Should the Senate DemCaucus insist that Sanders join the Democratic Party?

[dolstein]

A lot of people want around here want to kick Lieberman out of the caucus, either because they don't consider him to be a Democrat, or consider him an insufficiently loyal Democrat. But what about Bernie Sanders? He doesn't even pretend to be a Democrat. His campaign site identifies him as an Independent. How can he help build the Democratic Party when he himself refuses to join it?

Also, I'd like to point out that Lieberman's critics around here didn't have a problem welcoming Jim Jeffords, who ran for re-election in 2000 as a Republican, into the Democratic caucus. Let's see, he runs against the Democratic nominee as a Republican, beats him, decides he wants to be a member of the Democratic caucus, and nobody around here has a problem with that? Not only was Jeffords allowed to retain the his seniority (he became chair of the Environment and Public Works committee), but he wasn't even required to become a Democrat (Jeffords remains an independent to this day).

[Bluzmann57]

1. I am going to assume by your heading

that you mean Bernie Sanders, and the answer to your question is a resounding NO. If the Dems try and force anybody to join the party, it will not only turn off the general public, it will have the possibility of turning the man against the Democratic Party. That is not a good thing. There is still freedom to belong to any political party one chooses in this country.

[dolstein]

6. So you don't have a problem with Lieberman caucusing

with the Democrats, right?

[Ken Burch]

74. I have a problem with Lieberman still claiming to be a Democrat

When he is running AGAINST the Democratic nominee. Why don't you accept that party loyalty obliges him to get out of the race?
Why should Joe be allowed to say "sorry, the primary doesn't count"?

And why don't YOU accept the will of the Connecticut Democratic Party?

[kentuck]

2. No, but they should take away his "chairmanships"...

I don't know how many he holds??

[SaveElmer]

18. He holds none...

Republicans are in the majority!

[Name removed]

3. Deleted message

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

[ISUGRADIA]

4. There is NO Democratic nominee as of this time

and Sanders is on the Democratic ballot as a candidate at the efforts of the VT Dem Party.

EDIT: Sorry, I think I see now you are talking about Lieberman in your post on site rules rather than Sanders.

[dolstein]

8. I'm not campaigning against him -- I hope people vote for him

He's better than the alternative. I'm just pointing out that if we begin imposing loyalty tests on members of the Democratic caucus, which should impose them on everyone.

[ISUGRADIA]

5. He can help the Democratic Party by caucusing with it in January

then if it is a 50D, 49R, Sanders split we take Senate control.

[The Magistrate]

7. On The Surface, Sir, It Is Not A Bad Idea

But making demands that are not necessary is a poor practice, and making demands that cannot be enforced is an even worse one.

But the root of your comments in this remain defence of Lieberman's course in the wake of his defeat in the Democratic primary in Connecticut. His course of action, Sir, quite clearly shows him, and by his own choice, to be a bad Democrat, and indeed, to have removed himself effectively from the Party. There really is no excuse for the man's refusal to abide by the results of the primary, and setting himself up as a sort of "brand-X" Democrat in response to his defeat. The honorable course would have been to endorse the winner and promise to do everything in his power to ensure the success of the Party's ticket. You know that is true, Sir.

Any jeopardy the seat is in now is solely the product of Lieberman's self-willed defiance of the primary result. Even at this late date, the man should do the honorable thing and stand down.

[dolstein]

9. Jeffords never respected the results of a Democratic primary

and he was welcomed into the Democratic caucus with full seniority. Plus, if memory serves, Bernie Sanders has run against Democratic candidates in the past.

[Name removed]

14. Deleted message

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

[dolstein]

17. Isn't that even WORSE?

Unlike Lieberman, Jeffords spent almost his entire adult life as a Republican, supporting Republican candidates and raising money for the Republican Party. Joe Lieberman never endorsed a Republican candidate for public office, much less attended a Republican fundraiser.

[The Magistrate]

23. Jeffords' Defection, Sir

Ended a tie in the Senate that gave the Republicans majority power. You would find it uncomfortable to speculate on what inducements that would have justified making available, in my view of things....

[iamjoy]

25. Please Don't Call Other Posters "Stupid"

I know you feel passionately and disagree, but please do not resort to insults, ok? Disagree with the idea without insulting the poster.

[The Magistrate]

16. As A Republican, Sir, What Obligation Had He To It?

As an independent for most if not all of his career, what obligation has Rep. Sanders to it?

