How big is the split in the Democratic Party?

[SquireJons]

The fault line runs north to south, but ground zero is in Connecticut right now. The whole Lamont vs. Lieberman contest hints at the divide, but obscures reality as well. The latest mind-bender is Max Cleland endorsing and campaigning for Lieberman. He even allowed Lieberman to use his swift boating by the republican slime machine to try to undermine Lamont. Why would Cleland do that? And why would Bill Clinton endorse the only Democratic Senator to vote for censure during his railroading by republican controlled congress in 1998? It makes on sense on the surface. One does not help those who have actively worked to discredit your life's work.

The strongest ammunition the Democrats have in their bid to regain congress is the general disapproval of the war in Iraq. On that issue, and several others, Lieberman is way out of step with those in his party, and with the public in general. So why support such a candidate? Do they (the moderates, like Clinton) really support our illegal and immoral foreign policy? Or do they think that Lamont will vote republican on issues other than Iraq? To me, it makes no sense at all.

It seems to me that while being a successful manager of the country, Clinton failed in his broader strategy of trying to build a strong, bi-partisan political spectrum. He gave us great employment numbers, and they arrested his longtime friends in Arkansas on bogus charges. He eliminated the budget deficit and gave us a surplus, and the pugs gave him Ken Starr. He gave America the highest international respect that we have had since WWII, and they give us Karl Rove. What, exactly is there to work with on the other side? Lieberman's tries to make the point that bi-partisanship politics is the high road, but not when dealing with the likes of W, Cheney and Rove.

So here we are on the eve of incredibly important mid term elections and the Democrats can not unite, and don't even know what they stand for. Something's got to give.

[snowbear]

1. If the wind changes in our direction.. you won't hear talk of splits...

..any longer.

After having lost the Senate, House, Whitehouse, everything.. and living in a world created by Bush and his corrupt cronies for 6.5 years of Hell --- we just need the tides to start turning.

We will rally like nothing you've ever seen once we finally start to make real headway!

~~ ~~ ~~

[itzamirakul]

2. Because every single one of the ones that you named have been

bought and paid for by the huge corporate Lobby that runs this country.

[droidamus2]

3. Maybe a good idea but...

Bi-partisanship as an ideal is a good idea, but as they say 'it takes two to tango'. For true bi-partisanship to work each side has to be willing to negotiate and agree to binding compromises. The current brand of Republican in Congress does not believe in negotiating but believes that everything should be done their way. They think of compromises as just a way to get a step closer to what they want. They never intend to live up to 'the promise of the compromise' they just want the Democrats/Progressive to continually 'compromise' in a rightward direction thus ultimately ending up with what the conservative Republicans want. In the end many of them see this as a 'cultural' and political war where there are winners and losers and they fully intend to be the winners. If they had their way there would be no Democrats or progressives. Therefore, to reach a desired state of bi-partisanship we must break the hold on power of the current Republican regime and this may take some down and dirty fighting that the Joe Libermans of the world can't stomach. Joe, if you can't get with the plan the least we could expect from you is respectful silence and if you can't be respectively silent then you will suffer the consequences by losing your seat.

[Trajan]

4. There is no 'split' ....

There are 150 million different sources of opinions ....

This is MSM malarkey ....

[SquireJons]

7. If there is no split...

Then why do I find myself agreeing more with Jim Webb than Hillary Clinton? Webb, after all still thinks Reagan was a good president and was his Secretary of the Navy. But on style and substance, Webb takes a far more courageous stand on the most pressing issues than either of the Clinton's. I agree that there are lots of different opinions, but that's no way to run a national campaign. The Dems have got to stop sucking it up to the pugs, or they won't win. Too many Dems are deferential to the republican slim machine.

[Trajan]

9. You are one of 100 million individuals in the country .....

Who identify themselves with what are primarily democratic party positions: on wages, on workplace, on social security, separation of powers, etc ..... NONE of them agree absolutely 100% with anyone else on EVERY possible question .....

There are always 'splits' in parties, because there are human beings in parties .....

