Avoid 'divisive primary' ~ is that the reason for betraying Hackett?' If

[Catrina]

so, will Harry Reid and Chuck Schumer be asking Joe Lieberman's donors to stop supporting him to avoid a divisive primary?

How many other war supporters will be in 'divisive primaries'? Will the party leadership be calling their donors to ask them not to continue their support?

This is the excuse I keep seeing from supporters of the betrayal of Paul Hackett. I will be watching carefully to see if this tactic is used against those who have consistently voted against Progressive interests, or who voted for Bush Nominees ~

I am very skeptical that this was the reason, but we'll know soon as we watch other primary races.

Personally, I am expecting the leadership to ask Joe Lieberman's CHALLENGER to drop out of the race to 'avoid a divisive primary' and to 'put their energies into 'fighting Republicans'.

'Move on, put it behind you etc etc' ~ like we did in the 2004 primaries, and after the election and after the IWR betrayal and on and on. How much more should we 'put behind us?'

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

1. No, they'd be more likely to ask Lieberman's primary opponent's donors

to stop supporting HIM, sigh.

[Kolesar]

2. Paul Hackett's tough, he'll get over it

There's no funk that going for a spin in the turbo Porsche cannot get you out of

[LeftNYC]

3. Comparing Brown's record and Lieberman's is like apples

and oranges...Brown is not a DLC DINO

[Catrina]

6. Well, that wasn't my point ~ since the excuse offered for the 'calling

of Hackett's supporters behind his back, is that they wanted to avoid a divisive primary, the is going to be one in Joe Lieberman's state. Lieberman strongly supports the neocon agenda. He will most likely LOSE this time.

Brown and Hackett were both good candidates ~ Lieberman has been endorsed by Sean Hannity ~ so, I'm asking, have any Joe Lieberman donors been asked to stop supporting him by the leadership of the party?

Personally, I don't think that's how it should be done. I think the party leadership should be open and honest and simply ask Lieberman to leave the race ~ as they should have done with Hackett, and explained their reasons. It was the sneaky way they did it. And if Brown was involved, then I disagree that he is a 'good candidate'. Does anyone know if he was aware of the calls to Hackett's donors? That would be deciding factor for me. I think he should condemn those tactics now, though, since they have been revealed. That's what a decent and honest man would do.

[LeftNYC]

8. From what I read from some Ohio people

Hackett was a middle of the road guy who got traction on Iraq. It seems the Dems wanted both Brown and Hackett, but Hackett is a man of his word, which I respect. Our focus should be on beating DeWine not each other.

Lieberman has to go. If the leadership gets involved in that race, then you will hear me screaming.

[bryant69]

4. I suppose it depends on what your goal is

Staying true to principles or winning elections.

It's a harder choice than it seems - simplistically it's easy enough to say that if you abandon some of your principles what's the point in winning? But if you never win elections, your principles frankly don't mean a thing (except, I suppose, to you).

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

[EFerrari]

10. So, what IS the DLC's record on winning elections?

I really don't know. From my limited observations, they're record sucks and OH or CT or CA could do better flipping a coin. :evilgrin:

[bryant69]

15. Their big claim to success is Bill Clinton

And that's the only one I know. That's a pretty big claim in all fairness.

But I'm not a big fan of the DLC - they are too eager to sell out and also too eager to rip into the liberals of our party.

Bryant

[EFerrari]

17. It begins to look like Clinton was the exception.

I don't like them because most of the time they seem indistinguishable from the Thugs.

[bryant69]

21. Well they are distinguishable

By their betrayal.

I can understand a republican fighting for what he believes in - in some circumstances I can even applaud it.

But the DLC attacks liberals they claim to agree with in principle for political reasons. And in practice they aren't that different from Bush supporters.

[Catrina]

14. 'To Thine own self, be true' ~ I think that's more important than winning

A man of principle can influence more people positively, by standing by his principles, than those who take the other route, convincing themselves that winning gives them more opportunity to do good, no matter that their example can only continue the status quo ~ I see so many here supporting 'dirty politics' as the only way to win.

If doing so means we get what we have today, then I disagree that this capitulation to 'playing politics' rather than being true to one's values, has worked ~ it hasn't, imo. That's how the Republicans got to where they are ~

I think people were ready for a change ~ it looks like we won't get it ~ I would have liked to try it this time ~ but, then, we little people don't have much influence over the party ~ I just find it sad that we can't even applaud someone who drops out rather than compromise his principles.

It isn't enough that they accomplished their goal, all I see from those who support these tactics are smears and attacks against Hackett ~ that will cause a lot of people to drop out of any support for Brown ~ I for one, am sick of compromise ~ I was hoping for a change, some honesty. But, it's not going to happen. If this is any sign of things to come over the next year, there's not much hope that the Democrats will succeed in ousting the crooks who now run the country ~ and maybe this why they have lost so consistently, on every important issue, from the war to the budget, for so long. Just my opinion.

