U.S. Senate See Full Big Line

(D) J. Hickenlooper*

(R) Somebody

80%

20%

Governor See Full Big Line

(D) Joe Neguse

(D) Phil Weiser

(D) Jena Griswold

60%

60%

40%↓

Att. General See Full Big Line

(D) M. Dougherty

(D) Alexis King

(D) Brian Mason

40%

40%

30%

Sec. of State See Full Big Line

(D) George Stern

(D) A. Gonzalez

(R) Sheri Davis

40%

40%

30%

State Treasurer See Full Big Line

(D) Brianna Titone

(R) Kevin Grantham

(D) Jerry DiTullio

60%

30%

20%

CO-01 (Denver) See Full Big Line

(D) Diana DeGette*

(R) Somebody

90%

2%

CO-02 (Boulder-ish) See Full Big Line

(D) Joe Neguse*

(R) Somebody

90%

2%

CO-03 (West & Southern CO) See Full Big Line

(R) Jeff Hurd*

(D) Somebody

80%

40%

CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado) See Full Big Line

(R) Lauren Boebert*

(D) Somebody

90%

10%

CO-05 (Colorado Springs) See Full Big Line

(R) Jeff Crank*

(D) Somebody

80%

20%

CO-06 (Aurora) See Full Big Line

(D) Jason Crow*

(R) Somebody

90%

10%

CO-07 (Jefferson County) See Full Big Line

(D) B. Pettersen*

(R) Somebody

90%

10%

CO-08 (Northern Colo.) See Full Big Line

(R) Gabe Evans*

(D) Yadira Caraveo

(D) Joe Salazar

50%

40%

40%

State Senate Majority See Full Big Line

DEMOCRATS

REPUBLICANS

80%

20%

State House Majority See Full Big Line

DEMOCRATS

REPUBLICANS

95%

5%

Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
November 13, 2008 09:39 PM UTC

The Ghost of Mike Miles

  • 108 Comments
  • by: Colorado Pols

In the spirit of yesterday’s lively discussion, we received this email today:

Fellow Democrat, did you know that Ken Salazar is campaigning on behalf of Joe Lieberman right now? Salazar thinks that Lieberman should keep his charimanship on the Senate Homeland Security committee to keep pushing his neo-con agenda.

We at ProgressivePartner.org invite you to examine Sen. Salazar’s un-Democratic record…

Colorado can now officially be called a blue state. Barack Obama has won in a landslide. It is a good time to be a good progressive Democrat. So, with progressivism on the march in the Centennial State and Obama in the White House, isn’t it time to give President Obama a true progressive partner in the United States Senate?

Make no mistake, there will be a progressive alternative to Ken Salazar in 2010. In order to pave the way, we need you to pass this site and the information here along to your friends and family who may participate in the 2010 Democratic caucuses and primary. Invite them to examine his record here on these important issues and help them to realize that Ken Salazar is no progressive and a relic of the Bush era.

Our view: Poppycock. Let’s start with the much-vilified Sen. Joe (I) Lieberman. It’s true that he showed more or less the opposite of party unity in vociferously campaigning for GOP presidential candidate John McCain, and vengeful partisan Democrats are demanding a price be paid–in the form of Lieberman losing his Senate committee chairmanships. Doing so would almost certainly push Lieberman into formally switching to the Republican Party, or failing that at least caucusing with the GOP (he is nominally counted with the Democratic majority based on his caucus preference).

But for all the rage steaming off the pages of Daily Kos and other leading “netroots” communities, President-elect Barack Obama doesn’t agree that Lieberman should be reprimanded in a way that pushes him out of the caucus. Nor does Salazar’s new Colorado colleague Senator-elect Mark Udall. Or other Democratic Senate leaders like Dick Durbin and Majority Leader Harry Reid. The Senate Dems will decide next Tuesday whether Lieberman should be stripped of his Homeland Security Committee chairmanship: if he can be replaced in a way that lets everybody save face and keeps him in the caucus, which is his natural preference as a reliable–on most issues–Democratic vote in the Senate, cool. If not, Dems should think carefully about what a moment’s vindictive thrill-copping could mean for getting the hard bills through the Senate.