There is no 'great chasm' between subgroups of this party that are SO divided that they must seek separation ..... The party will NOT 'split' ..... It will deal with the 'nasty, dirty work' of a primary election that is heated, and THEN unify around the winner, and move on to the general strong and unified : as unified as a party of individual human beings can be ....

[SquireJons]

27. OK, I'll use different word then.

We're talking semantics here. How about conflict? Why is there conflict on Lamont and how serious is it? Why are so many establishment Dems trying to put out the fire in their own engines?

[Trajan]

47. Ok, I will use different words then ....

Big Fucking Deal .....

A big rant with little meaning ....

[bowens43]

5. This is ridiculous. There is no split.

Why repeat the Republican talking point?

[SquireJons]

6. Baloney

Sticking your fingers in your ears wont make things work out the way you want. The split is playing out in Connecticut right now for every one to see. I'm really not going to argue the point. My question is why certain respected Democrats would even bother to support Lieberman? At least the pugs are honest enough with themselves to see what a loser Harris is, and have united to abandon her. The Dems on the other hand can't seem to figure out what is best for themselves. My guess is that it boils down to Democratic congressmen (and women) who voted for the war not being willing to address the issue squarely. Bill Clinton is doing it because he really thinks Lieberman's way of doing politics is the right way... and that's why he got steamrolled politically.

[Trajan]

8. "Split In Party ! ! ! "

Cmon .....

Liebermann has taken too many stands that counter the prevailing beliefs of MILLIONS of his fellow Connecticuticans ... and now he is challenged by ONE other Democrat, and forced to defend his contrary positions .....

There is a split on a primary ballot ... NOT a party ....

This is CRAP right wing hooey to speak of a 'split in the party' .....

Its a fucking primary election ..... there is a 'split in the party' in EVERY primary election .....

SHEEEESH .....

"OH NOOOOO ... the Democratic Party is SPLIT ! ..... whatever shall we do ? .... " .... :sarcasm:

Cmon ...... dont be a pawn .....

[SquireJons]

19. I'm not being a pawn

And I'm not basing the question on the talking heads. I read the endorsements that Lieberman has and shake my head. Seriously, does anyone outside the Democratic Party establishment support Lieberman? If so, I'd like to know why. But there it is, one after another the Dems that have been around for a while keep lining up for 'ol Joe, and it makes me sick.

Hell, I don't even have cable TV and never watch the damned thing anyways. I read and wonder. You tell me then, if I'm being so dumb. Why is Max Cleland supporting Lieberman, even though Joe has been so convenient for the current republicans... who I view as the most dangerous political movement since the 'no nothings?'

Apparently, Ann Coulter said yesterday that Lieberman should become a pug... and this is the voice from hell itself. So Clinton, Cleland and Coulter support the same guy? What's going on here?

[calico1]

11. I don't really think there is a major split either.

The reason why CT wants to kick Lieberman out is because he has repeatedly voted for things that run contrary to the views of his most of his constituents. Big time. He has also vowed to bolt the party if he doesn't win tomorrow. A lot of people are critical of Senators from more red states because they are not Liberal enough. Well, if they were they would probably lose their seats. To a great degree, Senators and Congress people need to vote in ways that reflect the views of the people that vote for them. To go against this, especially if you do it constantly and without regard to the concern expressed by your constituents, is going to put you at a great risk of losing your seat. That's just common sense. Lieberman has gotten too full of himself, too convinced of his greatness. And he has forgotten that he is in office because CT voters put him there. Now he is seeing the results of what happens when you thumb your nose up at your constituents. Although Clinton and others have supported the war and expressed other views that have angered Democrats, none has gone so far as Lieberman. Lieberman acts like a Red state Senator. Only trouble is, he is from a very Blue state. If he were from Nebraska he would be fine. But he is from CT and his values do not match those of our State. That's why we went to get rid of him. He was never a Liberal but he never got in trouble until he moved way to the right and started voting consistently like he was from a red State.

