CA-28: Green versus Democrat

Crossposted from MY LEFT WING

I had the distinct pleasure of meeting and speaking at length with a candidate for congress last weekend. As it happens, he is challenging the incumbent in my district -- Howard Berman, a Democrat. His name is Byron DeLear, and he's running as a member of the Green Party, while pledging to vote with the Democrats in the House.

After much consideration and study of the issues, however, I have to say that, despite DeLear's charismatic persona and, admittedly, near-perfect stances on the issues about which I care the most, I will still be voting for Howard Berman this year.

Berman regrets voting for the IWR, but believes, while recognising the irony, that we cannot leave now without condemning Iraq to total annihilation.

I disagree STRONGLY with that conclusion, but frankly, despite his serious shortcomings in this and a few other areas, I have to say my earlier opinion of Howard Berman still stands: he votes the right way (MY way) more consistently than almost any other elected Democrat in Congress.

Given that, however, I still think Byron DeLear is a terrific candidate; I just wish he were challenging an incumbent Republican... as a Democrat.

Yeah, yeah, I know -- the Democrats suck. I do not dispute this. But realistically speaking, the fact remains that a third party vote from a progressive still means one less for the LESS sucky candidate, which is almost always the Democrat.

The lesser of two evils is still evil, yes -- but it's LESS evil.

See how I did that? Held two opposing views in my head at the same time? Now, is that the mark of genius, or of madness?

But because I believe in fair play and equal time...

Marcy Winograd Endorses Byron De Lear for Congress

Marcy Winograd, Democratic Congressional Candidate who ran against Rep. Jane Harman (39th CD-CA), and who generated 40 percent of the vote, endorsed Byron De Lear, Green Party candidate running in the 28th District against Howard Berman.

"This is going to change the demographics of the campaign. Having a major Democratic challenger and outstanding activist like Marcy Winograd endorse a Green is making major political history," said Eugene Hernandez of Latinos for De Lear.

Marcy Winograd said in a statement Wednesday,

"I am proud to endorse Byron DeLear, a candidate with the courage to challenge the masters of war.  We need to take back Congress with a commitment to peaceful conflict resolution, not blind loyalty to a failed Iraq war policy.  Byron DeLear represents a clear alternative to those who continue to support the Bush administration's death march. Let us vote our conscience; let us vote for Byron DeLear."

Winograd joins numerous other progressives of all political stripes who have given the De Lear for Congress campaign their endorsment.

"What this means is that thousands upon thousands of Democratic voters who are anti-war, progressive and for change will switch their vote from Howard Berman to Byron De Lear. This is part of the Joe Lieberman effect and also due to the public's distrust of Congress", explained Eugene Hernandez. "Polls after polls show that the American public is fed up with Congress. They have failed to pass significant legislation on spying, immigration, ending the war and the economy. This translates into success for sending the First Green to Congress."

"I am a life long Democrat, and a member of the Democratic Party- but, just as I do not back my country, right or wrong, when it defies the Constitution and international law, I cannot unthinkingly back my Party when its members enable, through action or inaction, our country's current nightmare.

My own Congressman is one of those who is not only not part of the solution, but part of the problem. Byron De Lear stands in contrast to our incumbent as a shining example of how I would want my Representative to represent me. He would bring needed vision to the rigidity of endless war as our solution in the Mideast, and would make us instantly safer by reflecting the CIA's assessment that our presence in Iraq is only making more terrorists. Byron is a strong activist who would make a brilliant public servant- one who for the first time in years would represent what the 28th District believes. I'm proud to endorse Byron De Lear for Congress."

Michael Jay
Representative from the California Election Protection Network, Progressive Democrats of America

10 Minute Documentary for the Byron De Lear for Congress Campaign in California

It covers the Iraqi War, the Lieberman-Berman connection and their continued support of the war, global warming, corporate-handled government, gerrymandering and Rep. Howard Berman's support of NAFTA and his attempt to remove term limits from the White House.

LINK to video

What I couldn't help noticing in all these endorsements and in all the statements from DeLear and others is that, aside from his continued "support" for our presence in Iraq and an unsavory relationship with the music industry in their fight against file sharing, there is virtually nothing that supports the assertion that Berman isn't liberal enough (for lack of a better phrase). I happen to disagree, violently, with his position on Iraq -- and am ambivalent about file sharing. But his voting record is essentially unassailable.

I have often remarked that I couldn't ask for a better representative in Congress -- an exaggeration, to be sure. Of course I could. I could ask for one who votes my way every single time. But that's ludicrous. And despite my deep, painfully deep belief that the only solution in Iraq is our LEAVING it, immediately, I cannot in good conscience vote against a representative who holds an opposite view in that one instance, when he so often does exactly what I WOULD wish him to do.

I guess what I'd really like to know, which I didn't have time to bring up when speaking with DeLear this weekend, is why he didn't challenge Berman in the primary. Or did he? Somehow, I doubt that DeLear is the type to party-hop. Which is a pity, really -- because, short of instituting run-off voting, the only way the further left candidates will find their way to congress is by challenging Democrats in the primaries -- as Democrats.

I'd vote for Byron DeLear in a heartbeat if he were running as a Democrat, in any primary and general election. I just think it's a waste to run as a Green Party candidate, to put all this time and energy into trying to make a third party viable when the hegemony of the two party system is so obviously invincible without significant changes -- namely, instant runoff voting. Without that safeguard, I cannot imagine, in my lifetime, a circumstance where a third party vote from a liberal does not translate to a de facto vote for the Republican. And that is unacceptable to me.