Sen. Durbin was quoted yesterday:

“At the end of the day, we may not have the 60 votes we need to enact measures in the Senate, and we will have to build on what we have. So every vote is important. That’s the starting point. … Secondly, despite what Sen. Lieberman did in campaigning for Sen. McCain and speaking at the Republican convention, he has voted with the Democrats an overwhelming percentage of the time.”

Which echoes the word from Majority Leader Reid’s office:

…in his phone conversation “last week” with Reid, Obama “said that expelling Lieberman” from the Dem Caucus “would send the wrong signal after Obama’s promises to set partisanship aside,” according to a Senate Dem aide. [Pols emphasis]

You see, this is a test, like the test Colorado Republicans face in Steve Johnson’s state Senate replacement. It’s a test of whether or not Democrats can be inclusive in a way they were not shown when Republicans were in charge. It’s a test of whether or not the committed partisanship that drove the Democratic “netroots” to prominence can be set aside, by themselves and those over whom they hold influence, for the good of the country.

Which brings us to Ken Salazar. You like Mike Miles, don’t you? We like the guy too. What was there to dislike about the man? Nothing really, except that if he had won the 2004 primary we would have Sen. Pete Coors right now. And lest anyone forget, Miles was absolutely DRILLED in the primary against Salazar. It wasn’t even close.

We have consistently, and sometimes unpopularly, defended Salazar and other “gutless” moderate Democrats from this same contingent of activists ever since Democrats started winning in Colorado again in 2004. We do this for a very simple reason: they are why Democrats started winning in Colorado again.

Read that last sentence again. Mark Udall is not anywhere close to the “Boulder Liberal” he was unsuccessfully billed to be by the GOP–the antiwar “Mercenaries for Mark” protesters who dogged his early town halls and squatted in his office didn’t think so. But they were ultimately self-defeating: intelligent Democrats made sense of Udall’s consistently antiwar but realistic approach, and center-right independents saw the peaceniks mobbing Udall as a sign that he wasn’t such a Boulder loony after all. Double-digit win.

Bill Ritter is not your typical bleeding-heart liberal either, is he? But how many voters saw Ritter’s differences with sacrosanct Democrat planks like abortion rights as evidence of character, even if they didn’t agree on the issue? He beat a Republican in a Republican-plurality state by over 15 points.

These are all men who understand that not everyone will agree with them all the time. They respect and want to do right by the large percentage of their constituents who didn’t support them. But above all, they are–this includes Ken Salazar and Joe Lieberman alike–supportive enough of the Democratic agenda when it comes down to it that to seek their ouster is to commit the same ideological suicide we’ve seen Republicans play out in purge after purge of the “not sufficiently conservative progressive.” You know, purged in favor of people who lose.

You’d think the people who taught this lesson so well would learn it?

For all the clamoring to travel down this ruinous path by every eloquent nationally-renowned blogger superstar “thought leader” (warming up his or her 2010 primary consultancy gigs), we won’t have any part of it. And as for the “make no mistake, there will be a primary” nonsense, go for it. Ken Salazar is not losing in a primary any more than Wayne Allard would have lost in a primary, which says a hell of a lot.

Tweet
Share

Comments

108 thoughts on “The Ghost of Mike Miles”

  1. Dick Durban?  Try Durbin.

    Dumb ideas like ousting Salazar is why the blogosphere shouldn’t pick candidates.  But hey, if you want to lose a senate seat I’m sure the far left has someone they’re willing to watch implode…

    2. which were pushed by the blogosphere actually did quite well.  Chris Van Hollen, chair of the DCCC, welcomed many of these candidates to the fold this cycle.  But, feel free to keep hoping that the Democratic Party will revert to its old (losing) habit of picking Blue Dog Dems.  Nothing wrong with a little wishful thinking.

      That being said, I agree that a “far left” candidate would have great difficulty winning a statewide race in Colorado, as would a politician who hasn’t carried enough water for the Donkey.