[SquireJons]

20. You miss my point.

I know that the voters are against Lieberman. My question is why the majority of the Democratic establishment is still for him. The public wants change, Dean wants change, but so many in congress, and news papers that usually endorse Dems wont abandon him. Why? It's unspoken but it's there.

In case some of you are wondering, I firmly support Lamont. My opinion of Lieberman has gone from surprise, to dislike to out and out hate over the last 8 years. But apparently, I (and millions of other Democrats) are out of step with the actual party leadership on him (except for Dean). I'm just trying to read between the lines and get the true story here. Denial ain't cuttin it for me.

[calico1]

25. I see your point now.

I think it partly has to do with the fear many Democrats have of appearing too Liberal. Unfortunately our Democrats in Congress have allowed that word to become a negative term. Instead of defending it they run away from it. Democrats like Clinton and the rest of the DLC type think that they need to be more Republican in order to stay competitive. They seem to think that people want to choose between full blown Republicans and Republican lite. The other thing I believe is that this group is also in bed with big corporations and lobbyists. They don't want to do or say anything that pisses off big campaign donors. The MSM is unfortunately owned by corporations so they aren't really useful. All they do is parrot the latest talking points because they are owned, not independent as they used to be years ago. So the constituents can protest and complain all they want. They get dismissed as we are in CT as loony lefties, insurgents, etc. When all we want is a real Democrat to represent us.

[SquireJons]

29. Exactly, and that is a split

So the question is, how serious is the gap between the DLC and the actual voters? There are tens of millions of voters out there who view themselves as liberals or progressives or what ever you want to call it. Add to that, millions more voters who just want good government, and you have a working majority in this country. But the Democratic leadership has treated us like we are retarded step children for 14 years now. The split seems more between the voters and the elected.

Another question: has anyone in congress actually endorsed Lamont yet? If not, why not?

[calico1]

34. The only one I know of is Maxine Waters.

As to your other question, I think part of the problem now is that there is such a strong desire to get control of Congress that many Democrats, including many here are all for voting for the "D" regardless of how Conservative the candidate might be. I can understand that in the sense that until we are in control we really don't have any power. The opportunity in CT is a unique one. It is the real opportunity to get rid of a bad Democrat and replace him with a good one. But in many places the choice is between a bad Democrat or a Republican. So what is a voter to do? If you vote for a third party candidate then you enable the Republicans. So it seems that at least for now many voters see no other option than voting for the bad Democrat. And of course bad Democrats know this. In a way the fact that the Republicans are in charge is good for DLC Democrats because they know the voter will vote for them rather than the Republican so they don't really have any motivation to listen to what voters want. We need more opportunities like the one in CT. I hope there are more like this in other States and that if Lamont wins it will encourage more people like Lamont to run and voters to have hope that they don't have to settle for Democrats who frequently let them down.

[mtnester]

12. That is not a split, that is simply terminating a bad employee

If your employee starts working counter-productive to the philosophy of your business, and is repeatedly warned that he is doing so, as employers you have every right to hire a new person.

Real easy to understand.

[SquireJons]

21. Bad analogy

In this case, the former CEO, and all of the heads of the company's departments are actually supporting this 'bad employee.' I'm trying to figure out why. There is more here than meets the eye. When everyone who works under an asshole wants change, and management wont listen, something stinks.

[mtnester]

22. I think they may unplug their ears sometime late tomorrow

one can only hope.

[SquireJons]

24. I've got my fingers crossed.

But I'll bet Lieberman is a sore loser and runs as an independent.

[mtnester]

38. Then he would clearly identify himself as a turd

to everyone who does not already know that.

I have seen people on the apprentice leave the table with more dignity after being fired from their job...let's see if Joe has any and bows to the wisdom of his constituents. If he does not, by disregarding their wishes he makes them trivial and insignificant...meaningless. That makes him no better than any other corporate whore who gets elected and then totally ignores his constituents....he would be in it for himself, Not Connecticut.