Lieberman is a member of the Party, and has enjoyed great benefit and favor from the association. He has an obligation to the Party's established means of slating its candidates for office.

[CTLawGuy]

he never RAN in the primary...

if Lieberman had just left the party, NOT run in the primary and tried to win as an indy, I think you would have an argument.

However, Lieberman purposefully took two bites at the apple.

[CTLawGuy]

41. he never RAN in the primary...

if Lieberman had just left the party, NOT run in the primary and tried to win as an indy, I think you would have an argument.

However, Lieberman purposefully took two bites at the apple.

[dolstein]

48. Really? You honestly believe that the problem DU'ers have is

that he ran in the primary, and that they'd be perfectly fine with having Joe remain in the Democratic caucus if he simply bypassed the primary and ran as an independent? Color me skeptical.

[CTLawGuy]

51. I wouldn't be happy about it, no

I would say "it proves he wasn't really a dem in the first place" and I'd grumble about it.

but it wouldn't have involved running in a primary, and, while claiming to still be a democrat, running as an independent because he lost.

Imagine if every primary loser started doing that, we'd never win again! with 2 or 3 dems per republican, there's no way.

Also, holding the primary was expensive and required a lot of effort on many people's parts. If Joe wasn't going to accept it's result, he should have just spared the party the expense of having it.

He could have just said, "i have loyalties greater than my party and I want to make a statement about the benefits of non-partisanship and bipartisanship, so I am running as an independent and ceding the Dem nomination to Ned Lamont. Though I will no longer be a democrat I would like to caucus with the party in the senate should I win." That would have been much better.

[The Magistrate]

52. It Would Indeed, Sir

It would gave been an honorable course, at least.

[Ken Burch]

75. You're violating DU rules by campaigning against the Democratic candidate

Why can't you accept that Lamont is the legitimate nominee? Who are you to say the primary doesn't count?

is Lieberman ABOVE the party?

The fact is, any Democrat would have beaten Lowell Weicker the year Lieberman got in. Connecticut was swinging left anyway, and the voters there wanted to elect a Democratic senator. Joe did not descend from the heavens to bestow upon us a seat we never would have taken otherwise.

Grow up already.

[kentuck]

10. And also...

Karl Rove and the Republicans are not throwing their support behind Bernie Sanders. Wonder why??

[dolstein]

12. So if Rove said "vote for Bernie" tomorrow, you'd oppose him?

NT

[kentuck]

13. No , because you have created a strawman argument...

Sanders never did run as a Democrat and then switch to an Independent. Even at that, he has been more supportive of the Democratic caucus than Joe Lieberman.

[Ken Burch]

78. Stop it already.

You aren't allowed to campaign for Lieberman AGAINST the Democratic nominee. If you're a DU poster, you are obligated to support Democratic nominees in these threads.

[gaspee]

11. Lieberman lost. He needs to suck it up.

You're comparing completely different situations. Lieberman *lost* in the party primary. That means the democratic voters in the state of connecticut don't *want* him. He needs to suck it up and act like a fucking man, not some whiny, baby with a sense of entitlement a fucking mile wide.

He lost the democratic primary. He's running as an independant. He is not a democrat. period. You can't do whta he's doing and save even a shred of your integrity.

It's almost as if he believes he should be Senator for life. Hmmm... I wonder who else thinks they're not bound by the voters' choices. Could it be... could it be... could it be... his good buddy George?

[dolstein]

15. Sanders is running as an independent too

Did Sanders even run in a Democratic primary? Has he EVER run in a Democratic primary?

[Name removed]

19. Deleted message

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

[dolstein]

21. I can certainly bring up Sanders and Jeffords to show the hypocrisy

that is rampant around here. If you want to impose a loyalty test, you have to impose it on everyone, and I don't see how Sanders and Jeffords could possibly pass, as both refuse to join the Democratic Party.

[The Magistrate]

22. If That Is What You Are Attempting, Sir, You Are Failing Miserably.

Both these people arose independently of the Democratic Party. Their agreeing to caucus with the Party augments it effective strength in a useful manner.

Lieberman is a creature of the Democratic Party, and ought to show allegiance and obedience to its procedures for slating. He has not done this. That is wrong of him.

[Ken Burch]

79. There's no hypocrisy.

Lieberman is running to hurt the Democratic party. Bernie has NEVER hurt us. Stop the bullshit already.

