There have been a lot of diary entries and comments in the last few weeks calling out the Democrats who crossed party lines to vote for the Patriot Act, CAFTA, and the energy bill, and also those who have been affiliated with the DLC. There has been a lot of talk about primary challenges and running these people out of the party.
There has also been a lot of discussion about the campaign of Paul Hackett in Ohio, which I think is great. I see, though, that the one of the newpapers that endorsed Paul Hackett noted that he was a "Libertarian Democrat" and had no use for orthodoxy. He wants to "get the job done" in Iraq, whatever exactly that means. Given that the district is very conservative, I would expect that if Hackett wins, he is likely not going to vote the party line on every issue. You are probably going to see him crossing over on the types of issues for which other Democrats have incurred considerable wrath. I have no problem with that because of the district he's in. How long, though, before he's being called a DINO and much worse on Daily Kos? I recall a number of recent comments attacking Stephanie Herseth of South Dakota for voting for the Patriot Act. Herseth just recently came to Congress by means of a longshot special election victory that was similarly celebrated. Now she's just a DINO who should be run out of the party?
It would be great if every Democrat voted the right way (if we can every agree there is a "right way") on every issue, but the reality is that every member has to vote with the interests of his or her district in mind. We need to be thinking about building a majority in congress, not purifiying (and shrinking) the minority we have. We should all be supporting Paul Hackett, but should also think about the bigger picture with regard to how his candidacy and district fits into the Democratic party.