Also crossposted to Green Mountain Daily

•  aeou

  If I were the sort of person who devotes herself solely to one cause, I'd pick the institution of IRV in primary and general elections, across the board. I can't think of any single thing that would be more effective in scaring the bejeezus out of entrenched, incompetent, unresponsive representatives than an election result wherein their closest third party competitor actually garnered a significant number of votes -- while doing no harm to the general results, because the IRV system would prohibit the deflection of liberal votes from the Democrat to the Republican, by way of a "wasted" third party vote.

  by Maryscott OConnor on Tue Oct 24, 2006 at 07:47:24 AM PDT

  •  you surprised me Maryscott

    Pleasantly.  I don't follow your diaries too closely though, but I feared another "burn the village to save it" screed advocating 3rd parties candidates at all costs.

    I can understand voting 3rd party where the incumbent democat is especially odious and the district is one which rightfully should have a progressive rep, but certainly not where the incumbent is decent.  

    by Scientician on Tue Oct 24, 2006 at 07:57:14 AM PDT

    •  Incidentally...

      I've never posted a diary advocating 3rd party candidates.

      Ever.

      by Maryscott OConnor on Tue Oct 24, 2006 at 08:14:40 AM PDT

      •  She has not

        MSOC's politics are mine.  I base that on her diaries here over the last couple of years.  We're lefty, really lefty Dems.  But it's clear we're also realists and the two-party system is it.

        While everybody bitches and moans about many of Bill Clinton's policies during his presidency, who would ya rather have in office now?

        I rest my case.

        MS: has your roller coaster emotional life flattened out a bit lately?  Hope so, I miss your cogent writing.

        by grog on Tue Oct 24, 2006 at 09:05:04 AM PDT

      •  Thanks for this

        DeLear had a noticeable presence over the weekend at the Sherman Oaks Street Fair, but I didn't take the time to check him out. But thanks for the heads up. Like most people in CA-28, I'm happy with Berman.

        by dannyinla on Tue Oct 24, 2006 at 09:26:21 AM PDT

  •  i thought

    about your Hillary post, before you pointed it out. Heh.

    But:
    For the war.  BIG obstacle.  God, how I wish a Green candidate would win somewhere large like CA.
    If Marcy held 40%, what is he polling at now?  Maybe you can watch close, and if it looks feasible, then vote for him.

    The Dems need a huge fucking shakeup. (or wakeup) Lamont wasn't enough.  I'm still a registered Dem, and have done canvassing work for them this year, but my God, many are too fuckin' centrist.

    I wish Conyers was my district, but we have a chance out here with Marcinowski, Anderson, and Andersson, three Dems that are showing really well in this bastion of Livingston country Republikkan land.

    by wiretapthis on Tue Oct 24, 2006 at 10:44:58 AM PDT

•  I cannot see myself voting for anyone but a Dem

  until this Republican menace is taken down. If we have a safe majority, maybe I'll think about voting for a third party but while there is still this much evil in Washington, I can't see myself doing it. Even the worst Democrat is better than the best Republican.

  by Arken on Tue Oct 24, 2006 at 07:50:23 AM PDT

  •  Yeah I dont even know why I pay attention

    to all this stuff. Ive known now how I'm voting in 06 for several years. I couldve saved myself a lot of stress by simply tuning out of politics until November 8th, because its a D ticket all the way. Theres no choice for us.

    by ablington on Tue Oct 24, 2006 at 07:53:50 AM PDT

  •  I think of it this way...

    Republicans are organized. They're on-message and they act as a unit. So when you do anything that could benefit any Republican, even a seemingly harmless one, you're enabling the worst of them.

    Maybe I'm talking about Republicans the way Republicans talk about the terrorists, but that's just the way I think about it.

    by droogie6655321 on Tue Oct 24, 2006 at 07:54:19 AM PDT

  •  I was one of those mushy Independents

    a mere few yrs ago.

    Having a 'moderate' theocrat/fascist dry-drunk election-stealing idiot president who has wrecked just about every aspect of American government and leadership on both the domestic and foreign fronts - with the full support of the Republican machinery at all levels - adding to the leadership of one Howard Dean - has made me a dyed-in-the-wool Democrat . . . permanently.

    Frankly, after the last 4 yrs in particular, I don't expect that I will ever vote for a Republican EVER AGAIN in my lifetime. And this is coming from someone who was open to moderate, intelligent, competent Republicans at various levels as recently as the 1990s.

    They have nearly destroyed American government and politics, and I won't ever forget it.

    As for the chance-in-hell 1% alternative parties - forget it. The Dems are the only realistic hope.

    by RobertInWisconsin on Tue Oct 24, 2006 at 07:57:52 AM PDT

    •  Wisconsin had

      "moderate, intelligent, competent Republicans" in the '90s, notably Klug and Gunderson. Now?

      by ben masel on Tue Oct 24, 2006 at 08:05:58 AM PDT

    •  thye thing about being a commited democrat

      in this blog age is that we can vote for democrats and also police them afterwards.  They are going to be accountable to us whether they like it or not.  
      There are democrats who are as motivated by money greed and their own ego and gradually, over time those people are going to be routed out and replaced.

      by TeresaInPa on Tue Oct 24, 2006 at 08:11:10 AM PDT

      •  Easier said than done

        When a Dem or a Rethug is ensconced in a safe seat, nothing short of a Foley faux pas can extricate them.  That's one of the problems with our system. As you know, even in this year where everyone thinks the Dems can take over at least the House and the Rethugs are a train wreck, only a relatively small number of seats -- and it's larger than usual this year because the elephants have stunk it up so badly -- are truly in play.  Berman's seat is not one of them.

