Democracy for America's Open Letter to Beltway Democrats

Joe Lieberman hasn't confirmed that he's planning to run as an Independent, but everybody's been talking, from the blogosphere to the DSCC. The DSCC's mission is to elect Democrats to the Senate. Yet in this case, they would prefer to back an incumbent who leaves the party, instead of a principled progressive who's proud to be a Democrat.

Primaries are healthy for the party, and Democrats in Connecticut will decide their nominee on August 8. The winner should receive the full support of all Democrats. We need to stand together in November. Please join me and ask the Beltway Democrats, including Joe Lieberman and Chuck Schumer, to do the same: r

Open Letter to Beltway Democrats

I am disappointed that Senator Lieberman has refused to rule out leaving the Democratic Party to run for re-election as an Independent.

I plan to support the winner of the Democratic primary for Senate in August because I believe that Democrats need to stand together in November. All Democrats, both inside and outside the Beltway, must do the same. We can't afford to divide ourselves -- too much is at stake.

I hope you will join DFA, Ned Lamont, and thousands of other grassroots Democrats by pledging to fully support the winner of the Democratic primary on August 8th.


Jim Dean
Chair, Democracy for America

Please take a moment to co-sign this letter.  I'll personally deliver all of our signatures to Senator Lieberman and other Beltway Democrats next week. r

Tags: 2006, Connecticut, Democracy for America, Democrats, Lamont, Lieberman, Primaries, Senate (all tags)



Re: Democracy for America's Open Letter to Beltway

Remind me - what does the "D" stand for in DSCC?

by afertig 2006-06-15 08:20AM | 0 recs
Re: Democracy for America's Open Letter to Beltway


by Bob Brigham 2006-06-15 08:48AM | 0 recs
LOL n/t

by lightyearsfromhome 2006-06-15 07:52PM | 0 recs
Re: Democracy for America's Open Letter to Beltway

That's for sure.

Yesterday, I called up the DSCC to let them know what I thought of Schumer's position.  I reminded them that I'd sent them a couple hundred bucks in 2004, but I wouldn't be giving to them this year unless the Democratic Party demanded a commitment from Lieberman to support the winner of the primary, in advance of the primary; that once the polls closed in Connecticut, any action on their part was too little, too late.

by RT 2006-06-17 04:31AM | 0 recs
dirty dogs


Just kidding. Thank you Mr. Dean for taking the time to stop by here and write a diary about this very important issue. I'm a DFA member and am happy for the chance to tell you how much I appreciate all your efforts.

by misscee 2006-06-15 08:55AM | 0 recs
Re: Democracy for America's Open Letter to Beltway

Recommended and agreed, and I'd already signed the petition when the e-mail went out.  The other thing I'd support (I think that this was from FDL) is contacting your senators and asking them to support the winner of the primary.  Contact info is here.

by DanM 2006-06-15 10:56AM | 0 recs
Re: Democracy for America's Open Letter to Beltway

I know I'm in the minority here, but I'd much rather spend my time and money unseating Republicans.

by dem1 2006-06-15 10:59AM | 0 recs
Re: Democracy for America's Open Letter

I know I'm in the minority here, but I'd much rather spend my time and money unseating Republicans.

Then volunteer to help Lamont and cut him a check.

by Sitkah 2006-06-15 11:33AM | 0 recs
Re: Democracy for America's Open Letter

Would rather spend my limited resources on Sheldon Whithouse, John Tester or Sherrod Brown.  Lieberman will vote for Reid as majority leader.

by dem1 2006-06-15 11:36AM | 0 recs
And Then Stab Him In The Back For The Next 6 Years

Me, I'd rather have a real Democrat.

by Paul Rosenberg 2006-06-15 11:39AM | 0 recs
Typical Narrow Minded Left Coast Liberal

What a ridiculous notion. Why on earth would you want to restrict Democratic candidates to actually being Democrats? I suppose you want Democratic candidates to support the Democratic platform as well? What kind of silly nonsense is that?

by Gary Boatwright 2006-06-17 05:59PM | 0 recs
As opposed to the majority?

Let's get to at least 51 before we start imposing litmus tests

by dem1 2006-06-15 11:57AM | 0 recs
Re: As opposed to the majority?

Because last time we had the majority that was all that we needed to stop the war and patriot act, huh? (/snark)

The Lieberman primary is the best thing to happen to the Democratic Party in my lifetime. It has clarified things, like the fact Chuck Schumer is a piece of crap, that many people refused to accept despite PA, OH, VA and what he wanted in MT.

Compromising to try and win elections is why we are in the minority -- we need to focus on winning each day instead of trying to win one day every other year. Today, Democrats are winning because Schumer has brought us together.

The blogs were all over this scandal within hours, DFA had a nation-wide email the next morning, and the Connecticut bloggers are already getting all of the local Democrats on record. Today is a good day, not for Schumer, but for the future of the Democratic Party. The fact that those futures aren't one in the same shows why it is important to keep up the heat.

by Bob Brigham 2006-06-15 12:24PM | 0 recs
Re: As opposed to the majority?

At least the last time we had the majority, we weren't debating whether or not we should incorporate discrimination into the Constitution

by dem1 2006-06-15 12:47PM | 0 recs
Re: As opposed to the majority?

No, some Democrats were too busy shredding the bill of rights and voting to invade a country for no reason.

They were far too busy with their disgusting actions to debate fake bills.

by Bob Brigham 2006-06-15 01:11PM | 0 recs
Re: As opposed to the majority?

I'm not sure what this line of thought has to do with the subject of this post.  

The primary is already happening, like it or not.  Jim Dean, in this post, isn't asking for money for Lamont, or even for support for him in the primary.  He's just saying that the DSCC should support the Democratic nominee.  If that's Lieberman, Dean is saying that the DSCC should support Lieberman.  The only litmus test related to this post is being a Democrat.  And, clearly, we need more Democrats to have a Democratic majority.  

