FYI: When Lamont ran against Lieberman in the primaries his support was welcomed here at DU

[LynneSin]

I'm posting this not as a pro/anti-Lieberman fan but just to point out the very very obvious. DU is not pro-incumbants here. Ned Lamont ran as a democrat against a long term democratic senator, Joe Lieberman, and Lamont's support was welcomely embraced here at DU, even during the primaries

Why - because Lamont ran as a democrat in the primaries. I appreciate that the DU management is sticking by their rule of supporting democrats only. I have much appreciation for the hard work that Cindy Sheehan has done these past years but have no desire to support her as an independant candidate. It's a shame she won't take Nancy head-on in the primaries but that is her choice.

[Diane R]

1. Yes. Thank you.

[katsy]

2. Key difference: ran as a Democrat. Not an Independent/Libertarian/Puke.

[usregimechange]

48. Bingo

[tularetom]

3. Thanks for pointing that out

Seems to me a lot of people have missed that point. I also wish if Cindy wants to challenge Pelosi, that she would do so in a Democratic primary election.

[Kagemusha]

4. I'm very understanding of the support-Democrats-only policy.

Whatever the merits or demerits of Sheehan's actions here, she is, by free choice, opposing not just a Democratic candidate as an Independent, but the sitting Speaker of the House of a Democratic-majority Congress. She has every right to do so, and this site has every right not to go along with support for her. It's not like this policy was invented just for her. It's the way things have been for a long time, for understandable reasons, and if Sheehan wanted support on DU, she should've run in the primaries or something. It IS her choice, and she made it...

[LynneSin]

6. You probably sum it up better than I did

But you know it's gonna be 16 months of people whining about why they can't support Cindy's campaign here at DU even though Skinner was quite clear as to why the rules are set as they are

[Kagemusha]

8. Oh hell yes, it's going to be a lot of whining.

And in general I'm a kind of free speech kind of guy but, there is a sort of Bandwidth Rule at work here - he who owns the bandwidth, makes the rules - and besides, one thing I thought of writing in the first reply but skipped, which I'll say here... I feel like any other reaction would be disrespecting Cindy Sheehan's freedom to make her own choice. She's had posts on DU before (either directly or someone relaying something here from DailyKos or whatever) and because DailyKos is little different in this regard - it won't let her advocate her independent candidacy using its bandwidth - she knows the score. She made a conscious choice to make her protest not just against the individual person, Nancy Pelosi, but against the Democratic Party. She knows that. It's her choice, but it's not DU or DailyKos' job to help her slam the Democratic Party.

Now, the rest of us might not be ready to praise the party's perfection either but, hey, we're not actively campaigning against it as Republicans or Independents, so we are being indulged in that regard.

Just part of my respect for Cindy Sheehan is that I'm not going to treat her like a little girl. Not about something that she clearly understands. I can't respect her choice without respecting Skinner's choice, which is simply to continue long-standing policy and not make an exception for her.

[The Magistrate]

5. Exactly, Ma'am

And when Lieberman ran on a third party platform, expressions of support for him violated the rules, and persons who had supported him in the primary ceased to express such support, save in few instances which led to expulsion.

The case of Ms. Sheehan is exactly similar. If she were running in the primary against Speaker Pelosi, the rules would allow full expression of support for her here. Her declaration of third party candidacy activates a different element of the rules in regard to her activities.

[LynneSin]

7. Except I don't think anyone here at DU supported Lieberman's independant run

But if the roles were reverse and Lamont was running independent against a democratic Lieberman I would have bit my tongue and supported Lieberman. Well, actually I just would not comment on the Connecticut race - probably the smartest tactic in that position

[bigwillq]

12. I beg to differ

I think some people did support his Indy run...I can't give you specifics, because honestly I can't remember exactly what their tag name was but I do remember some people here on DU saying they support Lieberman.

Question: You would support Lieberman just because he was a Democrat? :shrug:

[LynneSin]

17. Well define 'support'

Would I actively support his campaign via donation of money/time to help get him elected in November? Very highly-unlikely. But I wouldn't have supported any candidates running against him in the primary election.