        Marcy Winograd was at least a "wake up call" for Harman, but in CA-36, Harman had lost touch, at least a bit, with her constituents.  Some may think it's nice to have senior people return term after term, and I would agree it can be a good thing, but the electoral system is rigged; there is one value held higher than Party among elected officials, and that's protecting incumbency.  There has to be an overhaul of the way we vote to get those officials to be truly attentive and responsive to their voters, as opposed to their contributors and benefactors.

        by Budlawman on Wed Oct 25, 2006 at 07:11:39 AM PDT

  •  Come on Dems, De Lear is the Real Thing!

    Its a little frightening to me, a lifelong democrat, to see us Dems fall into the same rut as the GOP'ers which is party before policy. Howard Berman no longer represents us; He supports the Bush regime in Iraq, NAFTA, endorsed the Israeli war against Lebanon, on and on...

    If you are happy with Berman's record, then you have no idea what he stands for.

    De Lear is a progressive Dem running as a Green. He will represent the Democratic party and our ideals. This is a very good opportunity for those of us in the 28th to vote for a withdrawal in Iraq, a vote which Berman blocked (June 26 06)

    Let's get it straight voters in the 28th. Berman is not our man. De Lear deserves a shot.

    by Alex 2012 on Thu Oct 26, 2006 at 02:40:39 AM PDT

•  Sensible

  To do otherwise is ... folly.

  by bumblebums on Tue Oct 24, 2006 at 07:51:48 AM PDT

•  I would think

  without knowing this district, that safe Democratic seats are the best places for Greens to challenge Dems, and safe Republican seats are great places for Greens to challenge Republicans.  In this case it may not be as much about winning, as about creating dialogue on issues that these safe incumbents otherwise refuse to discuss.  That is as important to a progressive future as winning close elections, believe it or not.

  by seamus on Tue Oct 24, 2006 at 07:51:55 AM PDT

  •  Totally agree

    Talking positively about third parties can be the third rail at DKos, but I think you're absolutely right about this. The real problem, underlying all the corruption and the undermining of the Constitution, is the electoral process and the increasingly potent role of money in it.

    Think about it, there have been Republicans out there for a long time. What's changed is the role of lobbyists and corporations in determining policy, and a strain of Machiavelli Republicanus has evolved to exploit that. Unless we make elected officials answerable to voters rather than cash providers, the niche is still out there, and new strains will evolve to exploit it.

    Think of Kucinich's effect on the Democratic primary, and how much of what he said about the war is now transparently true in hindsight. I didn't support him because the imperative to evict the Machiavellis was stronger. But imagine how a Green alternative in many races would bring a similar kind of honesty to the debate. If we nurture the Greens rather than trying to stamp them out, there might be a day soon when the Republicans are the small third party, doomed to minority status by their support for the Iraq Debacle, and the choice is between liberal and more liberal policy. We'll let them into the debate, though.

    by MarkC on Tue Oct 24, 2006 at 08:08:59 AM PDT

    •  Totally wrong

      Green candidates push the Democrats toward the center.  They take themselves out of the democratic process the Democratic party uses to select candidates, thus resulting in more centrist Democrats.  The Democrats, realizing there are fewer votes available on the left, must move to the center.

      And I don't know why the Democrats should nurture a rival political party, especially one that is funded by Republicans.  That is just nonsense.  

      by Mia Dolan on Tue Oct 24, 2006 at 08:37:51 AM PDT

      •  In Vermont, the dynamic is more pronounced

        It's an established, institutionalized schism between the Progressive Party and the Dems, and the result is that each group's capacity for self-criticism has splintered into the other. You have two parties who often think the other is pure evil, and can abide little in the way of meanngful internal critiques. Twin bunker mentalities.

        It's a major goal of mine to smash that paralytic dynamic in the Democratic Party with a healthy, lively Vermont blogging presence.

        by odum on Tue Oct 24, 2006 at 08:56:05 AM PDT

      •  Read the thread

        Seamus's point is that supporting the Greens makes sense in "safe" races. That's what I am agreeing with, if you read the thread. The Green candidate that is a Republican trojan horse not what I am talking about.

        I live in Madison, where local races are between a generally further left Progressive Dane and the Democratic party. Sure the Democrats are closer to the center because if it -- many people who might otherwise support a Republican probably vote for the Dem if they vote at all. But believe me, you would like this world a lot better than the Republican versus Democratic one, because there are a whole host of ridiculous Republican positions that don't even show up on anyone's radar.

        by MarkC on Tue Oct 24, 2006 at 09:12:55 AM PDT

        •  No

          And my point is that supporting Greens in "safe" races does not make sense - because it makes the Democrats (and the elected representatives) more centrist.  If Green supporters made their voice heard inside the Democratic party process, we would have more progressive Democrats.  

          As far as which world I like better, we have two choices (in safe blue districts):

          1. Democrat vs. Republican.  In this case the Green supporters get involved in the democratic process and we get a progressive democrat elected.

          2. Democrat vs. Republican vs. Green/lefty third-party.  The Democrats pick their candidate without the input of lefty voters, and knowing they have  competition on the left, so they choose a moderate or conservative Democrat, who gets elected.

          Why exactly would your world be better?  Is your goal to elect moderate and conservative Democrats?

          by Mia Dolan on Tue Oct 24, 2006 at 09:30:04 AM PDT

          •  In both my replies

            I've said that the ideal would be Democrats vs. Green/lefty third party. In my second reply, I talked about a concrete instance of that in practice, where I live. I even explained why I think this outcome makes even a "centrist" Democratic party desirable, relative to the current situation, because the fulcrum of the entire debate has shifted left. (And, in any case, many people who might support a third party identify as independent not Democrat).