      1. You can’t compare candidates for congressional districts with senatorial candidates.  Reps just have to win in their districts, most of which are safe for one party or another, some very liberal. Senators have to win state wide. Dems didn’t turn Colorado blue taking advice from lefty bloggers who would rather get up on their high horses than actually elect anyone.  

      2. but w/o those blue dogs (and other moderates) like Heath Schuler in NC, Jerry NcNerney in CA, Joe Sestak in PA…and a handful more…you wouldn’t have won as big in 06 (and 08) as you did.   Candidates have to suit their constituency and Dems have done very well in recruiting candidates that do that.

    3. Litmus tests like:

      School Voucher’s

      Abortion

      and other social issues…

      Hurt the Republicans when they dominated the state and country.  I wonder if Dems will make the same mistake.

  2. I’m with you on keeping Lieberman.  I so don’t want Obama to start with politics as usual; not going with the majority of Dems in the clamor das Lieberman, has great symbolic value.  Remember Lincoln:  keep you enemies close.  

    1. because with friends like Joe Lieberman, who needs enemies…

      Did you even bother to read anything that Joe Lieberman said about Obama?

      Oh, but you’re all high-minded and calm, and I’m just a some crazy liberal because I don’t think who should act like wimps and welcome in to the fold those who abused us.

      1. Lieberman sucks. He’s an opportunistic sleaze bucket, but Salazar is not. For all of his faults, Ken is a centrist who represents Colorado well. I’ll stick with Ken.

        Hey LB did you heard that, I’m all high-minded and calm!

        1. I just don’t want Joe in a chairmanship.  It’s so stupid to keep him there.

          And what does Ken think he gains by being behind Joe?  The only person who likes Joe Lieberman is Joe’s wife.

          1. I actually think Lieberman would undermine Obama as the Chair of Homeland Security. He campaign against Obama specifically on that issue. He lost the campaign and should lose his chairmanship.  

            2. i won’t repeat my long comment on the other Lieb post, but HSGAC is a bottom-tier committee in the Senate.  Aside from DHS oversight, the only thing they do of note is publish the Plum Book. Nobody in the Senate power structure cares about who is chair of HSGAC.  Let it go.  It’s not like he’s chair of Approps or Commerce or Finance.  

              If Lieb were chair of the Select Committee on Aging would you all be ringing the same bell?  Well let me tell you, HSGAC is only a bit above it in stature.

        2. Classic.

          Hey, I’m all for you wackos primarying Salazar.

          Go for it.  He’s not nearly as far left as he should be, Goddammit!!!

          Gotta go – popcorn’s ready…

    1. At a time when it was not safe to do so Joe Lieberman went to the South and worked in the fight for civil rights. I venture to say that few if any people now criticizing Lieberman have ever shown the guts to do what he did in the early 60’s.  

      I am sure that the White Citizens Council and old time segregationists all agree with your depiction of Joe Lieberman  

      1. This is the equivalent of McCain’s campaign shouting “POW” at every criticism.

        What Joe Lieberman did half a century ago is beyond commendable and he should be praised for it. His actions then though have nothing to do with the discussion today. The fact that he marched for Civil Rights is frankly irrelevant to a discussion of what his role should be in the United States Senate in 2009 and beyond.  

    3. “Douchebag!  How are you? I haven’t seen you in the House of Lords in ages!  Don’t tell me for the first time in memory we are going to have a Parliament without a Douchebag?”

      Lord Douchebag:  My dear Sandwich, Parliament has always had its share of Douchebags, and it always will.

  5. Caucus preferencing isn’t the choice of the party, Lieberman gets to choose whether or not he continues to caucus with the Democrats. The choice becomes his helm of Homeland Security and Government Affairs. I think Democrats will keep him there, but another option is to give him another chair and swap him out of HSGA. The old bait and switch.

  7. remaining as chair is coming from Daily Kos? Marcos is failing his own purity test which supposedly he abhors, at least according to his books, which he does love to whore on a daily basis.  

