Where I Stand

I am a conservative Democrat at least in terms of social and national security issues, but am definitely not a Republican. I don't believe in trickle down economics, tax cuts for the rich or bashing labor unions. We need to repeal right to work laws which keep unions from effectively organizing in many states. I support expanding access to health care. I favor increased spending on education and job training. I am in favor of public funding of campaigns because it would reduce the influence of big business interests. I feel that Bush's decision to intervene in Iraq has been a distraction to the real war on terror and and needlessly cost American lives. I am opposed to privatizing Social Security and Medicare. We should all support fair trade and oppose trade agreements that cost jobs to American workers. I am in favor of temporary public assistance programs, food stamps, unemployment benefits, school lunch programs and programs for the disabled which provide a social safety net. In my view, public funding for the arts and public broadcasting is a good thing. I am in favor of expanding and encouraging public transportation in our cities. I am in favor of more regulation of the financial and securities industries. A more activist role by government is needed to protect worker safety and consumers as opposed to allowing big business to run the country. We need more funding for AIDS prevention and treatment. I support legislation that would prohibit discrimination in employment and housing on the basis on sexual orientation. On many issues, my goals are very much in line with progressive Democrats.

Where I part company with progressives is largely on the social issues. I am a generally pro-life on abortion although not really in full agreement with the full "pro-life" party line. I think that abortion should be permitted in some situations. I am definitely against late term abortions. I am in favor of capital punishment and favor mandatory sentences for violent crimes. I have no problem with legal immigration but favor strong measures to deal with illegal immigration. I am against gun control. I am opposed to gay marriage. I believe that Democrats need to welcome evangelical Christians but am definitely against churches making political endorsements. I think that conservative Christians raise some valid concerns about the breakdown of the family unit (which is the building block our of our society in my view) and how the entertainment industry is reducing us to the lowest common denominator with its incessant flow of violence and sex in TV and movies. Some of the goals of the conservative Christians are misguided and I oppose them such as teaching scientific creationism in the schools. While I love the Bible, I think that the scientifically correct theories should be taught in our schools. I don't see how formal prayer in public schools would be workable either.

I am a fiscal conservative in the sense that I don't believe in spending more than you take in. I am in favor of a balanced budget amendment. I believe in pay as you. Unlike our Repulican leaders, I didn't think it was a good idea to increase spending and cut taxes on the rich to create a record deficit. My difference with the progressives who dominate the Democratic Party in many areas is is largely over a few social issues. Some of my left of center friends are willing to sacrifice everything that I stand for in the first paragraph of my posting (and hopefully what we Democrats still stand in favor of) for their precious gun control, late term abortion and gay marriage rights. Some Democrats would no doubt invite me to leave the party over these issues, because in their minds these few social issues are all that matter even if we lose election and election over them. That is why I am presenting an alternative view because their narrow focus is hurting the Democratic Party and our country.