            It should be clear to anyone reading either post that it is not my "goal to elect moderate and conservative Democrats." We have a two party monopoly now, so what explains the dominance of the moderate and conservative Democrats? I challenge you to even begin to address my original point which was that there are deeper structural problems with our electoral system that need to be addressed before we get even a majority of Democrats to embrace certain kinds of reforms.

            I've looked at your comments and respect your point of view -- you're a partisan Democrat who loathes Ralph Nader and third party candidates in general.

            But ask yourself why it is that so many of the people you work hard to elect get to Washington and end up moderating their voting on issues that have powerful lobbies involved. And why campaign finance reform isn't a major Democratic issue. The point Seamus (I think) and I are making is that progressive voices on the left can bring these issues into the debate in a way that doesn't happen now. In my case, that means that I wore a pair of shoes out canvassing for Kerry, but vote Progressive Dane happily when I get a chance in Madison.

            by MarkC on Tue Oct 24, 2006 at 11:06:33 AM PDT

            •  You just don't get it

              Blue districts should elect liberal representatives.  When lefty voters get involved with the Greens and Progressive Dane, etc., the representatives are not going to be as liberal.  Its not Washington that moderates them, its the fact that the lefty voters don't support them and they don't rely on the lefty votes.  In effect its your fault.  By supporting Progressive Dane or the Greens, you push this country to the right.  You accomplish the opposite of what you want to do.  

              The point Seamus (I think) and I are making is that progressive voices on the left can bring these issues into the debate in a way that doesn't happen now.

              And that point is completely wrong.  When the progressive voices on the left leave the Democratic party, they stiffle the debate by removing themselves from it.  Instead of working to make the difference, you are doing absolutely nothing and condeding issues to the centrists.  

              by Mia Dolan on Tue Oct 24, 2006 at 11:59:23 AM PDT

              •  Points you're still ignoring:

                1. Progressive Dane does not field candidates for national elections.

                2. Therefore the conservative Dems in congress cannot be my fault.

                3. Therefore the fault lies with the two party system, which is producing Conservative Dems very well by itself.

                4. You completely ignore the influence of money on the elections. Why not concede the positive role of candidates outside the major two parties in calling into question aspects of an electoral system to which they are not beholden, and argue that they could do it better from within the Democratic Party? I don't think that is true, for reasons argued above, but at least you would be engaging my main argument instead of repeatedly ignoring it.

                5. Your main argument is self-defeating. While Democrats may become more Centrist, as long as they make elections inclusive there is no net loss of voices on the left. The stronger the third parties become, the more responsive Dems will have to become to steal that voting bloc. That is, as long as people don't listen to voices like yours that insist on preserving the two party system at all costs.

                Look, this is pointless as long as you're trying to make my arguments into straw man third-party arguments. Actually, they're different and more Dem-friendly. But why let that get in the way of a good put-down, eh?

                by MarkC on Tue Oct 24, 2006 at 01:16:52 PM PDT

                •  OK

                  I googled progressive Dane, and I will concede that they appear much more benign than the Green party.  You can have points one and two.

                  3. The two-party system is a function of electoral math.  Nothing, not even IRV, is going to change that.

                  4. No one gives a shit about what third-parties have to say about money in elections, or on any other issues for that matter.  If people who care about campaign finance reform go third-party instead of Democrat, they are basically checking out.  That can only be fixed from inside the Democratic party.

                  5. I disagree with your last point completely, and that is the focus of our entire dispute.   The stronger the lefty third-party, the more conservative the Democrats will become.  Again, this is because progressive voices will be missing from the Democratic party process, and the party will find it easier to pull more votes from the Center.  

                  by Mia Dolan on Tue Oct 24, 2006 at 01:36:58 PM PDT

      •  ah

        but if that were true, many of the Democratic candidates of the 1980s would have been more progressive than they were.  There is some truth that today many influential Greens are becoming influential Dems, but this is largely due to the experience they got in Party building through the Greens (and sometimes being so successful that Dems wooed them).  When progressives were more active within the Dems they eventually got pushed out by groups like the DLC who proceeded to sink the Democratic majority.

        by seamus on Tue Oct 24, 2006 at 12:45:22 PM PDT

        •  OK

          Maybe the DLC and the centrists did push the progressives out.  But when they left for the Greens, they abandoned the party and conceded the argument to the DLC and the centrists.  If the progressives really want their issues pushed, they need to go back and re-take the Democratic party.  The party agenda is set by those who show up.  If the progressives vote green, or just stay home (the functional equivalent of voting Greeen) there is no one to make the party progressive again.  You can't fix the Democrats (or fix anything) in the Green party.

          Two other points

          1. the Democrats in the 1980s were more progressive.  The party and the whole country has shifted to the right.

          2. The Greens don't know a goddamn fucking thing about party building.  Real party building starts small and grows.  The Greens have more big race candidates than small ones - its much easier to run a hopeless high profile race than to do the work to win a smaller election.  Then when the support slips, they rely on Republicans.  The Greens are a lazy, corrupt and a morally bankrupt organization.

          by Mia Dolan on Tue Oct 24, 2006 at 01:05:26 PM PDT

      •  Disagree with 'Totally Wrong'

        Greens, or third party candidates, pull the Dems to the left, not the center. The way Dean (not a green, but holding their anti-war view) pulled the rest of the miserable field towards a more anti-war position footing. Greens expose the dems right-leaning position.  

        by Alex 2012 on Thu Oct 26, 2006 at 03:07:59 AM PDT

  •  the best and most effective thing for them

    to do is challenge democrats as democrats. That is why we have a primary system.

    by TeresaInPa on Tue Oct 24, 2006 at 08:12:45 AM PDT

    •  that isn't correct

      That isn't why we have a primary system.  The appearance that people, who do not fit into the Democratic Party, need to express themselves in the Democratic Party Primary is a result of the two party system.  Unfortunately, this is one of the things that makes America less democratic in terms of our elections than other countries.  While we are more democratic than most nations in terms of individual liberties, we are less democratic in terms of our electorial process.

      by seamus on Tue Oct 24, 2006 at 12:42:29 PM PDT

•  AN important message

  From a credible source. Thanks MSOC.