[Strawman]

5. the netroots is right to be skeptical

The decision to avoid a divisive primary is always resolved in favor of the traditional power brokers within the party. I don't think this is a progressive versus moderate issue even. Brown is more liberal than Hackett. It's purely about power and tendencies toward micromanagement and the risks associated with deferring to the netroots. I think the party needs to open up a bit and take that risk because the alternative will absolute deflate the energy of the netroots and I think that energy has the potential to be a powerful force that can really boost the party.

Ultimately the question becomes who is the party? The traditonal power brokers say it is us and the netroots say no, it's us. It needs to be both.

[Guaranteed]

9. OUTSTANDING POST. nt

[Guaranteed]

7. You can see the political bullshit dripping out of those posts.

Spin, justification, psychological intimidation, framing....

Great, great post.

[MrBenchley]

11. Who betrayed anybody? Hackett QUIT!

What I find hilarious is that we've had umpty ump threads on DU DEMANDING that the Democratic party purge this or that Democrat from the party instantly so that a "true progressive" could be put in his place.

And here Hackett quits, leaving the field open for the PDA's Brown, and suddenly some people are besides themselves with rage imagining that the purge they've been calling for has occurred.

[Catrina]

18. He chose not to participate in the very system we are supposed to

be fighting. I have seen posts here, from supposed progressives, claiming that 'dirty politics' is fine.

Sorry, but we're where we are now because of that.

Anyway, my question was 'will the party leadership be calling Joe Lieberman's donors asking them not to support him (War, Hannity, Fox etc) to avoid a divisive primary. It's a simple enough question.

Here's the logic I'm seeing:

a) We want to defeat Republicans because their politics are dirty.
b) Dirty politics are fine to use on our own, but not against Republicans.
c) We are selective in how we use those dirty tricks on other Democrats.

Conclusion: We don't use them against those who refuse to speak out strongly against the Bush administration. We are like an abused family. We don't want to upset the abuser, we want their approval. It's okay to bash those who are trying to stop the abuse. Abused individuals often form inexplicable attachments to their abusers.

For me, I don't like being abused, and won't tolerate it to the best of my ability ~ but I am curious as to what we have to look forward to for the rest of this year. It's not starting out to be very encouraging ~

My opinion? There was no need for the trickery with Paul Hackett ~ they should have had the guts to call him up, invite him to be involved in the discussion and point out to him, why they felt that Brown had a better shot at winning.

From what I've come to know of him, he will always put his country first. Seems to me, they knew they had no good argument, so they went behind his back. Now, if this is how the party operates, all I'm asking is, will they do the same thing to someone who is so closely alligned with the worst fringe of the rightwing. It's a simple question ~ I will be calling the DNC, Reid et al, to ask them also ~

PS. I still would not approve of the party going behind Lieberman's back. They should simply ask him to leave the party as he no longer represents its ideals. Or maybe he does? Soon, we'll find out .....

[MrBenchley]

22. Hackett QUIT because he was losing....

"my question was 'will the party leadership be calling Joe Lieberman's donors asking them not to support him (War, Hannity, Fox etc) to avoid a divisive primary."
You mean so they can have a progressive candidate like Sherrod Brown there? Is that really wat you're asking?

Besides, who says there's going to be anything divisive in Connecticut?

"There was no need for the trickery with Paul Hackett"
And far as anyone can see there was no trickery. Except in the fevered imaginations of some people.

"They should simply ask him to leave the party as he no longer represents its ideals."
Funny, Lieberman is pro-choice, pro-environment, pro-labor, pro-gun control, pro-civil rights and has a high rating from the ADA.

[Catrina]

23. Do you live in Conn? It will be divisive as the DLCers smear anyone

who runs against Joe Lieberman, and he will have primary opponents. The DLC can't afford to lose Joe, and we can't afford to keep him. That is why it will be divisive.

And far as anyone can see there was no trickery.

Maybe our standards are different. But I consider going behind the back of a party member and urging his donors to stop supporting, 'trickery'. Why not simply give him the respect a party member deserves and talk to HIM??

You mean so they can have a progressive candidate like Sherrod Brown there? Is that really wat you're asking?

Yes, that is what I'm asking, but you haven't answered ~ I have nothing against Brown, (unless he was involved in the dirty politics against Hackett which I hope he was not). Lieberman WILL have good progressive opposition. That's why I'm asking, will the same tactics be used against him, as were used against Hackett who has given the party FAR LESS reason to do so! Why did this not happen the minute he went on Fox and accepted Hannity's endorsement? What a slap in the face to all progressives that was, yet not a peep out of the 'leadership'.