[The Magistrate]

20. He Has Always Been An Independent, Sir

Indeed, a Socialist of sorts. It is to the Party;'s interest to have his co-operation, and he arrives in a position of power regardless of the Party's mechanisms for slating its candidates.

[madfloridian]

27. The VT Democratic Party is supporting Bernie.

See my post below.

[dolstein]

31. The party officials are supporting Bernie

But then again, the party officials in Connecticut supported Lieberman in the primary and gave Lieberman the party's formal endorsement.

Now if I read your post, Bernie has consented to appear on the primary ballot, but is likely to decline the party's nomination, as he has done in the past. It seems like the most probable scenario would be that Sanders wins the primary, declines the nomination, and then the party declines to nominate anyone else.

But I think it's a fair question to ask whether Bernie has pledged not to run as an independent if he were to lose in the primary. After all, Lieberman was trashed precisely because he refused to rule out an independent bid.

[madfloridian]

32. The party is endorsing and working with Bernie. Huge difference.

The party in VT AND a few other very prominent Dems are actually supporting Bernie, whatever he wants. Bernie has the support of the Democrats because he caucuses with them and is not hurting others who win primaries.

Lieberman is hurting all of us by his actions. You really just keep on and on and refuse to see the huge differences.

[dolstein]

34. Has he pledged not to run as an independent if he loses the primary?

NT

[madfloridian]

36. It does not matter. The Dems don't require it of him.

It is a Vermont thing. They trust Bernie. They support him. That is their choice.

You really don't get it, do you?

[dolstein]

39. Who's "they" --if I understand correctly, there hasn't even been a primary

Moreover, the fact Democratic officials continued to support Lieberman in the primary despite his refusal to rule out an independent run didn't exactly sit well with DU'ers.

[madfloridian]

40. Lieberman LOST the primary.

I posted an article, in fact two of them. They show the difference in the two situations. The Democrats are supporting Bernie and will support him later. That is their choice in their state.

Now this is getting silly.

[sandyd921]

33. For pete's sake!

Bernie Sanders never ran in the Democratic primary and never claimed to be a Democrat. And he never turned his back on the Democratic party because he wasn't one to begin with. He has always identified himself as an independent, unlike Loserman. This is not a comparable situation. This is a straw man!

[dolstein]

35. So Lieberman's problem is that he supported the Democratic Party too much

You're saying that he'd be welcome in the Democratic caucus after this election if only he had spent the last 40 years of his life in another political party, working to defeat Democrats, as opposed to only three months working to defeat one Democrat who himself refused to accept the will of the state Democratic convention.

[The Magistrate]

38. His Problem, Sir

Is not that he supported the Democratic party too much: his problem is that he enjoyed the support of the Party all his political life and now refuses to play by the rules that he employed to his benefit now that they have led to a result he does not like.

The Connecticut Party rules do not require assent to the majority of convention delegates; they require a primary if the vote of the delegates is less than eighty-six percent for a single candidate.

[Ken Burch]

77. The state convention vote was a meaningless formality.

If that was the final Democratic say on the matter, there wouldn't have BEEN a primary.
Gawwdddd.....

[Ken Burch]

76. It isn't the same thing.

Sanders' candidacy doesn't hurt the party. Lieberman's does. What part of reality don't you get?

Please don't smuggle Benchleyite arguements into these threads.

[madfloridian]

24. Here's the scoop on Bernie....

http://www.boston.com/news/local/vermont/articles/2006/07/18/sanders_consented_to_be_on_democratic_ballot/

It's another situation entirely.

"Leaders of the Vermont Democratic Party filed a petition to put Sanders' name on the primary ballot, which they said they did to show their support.

The petition required Sanders' signature to be valid.

He now faces Larry Drown, Craig Hill, Peter Moss and Louis Thabault in the September primary.

If he wins the primary, that would prevent any other candidate who does not have party support from running as a Democrat. If Sanders declines the nomination, the party can pick another candidate or have no candidate.

The Democrats have nominated Sanders in three of his U.S. House campaigns by writing in his name on primary ballots, but he has turned down the nominations each time, said Jeff Weaver, his chief of staff and campaign manager."

The CT Dems are backing Lamont.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,207516,00.html

"Democratic leaders kept their promise Wednesday and publicly voiced their support for Senate candidate Ned Lamont, calling on incumbent Sen. Joe Lieberman to abandon his renegade run as an independent.

“I like being on your team,” Lamont told fellow Democrats. "We're going forward with a strong vision."