  This third party dynamic is huge in Vermont, and could cost us the Lt Governor's seat (again) to a pro-life doofus. Can I ask you to crosspost this on greenmountaindaily.com as an object lesson that's NOT coming from me (you still have admin rights over there....)

  by odum on Tue Oct 24, 2006 at 07:51:55 AM PDT

  •  Really? I thought Dunne was cruising along

    quite nicely. But then, my attention is intermittent.

    by bumblebums on Tue Oct 24, 2006 at 07:59:42 AM PDT

    •  Nobody seems to have any idea...

      ...How well Dunne is doing. No polls, no nothing. And I'm afraid it's gonna be a squeaker. If it is a squeaker, Malek doesn't have to do any better than Hingtgen's measly 6 points of two years ago to throw it.

      by odum on Tue Oct 24, 2006 at 08:14:21 AM PDT

  •  Done.

    GMD version

    by Maryscott OConnor on Tue Oct 24, 2006 at 08:04:11 AM PDT

•  I agree 100% with this line:

  "Without that safeguard, I cannot imagine, in my lifetime, a circumstance where a third party vote from a liberal does not translate to a de facto vote for the Republican. And that is unacceptable to me."

  I had a similar discussion with my sig other two days ago. He went on about how I should vote Green - while I agree with the Green party on many issues, I told him that this election is far too important to "waste" a vote on anyone other than a Dem. We need the House and Senate out of GOP hands, and in order to do that every vote needs to go to a Dem, not to any third party candidates, no matter how wonderful they may be.

  by chainsaw mary on Tue Oct 24, 2006 at 07:55:46 AM PDT

•  Is Berman considered safe?

  That makes a big difference, imo.

  Also, is Winograd a former Democrat now, or kind of a leftwing version of Joe Lieberman?

  by Geekesque on Tue Oct 24, 2006 at 07:55:57 AM PDT

  •  He is.

    One of the safest, ever.

    But 50K votes to DeLear, apparently, would win it for him. So I have to think that 45K would lose it for him -- AND throw it to the Republican.

    It's just a bad mix -- I understand DeLear -- VERY well, since we hold so many of the same opinions. But Berman is a reliable Democrat, and votes liberal 9 of 10 times. How can I POSSIBLY rationalise not voting for HIM? I mean, hell, I'd have a helluva hard time voting third party against a CRAPPY Democrat.

    I am, however, strongly considering a third party vote against Feinstein, since she's even more safe than Berman and makes me physically ill. I dunno if I'll be able to do it, though -- voting Democratic is as reflexive for me as popping out my lower leg when the doc hits my knee with a little hammer...

    by Maryscott OConnor on Tue Oct 24, 2006 at 08:10:37 AM PDT

    •  If there's no chance of the Repubs winning the

      seat, I usually consider myself liberated to ding bad Democrats.  Not sure if I'd put Feinstein in that category--don't know enough about her--but she's far from my favorite Dem.

      by Geekesque on Tue Oct 24, 2006 at 08:31:59 AM PDT

    •  Just don't fill in that blank

      MS, I understand your pain.  When I lived in VA, Chuckles Robb was our Senator and after he voted for Clarence Thomas for the Surpreme Court, I vowed I'd never vote for that fucking bastard ever again.

      And that clashes, like you, with that reflexive "vote Democratic" mindset I have.  So, how'd I get around it?

      I fucking moved to Missouri:):):).

      Ugh.  But, I told myself if faced with that decision, I would have walked into the ballot box and simply not cast a vote in that particular election.  Sure, I'd vote for so and so in the Congressional race but I'd leave that part of the ballot blank.

      So, that's an option.

      It's funny but the more local you get in politics, at least here in rurl Misery, party identification is pretty much meaningless.  We have a Dem running for presiding commissioner of the bumfuck rurl county I live in.  He's a Dem and used to be a county commisioner.  What a collasal dumb fuck!  He gave himself a pay raise, which was later declared unconstitutional and thus, owed we taxpayers about 8K (keep in mind that many of the bubbas here run for these seats so that they can collect the 28K salary it pays, which for them, is HUGE fucking money) in overpayment of salary.

      The fast dumb bastard refused to pay it.  We had to force the county prosecutor to, well, do her goddamned job for a change and take him to court.  He finally paid the money back, all the while still as a sitting county commissioner.  When he ran for reelection, duh, he got tossed out.

      And now he thinks this redder than red county will vote him back in?  Heh heh, I'll cast my only republican vote on that line in the ballot.

      by grog on Tue Oct 24, 2006 at 09:14:01 AM PDT

    •  Don't be too sure about that. De Lear is strong..

      in the Latino community (55% of the 28th) and he received a standing ovation at the Sherman Oaks Homeowners Assoc meeting where Berman was announced as the guest speaker, then was a no show.

