[MrBenchley]

78. I see little reason for anything but derision

Now let's go out and figfht against them Democrats!

"far left looney! far left looney!!"
Fits to a T.

[ruggerson]

80. How can we fight em?

We've banned all their guns.

Joking. Just joking.

:hi:

[newsguyatl]

71. feinstein, landrieu, baucus

just to name a few.

too bad we couldn't get to hillary and ben nelson of florida this go around.

they're all dinos who need to be replaced.

[Stinky The Clown]

74. Couple of things ......

Hillary is a glam politico and would be hard to unseat and not all that necessary to unseat so long as she stays a Senator. Like it or not, she's an A-lister.

Next, Nelson, Ben is from Nebraska, not Florida. The Florida guy is Nelson, Bill.

Nelson Ben. gets among the highest positive ratings of any Dem anywhere from his constituents. To try to take him out with a 'leftier' guy is suicide. The seat would go R in a heartbeat. But perhaps MOST important, he does **no** harm to the party. He represents his conservative constituents very well. He keeps the seat in the D column and he counts toward our numbers for a majority. And at the top of the positives for him is he keeps his mouth shut about his fellow Dems. Unlike Holy Joe, for example. Unless we're in Nebraska, and until he he starts to diss Dems, we would do well to keep our mouths shut.

Nelson, Bill, who I brought up, not you, is kinda the same sort. He meets the standards of his constituents.

[madfloridian]

84. Bill meets the standards of his Republican constituents.

Billy boy doesn't give us the time of day. I called yesterday, just a short while before the vote on the minimum wage. The aide said he had not made up his mind.

I said that is his stock answer to everything before he votes against what most Democrats want.

She said he always responds. I said he never responds. And he never does. I have called on my own dime, presented facts and research to his aides....then nothing...no answer.

[newsguyatl]

91. my bad... meant BILL

nelson of florida... but both are pretty bad

[Renew Deal]

85. I'd concentrate on Republicans if I were you.

Lamont has captured lightening in a bottle in CT. Lieberman is a unique case of republican ass kissing. Others are not nearly as dramatic.

[Stinky The Clown]

86. If you were me?

I'll be me, thanks.

But the real kernal is ... I asked a question in the OP and you answered it. Thanks.

[MzNov]

96. Biden or Feinstein

Biden thinks Bush is a "wonderful man."

He makes me puke. And Feinstein is another enabler.

Or the 2 Nelsons. Actually I think they are worse.

:kick:

[flaminbats]

98. announcing his independence wasn't the best move..

if he had done this instead of running as a Democrat in the primaries, it would have been better for him and for the Democrats. But now his decision to run as an independent hurts us both! It leaves him with the image of being a sore loser in the fall, while being the top cause for his likely defeat in next Tuesday's primaries.

I have never loved Lieberman, but might have voted for him in November if he defeated Lamont in the primary. After pulling this game of not conceding if he loses the primary, that has changed for me and probably for most Democratic voters. But thank God I don't live in Connecticut..;)

[1932]

104. You should worry about Lamont winning the general election before you move

on to taking out the next democrat.

[MrBenchley]

108. You'll notice that no actual Republicans are targeted....

On Santorum and the other scumbags: "Have they changed parties?"

[drbaldwinfl]

107. Katherine Must Go!

Beleaguered by campaign fund misuse allegations and the lack
of Republican party support, Katherine Harris continues to
battle on in the primary race for the Senate here in Florida.
Obviously, Katherine is taking a page from Leiberman's play
book in not understanding the implications of her continued
presence in the political arena. I couldn't ask for anything
more!

In any case, by continuing to fracture the Republican party by
not withdrawing, Katherine is giving Democrats a real chance
at retaining this Senate seat. So, a big thank you Katherine.
Keep up the fight and don't give in because you do nothing
more than help Democrats in their quest to gain control of the
Senate.

Of even more help would be for Katherine to win the primary.
Moderate Republicans would then have only one viable choice -
to vote for Bill Nelson! In this heavily Republican leaning
state, the split in the Republican Party would be a win for
the Democrats. A win that is sorely needed for Florida and for
the nation in general.