I've been a democrat since I was 10 years old and one thing I've learned is there are some pretty shitty democrats out there. But I still believe in that party

[bigwillq]

19. But you would've still voted for Lieberman?

:shrug:

[LynneSin]

21. If I lived in Connecticut - yes

Hell, I had to vote for Tom Carper and he can get pretty bad sometimes.

Remember - I use to live in Pennsylvania. Once you had Rick Santorum as your senator - anything and everything is uphill from there including Joe Lieberman.

Edit Note: If I lived in Connecticut I would have voted for Lieberman, but I would have treated his race like I did Tom Carper's here in Delaware. Carper was the dem on the ticket but recently he had been getting a tad to conservative for my tastes. I voted for Tom but I did no campaigning for him in Delaware nor did I contribute a dollar to his campaign. I also did very very little posting about Carper here on DU. Fortunately Connecticut is similiar to Delaware where I'm not very far from another state where I could help get someone elected and thus I worked on several congressional races in SE pennsylvania and donated to several congressional races in other states.

[Alexander]

22. You would have voted for Lieberman OVER Lamont?

In other words, you would have supported an Independent running against a Democratic nominee?

[LynneSin]

24. EEEK!!! Let me clarify - I would have voted for Lieberman IF he was the dem winner of the primary

I would have voted for Lamont in the primaries. The point of my thread was that Lamont primary support here at DU was welcomed because he was a democratic candidate. And when he won the primaries DU supported Lamont. THey even removed all the Lieberman avatars from the Avatar gallery (they were added when Joe ran for president in 2004).

[bigwillq]

23. I am all for party loyalty but

in JoeMo's case, we knew all too well before he decided to run as an Indy that he became way too close to the repukes...there was no way in hell I was going to vote for him even if he was the DEM nominee. I wouldn't have voted for the repuke but I wouldn't vote for LIEberman.

[LynneSin]

26. I know how you feel - I think it's just the Santorum syndrome in me

When Ron Klink ran against Santorum in 2000 I was so devestated. I wasn't a big fan of Klink and found it nearly impossible to get out there and campaign for the guy. But I knew the option would be another 6 years with Santorum.

For all we bitch about Lieberman he is NOT the worst senator in DC right now. I can easily say I would prefer Lieberman over just about every republican senator in DC right now. Fortuantely I'm in Delaware so perhaps I'll lighten up a bit

[bigwillq]

28. I agree he is not the worst

But I just hate how because of the election and the make-up of the Senate, he thinks he is the most powerful one there. He think his vote is the most important, that type of thing really bugs me...

I agree he is not the worst....his voting record is still pretty much left-leaning except on some of the big issues but that really bugs me. I despise JoeMo so much.

[LynneSin]

29. Unfortunately Joe does wield that power which is why....

...it's important to get a few more democrats elected so we can remove that power from him.

If he sides with the republicans then our country is fucked 1000% worse than what it is now. I can agree with your disgust, all we can do is take away is power in 2008

[JerseygirlCT]

47. I doubt I could have brought myself to vote for him, either.

He's such a horror!

[CTLawGuy]

52. some did

and they were promptly banned. Got rid of some very annoying posters, actually.

[JerseygirlCT]

46. Exactly. I don't see why this is so hard to understand? nt

[Alexander]

9. There were Lieberman supporters posting here AFTER the primary.

I remember one in particular - "The Virginian" - continually posting messages in favor of a Lieberman GE victory. There were a handful of people posting messages like these, and not a single one was deleted.

No ban, no deleted posts, not even a slap on the wrist. After the GE, Virginian simply....disappeared.

Yes, the majority of DU was in favor of Lamont, but how do you explain this selective enforcement of the rules? :shrug:

[rinsd]

11. Then you should be able to grab those posts easily.

[Alexander]

20. Happy to oblige. Here you go. "I...will cheer if Lieberman elected [sic]".

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=364&topic_id=2448911#2448999

"question everything
6. Because, thankfully, most Democrats do not trash someone as a used rag Updated at 10:25 AM

just because they disagree with him on one issue.