    1. The Democrats have the majority.

      Lieberman is not a Democrat.

      Therefore he should not have a chairmanship.

      Modus Ponens for the win!

      And that also leaves out all the times Lieberman ATTACKED Democrats, saying we challenge Bush at our countries “peril” because the terrorists might win.

      1. You’d actually think we have a few genuinely pressing problems to address but from the looks of the blogs…nope.

        WE MUST FOCUS ALL OF OUR OUTRAGE ON LIEBERMAN. WE MUST FORCE HIM OUT. WE MUST FORCE OUT EVERY SINGLE DEMOCRAT THAT BACKS HIM. Right, Pacified? Uh huh. Let me know how that works out for you in 2010 when you try and primary Salazar.

        We must also self implode due to political stupidity that literally knows no bounds.  

        1. How do you propose we address the genuinely pressing problems if we ignore who is appointed to the positions where they are handled?

          Lieberman said the people of Connecticut should elect him so that he could help get a Democratic President elected. Well, Joe certainly works in mysterious ways.

          I don’t see any reason to punish him for what he did, but I certainly see no reason other than self-serving inside baseball politics to reward him with a Chairmanship.

          1. Most of the chatter on Dkos is to rid him completely from the committee, not just strip him of the chairmanship.

            IT IS A WASTE OF TIME.

            And yes, I’m shouting but it seems it’s become necessary in order to be heard above the lynch mob.  

            1. I’ve just completed a rather informal survey of the voluminous front page diaries on Lieberman.  Know what I found?  Not a single one advocates kicking him out of the caucus or off the committee – just out of the HSGA chair’s seat.

              1. feel free to peruse the thousands of comments made at DKos, the dozens of diaries by Kos, Jed L, et al, that are advocating for him to either lose the chair position or be kicked off the committee altogether. Hopefully, we are talking about the same thing, otherwise your reading comprehension is in need of a brush up.  

    2. Kos is definitely against Lieberman retaining his chairmanship, but a good amount of the anger toward Lieberman is also coming from the offices of sitting Senators themselves. Durbin’s office was pretty vocal until two days ago, and there are still a number of people in the party who want to see him punished (add Evan Bayh to that list after his interview on Maddow last night).

      So, to say that Kos is the only one saying anything is a bit reductionist, don’tcha think?

      1. When they vote to retain or kick his ass out. Personally, I would be thrilled to see him kicked out. But, we have far more pressing problems than punishing a has been.  

        3. should chill.  It’s as misguided as the assumption that a 60 member majority is going to automatically pass every damn thing the Dem majority in the Senate wants. It’s not as if all Dems go along on every vote and all Rs oppose.

          So Lieberman or no Lieberman, 58, 59 or 60,  there will be no guarantees.   If Obama wants to keep Lieberman, fine.  If his fellow Senators want to dump him, that’s fine, too. Whatever.  We most certainly DO have far more pressing issues.

  8. We have consistently, and sometimes unpopularly, defended Salazar and other “gutless” moderate Democrats from this same contingent of activists ever since Democrats started winning in Colorado again in 2004. We do this for a very simple reason: they are why Democrats started winning in Colorado again.

    I have been right there with you through most of this but it’s no longer 2004, the state and the country are changing. At some point don’t we have to assess the political realities as they are today as opposed to what they were 4+ years ago?

    When you are in the minority in a legislative body the first goal is to gain the majority so that you can set the agenda of the chamber. Once you reach majority you should obviously seek to expand your majorities. At the same time though as your majorities increase the need to tolerate caucus members who stray in very public and dramatic fashion decreases.

    To be sure, you should be smart and strategic about the members that are targeted. It’s better though for caucus discipline and the overall agenda of the party if potential rogue members are on notice that their actions will have consequences.

    Arguing that because a Senator was elected once, half a decade ago and that they therefore should never be challenged is to argue for incumbency for incumbency’s sake and for an accountability free government.

