Before I start let me just say that Lieberman is my Senator and (with exception of Al D'mato) my least favorite Senator of all time. That being said, I am not sure which way I break on the below, but I feel that it is a discussion worth having.
This post was inspired by Kos' posts here and here and the dicussions (mostly focused on the merits (or lack thereof) of Lieberman).
I think we can all agree that most (if not all) of us in the net-roots are limited by either time or money or both (George Soros - ignore this post).
The demands of jobs and family will prevent many of us for doing as much as we would like to do in terms of volunteering and activating (although I am sure we are all going to do everything we
can do).
So, if you have a DINO for a Senator (or Rep or Governor or Dogcatcher) and multiple Republicans in winnable (if not outright Dem) districts (see Johnson, Shays, Simmons, and Rell all up for election in CT in '06) you are faced with a major dilema...
Is it more important/rewarding/optimistic to spend your valuable loot and time in supporting a primary challenge to your pet DINO or should you throw your activist passion to the task of painting the rest of your state blue?
I will use CT as my example, but I suspect, off the top of my head and with no thought at all, that there are numerous examples of this in largely Dem states/districts across the country.
Here, in no particular order, are all of the things that cross my mind in this argument:
-Lieberman, as a Democrat and a citizen, makes me sad. For reasons that are longer than my diary could possibly be and that have been blogged about ad nauseum, Liberman has let me down by being too cozy with the Republicans (Hannity in particular).
-On the other hand, he passed one of my Dem litmus tests when he was (seemed?) absolutely against messing with Social Security. Of course, he failed another of my litmus tests when he continued to support a senseless war (and its puppetmasters). Finally, very few things bother me as much as people who blame culture for a supposed decline in society. Parents don't need "the tools" to protect their kids from violence on tv - they have that tool already - It's called a remote control.
-As I blogged about here we have three districts in CT that by rights should have Dem reps but don't:
2000 2004
Gore/Bush Kerry/Bush
CT-1 62.31/32.41 59.55/38.60
CT-2 55.45/37.55 53.92/44.22
CT-3 60.10/33.77 56.37/41.70
CT-4 54.80/40.97 52.38/46.29
CT-5 50.61/44.10 49.32/48.97
CT-6 52.44/41.76 CT-6 Largely Combined with CT-5 as per 2000 census
Total 55.91/38.45 54.31/43.95
CT-2 has Chris Shays (R), CT-4 has Rob Simmons (R) and CT-5 has Nancy Johnson (R). Also, CT has been represented by a Republican (now Jodi Rell) for far too long. These are seats that can and should change hands in 06.
-As Kos' second post pointed out, Lieberman's support is wide. This ignites an internal debate - If something isn't right than its wrong and Joe isn't right for CT (sorry for the paraphrase). That being said, how much time and money should we spend on something unwinnable when there are winnable races right under our noses.
As I said when I started, I don't know what the right answer to this is. I am leaning towards the purist view that this guy has to go, but a little voice reminds me that with enough effort we can be three votes close to a majority in the House.
Either way, I think this is a debate that we need to have as we start to decide which candidates we will invest our resources in in 06.
Signed,
Confused (and freezing) in CT
PS I have been kicking around the idea with a few friends of starting a PAC or 501(c) on the local level. Perhaps a network of state organizations can fill in some of the cracks in local elections that are missed by nationals like the DNC, MoveOn, Act, etc. Thoughts?