He has been a loyal Democrat for years. Always a moderate one, never left enough for DU and for moveon.org and the other extreme left of the party.

He certainly can fit better with what most of us consider the Democratic core values than Harold Ford from TN who is being cheered on these pages. Lincoln Chafee can fit better than Ford, for that matter.

Thankfully, there are adult voters in CT who are capable at looking at the whole picture, rather than being swayed by the fringes.

I for one, will cheer if Lieberman elected."

The post was made on Sat Oct-21-06 11:23 AM - more than two months after Holy Joe lost the primary.

Not only against DU rules, but also poor English. That raises a red flag for me.

As of today, this poster is still here, and their post remains in the archives for all to see.

There were plenty more which I will happily show you if asked.

But for some reason, I doubt you are that interested.

Maybe you can tell me why the DU rules were selectively enforced in the case of Joe Lieberman?

[LynneSin]

27. I can only give you one answer to that post

and that is that DU is not perfect here. The fact the original poster was questioning anyone who would vote for Lieberman is probably one reason why the pro-lieberman post may have slipped through.

However, if that post you shared in #20 was the original post (ie - someone started a thread stating "I for one, will cheer if Lieberman is elected") then I truly believe it would have been locked

[Alexander]

30. I don't think it makes a difference...

Whether you're violating the rules in a post or an original thread.

The mods will lock threads and delete posts which break the rules - we have all seen this.

Rules are rules, and breaking them usually leads to deleted posts.

Except with Joe Lieberman.

PS - I alerted on that particular post back when I first saw it.

Many who responded to the post also alerted on it, as they said they would.

Yet it was never deleted. Why? :shrug:

[LynneSin]

35. And they should - I'm not disagreeing with that

And I don't know why it wasn't deleted. I've moderated the political forums right before the election and stuff gets overlooked - mainly because you're getting slammed with a shitload of alerts each day.

It should have been deleted

[Alexander]

37. I appreciate the honesty of your answer

Much more than the snark or whitewashing of certain others.

Thanks. :hi:

[LynneSin]

38. Taking a break from snark & whitewashing

Because of all of the alerts you can get overloaded with especially before elections, sometimes just scanning the titles was the quickest way to find out if there was a problem thread. I did my 6 terms as a moderator - it's an under appreciated position.

There is a moderator forum where the mods discuss questionable posts and whether they should be deleted because let's face it - some of the stuff is borderline and requires 2nd opinions. I do know if that thread was posted in the mod lounge, one of the admin would have told the mods to lock it.

The ultimate history of why it wasn't I do not know. Just repeating what happened way back when when I was a moderator.

[Hippo_Tron]

53. Although I wasn't a mod at the time that was posted, my term ended shortly before that

I moderated during much of the Lieberman/Lamont primary race and for about a month or so following it and I can tell you that often stuff does slip through the cracks. Often not enough moderators will be logged on at a certain time diminishing their ability to act and certain things will slip through the cracks.

If you're curious about how it all works I'd suggest applying to become a moderator. You will very quickly learn that there are no plans by moderators to selectively enforce the rules. Skinner makes the rules and the moderators enforce them, period.

[Name removed]

31. Deleted sub-thread

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

[David Zephyr]

51. You make a valid point, Alexander and one that is crystal clear.

:thumbsup:

[LynneSin]

15. That's easy to explain

First, as an ex-moderator it's almost impossible to monitor every post made on DU. That's why there is an alert system. If someone alerted about the Lieberman thread post-primaries I'm sure it was dealt with. I know I've saw a few threads pro-Lieberman threads started after the primaries that were locked

Second - it also depends on how Lieberman was discussed. I know there were plenty of threads started about Lieberman's status within the democratic party should he win the general election and I believe those are fair game. No matter what party Lieberman was affliated with we all knew he was going to be a major impact on the democratic party should he win his election. And please don't mistake "We have to play ball with Joe Lieberman if he wins" as pro-lieberman threads. Hell I said that all along because I knew that the senate balance was going to be extremely close and that we would need Lieberman's support if he won in November. That never made me 'pro-Lieberman' but 'pro-democratic majority even if we had to crawl into bed with a slimeball like Lieberman'.