[xchrom]

10. lol -- well -- ya know i'm of the opnion that change isn't

necessarily a bad thing.

and the status quo doesn't want to lose it's grip on power.

imagine the consternation in d.c. if lamont gets through?

but luminaries like cleland, clinton, boxer, etc WILL begin to have a toll on the race.

i guess the question that will remain is this:
if corporate control of our lives is the dire thing that so many of us worry about -- and we cannot institute the changes in american government and life that we think is necessary to restore a balance -- and the quality of living continues to go to hell in a green and yellow basket -- what comes next?

lamont represents a kind of ''power to the people'' movement -- so we'll see if it has legs.

[SquireJons]

23. You're on to something

So, you think it's a combination of corporate influence and status quo? If that is the case, I have to rethink my support for a lot of Dems. I'm actually hoping that there is some ideological reason.

Albert Einstein said 'the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, and expecting different results.' Well, the Democrats have been playing the same tune ever since they lost to Gingrich and his thugs, but keep expecting different results. Looks crazy to me.

Lamont represents the best chance for the Democrats to make a break through, and the rest of them turn their backs on him. That is crazy. Maybe if he was black, he'd get some establishment support. Look at Urbana. He's the darling of the party, but what has he done really? He beat someone so hateful that I could have won a seat in congress. But Lamont has really caught fire and the rest of them are rushing to put it out.

WTF?

[xchrom]

28. you are getting it.

the same thing has happened to teh democrat challenging pombo out here.

first the grassroots put forward a candidate -- then the dccc brought forward theirs afterward -- well the dccc candidate didn't make it through.

then the dccc said they didn't have the money for the grassroots candidate to challenge pombo.

[Clark2008]

32. And they already denied us Dean and Clark

If you'll remember, the two largest netroots factions in 2004 were Howard Dean and Wes Clark (Clark was a later candidate, but his netroots built up as high - even surpassing Dean in fundraising during the first quarter of 2004 - as Dean's).

Both candidates were popular with the people. Both candidates vowed to fix the media by re-instituting the Fairness Doctrine and what happened?

Dean was made out by the media to be insane with his speech after the Iowa Caucus and Clark was ignored, even when he won the Oklahoma primary (despite popular OK native Barry Switzer endorsing John Edwards).

The media is the main culprit, here, once again, but this time, with Lamont, it's not working. The media has tried to whittle the Lamont/Lieberman race down to one issue: Iraq. And, save for a few left-leaning publications and CNN's Jeff Greenfield, the media keeps mimicking this falsehood everywhere.

It's not a split in the Democratic Party - it's a paring down back to the base and the base is demanding answers and change and a return to the days of the FDR Democrat - a Democrat for the people and not the wealthy/media elite.

[xchrom]

40. nice summary.

have you followed the dem candidate running against pombo here in cali?

after the dccc candidate lost -- they said they didn't have money for the grassroots candidate.

the dem candidate pete mccloskeys support -- a republican.

[MH1]

13. Interesting that Cleland is backing Lieberman.

Even more interesting - Kerry refused to take sides, except to state that he will support the winner of the primary. (But he does appear in the "Lie and Die" ad for Lamont - although that image could legally have been used without permission. Hmm.)

That will soon be forgotten by the "progressives" at DU and dailykos though, I am sure.

[TreasonousBastard]

14. Blecchh... The Democratic party used to be really split...

when we had people like had Sam Nunn in the Senate. And he was one of fairly decent ones, but he wouldn't pass muster on DU these days.

Think back to those glorious days of yesteryear when the Dixiecrats all ran on segregationist platforms. How many of those loyal yellow dogs jumped ship and became Republicans?

We're split now? No. We just don't have the singular focus on power at all costs that the present Republicans have.

[SquireJons]

31. The Democratic Party isn't the same as before LBJ

Yes, it was worse before the 60, when you had Thurman and Stevenson at the fringes of the party. But that history lesson has little baring on todays politics. The pugs have even more of a natural ideological split, between the morality police and the robber barons. But I don't want to focus on history or the evil ones (or the crazies).

I want to support the Democrats, but when there is something going on under the surface, it makes me uneasy. There is definitely something going on that we can not see.