With her ineffectiveness as a people's representative in
Congress, her votes
http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/members/h001035/key-votes/
indicating that she cares little for the majority of citizens
in Florida and the country, and her shady dealings, Katherine
has got to go.

Whether or not you agree with Bill Nelson's positions on the
issues, he needs your support. We must not let the Republican
party retain control of Congress. We must return to a more
civil and civic minded Congress to avoid irreparable harm to
the people, the country at large, and our Constitutional
government.

[MODemocrat]

113. Missouri's Jim Talent really needs to be put down

He's just as worthless as tits on a boar. Putting out a negative ad about Claire McCaskill with regard to her tardiness in delivering some document; which was a blaten lie; and while her staff member's family was attending their daugher's and sister's funeral. I'm so angry, I'm jumbling this all up, but will be back later...hopefully someone here has read that article.

I'm going to see if I can find a thread and put it on this forum. I think my husband saw it in: fudgerepot.net.

Here it is:
Talent's Desperation Driving Him To Outrageous Behavior
Submitted by Roy Temple on Tue, 08/01/2006 - 7:41pm. Jim Talent

Here's the AP story on Senator Jim Talent's latest desperate attack on Claire McCaskill.

Talent criticized the McCaskill campaign over an FEC report that the FEC didn't receive by the deadline. The McCaskill campaign immediately produced a postal receipt that Melissa Berridge, McCaskill's compliance director, had in her desk showing that she mailed the report on time.

Berridge was killed in a plane crash over the weekend.

Despite the demonstration by McCaskill's camp that the report had been sent on time, Talent and his minions continued to press their attack.

This is disgusting and pitiful behavior on the part of Talent, who can obviously see his Senate seat slipping away.



Update: Melissa Berridge's brother posted this comment on the KC Star's blog.

Click here for video of Melissa's brother.

» printer friendly page
But the Dead DO Speak...IF You Attack Too Soon
Submitted by JamesBerridge on Tue, 08/01/2006 - 11:02pm.

I am Melissa Berridge's brother James...getting an indoctrination tonight to the blogoshpere. Melissa (Missy to my mom, sisters and I) is the staffer who was attacked today by MOGOP lies just three days after passing away.

Alas, at times the dead DO speak...and I WILL do so for my sister. I want anyone willing to hear me/read what I write to know that this attack came as Missy's family left a funeral home in Fairview Heights, IL after saying goodbye to her. By far the hardest day of my life (seeing what something like this does to your mother is nothing I would wish on anyone) this attack left me simply stunned...at a moment when my entire family was already hurting beyond words.

Missy was going to do great, wonderful things with her life. She already had. I mourn for what she won't do now with an additional 50 years or more of life almost as much as I mourn for losing her physical presence. I already miss her terribly. Yet, we are willing to forgive this action should the MOGOP and Senator Talent simply offer us a written apology.

I hope someone on this site or visiting it can help me utilize this space to defend my sister. This really hurt, folks! If you can, please feel free to contact me at [e-mail]

Thanks!

Jim
» login or register to post comments
Forget Talent & Sloca, James. Focus on your loss, loved ones...
Submitted by voice of reason on Wed, 08/02/2006 - 11:37pm.

James,

As despicable as it seems, the mindless attack from the Republican camp is not seen by them as insensitive or hurtful. It is seen only as political opportunity.

The age of political witch hunts in the media was ushered in back in the 1950's with the McCarthy hearings, televised to the American public. But to this day, few can provide you with a direct quote from the "Inquizitor from Wisconsin." Rather, what is remembered verbatim, frozen in the memory of the American public, was the following cry:

"Have you no sense of decency, sir, at long last? Have you no sense of decency?" - Joseph Welch, special counsel in the 1954 Army-McCarthy hearings.

Hard as it may be, James, forget the mudslinging in the midst of your sorrow. Set it aside and do the patently human thing to do. Allow yourself to grieve for your loss. Hold your family close. Let your thoughts be of Melissa and know that there are good and decent people who see the true colors of those who would smear your sister's memory during your time of mourning.

While you take time to remember your sister, allow us to stand in your stead. Let it be we who ask of them... "Have you no sense of decency, sir, at long last? Have you no sense of decency?"