    Primary-ing Salazar is a bad idea because the challenger stands no chance of winning but the idea of primary-ing lousy Senators and members of Congress is not a bad idea per se. Like anything in politics it must be done strategically and thoughtfully but it can and should be done when appropriate.  

    1. If our only goal is to elect people with a [D] after their name, regardless of what they do – then why bother? As Dems we should be striving always to do better, and that means we need to pressure our elected officials.

    2. …or do you agree?  I can’t tell.  Your “times change” opening suggested that you had a point of dispute, but then that point never materialized.

  9. Perhaps we should forgive a guy that not only campaigned for the other party but nastily attacked our candidate. Perhaps we forgive a guy who is morally wrong on torture and the war. Do we also let him keep a chairmanship where he does not do his job and thereby protects all that is wrong? Can the country afford that?

    Lieberman is not alone; Jay Rockefeller is also a problem as a committee chair. If we want a country that works and lives up to the ideals of its people, we can’t have Lieberman, Rockefeller, etc. helping the dark side.

    If you think Joe is going to screw the Dems because his feelings are hurt, do you really trust him if he stays?

    I just got a fundraising email from Ken Salazar. Sorry, Ken. Not until you grow a Democratic spine.

  10. How many hearings did he have as Chair of the committee that oversees FEMA on what happened with Katrina?

    I believe the answer is Zero.

    Why if he campaigned against the Democrats specifically on the issue of National Security, should the Democrats give him the Chair for Homeland Security? Either the Democrats were right on that or McCain was. If McCain was wrong then why give Lieberman that gavel.

    If the argument is that there are topics like Education where he is in sync with the Democrats then fine, give him a seat on Education. You can even give him the Chair. But there is no reason in the public interest to put a man in charge of Security when that is the one area on which you believe he is dead wrong.

  11. FEMA has been one issue they’ve actually dogged on that committee.

    http://hsgac.senate.gov/public…

    and search for FEMA and/or Katrina

    Collins and Lieb have been pushing hard for FEMA reform for a while but on the Hill you don’t move things that aren’t on or can’t be attached to a train leaving the station.

    1. for FEMA In two years?  And none on Katrina shortcomings, only on progress since then.

      And I see a grand sum total of one hearing on Buah Administration corruption, while the committee dabbles in other committees’ business (credit card rates, healthcare…)

      Color me unimpressed.

      1. I’m not sure what you want, but Katrina appears on the hearings list 25 times.  Between 11/02/05 and 4/10/06 they had 16 hearings on it.  One example titled “Hurricane Katrina: Waste, Fraud, and Abuse Worsen the Disaster”

        That is a seriously heavy hearings load for one issue on a Senate committee.  McCain probably had 4 or 5 climate change hearings on Commerce in his entire tenure.

        FEMA appears 13 times on the list.

        They are a busy committee.  Not sure why you’re trying to argue otherwise.  Compare their load to EPW or HELP and see what you get.

  12. ….when you have Chris Gates and his loyal Dem Lapdogs calling potential donors and telling them NOT to donate to Mike’s campaign, what do you expect?

    Mike won the Caucus outright, and was the top line on the ballot….and the DSCC wouldn’t even put his name, photo and URL on their donation page. It took serious threats to get the DSCC to do the right thing, and acknowledge that Mike even existed as a candidate.

    This may be blasphemous to the rest of the Obama Dems, but Mike is more qualified now to be President than Obama is, considering his military and diplomatic experience.

    1. Being in the military, being on a diplomatic posting, and a teacher does not qualify a person to run for public office.

      Sure, sometimes a person can run a crazy insurgent campaign and win. But given his views and his complete lack of experience in running a successful political campaign I bet that even Schaffer would have trounced Miles 55 to 44. He’s run at senate seats in Colorado forever and as far as I can tell from searching the web he’s never even run for a Statehouse job much less in a statewide race. He’s a Ted Baxter. Someone who’s much greater in his own mind than in reality.

      I was willing to take a calculated risk on Obama since he’d actually gotten some political chops under his belt. When his crazy insurgent campaign for a congressional seat died he didn’t keep running for that office, he learned and ran for the Illinois Senate. And then managed to carefully clear the field when a bigger plum became available. And then ran a careful and effective campaign.