Lieberman's decision to file petitions for an independent run defied leaders of the Democratic Party, who called on him to unite behind political upstart Lamont, an antiwar candidate who beat the incumbent senator in the party's primary Tuesday. Lieberman supported the Iraq war; this race has been seen by many as a referendum on that issue."

[buddhamama]

26. I think the party

should do the fair thing. If Sanders and Jeffords have been allowed into the caucus then too, should Lieberman as an Independent.

[madfloridian]

29. Jeffords left the GOP, Sanders is being endorsed by VT Dems.

Lieberman LOST the Democratic primary. He did not win...he lost. Then he chose to ignore the voters and run anyway.

There is such a huge huge difference in all 3 of them.

[buddhamama]

42. Jeffords left the Republicans

and became an indepedent, he could have just as easily become a member of the Democratic party. Jeffords ignored his voters by becoming a Independent. I know the politics of Bernie Sanders, I've supported his campaigns in times past- his is a special case.

[madfloridian]

44. I think we are saying the same thing.

I was saying the 3 cases are very different. Democrats are totally behind Bernie. I don't see how Dolstein can even compare them.

[buddhamama]

47. i believe we are

n/t

[cali]

62. No, Jeffords did not

ignore VT voters. A strong majority of us supported his move to Independent. There was no outcry among VT voters that Jeffords become a Dem. We like independents here.

[buddhamama]

66. I said His voters

Don't insult my intelligence in trying to tell me there was no outcry from his Republican supporters when he made the switch, because there was. And, pardon my assumption, but "a strong majority..." wouldn't happen to be made up of Democrats (who were desperate) and existing Independents?

As to the point of which party Jeffords switched to, you missed it entirely.

[cali]

69. Pretty clear that you're not a Vermonter

First of all, many dems in Vermont supported Jeffords when he was a republican (as I always did), and second of all many republicans did NOT have a problem with Jeffords moving to indy. Polls after he became an independent indicated strong support for Jeffords.

[buddhamama]

71. words like "many"

are relative/somewhat abstract words with no real meaning with regards to this discussion. Statewide I know he did well, but then again, it was an all inclusive poll.

and no, I am not Vermonter. I did own property there for a short time though, have spent time there, and Vermont is not all that different than any other State in the Northeast.

[buddhamama]

72. to make it more to your liking

I will change my statement, "Jeffords ignored MANY of his voters..."

[kentuck]

30. Only one small distinction...

Lieberman is running against his own Party, after losing a primary battle. Neither of the other two ran as a Democrat and then switched. Jeffords came in as Republican. Sanders came in as an Independent Socialist. Lieberman came in as a Democrat. Do you see the difference?

[sandyd921]

37. I don't think he wants to see the difference.

What a waste of time.
:banghead:

[buddhamama]

46. Not much, no.

leaving aside Sanders for a minute because his is a different case entirely, let's address Jeffords. He was a Republican, turned Independent. He could have become a Democrat but did not, and instead ran campaigns against them.

[dsc]

49. Not after he switched

He ran no campaigns at all after he switched. The Democrats would have, and should have, given Jeffords whatever the Heck he wanted to get him to switch and give him the Senate.

[buddhamama]

50. No, after the switch,

but he was a Republican and ran against Democrats.

[dsc]

54. He gave us the Senate

He had a huge position of strength. He could have demanded to be leader and we would have had to give it to him.

[buddhamama]

56. I don't see a reason

to beleaguer the point. I do not support Lieberman nor his decision, nor am I a DLC Dem, so, there's no loyalty issue here for me, it is only one of fairness.

[dsc]

61. fairness has to take into account the amount that a person can give

to the party. Jeffords was literally able to give us the entire Senate.

[Name removed]

28. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

43. Deleted message

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

[CTLawGuy]

45. Here is the difference

Sanders:

-doesn't claim to be a democrat
-the VT dem party is moving to endorse him instead of a Dem party member. That is perfectly legitimate, since the party base may endorse whomever they wish.
-he doesn't really care about getting the dem nomination.
-if VT dems nominate a party member then the party should back that person.
-However, Sanders would still be morally allowed to run as an independent, which is what he is.
-He should be welcomed into the caucus whether he is endorsed or not.