Lott's possible departure gives Dems opening in Solid South

Democrats have been on a losing streak with U.S. Senate races in the South. In the past three elections, only one new Democratic Senator from a Southern state has been elected. The lone winner was Bill Nelson who won a narrow 2000 victory in Florida - a state that many regard as Southern solely in terms of geography. In 2004, five Southern Democrats left the Senate and every seat was lost to a Republican - some of the lost seats were not even seriously contested. The possible departure of Trent Lott of Mississippi from the U.S. Senate offers Democrats hope that this trend in the South can be reversed. Several prominent Mississippi Democrats are viewed as possible candidates for the Senate if Lott steps aside. Former Governor Ronnie Musgrove, ex-Governor Ray Mabus and former Attorney General Mike Moore are all reportedly considering the race. http://tinyurl.com/a2ew3
Ronnie Musgrove is a solidly conservative Democrat (pro-life, pro gun rights and pro-traditional family) who could help to rebuild the mainstream wing of the Democratic Party in Washington. My first choice for the Senate seat would be Congressman Gene Taylor, however, the presence of several Democrats with statewide name recognition makes a Taylor candidacy unlikely. If Republican Governor Haley Barbour's popularity should drop though, I think that Gene Taylor would make a great candidate for Mississippi Governor in 2007. And as Governor, Taylor could probably do even more as a leadership role model for conservative Democrats in America. http://tinyurl.com/94eu4
One interesting statistic pointed out by the Jackson Free-Press just after the 2004 election, is that 63% of voters in Mississippi between the ages of 18 and 29 favored Kerry over Bush. A major reason for this Democratic trend among young voters is the growth of the African American population in Mississippi. If Democrats can make some modest gains among working class white voters in Mississippi, it may be possible to put the state back in the Democratic column. Of course, it make a few years as voters over 50 tend to be most likely to cast ballots. Other Southern states that might trend more Democratic in the future are Arkansas (where 51% of young voters favored Kerry), South Carolina (48%) and Georgia (47%). http://tinyurl.com/af77m

Writing in today's LA Times, Washington columnist Ronald Brownstein asks "Will Hillary Run" for the 2008 Democratic Presidential nomination ? In recent months, Senator Hillary Clinton appears to be taking a centrist course on many issues. In process of moving toward the mainstream though, Clinton has enraged the Democratic Left which is looking with increasing favor on the Presidential candidacy of Senator Russell Feingold of Wisconsin. Feingold appears to be the favorite of many left-leaning activists who zealously supported the 2004 candidacy of Howard Dean. At the same time, centrists continue to look at Hillary with suspicion and wonder if she can appeal to Middle American swing voters. Brownstein suggests that former Virginia Governor Mark Warner is now the favorite of the Democratic center with his reputation for fiscal responsibility and moderation on social questions. I agree that Feingold is likely to emerge as the favorite of the Moveonner Left and Warner certainly appears to be the most mainstream of the possible 2008 Democratic nominees. Link to LA times column http://tinyurl.com/ey9t8

Democrats for Life of America will be hosting a March for Life breakfast on Monday, January 23, 2006 from 9:30 am to 11:30 amin the Sky Room of Hotel Washington, 15th and Pennsylvania Ave, N.W. in Washington, DC. The guest speaker will be Dr. Alveda King who is a prominent civil rights activist. She is a minister of the Gospel, former college professor and an author. She has served on the boards of numerous community organizations, the Georgia State House of Representatives for four years, and is an accomplished actress and songwriter. Alveda is the mother of six children and she is a grandmother.During the years of the Civil Rights Movement, led by her Uncle, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., Alveda's family home was bombed in Birmingham, Alabama. During the heat of the struggle. "Daddy's house was bombed, then in Louisville, Kentucky his church office was bombed. I was also jailed during the open housing movement," she recalls. Alveda's Doctorate of Laws was conferred by Saint Anslem College. She has served as a Senior Fellow of the Alexis de Tocqueville Institute. She has also served on the boards and committees of numerous organizations, including the Sillent No More.
For information about the March for Life breakfast, contact Democrats for Life at http://www.democratsforlife.org. To read about Dr. King's perspective on the abortion issue, go to her site at http://tinyurl.com/9ga2o

America's Farmers

As suburban sprawl expands into rural America and fewer of us earn our living from agriculture, it is easy to forget about our nation's farmers. There is far too little recognition of the importance of American agriculture. The ability of the American farmer to stay in business is critical to the cost and quality of our food as well to national security. The National Farmers Union has been a voice for agriculture and all Americans who care about our food supply. Here are a couple of recent news releases from NFU that raise some valid concerns about the cuts to agriculture programs and trade policies.