I would suspect that similiar threads about how a Sheehan win would impact congress are fair game here at DU. But the mods should lock any thread that had said "Lieberman(I) for US Senate" just like they should lock threads that say "Sheehan(I) for US Congress".

[Name removed]

25. Deleted sub-thread

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

[The Magistrate]

32. The Rules Were Not Selectively Enforced, Sir

If a person simply departs the site, there is no need to terminate the account, nor do we have time to go back and remove posts made before a policy is finalized. There were indeed some bannings, though not many, as most persons who had supported Lieberman in the primary were willing to abide by the rules. In the later stages of the campaign, when it was becoming clear Mr. Lamont was not going to win the Senate seat, there were some posts by persons who had opposed him in the primary of an 'I told you so' nature, but prediction of defeat for a candidate is not support for one of his or her opponents, particularly when it is clear from all indications that defeat will occur.

[Alexander]

34. The post I referred to in #20 was a clear violation of DU rules.

Not only is the post still here, but so is the poster. He didn't depart the site.

Nice try, though. :hi:

[The Magistrate]

39. Doubtless, Sir, No One Alerted On It

It probably would have been pulled, had it come to our attention. Thousands of posts are made every day, and we have not got a hope of seeing them all; we are largely dependent on alerts from members to direct our attentions.

We certainly are not going to go back to materials nine months old and act against them: browse around in the archives you can find a good deal of material in violation of various rules.

Members are generally banned, as Ms. Synn has pointed out to you, for records of consistent and persistant violation of rules. The fact that a member does not like or agree with another member, and finds that member engaged in some violation of the rules, does not amount to a case for terminating an account that will command a consensus among the moderators in favor of that action.

[Alexander]

40. I personally alerted on it, Magistrate. Don't give me that.

"It probably would have been pulled, had it come to our attention. Thousands of posts are made every day, and we have not got a hope of seeing them all; we are largely dependent on alerts from members to direct our attentions."

That's fine, if it was an acceptable excuse.

I personally alerted on the post back in 2006 when I first saw it.

Many DUers who responded to the post (as you can see in the thread) also alerted, and openly stated their intentions to do so.

Yet it was never deleted.

"We certainly are not going to go back to materials nine months old and act against them: browse around in the archives you can find a good deal of material in violation of various rules."

I'm not asking that this be done.

I'm simply saying that there were cases where the rules were not enforced, these cases generally were in favor of Senator Lieberman, and this is a good example.

"Members are generally banned, as Ms. Synn has pointed out to you, for records of consistent and persistant violation of rules. The fact that a member does not like or agree with another member, and finds that member engaged in some violation of the rules, does not amount to a case for terminating an account that will command a consensus among the moderators in favor of that action."

You misunderstand me. I'm not saying anyone should be banned.

However, as "Ms. Synn" herself also pointed out, the post should have been deleted. Multiple DUers alerted on it, and yet nothing happened.

The rules were not enforced here. That's my point. So when people tell me Lieberman supporters weren't allowed to post here, I take what they say with a grain of salt.

[The Magistrate]

41. And Doubtless You Will Be Able To find, Sir

Expressions of support for Ms. Sheehan that slip through the cracks as well in coming days and weeks and months....

"Perfection is for the Gods."

[Alexander]

42. Except the topic at hand wasn't Cindy Sheehan.

It was DUers telling me that no DUers were pro-Lieberman after the primary, which I demonstrated is clearly false.

I'm not asking for perfection. I'm asking for accuracy.

[corbett]

10. That's Why I Donated $100 Early On

You're so right! Without DU, I would not have known enough about Mr. Lamont and his meteoric rise. What's more, it was because of DU that I donated $100 to Ned when his incumbent rival pulled one of his many pro-Republican stunts. Despite living in Florida and now being a congressional candidate myself, I was a proud early Lamont supporter and haven't regretted it one moment.