[TreasonousBastard]

42. OK, it's just that history shows the...

problem of having a two-party system when we are such a diverse country. Both parties are stuck with having to deal with all major and minor issues and trying to find some way to attract voters, and this obsession with ideological purity in both parties is killing them.

I'll let the Republicans deal with their own problems, but we have to manage to fit in conservative black churches who hate the thought of gay marriage with gay activists. We have to "support the troops" while being against the war. We have to include all those traditional Irish Catholics who agree with most everything the rest of us do except abortion.

There will be enromous divisions between us, and that's just the way it's gonna be. The only thing we can do is try to avoid killing ourselves over individual issues and keep finding ways to agree on something. Anything.

And, of course, politics being politics, issues and positions are often enough just a smokescreen for power plays. It would be good if we were better at discerning the difference.

[welshTerrier2]

15. the war is a very dangerous issue for the party

i would not say, yet, that there is a major split in the Democratic Party ... i do think, if the Dem position, especially the Senate Dems' position, on the war does not change a spilt MIGHT occur ...

the Lamont-Lieberman primary is NOT the "blogosphere" versus the party's mainstream; it's a battle over the war and it's also a referendum on Lieberman's cozy relationship with the extremists of the bush regime ...

the "Joe voted 90% with the Dems" is true but it's also deceptive ... Lamont supporters, and i mean those supporting Lamont both inside and outside CT, are incredibly energized over the two issues cited above: the war and being a real opposition party ...

I don't think being inadequately oppositional in a broad sense will divide the party nationally in 2008 ... the mere presence of a presidential election should take care of that ... but the war is a different issue ...

without needing to draw parallels, we did see a split in the party back in 1968 over the war in Vietnam ... it absolutely destroyed the Democrats' chances that year ... could the same thing happen in '08 over the Iraq, Israel-Lebanon, Iran, Syria, you name it war? I really think it is a possibility ...

some seem to accept the "all the Dems want withdrawal" ... i just don't believe that will fly in the long run based on the Party's current position on the war ... what the Dems are doing now is nowhere close to good enough ... if the party does not find a way to be more inclusive with its anti-war wing, i think a very real split MIGHT occur ... my position? i will not support or work for or contribute to any candidate or party that continues to vote for more war funding and wants to remain in Iraq another week, another month, another year, another anything ... if that's where the party elite are at going into 2008, it's splitsville for me ... perhaps others will feel the same way; perhaps not ...

[SquireJons]

33. So you think it's serious then?

Or at least has the potential to become so. And I agree with that. Remember, a beautiful naked woman running through the parking lot at a NASCAR race only has the potential of becoming pregnant. (but you better hope that all the necks are too drunk to fuck)

I think the war is a very serious issue for the Democrats, and the elected ones are choosing the wrong side of the tracks so far. But it's more than just the war issue. Lieberman has been an apologist and an enabler for the worst elements in the republican party for ten years, now he is paying the political price. But the Democratic leadership wont get behind the voters.

I think there's more to this, and it really worries me.

[Q]

16. Liberals and Progressives...

...controlled both houses for decades. The New Republicans (Neocons) joined with the New Democrats (Neodems) and worked together to get rid of the politicians (of both parties) that put people before corporations. Those they couldn't get rid of...they neutralized, marginalized or killed them off with smear campaigns (see: Gore).

The so called 'split' in the party is actually a coup in progress by the 'new democrats'. This is a fight for control of the party between those who believe in social welfare and those who believe in corporate welfare. If you're keeping score...corporate welfare is winning...with the defense/Energy industries in particular reaping record profits.

Many may disagree...but there are TWO Democratic parties. Many 'new' Democrats would rather vote for a 'moderate' Republican or a trickle-down (Reagan) New democrat than a 'redistributionist' progressive Democrat.

The 'split' will remain until someone within the Democratic party steps forward and tells the American people the WHOLE TRUTH about the state of the union...with promises to fight against the most corrupt government in American history.

[Totally Committed]

26. This could easily be The Post of the Week....

I couldn't have said it better myself, Q! ;)

Thank you for an elegant and eloquent answer to the question posted in the OP.

