Challenging Incumbent Democrats

I agree that we progressives need to unite with rank and file Democrats and take our party back, however, in every case it is better to have a Republican Lite Democrat hold the seat than hand the seat to a lock step, loyal-to-the-fuehrer, Republican candidate as distasteful as the incumbent Democrat might be.

But it is never wrong to challenge members of our own party and campaign for an agenda that the majority can support. In almost every case it is better to challenge from within the party. Challenging as a third party, independent candidate carries risk. If their is a strong major party challenger and a third party candidate reaches enough momentum the third party candidate can siphon off enough votes to throw the election to the major party challenger.

So, it is important that any challenger know when to pull in their horns and free up their supporters when it becomes obvious their continued effort would hand the seat to the evil empire. Nader is a prime example of what can happen "when keeping it real goes wrong" as Dave Chappell has pointed out.

On the other hand, Ned Lamont in Connecticut is a good example of when enough is enough and a full out challenge to Joe Lieberman, an established Republican Lite Democrat, is the only recourse. But in Ned's case he is challenging in the Democratic primary which was the right choice and is proving much more effective than a third party challenge.

There comes a point when accepting someone who claims to be a Democrat but who spreads the propaganda, does the bidding and sings the praises of the opposing party and it's corporate masters is no longer conscionable. Lieberman was a Republican Lite weasel when Al Gore selected him for a running mate in 2000 and it didn't help Al Gore's candidacy at all. In fact it very likely hurt Gore. In addition to Joe's weasel status, let's face it, there are many so-called Christians, both Democrat and Republican who would never vote for a Jewish candidate, call it anti-Semitic or whatever you choose, it's a fact.

One of the reasons Lieberman was chosen is because the sexually hung-up, religious fundamentalist hypocrite jumped in bed with the Republicans and openly condemned Clinton for getting a little head on the side. The fact that Monica Lewinsky felt a patriotic need to serve her president must have really disturbed Lieberman psychologically. If he was so titillated about it he should have just kept his mouth shut and asked Hadassah to open hers.

It was apparently thought by the idiots in charge of advising Gore (I heard it was Karenna's choice) that choosing Lieberman would help distance Gore from Clinton's evil act and the ire of the hypocritical, fellatio envious Christians who condemned Clinton. It was a colossal mistake added to a pile of others like not aggressively defanging the gun control issue and making the environment an additional centerpiece of his campaign.

But in Ned Lamont's challenge http://www.blogger.com/ there is a momentum that cannot be denied. It has become a cause c`el`ebre for the progressives. Moveon.org, David Sirota, Markos the Greek and every high profile progressive out there wants to insure the only future for Lieberman is as a whoring lobbyist for insurance and big pharmaceuticals.

This challenge is being carefully and nervously watched by all the hill Democrats whose loyalty is to their membership in the DC Order of Perpetual Reelection and Corporate Servitude. They can't believe the party peasants are not heeling to, are acting rebellious and are threatening to make their own choices. Where's the respect for corrupt elitist power? Where's the fawning and acquiescence to the incompetent party leadership?

Those frustrated progressives who point out that we can't assemble more than 20 people locally to voice dissent have a valid concern. Where's the passion?

I guess it takes a major asshole like Lieberman to stir it up.

Gary