Lieberman:

-claims that he'll "die a democrat"
-The CT dem party endorsed Ned Lamont over him. The CT dem base may nominate whomever they wish.
-Lieberman competed to get the Dem nomination, and he cared about it.
-The CT dem party should back the nominated candidate.
-Lieberman is not morally allowed to run as an independent and at the same time claim to be a democrat, especially after losing the primary. If he wanted to leave the party he should not have competed in the primary. The voters could have voted to endorse him anyway and that would have been legitimate.
-Lieberman is setting a frightening precedent of primary losers staying in the race. If this is allowed to stand our very system of choosing a single candidate is in jeopardy.


The difference between Sanders and Lieberman in regards to the primary is that Lieberman claimed to be a democrat and sought the nomination by competing in the primary. Sanders is in the primary only because some VT dems want to endorse him. Sanders doesn't claim to be a democrat and him running as an independent doesn't threaten our primary system.

[loyalsister]

60. It's all about the deadlines

We are seeing a problem with deadlines for filing for candidacy here.

Regulations for filing to run for office should prohibit this kind of situation.

It is antithetical to democracy for someone to exploit party politics and try to take two bites at the apple.

[Name removed]

53. Deleted message

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

[OutNow]

55. Bernie Sanders Support

I've supported Bernie Sanders each time he ran for Congress. I've had his campaign bumper sticker on my car here in Texas. He has built a national support organization of thousands of folks that make small donations in order to counter the rich Republicans that have targeted him several times. He has helped to build and lead the Progressive Caucus in Congress. And, when my employer started fucking around with my earned pension back in 2001, it was Bernie Sanders and Maurice Hinchey (D-NY) that called for congressional hearings that "encouraged" my employer to back down. And you want to know if Bernie should be forced to join the Democratic Party? I thank God that there are people like Bernie Sanders in Congress and can't wait for his victory in November in his Senate campaign.

[sandnsea]

57. Bernie Sanders never was a Democrat

There's no comparison. Bernie is a socialist, always said so. He's been an outstanding member of the House, he doesn't bash Democrats, he's a helluva lot better Democrat than Joe in fact. Jeffords was lured over to flip the Senate to Dem majority, why would anybody require anything more of him when he did that.

Your arguments aren't relevant to Lieberman at all. He signed on as a Democrat, used the benefit of party membership for decades, he needs to go when the party says buhbye.

[Name removed]

58. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[loyalsister]

59. No

Party politics is a kind of institution. I respect a person's choice not to join, and I think they should be honest and maintain the integrity of that philosophical position.
No party has any business demanding that they join.
I don't think Lieberman should be required to rejoin, but I have much less respect for him because he did not leave before the Primary.

[Vinca]

63. Sanders and Lieberman have nothing in common.

One's a patriot, the other's a snake.

[robcon]

64. How does the caucus "insist" on Sanders doing that?

What power do they have to force Sanders to do something he doesn't want to do? (if he doesn't want to do it)

[RogueTrooper]

65. dolstein, you are comparing apples and oranges

and this is not the first time you have started a thread on a topic - posters, less generous with their opinions, may be thinking that you are have a wee troll to yourself. ;-)

Now, I believe I have said this before:

The Vermont Democratic Party has endorsed Bernie Sanders. Making Bernine the Democratic Candidate. Bernie, himself, is still and independent.

Now, Joe was a Democratic who lost his primary, and because he lost the Democratic primary he lost the endorsement of the Conneticut Democratic Party. People seem to be split on whether he should be allowed to remain caucusing with the Senate Democats.

Jim Jeffords, in 2000, did not run as a Republican endorsed candidate because he lost the Democractic Primary. He ran as a Republican, because he was (then) a Republican. What happened afterwards is what happened afterwards.

[buddhamama]

68. i am not dolstein,

i hope that is obvious to everyone :)

But i do think in matters of fairness, Lieberman should be allowed to caucus with the DEMs. Strip him of his seniority and whatever power he has but it is bad politics not to allow to caucus.

[RogueTrooper]

73. Sorry BM

I was addressing dolstein.

[ellenfl]

67. leave sanders alone! he is one of the few true progressives. eom

[JNelson6563]

70. Intellectual dishonesty

Sanders has always touted himself as an Indy. Lieberman is striking out on his own from the party because the Dem voters in his state no longer want him to represent them.

Either you have tried to dishonestly represent these situations to be the same or you do not grasp the difference. Either way, this post is just another hit to your credibility.

Julie

[Douglas Carpenter]

80. or what?

If the Sanders declines to join the Sen. Democrat caucus that will be one less vote for the caucus.