Is party loyalty more important than democracy?

[jerry611]

If a Democrat in Connecticut votes this November and votes for Joe Lieberman. Does that mean that the voter is a traitor?

I would have to admit that I have not voted for the Democrat every single time. I mean sometimes I hate both the Republican and the Democrat candidate. And I refuse to vote for someone simply because they are the "lesser of two evils." And I sure as hell won't fork over my cash to support them just because they have a "D" after their name. If there is a Green or an Independent, or even some other 3rd party that I believe in that will do a better job, he/she will get my vote. And it isn't wasting my vote because I put my support behind the guy who I believe in. That is what Democracy is all about. You arnt voting for a party, you are voting for a person.

George Washington warned us about the dangers of political parties and how they will destroy America. I fully believe that is the truth. He thought that political parties would divide the country into factions and special interest groups.

I support Democrat ideas mostly and I am a registered Democrat. But let me make this as clear as possible...I am an American first.

"All political ideas cannot and should not be channeled into the programs of our two major parties. History has amply proved the virtue of political activity by minority, dissident groups, which innumerable times have been in the vanguard of democratic thought and whose programs were ultimately accepted. The absence of such voices would be a symptom of grave illness in our society."
-Earl Warren
Former Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court

[GodlessBiker]

1. If Joe didn't care about party, he should have run as an independent

from the beginning.

[Jim__]

2. If a voter in Connecticut votes for Joe Lieberman in November,

is he voting for or against the interests of the US?

[imouttahere]

3. In these times, with the extremism of Bushco....

party loyalty is more important. And in November, LIEberman will not be a democrat anymore. Not that he ever was, IMO.

[KingFlorez]

4. It certainly has become that way

For both Democrats and Republicans.

[LTR]

5. Loserman made a mockery out of the whole Primary process

What was really the point of it anyway when he refuses to acknowledge that the people of Connecticut are tired of the Joe Show?

Loserman refused to take his ass-whuppin like a man, and played the part of a sore loser. He could have left on a high note with at least a little bit of class, but instead made the whole Primary process look like a waste of time. If he wins, it's like he was the Democratic victor in CT, though he circumvented the whole process. It's a shitty thing to do, and Loserman is running more for his ego than the interests of the people and the party.

I see where you're going with this, and I'm all in favor of viable third party options, because they are important in our society and help to give the main parties an occasional swift kick in the ass. But Democracy already spoke last night, and Holy Joe wasn't listening.

[MissWaverly]

6. well you can vote for anybody that supports Bush 100%

hey, it's a free country (almost), but haven't you had enough, we lost thousands of people
on his watch much of it due to carelessness, we are in a war where we have spent billions much
of it wasted with no progress. How can a major world power go to battle against a country that
has a population of 27 million and a army of ragtag guerillas in a mostly inhospitable desert
and lose. I remember reading that the part of Iraq that is on the coast is only 18 miles wide,
we are talking about a population that is roughly the size of Chicago with its burbs, NY with
its burbs and Philadelphia combined. Most Americans have no sense of Geography and think of
Iraq as this limitless state the size of the African continent.

[jobycom]

7. No, but right now Dem party loyalty and democracy are the same thing

The Republicans are a threat not just to the next couple of years in America, but to the world. The whole concept of democracy is being subverted by them, and the image of America, and of democracy, is being destroyed.

Right now a vote for anyone other than the Dem candidate is a vote for the Republicans. It always is--the lie of "voting your conscience" was clearly exposed in 2000--but now things are far too critical for anyone to play these little word games. Vote Democrat, or you've voted Republican.

Interesting on Lieberman, though. A lot of people complain about the two party system. Some of those same people now are saying "Any Democrat who votes for Lieberman is a traitor." Seems to me that those same people might support Lieberman just to damage the two-party system. If Lieberman won, think of how many others might be tempted to run as independents or form third parties. I personally think the current system works fine, but there are those who believe it is the source of all problems in America. Here's their chance to strike it a blow.

[MrModerate]

8. At this point in history, the issue is beyond party loyalty . . .

and to the point of the potential wrecking of the country by radical wackos who call themselves "conservatives" -- and are about as conservative as Rasputin.