I'm also not as big a fan as Markos and much of the blog community, but that really has nothing to do with Lieberman running as an Independent.

by DanM 2006-06-15 01:40PM | 0 recs
Re: As opposed to the majority?

But DFA is supporting Lamont in the primary, correct?  I don't mind primary challenges, but I do mind challenges that attack the incumbent - which a lot of people seem to be doing here.  There's a lot of places on the political spectrum for Democrats - we should recognize that.  I worry about a movement that says if you're not 100% with us, you're against us.  Sounds too much like the Republicans to me.

by dem1 2006-06-15 01:48PM | 0 recs
Re: As opposed to the majority?

Again, what does this have to do with this post?  This post is about supporting the Democratic nominee, not about supporting Lamont.

by DanM 2006-06-15 01:52PM | 0 recs
Re: As opposed to the majority?

How is it an attack to ask that the loser of a Democratic primary support the winner of the primary?

by Gary Boatwright 2006-06-17 06:05PM | 0 recs
Re: Democracy for America's Open Letter to Beltway

If I was Shumer, I would go on to DailyKos/MyDD and explain why I said what I said...I don't know if there is an explanation other than his job is to win  51 seats and he thinks this primary is a distraction from it.

I support getting rid of Joe, and it is not because of his ideology, rather it is because his political instincts are horrific.

That said, I don't think the DSCC should do anything in CT, even if Joe jumps ship.  No money or support or anything for Joe or Ned. Chuck should just say, we are not going to get involved in the primary and we aren't going to get involved in the general.  Either way, there will be 2 senators from CT who will be voting for Harry Reid in January.  

Give directly to Webb, Tester, Brown, Pederson, Ford, McCaskill, and Casey.  There is no need to give to the DSCC as a middle man.

by DaveB 2006-06-15 12:46PM | 0 recs
All the incumbents

Do we get rid of all the incumbents that don't agree with us 100%?

And Lieberman will vote for Reid for leader, so that point is moot

by dem1 2006-06-15 01:36PM | 0 recs
Re: All the incumbents

But shouldn't that be up to the citizens in that state or district? If they want to reelect Sen Lieberman, won't he win the primary and then be the receipient of the support and money of the Democratic party, including the DSCC?

To tell citizens that if you have a Democratic Senator or Representative, you may not have a primary because we need all the Democrats we can get, defeats the purpose of living in a democracy (yes I know it's a republic but lets not go there).

by Step Beyond 2006-06-15 02:00PM | 0 recs
The time for that debate is past

Please, that portion of the argument is already over. This is not about ideology. It's about political opportunism, intentional malfeasance, and failure.

If you want to argue about whether a primary challenge is a good thing, get into your DeLorean and set it for August 2005. It's pointless to rehash that argument now. It's happening, and the vast majority of progressives believe it's justified.

If you're being honestly ignorant here, then just google 'Ned Lamont' and read for a while. You might also try 'Rape Gurney Joe'; 'Scalito Lieberman' is another good one; 'Lieberman Fox News', perhaps.

by lightyearsfromhome 2006-06-15 08:02PM | 0 recs
Re: The time for that debate is past

I understand the justification for primary challenges - I'm just concerned that at a time when Democrats control neither house of Congress, we're spending a lot of time and energy on primary challenges when we should be doing everything we can to win seats from Republicans.  I'm not a big fan of spending money on primary challenges when we have a steep hill to climb to win the seats necessary to retake a majority.  No doubt there is a time and place for challenging incumbents in safe seats when there is a concern about where they stand with respect to the majority of the party - I would just rather do that after we've established control - otherwise, money and time that could have been expended elsewhere goes to a zero-sum situation.

by dem1 2006-06-16 06:24AM | 0 recs
Re: The time for that debate is past

You go ahead and do that, then.

That's your prerogative.

Just as asking the sitting Democratic Senator from CT to agree that he will support the Democratic nominee. That's party politics.

I'm suspicious of people who want to defeat Republicans by telling Democrats they shouldn't support the outcome of a Democratic primary.

by boadicea 2006-06-16 07:55PM | 0 recs
Re: All the incumbents

I used to live in Rep. Tim Holden's district, what used to be the PA-6 prior to 2002 redistricting. He is one of the least loyal House Democrats according to Chris's loyalty scorecards. There is no effort to defeat him in a primary for a more liberal Democrat, because he lives in a rather socially conservative, economically moderate district, that's how he votes, and he is very popular despite a large GOP net registration in the district.

Unlike Sen. Lieberman, Tim Holden is not obsessed with media attention. Holden does not undermine the party with his own jockeying on the Sunday morning shows. Lieberman does. If Ned Lamont defeats Sen. Lieberman in the primary, he has a good chance of winning the general election because of state's blue leanings. This is part of the long term strategy that has made GOP loyalty and cohesion increase over the years. Nobody is saying we must purge moderate/conservative incumbent Democrats like Nelson of Florida or Tim Holden. We are a diverse party. However, incumbents from safe seats should be put on notice.

by Matt42 2006-06-16 04:38AM | 0 recs
Incumbant Immunity?

Is there a rule that all incumbants have an immunity from a primary challenge? Is Joe entitled to be Senator for life?

by Gary Boatwright 2006-06-17 06:08PM | 0 recs
Re: As opposed to the majority?

As chummy as Hillary and Newt have been they could flip coins to see which one is the V.P. and which one gets to be President. It would be a terrific fusion ticket. I'm certain that Thomas Freidman would adore the idea. What more could we ask for?

by Gary Boatwright 2006-06-17 06:03PM | 0 recs


Advertise Blogads