NFU: Statement by Dave Frederickson on WTO Agreements
WASHINGTON (Dec. 19, 2005) — National Farmers Union President Dave Frederickson made the following statement about the World Trade Organization’s (WTO) failure to reach a meaningful agreement about agriculture trade:
“The failure of the WTO to agree to anything more than the elimination of export subsidies by 2013 is an indication that any agreement on agriculture will be difficult to achieve until they are willing to negotiate all factors of trade, not just export subsidies, domestic subsidies and market access.
“To have a truly level playing field in the global marketplace, trade distorting issues such as labor standards, environmental standards and currency manipulation must be addressed. Otherwise, the agreement will benefit the lowest cost producers who pay the lowest wages, abuse the environment, and/or manipulate currency in order to increase world market share.
“The current trade agenda pits farmer against farmer, and country against country, in a never ending 'race to the bottom' of commodity prices. What farmers and ranchers in this country and around the world need more than anything is a profitable price from the marketplace, not lower commodity prices.

Senate Cuts Ag Spending
WASHINGTON (December 21, 2005) – National Farmers Union President Dave Frederickson made the following statement after the U.S. Senate passed a budget reconciliation package containing $2.7 billion in cuts to agriculture programs over five years.
“I am extremely disappointed that the Senate has dealt yet another blow to our nation's producers of food and fiber. This vote was very close and controversial. It was such a contentious piece of legislation in part because it contains slashes to vital programs that help our nation’s farmers and ranchers produce a safe, abundant supply of agricultural goods.
“Producers across the countryside are facing increased input costs due to sky-rocketing energy prices, and the price they receive at the marketplace is declining. These cuts are the wrong move, at the wrong time, for the wrong reasons.
“The reconciliation package calls for $934 million in cuts from farm bill conservation programs, $400 million in cuts from rural development programs and a $620 million slash from research programs. The spending package avoids cuts to commodity programs, except for a reduction in direct payments.” For more information on the National Farmers Union, check out their website at http://www.nfu.org

Republican budget cuts at Christmas
Where is the moral outrage at the Republican budget cuts - soon to be followed by more tax cuts for the rich ? The GOP does not really care about deficit reducation as the planned tax cuts for the upper end of the income scale will soon cancel out the cuts in programs such as Medicaid and student loans. How can the leaders of the Republican Party reconcile all the talk of moral values while reducing the availability of medical care for the poor ? As Americans lag behind other major countries in math and science and our young people are in dire need of advanced studies to compete in the world, Republicans are making it more difficult to finance a college education. Something is terribly wrong with the values of many Republicans and more than a few members of the Democratic left who seem to care only about about a few social issues and Iraq. Our Democratic Senators took a stand against these cruel budget cuts - now it is time for party activists to make the case that we Democrats are the right choice for working families.

Right Democrat wishes you a Merry Christmas, a Joyous Chanukah and a Happy New Year.

Blue Dogs call for GAO investigation of Justice Department

The following is a news release from the Blue Dog Democratic Coalition, a group of conservative and moderate Congressional Democrats, concerning the U.S. Justice Department's involvement in reviewing a Republican redistricting plan in Texas backed by former Republican House Majority Leader Tom DeLay. At the urging of party bosses like DeLay, Republicans state legislatures have crafted gerrymandering plans which have led to virtual one party rule in major states like Texas and Florida.

WASHINGTON D.C.- The Government Accountability Office should investigate whether the Department of Justice followed proper procedures in approving a Texas redistricting plan that the department’s own attorneys said violated the Voting Rights Act, according to the Blue Dog Coalition.
“We suggest that the GAO investigate whether the ultimate decision to pre-clear the Texas congressional map was based on criteria stipulated in Section Five of the VRA or partisan interest,” the 30 Blue Dogs wrote in a Dec. 14 letter to Comptroller David Walker.
Top Justice Department officials approved in 2003 a Texas redistricting plan authored largely by former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay. A recently uncovered memo indicates eight career staffers in the department’s voting rights division unanimously recommended the map be struck down to protect the rights of minority voters.
The memo “suggests a blatant disregard for the regular procedures employed by the Department and puts into question the legitimacy of the 2003 map under this portion of the VRA,” the Blue Dogs wrote in their letter.
Developments in the case also demonstrate the need for a non-political method of drawing Congressional maps, said Rep. John Tanner (D-TN), a founding member of the Blue Dogs, who earlier this year introduced the Fairness and Independence in Redistricting Act. The bill, co-sponsored by 27 Blue Dogs, would establish non-partisan redistricting commissions in each state and bar mid-decade partisan redistricting processes like the one undertaken in Texas.
“We have to take the redistricting process out of the hands of professional politicians and give it back to the American people,” Tanner said. “That is the only way we can ensure the process truly upholds the idea of ‘one person, one rule,’ which is the very basis of our democracy.”
For more information on the Blue Dog Coalition go to this link http://tinyurl.com/ckjd9

