Challenging the DINO's....

[V. Kid]

...here's an intresting view from a Canadian columnist, regarding the Lamont vs Lieberman fight for the Democratic nomination in Conneticut:

Challenging the Democrats-in-Name-Only

Six years ago, Joe Lieberman was the Democratic Party's nominee for Vice-President of the United States (and, were it not for some well-organized cheating by the Republicans and the collusion of the Supreme Court, he would have been elected). In a quirk of the American electoral system, he was also running at the same time for re-election for a third term representing Connecticut in the Senate, a race that he won handily.

This election cycle, with the Senate seat again on the line, Lieberman is facing another electoral battle, but his major challenge is not coming from Republicans. Rather, it is coming from Democrats who argue that Lieberman might as well be a Republican. Since 2000, Lieberman has steadfastly supported the Bush Administration on everything to the Iraq War, the Patriot Act, energy policy, the Terri Schiavo case, and judicial appointments. He's the most obvious example of the frustrating phenomenon known as DINOs — Democrats in Name Only.

{snip}

Lamont overcame long odds to force Lieberman into a primary on August 8. Polls now show him trailing Lieberman by only six percentage points. He's collecting endorsements from unions, local elected officials and even former Connecticut Governor Lowell Weicker (a former Independent who lost to Lieberman when he was first elected to the Senate). In a speech to Lamont supporters, Weicker commented: “I am not a Democratic activist. I am an anti-war activist. I am not some left-wing nut or liberal crazy. I am an American of common sense who can recognize failure and pigheadedness.”

Meanwhile, Lieberman is relying on endorsements from the likes of Bill O'Reilly and running an anti-Lamont attack ad that more than one progressive blogger has labelled “the most embarrassing political ad ever.” He's using the same accusations of irrational “Bush hatred” that the American right regularly throws around (even though, as Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting noted in their May/June newsletter, polls show that “a majority of Americans 'hate' the president”). He's even compared Lamont supporters to “jihadists” and “crusaders.”

{snip}

As The Journal Inquirer noted in an editorial, “Lamont is near the centre of the Democratic heart. And Lieberman is far from it. He flunks almost every litmus test. Of course Lamont is a strong primary candidate. Of course Lieberman can win the primary only by smearing Lamont, in the great GOP tradition of Lee Atwater and Karl Rove… Is he running as a Democrat?”

If the Democratic Party wants to salvage any shred of the limited credibility that it still has among American progressives, it will turf Lieberman and back Lamont.

I hope other people have articles to post regarding other challenges to incumbent 'DINO's.

This contest is really intresting to me, because it's one of the few that I know of, where the challenger has a good shot at winning.

Before I completely forget here's the link:

http://www.rabble.ca/columnists_full.shtml?x=50876

[wyldwolf]

1. Canadian, huh?

Didn't the liberal party there just lose?

[V. Kid]

2. Yeah

...because they were corrupt, tired, and generally ran a horrible campaign, with an out of touch leader who was extremely unappealing. And yet the Conservatives, who half of whom would be in the same ideological space as American Democrats, won a weak minority with only 36% of the vote (meaning they only control 125 oseats in parliament, to 102 for the Liberals, 29 for the New Democrats a left-wing party, 51 for the Bloc Quebecois a left-leaning Quebec sepratist party, with one cranky right-wing independent also from Quebec).

In any case since you felt the need to necro-bounce this thread any comments about the article?

[wyldwolf]

3. thought so.. Have a nice day.