Would a Lieberman voter in November be a traitor? No. A fool, perhaps, but not a traitor.

I used to vote purely for the candidate, identifying with Democrats 9 times out of 10, but I can't allow myself that luxury this year. I can't risk enabling Republicans to further damage our country and our planet. They've got to go, and the Dems who get swept in need to know WHY they got their chance -- because the goniffs they replaced kept shitting on the American people and so they were kicked out.

This is not like previous elections, nor will 2008 be.

[bryant69]

9. He isn't loyal to the party

You might argue that there are things more important than party loyalty- and I'm not sure I'd disagree with you.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[mmonk]

10. No. That person will be voting their conscience.

They won't be voting for the democratic party though.

[Trajan]

11. Are you still here ? ...

I am surprised ....

False Dichotomy fallacy ....

[mcscajun]

12. A Democratic voter can vote for anyone he wants, even a Republican

without being labeled a traitor or a party traitor. A voter takes nothing from the party, and has no obligation TO the party.

A party politician does; he or she takes support and money from the party, and owes allegiance to the party.

You can vote for whomever you wish; I support Democratic ideals and I wish to vote for Democrats. Supporting those who are not Democrats is an activity that belongs somewhere other than DU.

[endarkenment]

13. False dichotomy 101.

"Is party loyalty more important than democracy?" false choice.

"If a Democrat in Connecticut votes this November and votes for Joe Lieberman. Does that mean that the voter is a traitor?"

That one is easy. No it doesn't. An act of treason requires two or three witnesses (I haven't the patience to look up which it is) and voting is private, so clearly it cannot be an act of treason.

Is Joe Lieberman a loyal Democrat? Good question, too bad you didn't ask that question.

[AngryAmish]

14. Hell yes

We are us. There is nothing more important than the destruction of every single Rethuglikkkan.

[kentuck]

15. As long as you can justify your votes...

in a rational way that your party can understand. If not, you are screwed.

[Ms. Clio]

16. "I would have to admit I have not voted for the Democrat every single time

somehow I do not find that surprising.

[novalib]

17. Party Loyalty?? PARTY LOYALTY?????!!!!!

How in the FUCK can you mention "party loyalty" and that turncoat, war-monger scumbag Joe LIEberman in the same breath?

HE was the one who was BOTH not loyal to the ideals and highest aspirations of the Democratic Party and of democracy!

Good Riddance to him!

[fishwax]

18. there is no conflict between party loyalty and democracy

and whether george washington would think it a good thing or a bad thing, political parties (and yes, party loyalty) are an integral part of the system that he helped to create.

The very function of the senate depends on party loyalty, since either one party or the other will control how the resources (the time and the money) of the entire body will be spent. If, theoretically speaking, Lieberman's independent campaign siphons enough voters from lamont to allow schlesinger to win the seat, and if that results in a senate split 50-50 (well, 50 repubs and 49 dems plus jeffords, who votes to organize with the dems), then the repubs will contorl the senate because of dick cheney's tie-breaking vote. And that means that it will be much more difficult for democrats to advance their legislation, etc. and much easier for republicans to continue the assault on democracy that they've been waging for the six years of the bush administration. The lack of party loyalty would be bad for democracy.

Does this mean you must always vote for a dem, in every election, no matter what? No, of course not. But when someone like Joe Lieberman, who wouldn't have gotten anywhere without the democratic party and its voters and infrastructure (including the primary system itself), turns around and pisses on all of it, that is not "standing up for democracy" or any such thing. He pissed on the very system that gave him EVERYTHING he has. That's not valuing "democracy" over "party loyalty," it's valuing "self" over party loyalty, and it relies on the delusion that the influence of the two-party system could somehow be made irrelevant in our system of democracy.

[bananas]

19. DU rules say you can't promote third-party candidates

A lot of people left DU over this, you're welcome to join them.

[derby378]

20. Back in 2004, too many Dem candidates played patty-cake with the Repukes

No more. If you honestly believe that a non-Democratic candidate is the right person for a particular office, it is imperative that you vote your conscience at the ballot box. But don't use a Democratic forum to advocate candidates who are working against Democrats.

We have six years of political abominations to clean up, and we have to be confident that those whom we elect to office will work towards getting rid of the mess, not adding to it.