Just why does someone become a DINO? Sure, there are the usual reasons: political cowardice, ambition, as well as genuinely held differences in belief. Just how do they combine to make someone go beyond the line of normal disagreement and crossover into full-scale advocacy of the Repug position?
On the other side, my admittedly speculative analysis of how and why some good Democrats went bad.
We begin with
Holy Joe Lieberman. Now, Joe has always been a conservative-to-moderate Democrat. He won in 1988 over a liberal Republican, as others have reminded us. Other kossacks have also mentioned the corporate ownership of Joementum. However, and I may be wrong, but with the exception of the anti-Hollywood kick, he really was not this outspoken before.
At least not before 1998, when he came out to denounce the Big Dog. Democrats might complain about his grandstanding, but with the MSM and a good deal of the American people wanting to express disapproval for both Monica-gate and the Javert style partisan hypocrisy from the Rethugs, Holy Joe's self-righteousness combined with his acquittal vote struck the right chord, and Holy Joe won approval. Two years later, Al Gore chose him for the VP slot on this basis. Joementum had learned the lesson that breaking with your party leads to political advancement.
Fast forward a few years. Joe's faith and support of Israel leads him to support of the neocon worldview while the lessons of 1998 persist in his mind. Is it any wonder, then, that he was so vocal in support of the Iraq adventure? Entering the 2004 primaries, Joementum attempted to combine name recognition/early poll leads and the "electability" myth with the lessons of 1998. However, I think Joe went too far with this, possibly further than he meant to. I think he really believed that the netroots and the blogosphere, that the Iraq War opposition, and the entire Dean campaign, were just passing fads, and pretty soon the ones he considered serious candidates, namely himself, Kerry, Gephardt, Edwards would settle it. He went too far with his attempt at being the hawkish alternative candidate, and his words and his uneffective support for Kerry led to some burned bridges with the base and the party. Now left with the choice of either national irrelevance or being a GOP shill, he chose to become a GOP shill.
Next, we come to Zell Miller. Now, like Holy Joe, Zell has always been a rather conservative Democrat, such as his association with the Lestor Maddox. However, he also has populist and progressive streaks which he displayed as Governor. The article is interesting, especially since I never knew Zell was pro-choice once. However, although it lists 1994 as a key turning point in Zell's career towards conservatism, I think it omits another key election: 2002. Zell was appointed Senator in 2000 by Roy Barnes, and although a conservative Dem, he was not the loon he is now. While 9/11 and his military background may have made him more inclined to support Bush in Iraq, in 2001, he even praised John Kerry. However, in 2002 Roy Barnes lost to Sonny Perdue. Barnes was Zell's protege, popular and heavily favored for a second term, and because they were so closely identified with each other, it rattled Zell. Zell likely felt, despite his personal popularity, it could very well have been him and he formally crossed over and snapped.
Next is Ken Salazar. His DINO-ness is based on his yes vote for Alber-torture Gonzales. Perusing through his campaign site's issue section actually reveals that his views on
Iraq and the economy are actually fairly close to the main of the Democratic party. So explaining Salazar is essentially explaining Gonzales, which contradicts his position papers on Iraq.
Going through his bio reveals that he also likes to use the Horatio Alger myth, like Gonzales. Then again, there is the Hispanic connection the Repugs are using, as patronizing as that is. Electoral cowardice seems unlikely to be the sole explanation, as he's in for 6 years. Most likely, he simply did not see the vote as a referendum on torture, but instead as a throwaway gesture. Weak, and he certainly bears watching later on, but he's still nowhere near Joementum category.
I don't really consider Evan Bayh a DINO. A spineless DLC weasel, but not a DINO. But for those who do see him as a DINO, his father's defeat, like for Gore, had an impact on him, and he is in a fairly safe red state so it's large part political cowardice. Plus, he's pretty openly harbored ambitions for higher office for a while now.
Tom Carper is on this list because of his possible support for Social Security piratization. Delaware seems to be one of the few states that truly is "socially liberal, fiscally conservative." "Fiscally conservative" is often used for "fiscally responsible", but Delaware truly is "fiscally conservative." Between its no sales tax, its easy incorporation policies, and the no-tax haven status for banks, it seems to truly be a fiscally conservative state, despite going solidly for Kerry, Gore, and Clinton. Is it possible that there's more support in Delaware for this than there is in the rest of the country? Plus, Carper's up in 2 years, and I can't really remember hearing about him in the news. He's a two-term Governor, but maybe he wants to raise his profile a bit.
Next we move to the House. Because House districts are a lot more local, there's naturally more variation, because of districts. However, Harold Ford Jr is far more conservative than his district, a Blue Dog in an urban area. His blatant maneuvering for higher office ever since being sworn in at 26, from challenging Pelosi to his current run for the Senate, is probably a sufficient explanation, especially as he never had more liberal or quiet positions to diverge from.
And finally, while we began with the dKos punching (wind)bag Holy Joe, we'll end with the dKos pinup girl, Stephanie Herseth, who caused plenty of debate around here with her support of the Hate Amendment as well as saying she'd vote for Bush in a 269 tie. Along with the values vs. victory debate, there were those who somehow seemed to imply that she was secretly more progressive than she let on. A lot of that, as others pointed out, probably did come from the rather shallow fact that she was an attractive young woman. For me, though, her background was why I thought she was more liberal than her persona showed (personally, I think she's cute, but not really any more than a good, solid 7). She was President of Georgetown College Democrats. Now, Georgetown because of its location, is going to have a healthy preppy contingent as well as more than its share of cutthroat future pols, and they're not going to be charmed by a pretty smile.
Looking through her three elections, you can actually see how she's moved to her right. In 2002, her position on Iraq actually is similar to the national party's. As the article said, she managed to avoid wedge issues in that race. But as such a young candidate taking on such an established figure, there probably was a genuine insurgent, idealistic aspect to that campaign that came with being an underdog. In the special election, as a favorite, the dynamic was different, and she knew she wasn't going to be able to avoid those wedge issues again. However, her closer than expected win scared her, which is why she decided she had to be even more overt in her support of Bush in the short 6 months she had than she had been before, even to the point of possibly voting for him. You can see that from looking through her ads. Half her November commercials talk about supporting Bush, while the rest are vague sugary nothingness about supporting veterans and being an independent voice. In her special election commercials, there are still one or two about education or medicare, so you can still tell that she's a Democrat.
I also get the feeling that her sweet farmgirl-next door persona is really fake. Her site reeks of trying to have it both ways, and I get the impression that she never would have gone back to South Dakota if her last name didn't carry the power that it did there. Not that she doesn't enjoy life at home (though I've learned that whenever a politician says "I grew up on a family ranch" 99% of the time the "farm" was a large estate) but I bet that she would have stayed in DC as a lawyer or as a staffer for some other congresscritter.
So, I don't think that she's the hateful, contemptible bigot that someone with her opportunities and intelligence who actually supported the Hate Amendment would be. However, she is rather craven, even for a politician. She's likely already made her rationalizations to herself already, though, and maybe to her family and close friends. I'd be willing to bet she also has ambitions for either Johnson or Thune's seat, so we're likely to see her continuing to act and vote like a DINO.
And finally, the poll. Which, if any, of these DINO's do you think is the most salvageable? IS there some other DINO you can think of? Or are you willing to rehabilitate them all?