Funny, Lieberman is pro-choice, pro-environment, pro-labor, pro-gun control, pro-civil rights and has a high rating from the ADA.

'Pro-civil rights? Iraq and Iran???

...and 'pro gun-control!! Again, Iraq and now Iran?

...and 'pro-labor? Where? 70% of the Iraqi people lost their jobs to Bush's crony defense contractors!!

As far as pro-choice goes, I've seen the pictures of blown up babies in Iraq, I'm sure he has also, the tortured women and children etc. Innocent people who did nothing to us. I haven't heard Joe condemn any of this. He's a fake imo. He supports NONE of the above ~ if he did, he would be outraged as was Hackett and John Conyers and a few others (not many, I admit which is why it continues) and he would be screaming for it to end. He's liberal selectively. He's the 'we in the US are special people and deserve all these privileges, but you brown people will not get my support for civil liberties, choice, etc.'

This will be a divisive primary and he will have to justify his support for the taking of rights from the Iraqi people, or take back his claim of being 'liberal'. It doesn't stop at the borders of this country ~

Kucinich could be called consistent on these issues, but certainly not a man who has no problem with zero bomb, gun or any other kind of WMD control when it comes to people who he apparently feels do not deserve his 'liberal' voice raised on their behalf ~

[MrBenchley]

24. It will only be divisive from the "progressive" side....

"Lieberman WILL have good progressive opposition. "
Bullshit. He'll face a handful of out of state smear artists pulling the same crap they always have.

Lieberman is pro-choice, pro-environment, pro-labor, pro-gun control, pro-civil rights and has a high rating from the ADA. Lamont is a millionaire with no record on any issue.

[400Years]

26. so when does the Lieberman brigade ship off to Iraq?

just curious

[MrBenchley]

27. So I guess all the "progressives" have are cheap slurs

Thanks for demonstrating that what I said is true.

[400Years]

28. so when do you ship out?

[MrBenchley]

30. Like I said, cheap slurs and nothing else...

Telling.

[400Years]

31. when do you ship out?

Kinda reminds me of Dick Cheney and his 5 deferments. Can't take no reponsibility for your positions.

[SaveElmer]

25. There is a certain disconnect...

First there is a misconception over how party candidates are chosen. By definition choosing a candidate is a matter for the political party. There is no constitutional guarantee that everyone chooses, it is a matter for the party to decide.

Second, Paul Hackett quit because he was losing.

Third, it is the job of the DCCC and the DSCC to recruit and back candidates most likely to result in a Democratic majority. They are not required to back every Democrat who announces they are running. Clearly in this case they believed Brown was the more viable candidate. And in this case they picked the more progressive of the two.

And last, like you say, some here call for a party purge everytime a Democrat looks at them wrong, the DSCC decides in this case the more liberal candidate is the better one, and they still go ape shit.

[MrBenchley]

29. You're right on the money....

It does seem like some people here are utterly ignorant of what wee used to call "civics."

[Burried News]

12. Every one of these situations is a battle for the Republic.

It seems to me that the only way things will really change is if we fight to democratize the political process to the maximum.

These backroom sneaky deals are very troubling. And you can bet the ReThugs will trot out this guy when the time is right. (Boss Tweed)

[EFerrari]

13. This is about Howard Dean's campaign.

The establishment doesn't want to have to spend lots of money and go through months of smearing and sabotaging another Democrat so they just cut him off at the knees.

He was told Brown wasning running, so he declared. And he promised not to run in the 2nd district, if I'm reading right.

End of Paul Hackett.

Maybe he's right to get out of this filthy kitchen.

[TahitiNut]

16. So, an election with a REAL choice is now considered "divisive"??

Strange. I guess we're fully immersed in "one-party thinking" now. Heaven forbid that we regard alternatives to today's ideological deterioration as 'divisive.' :eyes:

[Catrina]

19. I'm not sure, that's why I asked the question about Lieberman's

upcoming primary battle ~ will the party stop that divisive battle, by doing to Lieberman what they did to Hackett? I will be calling them today to ask that question ~

[EFerrari]

20. Cindy Sheehan was excoriated for even thinking of running.

I wonder what other primaries are being decided by the DLC.

[WildEyedLiberal]

32. So now the "DLC" picked Brown - who was endorsed by the PDA?

Um, I don't think so.

[EFerrari]

34. Really? Schumer and Reid aren't DLC? n/t

[MrBenchley]

33. Was she? The view must be stunning that far from reality

Feinstein made no comment...and the only thing I can find even mildly critical is one post on Daily Kos...

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/1/31/64025/5662

There sure was plenty of cheering about her candidacy from the fringe left...who hate Democrats.