Democrats move to mainstream on gun control

Today's Boston Globe has an article which suggests that Democratic Party is moving toward a more mainstream view on the issue of gun control. For too long, Democrats have been losing elections in the South, Great Plains and the West over issues like gun control. Many gun owners believe that Democrats want to take away their guns or force them to lock all guns in a safe where they will do no good. Urban Democrats often advocate gun control as a means of dealing with violent street crime. Gun control will not solve the problem of violent crime. The solution is more mandatory sentences for criminals who use guns and preventing the root causes of crime - poverty, moral decay and drug abuse. The right to keep and bear arms simply gives law-abiding citizens the ability to defend themselves.
Paul Hackett, a candidate for U.S. Senate from Ohio (and National Rifle Association member) quoted in the Boston Globe stated that pro-gun rights individuals ''are depicted by some in our party as a bunch of yahoos, and we're not." Hackett, a former Marine who is the proud owner of 20 firearms pointed that as a party "our lack of understanding of gun sports is harming us." Hackett is not the only prominent Democrat taking a pro-Second Amendment stance. Democratic governor Brian Schweitzer of Montana who describes his stance on gun regulation as "you control your gun, and I'll control mine." Governor Schweitzer has compiled a solidly pro-gun record in office and is rated "A" by the NRA.
There are also indications that the NRA is responding favorably to the increasingly pro-gun stance of some Democrats. The Globe article quotes NRA spokesman Andrew Arulanandam who acknowledged that while his organization primarily endorses Republican candidates, "we've seen in the last few years an increasing number of Democrats actively seeking the NRA endorsement and actually winning it." Democratic politicians are recognizing that gun owners make up a powerful voting block and it is better to have these folks on their side than working against them. And furthermore defending the Second Amendment is the right thing to do. Let's hope that the Democratic Party continues to move in a pro-gun rights direction.
Link to Boston Globe article http://tinyurl.com/aw5sz