      Educate yourself on Berman's record before throwing away your vote on another pro-war dem.

      by Alex 2012 on Thu Oct 26, 2006 at 02:53:07 AM PDT

•  I think you are making the right choice

  and I am just as sure that Winograd is wrong.  I very much wanted her to win against Harman.  I think she has hurt herself for future runs by endorsing the Green candidate.

  by TeresaInPa on Tue Oct 24, 2006 at 08:04:02 AM PDT

  •  I liked Winograd too

    Too bad she has destroyed her political career over a waste of an endorsement.  That is a big bridge she burned.

    by Mia Dolan on Tue Oct 24, 2006 at 08:39:08 AM PDT

    •  Marcy Winograd Knows What She is Doing

      She has hardly 'destroyed her political career' by endorsing De Lear. Winograd, President of the LA  Progressive Dems, understands that De Lear represents us progressives much, much better that Berman ever will. You are being blinded by party loyalty, check the facts of the issues and you may realize where Winograd is coming from.

      by Alex 2012 on Thu Oct 26, 2006 at 02:56:56 AM PDT

•  I've done an about face recently

  I used to be a proud independent and 3rd party candidate supporter -- for example, I've voted for John Anderson, Barry Commoner, and even (once) Ralph Nader for president -- but even I've finally come to the conclusion that these are desperate times calling for desperate measures. And that may sometimes mean holding my nose and pulling the "D" lever (good ole' mechanical voting machines in NY) because things are NOT going to get better if Republicans keep getting elected.

  by redlami on Tue Oct 24, 2006 at 08:04:21 AM PDT

•  Some time ago

  I considered voting for Greens. I mean, I'm pretty far to the left even of most Democrats, and I've always lived in solidly Democratic districts where my vote perhaps was not needed (in my life, I've been represented by Barney Frank, Mike Capuano, Bill Delahunt, Jan Schakowsky, Rahm Emanuel, Robert Menendez and Carolyn Maloney).

  After 2000, though, that silly idea was banished for evermore from my head.

  I suppose that some day, in the right environment, it would be possible for me to vote for a third-party candidate. I certainly would like to see an improvement on the two-party system we have now.

  But this is not that day nor that environment, even in my protected liberal bastion of New York.

  I'm going to vote for Hillary Clinton. I have no reservations about this.

  by brownsox on Tue Oct 24, 2006 at 08:11:17 AM PDT

  •  Cross-voting

    (or whatever it's called) in NY also lets us vote for candidates on a 3rd party line.  It's how the Working Families Party gets on the ballot.  I wish it was available in more states.
    Personally, I used to always vote for the Dem candidate on the Marijuana Freedom Party line (just because I could!).  Sadly they don't seem to be around anymmore, so I settle for WFP.  

    by chiniqua on Tue Oct 24, 2006 at 08:43:00 AM PDT

•  Great diary

  and people need to remember that the GOP is most often behind the Greens, helping them in any way they can, because, GASP, the GOP knows that a Green candidate HURTS the Democrats the most.

  I have, many times, encouraged Greens to get more involved in the Democratic party, to change it from within, because Greens could have a positive effect on the party.  There is just no way that I can cast a vote that might in any way help a Republican.

  by SanJoseLady on Tue Oct 24, 2006 at 08:18:11 AM PDT

•  I like Berman

  Like you I'm not thrilled with his every vote, but nearly every vote is pretty right IMHO.  

  Berman is against the death penalty which probably goes against most constituents in the district.

  He has done at least one fundraiser for David Roth, who is challenging Mary Bono in the 45th.

  http://rothforcongress.com  

  Berman is also the ranking Dem on the House ethics committee.  I hope he is tough on Hastert, et al.

  Anyway, thanks for your thoughtful discussion.

  by Geronimo on Tue Oct 24, 2006 at 08:20:08 AM PDT

  •  Anti Death Penalty, Pro-War. Go figure

    by Alex 2012 on Thu Oct 26, 2006 at 02:58:25 AM PDT

•  Indpendents are increasing

  New York Times
  October 24, 2006
  In Southwest, a Shifting Away From Party Ties

   But

  Washington Post
  October 24, 2006
  Independent Voters favor Democrats 2 to 1.

   Which leads me to wonder if there is going to be a de   facto "third party" with the
  Independents having the balance of power. Interesting times...

  by Agathena on Tue Oct 24, 2006 at 08:38:44 AM PDT

•  I'm willing to vote for "third party candidates"

  I voted for David McReynolds, Socialist for President, in 2000.  I was in Texas, so I could have voted for my own left nostril for all the good it would have done.  

  In this case, I would probably vote for the Green, especially if there's not a viable Republican candidate in the race.  I agree that the "two-party system" is probably invincible, but the best way to keep the Democrats honest is to keep challenging them when they go the wrong way, especially in seats that aren't at risk of being won by the Repugnant Party (actually, the best way to keep the Dems honest is to challenge them where they ARE vulnerable, but I agree that current circumstances make that a very bad idea.) I respect the hell out of the Green Party for its tenacity, though its tendency to be used by the Republicans as a vote-siphoning mechanism really pisses me off (see: Pennsylvania).  

  My belief is and always has been that my vote should go to the BEST CANDIDATE, whomever that might be.  Most of the time that's a Democrat, but sometimes there's an independent, or a Green, or somebody else in the race who's better.

  by ethanthej on Tue Oct 24, 2006 at 08:47:16 AM PDT

  •  Its not just Pennsylvania

    Go look at the national Green party website.  They are standing up for Romanelli and lying about what happened.  The Greens are corrupt from top to bottom.

    by Mia Dolan on Tue Oct 24, 2006 at 09:34:27 AM PDT

    •  Really? I don't see Greens taking money....

      from oil corporations, or weapons manufactures, or supporting the bankruptcy bill or the Patriot Act, or the war in Iraq.

      Greens are corrupt from top to bottom? Better take a long, hard look at your party first. People in glass houses...

      by Alex 2012 on Thu Oct 26, 2006 at 03:00:58 AM PDT

•  Agreed. Berman isn't perfect

  but I know the only way to ensure that a political candidate agrees with 100% of my positions would be to run myself, and that's pretty much at the bottom of my Things To Do list!  Berman is a good compromise and I've been pleased with his votes on a vast majority of issues.