TC

[SquireJons]

35. Will this 'someone' be on FOX?

I think not, so the public will never know.

What you have said strikes at the heart of the issue. Both political parties have been seized by elements loyal to giant corporations and other lobbies (i.e. AIPAC, NRA etc.) with a total disregard for the actual electorate. As much as I admire Bill Clinton, he did much to undermine progressive politics in this country, and still does. Even the very notion that neocons are almost completely republican is very misleading. The democratic neocons support the same foreign policy agenda, but more quietly, so as not to be noticed. What this country needs is genuine campaign financing reform that will eliminate the financial influence of those entities that do not have America's best interest in mind. Then, we need a truly independent media again. Until those two things happen, nothing will change.

[mmonk]

17. .

[LincolnMcGrath]

18. lol

[SquireJons]

36. Where's Evel Kneivel when we really need him?

...oh right, St. Elizabeths Mental Hospital.

[Jack Rabbit]

30. We might find out later this week

After Lieberman goes down and announces an independent candidacy. We'll see how many establishment Democrats still don't get it.

[johnaries]

37. No split. Everyone has their own opinions. that's why it's Democratic!

Democrats don't walk in lockstep like the Repukes. The Republicans are split, yes. But the term doesn't apply to Dems.

[AtomicKitten]

39. I don't think there is a real split.

I just think people are hugely pissed off at the status quo and have a tendency to engage in a bit of back-biting in frustration.

I believe the Democratic Party is going through an inside-out, sorely needed reformation process, and Howard Dean is fighting the system to effect a primary process that reflects the voice of the people.

I'm reasonably certain when it comes to crunch time, the Democrats for the most part will pull together.

[MrBenchley]

43. I agree

Out here in the real world, I sure don't see many Democrats railing about "corporowhores" and the like....mostly what I see is real enthusiasm and a determination to work hard.

[AtomicKitten]

44. everybody I know

... is donating $$$ to the Dems til it hurts and chomping at the bit for another go-round. There is a genuine robust enthusiasm I haven't seen in my some 35 years working Dem elections.

The consensus concern, of course, is election fraud. I just can't see those GOP a-holes just stopping all their criminal machinations.

[MrBenchley]

45. Agreed...and I find the Green party revelation telling....

Here in the real world, it's a damn fine time to be a Democrat...when Chimpy came to NJ, the GOP Senate candidate. Junior Kean, had to pretend he was held up in non-existent traffic to avoid gettinmg his photo taken with him.

[LittleClarkie]

41. I dunno, but here on DU I strive to be Unity Gal

between certain factions. I'm not sure how much those factions manifest themselves in the real world. I know that Dean gets flak from the DCCC, that the DLC snipes at those they see as too far left, and vice versa. I find myself annoyed at both sides of that divide, I must say, if only because their discourse tends to look like a grade school playground. It's alittle like trying to get Israel and Palestine to play nice. Perhaps there should be a Camp David for the Dem Party, where Progressives, Populists, Centrists and such can learn to talk to each other without using words like looney left, Republican lite, nutroots and the like.

Hopefully at least around election time all will learn to work and play well with others.

That's all I'm concerned about.

[union_maid]

46. It's all just politics

Senators have a dual function. They're part of a body that makes the law for the country (or at least it used to) and in so doing, they're there to represent their constituents. Lieberman has done a poor job of the latter recently, but Democrats in the Senate, even fairly liberal ones, figure they can work with him when it comes to the former. There's a spectrum of opinion among any political party. If Lieberman votes with them on committee chairmen, etc. it's all good. And he's a veteran. Lamont would be a rookie. Most of all, from where they're sitting, the seat was in no danger with Lieberman as the incumbent candidate. So, they support him. Then there's his possible run as an independent to contend with. Supporting him now might lessen the chance of that happening, or it might assure some key votes from him if he should run and win and as indy.

It's not a split. It's really just politicians doing their job. Now if Lamont wins the primary and they still don't support him, that would be a different matter.