Libertarians willing to move to advance cause

I am not thrilled at all with most of what passes for modern day liberalism or conservativism, however, libertarianism is probably the most potentially destructive political philosophy out there in my view. Libertarians have influenced the thinking of both social liberals and free market oriented economic conservatives. I have known some really nice people who are libertarians and even have a link to the Democratic libertarian-oriented caucus - Freedom Democrats on my site, but it would be a disaster if most of their views actually became public policy.
Libertarians basically want to abolish government or leave a hollow shell of a state barely strong enough to lift a spoon much less capable of providing a safety net for the less fortunate or protecting us from external threats or terrorist cells. These disciples of Ayn Rand want the greed of the marketplace to run wild basically like the Republicans if unrestrained by political considerations. As far as social policies are concerned, Libertarians want to leave our borders wide open, legalize all drugs, abolish the state regulation of marriage and create a generally libertine and chaoatic social environment. I can think of a few issues where the Libertarians are right like gun control, eminent domain law abuse by local governments and possibly decriminalizing marijuana (I would like for the pot-smoking old hippie to feel comfortable turning in the much more dangerous crackheads and meth-heads next door), but overall their philosophy would do a lot of harm if applied. If anything, we need a renewed emphasis on regulating the marketplace to protect workers, investors and consumers and a return to traditional social values which would be the opposite of libertarian dogma. I consider myself to be a fiscal conservative in that I believe that government should normally operate on a "pay as you go" basis, but otherwise favor sort of populist or left-leaning approach to economics. Americans enjoyed their greatest and broadest based prosperity not with laissez faire economics, but with the mix of capitalism and state intervention that prevailed from FDR in 1932 until the dark days of the Reagan Administration in the 1980's.
The arrogance of the Libertarians is just amazing. Libertarians have developed their own little ideological classification scheme- The World's Smallest Mind Political Quiz - which labels anyone who is a social conservative and a economic moderate to liberal as authoritarian. I do give the Libertarians credit for being consistent and willing to act on their beliefs. There is a movement among Libertarians to target one small state and move to it. A group of Libertarians, several thousand of them so far, have made a commitment to move to New Hampshire in hopes of eventually taking over the state. Some Florida Libertarians who don't want to freeze to death in New Hampshire are planning to relocate to rural Liberty County in Florida's western panhandle to turn the small county in a model of libertarianism. Anyone for a Blue Dog Democrat takeover in some small county in the South or Great Plains ? Since the World's Smallest Mind Political Quiz labeled me authoritarian, I'll gladly volunteer to be Boss Hogg.
http://www.freestateproject.org/

Business Week says it - U.S. working harder for less

The free trade and globalization loving Cato Institute is probably celebrating. Americans are working longer for less money and we have "free trade" and globalization to thank - even Business Week says so.
Link to Business Week Online http://tinyurl.com/76qoe

As usual, The Daily Kos just doesn't get it. American Independent PartyCongressional nominee Jim Gilchrist's 25 percent of the vote (on the heels of the Democratic nominee) in Tuesday's "OC" special Congressional election in California shows that a lot of voters are very concerned about illegal immigration. Gilchrist who founded the Minutemen border patrol ran on a single issue platform of taking action to stop the flood of illegals into America. Anyone who believes that only Republicans are concerned about the issue of illegal immigration is naive. The illegal immigration issue has the potential to further split Democratic voters along the typical elitist vs. workers lines. I favor legal immigration but we need to do something to get our border under control.
Link to Daily Kos post http://tinyurl.com/dm5qb
Link to LA Times article http://tinyurl.com/d3xtw

Duke Cunningham, the California Republican Congressman awaiting sentencing for taking $2.4 million in bribes, will get to keep his federal pension. Of course, millions of American workers will never receive their corporate pension thanks to the atmosphere of greed and corruption that "trickle down" Republicans have created in the past 25 years.

A great idea from the Democratic Leadership Council's New Dem Dispatch. Opening up the primaries would weaken the grip that ideological wackos have on both parties. http://tinyurl.com/87tbm

The recent Supreme Court ruling on eminent domain has left every homeowner at risk for abuse of power by local goverments. Here is a horrible example of what a municipality in South Florida is doing. I think the Florida state legislator hit the nail on the head. This is a "reverse Robin Hood."
Link to The State http://tinyurl.com/7eeoz

Circuit Judge Al Johnson has announced his candidacy for the Alabama Supreme Court as a proudly pro-life and pro-gun rights Democrat. Judge Johnson sounds like our kind of Democrat and the type of candidate that the Democratic Party party needs in a strongly red state like Alabama.
See link to Columbus Ledger-Enquirer http://tinyurl.com/d8k6u

Labor, civic and religious activists in Arkansas are gathering support for a ballot initiative to raise the state's minimum wage. Look for the big business interests and the Arkansas Republican Party to use scare tactics to frighten voters away from supporting the increase. Voters in Florida backed a similar measure in 2004 and the dire consequences that big business lobbyists predicted have failed to materialize. The economy actually does better when workers earn a living wage. Arkansas residents have little to lose by voting for a minium wage increase as the state ranks 49th in median household income. The presence of the minimum wage question on the 2006 general election ballot should help Arkansas Democrats as it will probably boost voter turnout among the poor and working families.
Link to KAIT in Jonesboro,AR (home of some of my favorite people) http://tinyurl.com/7ppwk