  At this point, the door is not open for a third party in American politics.  The Greens would be a lot better off running as "Democrats with an emphasis on the environment" for now.  Over the course of the next 20-50 years, that will grow into a serious platform that people can get behind; in the meantime, such candidates can reassure themselves that Democrats are less bad for Green matters than Republicans and that Democrats must therefore be elected over Republicans and that Greens must not spoil.

  What I can't get behind is the petulant, impractical idealism of many Greens, which leaves them uncaring as to whether they take votes from Democrats.  I don't understand how they can do this.  How can they not care that their actions allow Republicans to win, when Republicans are the worst enemy of everything Greens are supposed to care about?

  The problem with the Greens is that they have no long-term strategy.  They're so blinded by their own sense of their own Goodness and Ethical Superiority that they can't look beyond their righteous glee at being on a ballot.  They don't realize that every time they help Republicans win, they move the Green Party even further away from its chance at true involvement.  

  It greatly frustrates me that Greens are this insouciant about how politics works.  This is just not the time for them to be trying to get a seat at the top table as a Party.  If, as individuals, they truly care about progress towards Green goals, they need to bite down, be pragmatic, and get elected as Democrats for the next generation or so.

  So yes, I'll be voting for Berman.

  by Loquatrix on Tue Oct 24, 2006 at 09:00:38 AM PDT

  •  Beautifully stated.

    Thanks 'trix.

    by Geronimo on Tue Oct 24, 2006 at 09:07:24 AM PDT

•  I'd vote Green...

  ....if there's no chance of the spoiler effect and the Greens were running a good, serious candidate.

  by metal prophet on Tue Oct 24, 2006 at 09:52:32 AM PDT

•  The Dilemma persists...

  In the near term, we have to go Dem down the line.  The consequences of 2 more years of this WH dominating the politburo on Captiol Hill are too dire.  Conyers, Waxman, et al have to get subpoena power if we're going to have a prayer of bringing a fraction of what this WH has done to light.

  Beyond that, something must be done to shake up the party.  Last night, Bill Nelson held a "debate" in which he agreed w/ Cruella on numerous points, including not setting a deadline for w/drawal from Iraq.  The man's already raised $18mm that he's largely spending on Liebermanesque TV ads that tout his ability to play nice w/ the Goopers.  He's holding 2 $250/head fundraisers today while Jim Davis is desperate for funds in a suddenly competitive gov's race and while there are 3-4 excellent House pickup chances here.

  Yes, I know that Nelson is one of the worst DINOs.  I also know, however, that he's not alone.  Let's recall that 12 Dem senators voted for the utterly odious and clearly unconstitutional MCA.  Sherrod Brown, who clearly should know better, voted for it, too, as did (less surprisingly) Harold Ford, Jr.

  Recent events in CT question the utility of primary challenges.  CT was a great lab test--it's a fairly small blue state that JoeMentum had ignored, JM went above and beyond normal DINOness, and Lamont could self-finance to boot.  This site did everything it could for him, and he narrowly eked out a primary win.  While we all obviously hope otherwise, the general doesn't look so good at present.

  If DiFi seeks re-election in 2012, it's very hard to see a serious primary challenge.  It would probably require someone like Streisand or Beatty (or maybe someone a little younger) w/ star power who was willing to self-finance for eight figures.  It's even harder to see someone challenging Nelson here in 2012.

  Some way must be found to hold these people more accountable.  I see no evidence that the Greens are a realistic vehicle to do so.  They tend to be an annoyance at best and a hindrance at worst.  Bernie Sanders is the only left-leaning indie to get elected to Congress in over 50 years, and he has become a quasi-Dem during his House tenure.

  I suspect that we need a major structural reform like IRV and/or public financing to really change things.  Third parties are almost always a dead end in a first past the post system.  They become an even deader end in a system that requires well into 6 figures to wage a decent House race and well into 7 figures (or 8 figures in a large state) to wage a decent Senate race.

  One has to approach this issue w/ 2 opposing views in one's head at the same time in order to view it w/ any perspective.

  by RFK Lives on Tue Oct 24, 2006 at 12:26:40 PM PDT

•  This is exceedingly difficult

  Didn't think I'd still have to be doing "full disclosure" four months after the primary, MSOC, but here I am, Marcy Winograd's husband; please understand this is my opinion, and mine only.

  First, the easy point.  Just as with Marcy's campaign against Jane Harman, here with Berman the major issue was the war in Iraq and Harman's/Berman's general bellicosity and unresponsiveness.  Yes, in the primary it was relatively easy and comfortable for her to challenge Harman head-on and we were gratified by the support and energy she engendered, but there was still quite a bit of resistance from some here at DKos and Mydd and elsewhere on the order of, "Don't take on an incumbent Dem, it's a waste of resources." (Ironically, elsewhere today I saw where Harman is not spreading her wealth around to take back the House, but that's another subject). There were a few who even argued that Marcy was endangering the Dem seat, but most gave up that argument after a few beatdowns, since that seat is both demographically gerrymandered to hand it to Dems, and the Rethugs put up a nonentity.  The easy point -- and the point that we kept hammering during the primary campaign -- is that the war is not just another issue, like progressive or flat taxes, or earmarking, or Foley, or mass transit.  It is life and death, it is unbidden and unjust killing, all for what? At what point with this war do we, as peace-loving progressive people, reject politicians who vote to keep the killing machine functioning? I don't need to rehearse all of that now, but it doesn't get much more fundamental, which is why I have entitled this piece as I have above.