To read more about what I'm doing, visit http://www.corbettforcongress.com

_____________________________________________________________________
Political advertisement paid for and approved by Corbett For Congress

[glitch]

13. So obvious it shouldn't have needed stating, yet it did. Thanks for posting it. K & R nt

[Bonobo]

14. And what if Jeb Bush ran as a Democrat...?

If you divorce your heart and mind from the equation, you are as bad as the other side in my opinion.

If Cindy Sheehan represents our collective "Democratic" ideals ane our own party ceases to adequately reflect our strongest felt beliefs, we have a choice. Yes, I know, we're not IndependantUnderground.com, yeah I get it.
... But the thing is, we're not just Democrats in name. We are Democrats because it is what we believe in.

So the choice is, do we stay true to our beliefs or do we support the party because of the name?

Cindy Sheehan represents our true... uh-oh! Someone's coming!... Damn! Blow out that peace candle! Open the window! They'll smell the patchouli!

Err, umm... that Go Nancy, Ho Harry! Go Conyers! You guys sure showed tha Gonzales guy! Who does that runt think he is! great job! Have a good vacation! You earned it!

[LynneSin]

16. You're really kidding me on that dumbass statement

The absolutely CLOSEST you could have done and I would have given you some creedence was "What if Joe Lieberman had won the democratic primary" because it was something feasible that could happen. (and the answer is simple - if Lieberman was the democratic nominee after the primaries then most of us Democrats would have probably just bitched about Lieberman and ignored the election overall)

I mean, why don't I ask proverbial questions like what if "pigs could fly out of my butt" or "what if my cat learned to communicated to me in English". These are fantasy questions that have no basis in this argument. However, if Jeb Bush ran as a democrat I would probably have a long discussion with my cat about the pigs flying out of my butt and then grumble about how the democrats actually allowed Jeb Bush on the ticket but I'm a democrat and that's what it is.

[billyoc]

18. If Jeb Bush ran as a Democrat, supporting his Republican opponent

would not be permitted on DU.

It's a pretty simple rule.

[Major Hogwash]

33. Yeah, but Ron Paul still sucks and I don't care if he ever switches parties.

This guy is like Lieberman, always has his hand out to whatever donor is pushing his agenda, and then he changes his mind about the issue 3 or 4 years later.

Lieberman didn't take as long to become a Benedict Arnold, he made the change in 30 days.

[LynneSin]

36. Ron Paul is the new John McCain here at DU

I remember DUers wanting Kerry to pick McCain as his running mate. I couldn't figure out why - the guy was as conservative as they come. Just because he agreed with us on 1-2 minor issues didn't make McCain an appropriate democratic VP candidate

[knowledgeispwr]

44. I'm glad I'm not the only one who remembers the McCain business

People seem to forget that once elected, an office holder is going to have to deal with a wide variety of issues, not just the chosen one or two that you agree with them on. For that reason, it makes no sense to me to support a candidate that you agree with on one or two issues while in a general, ideological sense, you disagree with them. I think that happened with John McCain here and now it's going on with Ron Paul and Cindy Sheehan.

[Major Hogwash]

50. That may be true,but I just wanted to say that Ron Paul sucks anyway.

Just so everyone will know how I feel about that phony old bastard.

[Catchawave]

43. Abso-fu*kin-lutely.....

Cindy Sheehan is no Ned Lamont.

I would welcome her to challenge Pelosi in a primary, I might even support her and send her money.

I used to support Cindy, before I didn't. She hasn't made sense in over a year, imho.

And yes, I think I have the right to say that since I was supporting her *in person* at two peace marches in '05 and '06.

[JerseygirlCT]

45. Not to state the obvious again, but Lamont ran as a Democrat

in the Democratic primaries.

Sheehan has chosen to run as an independent.

According to DU rules, that puts her outside of our support on this board.

[MaineDem]

49. And Ned Lamont is speaking at our State Dems lobster bake next month

I'm looking forward to hearing him.

And thanks, Lynne, for posting this. We all need to be reminded of the obvious at times.