Right to work laws = work for less

Residents of 22 states and the poor people of Guam live under so-called "right to work" laws. The vast majority of the "right to work" states are in the South, Great Plains and rural West where labor unions have been traditionally weak. U.S. Department of Labor statistics show that no state with a "right to work" law has income levels above the national average. While the stated purpose of "right to work" laws is to protect workers from being forced to join a union, the real reason is to discourage collective bargaining activity and keep wages low to appease short-sighted business interests. Fair bargaining states (lacking "right to work" provisions in state law) have higher income levels, fewer workplace injuries, greater levels of educational achievement and a lower percentage of workers without health insurance. In contrast, many working families in "right to work" states must turn to goverment for food stamps and Medicaid as they lack a living wage and health insurance coverage.
Business interests often claim that the "right to work" laws attract industry and are good for the economy, however, the laws actually seem to have a neutral or negative effect on economic growth. During a term as Oklahoma Governor in the 90's, David Walters talked with hundreds of corporate executives during about possible relocation to his state. Former Governor Walters noted that "not a single company brought up right to work as a factor in deciding whether to come to Oklahoma." The economic and quality of life comparisons that can be easily made between fair bargaining and "right to work" states support the notion that states and communities benefit from the higher wages and improved working conditions offered by higher rates of unionization. Businesses that offer better workplace environments will have lower turnover and improve productivity. States, cities and neighborhoods benefit when workers are paid a living wage, can afford to support their families and are able to give back to the community.
Labor activists in Idaho are making a major effort to repeal their state's "right to work" law which was passed by a Republican Legislature in 1986 after a well-funded propaganda campaign by big business interests. The promises of economic prosperity for Idaho families have failed to materialize. Like all work for less states, Idaho lags behind in median income and has a growing number of working families without insurance. The advocates of "right to work" laws promised that more businesses would relocate to Idaho if the union busting legislation passed, however, many residents of northern Idaho must cross the state line into free bargaining Washington to find suitable work. Let's hope that the campaign to end "right to work" in Idaho will prevail. If it can happen in Idaho, then maybe there will be hope for the rest of us who have to work for a living in the 22 work for less states and Guam.

http://www.fairwage.org

You will find some people saying that they are for the so-called 'right-to-work' law, but they also believe in unions. This is absurd --it's like saying you are for motherhood but against children." --President Harry S. Truman. 1947

A creative Democratic plan to reduce abortions

Democrats for Life is promoting a creative plan that could greatly reduce the number of abortions by 95 percent within 10 years without banning the procedure. As dedicated pro-lifers, most members of Democrats for Life support greater restrictions on abortion but recognize that it may be years before Roe v. Wade is overturned. Even if Roe v. Wade is struck down, a number of states are likely to continue abortion on demand. Can anyone cognizant of political realities imagine the West Coast states or most of the Northeastern states banning abortion ? There is an obvious need for something like the 95/10 plan being pushed by Representative Tim Ryan of Ohio and other pro-life Democrats in Congress that will encourage women facing an unexpected preganancy to choose life.
Far too many Republican pro-lifers "believe that life begins at conception and ends at birth" as liberal Congressman Barney Frank once quipped. The 95/10 plan would include such things to discourage abortion as banning insurance companies from treating pregnanancy as a pre-existing condition, requiring insurers to cover contraceptives and programs geared to raising public awareness about adoption with permanent tax credits to provide incentives to adopt a child. Other great ideas in the 95/10 plan include funding for domestic violence programs, expansion of WIC programs and require Medicaid coverage for pregnant women.
The only obvious gap in the 95/10 plan is something to enhance child support enforcement (a critical anti-poverty tool which our Republican Congress wants to cut) by encouraging hospital based paternity establishment programs. Legal paternity is never established for a large percentage of children born out of wedlock and hosptial based paternity programs can help to establish child support orders which will help to pay the costs of raising these kids. If an expectant mother knows that she will have medical coverage while pregnant and a good chance of collecting child support from the father, then she will probably be less inclined to choose abortion.
If pro-choice liberals really want abortion to be "safe, legal and rare" and Republican conservatives are actually pro-life enough to do something to help the poor women who often choose abortion, Congress will enact the 95/10 plan by an overwhelming majority. We have listened to activists screaming from both sides of the abortion debate for the past thirty years. Political strategists in both parties have used the abortion issue to manipulate voters. Why isn't the entire pro-life movement and Planned Parenthood actively backing the 95/10 plan ? Now is the time for action and not just cheap talk to help the women and children that both sides of the abortion debate claim to be so concerned about. For more information about the 95/10 plan, go to the website for Democrats for Life at http://www.democratsforlife.org