Our deepest sympathies to you and your family for your loss. God bless...
» login or register to post comments
Thank you for speaking up...
Submitted by Hinnus_Asinus on Tue, 08/01/2006 - 11:44pm.

...and please express to the rest of your family my condolences on the loss of such a fine young person. I hope some of the journalist crowd that both posts and lurks here passes your message and your outrage.

<p>

What you are pointing out here begs another question to the Missouri voters. Is this the kind of representation we want in Washington? A man who professes "family values" but sees nothing wrong in letting his henchmen ruthlessly trash a late staffer of his opponent (falsely, too, I might add) and put this young woman's family in turmoil? The sheer rudeness of these people over the last few years is beyond comprhension. Obviously your sister felt there was a better person to occupy Harry Truman's old Senate seat than the one that is presently there. I agree with her assessment. We CAN speak for the dead in this case through our vote. Again, I am so sorry for your loss.

Another Golden Oldie from the GOP Playbooks blog

firedupmissouri.com
Restore the Spirit of 1776 - Be a Fired Up Blogger

[OzarkDem]

116. Talent is scum

He definitely needs to be replaced. I've never seen anyone so dishonest when it comes to health care policy.

[AtomicKitten]

114. The Republicans should go down next.

eom

[OzarkDem]

117. I love your avatar n/t

[ncteechur]

118. POMBO had got to freakin GO! He is shit.

[LaPera]

123. Pombo is a republican....We know republicans have to go...

what Dem in name only has to go?

[LaPera]

120. DIANE FEINSTEIN!!!

[Seabiscuit]

145. DOWN WITH FEINSTEIN!

Since Cindy Sheehan's decided not to challenge her, who will?

I got a formal invitation to a minimum $1K donation gathering for her this week and am tempted to go just to give her a piece of my mind. But sheee-it, that's one expensive way to get through to her.

[LaPera]

154. Feistein was my mayor in SF, I should of realized then...

How uptight and conservative she was/is...I met her at a couple of fundraisers for senator and supported her...when I shook her hand and spoke to her, she was cold not the warm San Franciscan Dem's I've always known growing up in SF...which is still a strong union town...

But Feinstein's true colors have come out (as so many Dem's have) for all to see... with her support of the illegal invasion and now occupation, until just recently (as everyone can see, Lieberman is going down)...while Bush & the republican fascist being in almost complete control...

Without getting into it here...Feinstein with her ultra conservative voting on many issues and her war profiteering husband, has to go!!!

Unfortunately, Feinsein easily defeated her democratic challenger (in the primary) whom, I completely supported --- Hence, Feinsein is a shoe-in for another six years.

[alvarezadams]

121. The entire DLC

[LaPera]

160. I second that!!!!!!!!

[Hippo_Tron]

135. It's not about purging people, it's about electing better representatives

Despite Lieberman's unpopularity because of his anti-war stance, he would be cruising to re-election if his challenger were a lightweight. Ned Lamont is the real deal and that is why he is doing so well. The answer to your question is that the next Senator to "go down" will be the one who has a strong challenger like Ned Lamont.

[alvarezadams]

140. With all due respect

that's a very naive sentiment.

The rise of Lamont was only possible because;

A. Lieberman's stance on Iraq was egregious.
B. Lamont has independent wealth.

Elements of American political parties wield far too much power with regards to selecting which candidates to support and finance. Money has such an important place that an outsider has virtually no chance, especially if his/her views are outside the box and particularly if he is against the corporate-financing regime.

Many of us think that the DLC fifth column is the gravest danger to our party and particularly to our entire political system (by eliminating even the checks and balances of ideology and alternative pov's). Yet the DLC controls the moiety of the corporate-financing machine and has a disproportionate profile in the press.

Some mavericks might have or get enough money (through the web) to challenge the monster? Sure. But that won't break the monster's back.

Vote the DLC out or make it so unsavoury to politicians that they will unilaterally abandon it. THEN we can talk.

[Hippo_Tron]

144. I don't disagree with you on any particular point

But it is a combination of many things. Anti-Lieberman sentiment and the fact that Ned Lamont is a good and well financed politician.