  For the record, Marcy has been part of organizing delegations that have visited Berman, and he has waffled and hemmed and hawed and "waited and seen" 'til the cows came home on Iraq; progressive Dems have been doing all the waiting and none of the seeing about a light bulb going off in his head on the war.  Marcy even had a 20-minute phone conversation with him a year ago, wherein he told her that if things didn't improve in Iraq within 6 months, he would call for troop withdrawal. Despite the obvious worsening conditions in the country, he didn't keep that promise.  

  The Dem progressive who ran against Berman (with Marcy's support), Charles Coleman, got around 20%, if I recall correctly.  And yes, Berman is safe, and no Green, especially in the current climate, is going to either "steal" the seat from a Dem, or hand it to a Rethug.  It's just not in the cards (to be sure, I do not vote in Berman's district).

  So, while I think even Marcy Winograd can be convinced to hold her nose and vote for a Dem presidential candidate -- she wasn't particularly enamored of Kerry, but it was a no-brainer in 2004, and she didn't just vote for him, she worked her butt off for him and the party, traveling to swing states, running a Dem stronghold in Santa Monica -- when it comes to matters of war and peace, it is not hard to understand why all bets are off.  

  As we strenuously argued during the primary, there are certain issues -- and unjust war is among them -- that may well transcend party.  As I liked to point out then, Hubert Humphrey chose racial justice over the Dixiecrats in 1948, and LBJ would have been in deep bandini had he insisted on running for reelection in 1968 given his handling of Vietnam.  So, Marcy is really being consistent by supporting DeLear, because whatever it may do to her "career" within the Democratic party, she is remaining true to the profound principles that made her the great candidate she was and may be again.

  by Budlawman on Tue Oct 24, 2006 at 09:50:58 PM PDT

  •  Just so we're clear...

    I have made no comment regarding her endorsement of DeLear -- unlike some, I tend to think it's not my place to condemn others for their acts of conscience, regardless of my own opinion. And I learned that the hard way, after a long period of condemning Nader voters for their... acts of conscience.

    My hat is off to Marcy and you for the amazing showing against an entrenched Dem like Harman.

    MSOC

    by Maryscott OConnor on Wed Oct 25, 2006 at 07:49:57 AM PDT

    •  Thank you, Marcyscott

      I noted that you did not comment on Marcy's position.  

      I do have to say, however, that while Marcy did what she did with her "eyes open" and a clear conscience, her quote posted here was bound to draw, shall we say, negative attention.  She can handle it, certainly, as she would have to to do what she did, and to continue doing what she's doing.

      I appreciate you doffing your topper, but it's only Marcy who is truly deserving of your plaudits; I mostly stayed on the sidelines with my pom-poms and keyboard!  (Not a pretty sight, so I won't offer pictorial links)

      by Budlawman on Wed Oct 25, 2006 at 06:32:06 PM PDT

      •  I didn't even think of that.

        For some reason, I'm still thinking DKos is full of open-minded liberals. Which it probably is -- but there is a very vocal and powerful contingent of posters here now who seem to feel it their sworn duty to harangue and harass anyone who doesn't toe the party line.

        My apologies for the shark bait.

        by Maryscott OConnor on Wed Oct 25, 2006 at 07:14:07 PM PDT

        •  You've been doing this far longer

          but in my short (7-month or so) DKos experience, there are definitely those who will take offense and not engage in a useful debate such as that which you proposed, though in this case, the criticism was neither unexpected nor disrespectful.  So, no apologies necessary.

          by Budlawman on Wed Oct 25, 2006 at 08:18:14 PM PDT

•  Ca-28 my take on the Green

  Well, along with msoc, I too was at the Sherman Oaks Street Fair, mingling with the disenchanted electorate, and enchanted to be part of the DeLear Volunteers spreading the word...having met DeLear this summer I did my research and, while I won't advocate voting for a Green for Governor, I see the wisdom of voting for the Green Candidate, Byron DeLear in the 28th....the district is just over 20% registered Republican, so voting DeLear won't throw the race to the GOP figurehead (he's not campaigning, only promoting his book about Thomas Jefferson and Jesus - what did God want...-- those are the keywords anyway)
  ....and DeLear got the endorsement of the progressive Dems mentioned because he vowed to vote with the Democratic Party for control of the house...no chance of spoiler-ship here...just like Independent, former GOP Repr-Sen  from Vermont Jim Jeffords...DeLear is a progressive....he'll be voting WITH the Dems on bills like 1) developing a plan to withdraw from Iraq (BERMAN VOTED AGAINST), 2) setting a timetable to withdraw (BERMAN VOTED AGAINST), 3) investigating VP Cheney (BERMAN VOTED AGAINST), and to investigate the pre-invasion intelligence that the BUSHIES used to sway the Congress and the nation (oh yeah, guess what, Berman voted against that, too!  Why doesn't Berman step up and suggest amendments to NAFTA, since California lost more jobs thany any state...why does Berman step up to co-sponsor a bill with Wisconsin's neocon Sensenbrenner that would repeal the 22nd amendment while we have a sitting GOP President with an Imperial Presidency philosophy?  And when asked about his support of the bill, Berman said that if the Democratic nominee couldn't beat Bush then "they didn't deserve to win"....hmmm?  Sounds real progessive to me, but then, I'm just a former soccer mom.  

  by ms valley on Thu Oct 26, 2006 at 01:36:00 AM PDT

  •  Berman has morphed into a warmongering dork

    Don't know what happened to him, or why, but he's become, as you demonstrate, a miserable excuse for a Dem, especially given his liberal history and his constituents.

    by Budlawman on Fri Oct 27, 2006 at 04:13:09 PM PDT