Moveonner Left targets Joe Lieberman

One of the realities of Southern life is that your co-workers will probably be either apolitical or ditto head Rush Limbaugh devotees. Last year, I made the rare discovery of another Democrat in my workplace. While some rather major differences of opinion quickly surfaced, I welcomed having a co-worker to my left in a environment so dominated by followers of the Republican Party. My colleague "Hank" is a fairly typical Michael Moore kind of Democrat who watched "Fahrenheit 9/11" three times at the movie theatre and then purchased the video. He's not a bad person - just a little misguided. The day after the 2004 general election was a sad time for Democrats especially where I live. At my polling place, a vote for a Democrat ticket meant supporting a losing candidate in every race from President to local offices. After enduring much ridicule from gleeful Bush supporters on the job, I was glad to see Hank in the break room who was also disappointed in the election results. After a brief discussion of the election outcome, Hank smiled and said "at least Tom Daschle was defeated." It seems that Hank being the typical Michael Moore Democrat held a grudge against former Senate Democratic leader Daschle for having supported the Iraq war resolution. The fact it might be a long time before South Dakota elected another Democratic Senator was unimportant, it was critical in Hank's mind that the evil Daschle be driven from public life.
The Moveonner Left is now targeting Senator Joe Lieberman (D-CT) for a primary challenge because of his continued support of the war in Iraq. Like my co-worker Hank, these Democrats are more focused on the ideological purification of the Democratic Party than defeating Republicans. I do not always agree with Joe Lieberman but he is respected by individuals in both parties. While I differ with Lieberman's position on Iraq (I am in favor of a gradual withdrawal over the next two years) and support of free trade, I will also defend his right to challenge party orthodoxy. Resources wasted on challenging Lieberman could be devoted to defeating Republicans. It would be a real shame to risk losing a Democratic Senate seat in Connecticut due to the impact of a bitter primary.
If you accept the Daily Kos as the source of all truth, one could get the impression that Joe Lieberman is some kind of right-wing Republican masquerading as a Democrat. In reality, Lieberman's voting record suggests a somewhat left-leaning, centrist voting record. Lieberman received a 75 percent rating from the liberal Americans for Democratic Union. As a pro-business centrist, Lieberman got a 79 percent rating from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. Despite a generally favorable appraisal from business interests, Lieberman received a 84 percent pro- labor rating from the AFL-CIO. The non-partisan deficit hawks at the Concord Coalition gave Lieberman a 77 percent approval rating.
Democrats need to have a big tent policy in order to build the broad national coalition needed to become the majority party. If every hawkish Democrat like Lieberman is driven from the party, what message will be sent to voters who are focused on national security issues ? The purge of Joe Lieberman from the Democratic Party would be a destructive waste of resources that would suggest that moderates are not welcome in the party. My advice to the Democratic activists is to use reason rather than the raw emotion over the Iraq issue and leave Joe Lieberman alone.