[Seabiscuit]

146. I am not the only one to say: it's still the war that's turning people

against Joe. Former Lieberman supporters in Connecticut aren't voting for Lamont. They're voting against Joe:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/06/AR2006080600252.html

[Hippo_Tron]

148. Again, I don't disagree

Lamont would have no chance without the war. But what Lamont has accomplished in terms of this primary takes more than just an issue. Lamont is a very skilled politician and it is showing.

[Seabiscuit]

151. I agree - Lamont has shown political savvy to get this far.

[MrBenchley]

142. That is hilarious

The Unknown Millionaire's lead is built entriely on a campaign of character assassination against Lieberman.

"Ned Lamont is the real deal"
And as it turned out, his whoopsters had no idea what his position is on "the zionist oppression" (He's gung-ho for it) or on universal health care (he's for employers insuring the employed and that's it). But they're happily tubthumping for what turns out to be a very ugly pig in a very thin poke.

[Hippo_Tron]

147. Mr. Benchley, I am only speaking for myself

And I have no problem with Ned Lamont's support for Israel nor do I have a problem with his stand on healthcare. I am personally supporting Ned Lamont for two reasons.

The first is because of conclusions that I have come to about Senator Lieberman on my own. If you are interested in what those conclusions are, they are summed up here: http://journals.democraticunderground.com/Hippo_Tron

The second reason is because I have read about who Ned Lamont is and determined that I would prefer him as a Senator.

This may be a purge for some, but it is not a purge for me. And I am encouraging others to not make this about a purge as well. They are free to take my advice, or not.

Also, Mr. Benchley, you refer to Ned Lamont as the unknown millionaire. I should remind you that six years ago Governor Corzine was also an unknown millionaire and has become a pretty successful politician.

[MrBenchley]

152. Yeah, just trailing along behind a lynch mob

isn't actually joining in.....(snciker)

"This may be a purge for some, but it is not a purge for me."
Which doesn't make it any less a purge built on character assassination. Nor is it a victory for anything but swift-boating, which is no less reprehensible when the far left does it as it is when the far rigth does.

And Corzine was clear about what his positions were and won his elections based on issues. Pity the Unknown Millionaire's supporters can't say the same thing.

[Hippo_Tron]

155. Mr. Benchley, I have nothing further to say about this

Other than that I would encourage you to read my thoughts on Senator Lieberman, which I have posted a link to in my previous post.

[MrBenchley]

156. And I'd encourage you to read the rest of this thread....

and ask yourself why no Republicans are being targeted. "Have they switched parties?"

[Hippo_Tron]

157. I will do that

And as a Louisianian, I will be reminding people if they can't bring themselves to like Mary Landrieu, they should certainly take a look at the people she has run against.

[Seabiscuit]

149. So why isn't Joe laughing?

Because former Lieberman supporters are fed up with his betrayal of the Democratic party and principles - his support for Bush and Bush's war in Iraq. They're not voting for Lamont. They're voting against Lieberman. Elmer Fudd could be running against Lieberman and they'd vote Fudd:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/06/AR2006080600252.html

Wait a durn minute. Joe Lieberman IS Elmer Fudd!

[MrBenchley]

153. Victims of swift boating rarely laugh

I on the other hand am laughing my ass oiff at you validating my point so perfectly.

[Seabiscuit]

158. I don't know whether to laugh or cry or just shrug.

Your posts never make any intelligible sense.

OTOH, portraying Lieberman as a "victim of swift boating" is so patently absurd that it is laughable.

[MrBenchley]

159. Don't cry to me because you're slow on the uptake

[Seabiscuit]

161. bibletypcuoigy couygthociaty,lkm by v cyo,,yuh

Don't cry to me because you're so slow on the uptake that you can't understand THAT!

:rofl:

[MrBenchley]

162. Geeze, biscuit

You say that like I give a shit about the rubbish you post. I know you're a waste of time, fit only for inadvertant comedy value.

[Seabiscuit]

164. Maybe you should see a shrink about why you keep posting your crap

at me then.

[MrBenchley]

169. Irony is such a wonderful thing.

[Seabiscuit]

171. So to you, the word "irony" means

ba7uet5r nzsdnwaf vq5a ;rat ;oaw qfkbty'a to8a as; tyei8, right?

Might as well invent your own dictionary of gibberish.

[Seabiscuit]

165. Oh, really?

Well, coiuytakjn bx [908u e.lajh tb ila'fd;vjk v ylasddfy' a;65y!

[MrBenchley]

168. Really.

[Seabiscuit]

170. Well, in that case,

all I have to say is otl xzcp8 97tq23; tdfsj haanv aew A8 6TO;LG!

[PassingFair]

166. Lieberman ASSassinated HIMSELF during the primaries

...and in his numerous appearances on FAUX
...and in his suck-ass behavior towards the enemy.

He suicided.

He thinks people are not watching or listening.

He will find out that he is wrong.

"character assassination against LIEberman.

Ha ha ha.

[TheVirginian]

141. Let the purging begin!!!

This is great. After we get past the fact that these people were elected because they're strong representatives that, most often, have views that closely relate the people they represent, we can force them from office, nominate a weaker candidate, and sit back and watch our potential for the majority crumble!

So, let's get rid of Ben Nelson. Nebraska needs a second Republican Senator anyways. And let's get rid of Bill Nelson. Florida deserves two GOPers.

Mary Landrieu has to go. That way, the first two Republicans elected from Louisiana can be elected in consecutive years.

Max Baucus needs the axe, so we can offset our win with Jon Tester.

Any Democrat that's been elected in a red state needs the old heave-ho, because in order to get elected, they have to compromise on some positions, and this is unacceptable. So let's nominate somebody diametrically opposed to the voting population, to show our strength as a party.

I know John Kerry is popular around here, but he's DLC. Let's ask Mitt Romney if he wants Kerry's seat, since we're kicking Kerry out of office.

The two Senators from North Dakota are somewhat conservative. We should transplant two regular liberals from New York and put them in North Dakota, then see who North Dakotans vote for.

I really like this idea. If we keep it up, then we can ensure that all 20 Democrats in the Senate are hardcore Democrats that will fight for the principles that we believe in!

[Seabiscuit]

150. The Democratic Party needs to stick a finger down its throat and purge

all the poisonous traitors and DLCers from its gut. No better place to start than in Connecticut, with a hearty upchuck of Joe Lieberman.

[Auntie Bush]

185. Didn't you forget your

:sarcasm: ?

[Constitution]

172. Hillary.

[mtnsnake]

187. Rush, Sean, & all the other RW assholes share your sentiment.

Ever wonder why?

[Jack Rabbit]

173. Let's see who doesn't get the message before we decide

Whoever doesn't get the message is next. Right, Hillary?

[nsd]

176. Lincoln Chaffee and Olympia Snowe.

If we're going to target people who shouldn't be representing blue states, let's go after some Republicans first.

[Skittles]

177. aw, what's the matter

you don't like your RINOs? I don't care much for that piece of shit "R" either but there's much worse than those two to go after

[nsd]

178. What does this mean?

Who are "my RINOs"? This is a Democratic site. I'm saying it's just plain stupid to target our own. We should be trying to defeat actual Republicans. In the upcoming election, that includes Chaffee, Santorum, Allen, DeWine, Talent, Corker, Ensign, and any other Republican who is vulnerable.

Given the fact that we don't control anything in Washington, crowing over targeting Democrats is such a pathetic and dumbass move.


Edited to add: Chaffee is vulnerable. Even if he's not the worst Republican out there, he's still a vote that gives the Republicans control of the Senate and every committee chair. Whitehouse can beat him, and deserves support. That's where our energy should go -- where it can do the most good. Snowe isn't vulnerable, but I added her name just to counter those people who argue we should focus on "blue states."

[Skittles]

179. after rabid repubs, spineless ass-kissing Dems are on my list

not moderates

[w4rma]

182. I could not disagree with you more, Skittles.

Those "moderates" are not moderates. They do what they have to do to keep their power in progressive areas. And their presence keeps progressives out of power. And they are more right-wing than even Lieberman is.

[w4rma]

181. Electing Democrats over Republicans in the general elections are next.

We've just about chosen the Democrats for this round. Lets get them into power, now.

[mmonk]

186. Dem members of the gang of 14 would be good.