      What the hell has Mike Miles ever done that would show he has the the political sense that god gave Libertad?

      1. I’d say that being in the Rangers as a Special Ops Officer, being severely wounded during training and experiencing the VA firsthand, being on several diplomatic posting to Eastern Europe, and being an educator and a supervisor of a school district would be the best combinations of experiences for public office.

        Consider the smirking chimp we have in the White House right now, having been a faux-executive of a state that gives little power to his governor.

        As far as a what’s he’s done politically, remember he was willing to be a Dem in this state when that was a dirty word – he beat the streets of Colorado Springs on his own, and then organized his own campaign with no friggin’ help from the State Dems to run a statewide race. It wasn’t until the “unbeatable” Repub stepped out did anyone from the Dems think that it was a race they could win.

        And Salazar stepped in, Schaffer-style, to be the chosen candidate. Well, not quite – Schaffer actually got this latest nomination thru the State Party rules. Chris Gates and the state Dems just decided it was Salazar on their own.

        Mike ran a better primary campaign than Schaffer ran as the Repub Senate Candidate. No one thought his campaign was riddled with incompetency, and he never had $15 mil of money behind him that he blew. Considering we had NO MONEY, and NO PRESS COVERAGE, he dig amazing.

        1. “I’d say that being in the Rangers as a Special Ops Officer, being severely wounded during training and experiencing the VA firsthand, being on several diplomatic posting to Eastern Europe, and being an educator and a supervisor of a school district would be the best combinations of experiences for public office.”

          And you are wrong. That no more makes him qualified to be a Senator than the potted plant’s being a Vet qualified him. It’s nonsense.

          He might have what it takes to be a Senator, but we’ll never know because he’s not astute enough to at least put in a couple years at the statehouse rather than trying to jump straight from officer school to Colonel.

          1. Saying “Boulder Liberal” over and over again? That worked splendidly for the guy who had his ass handed to him this election!

            Old Cancer Face was a lousy choice for President (among other things) because he tried to pimp his vet status for everything and anything, but had one of the worst records in Congress when it came to vets issues and passing legislation.

            I want people in the Federal legislature that have real-world experience with the military, diplomacy and the education system, not some partisan nutjob who’s sat in some partisan think-tank for so many years he can’t connect with reality.

            And as far as being astute about when to jump into an election, I say again – NO OTHER DEM WANTED TO. He did all the hard work and was not afraid to say he’s a Democrat, when the party was trying hard to be GOP-Lite.  

            1. Probably couldn’t right now.  

              Coors would have won.  How any “progressive” could prefer that outcome to the outcome we got is beyond me. I think a Senator who votes my way about 85% of the time is a pretty huge improvement over one who would have been in lockstep with Allard.  

              1. For all the distain I have for Big Oil Bob, he got screwed even worse than Mike did by his Party. The fact that Owens stabbed him in the back and stepped gleefully over his body to kiss Pete’s ass is an even bigger indictment over the sleaze level of the Colorado GOP.

                As far as Mike not being able to win Colorado in ’04, who knows. I know that every speech he gave, he converted people in the audience. I was working at the 9News debate between Salazar and Miles, and almost all of the people who heard him for the first time (anchoroids in particular) were impressed.

                And now? I dunno, the Obama factor would help out Mike a lot….

                1. Yeah. And how exactly did you plan to make it so that the Republicans would play “fair” by nominating someone you could defeat? Because I’d love to have that trick so I could get a bunch of weak nominees against me so that I, despite my liberal views, could become the first gay atheist Democrat ever elected to the Senate.

            2. Let’s take a look at the 13 sitting Senators who’ve never held elective office before being elected Senator and see what they have in common. Lets see… they’re universally either from states that so heavily tilt towards one party or the other that the person who wins the primary is all but assured of winning, or are heavily politically connected already, or have great personal wealth, or have been appointed to high office in the Federal government. Does Mike Miles fit any of these categories?

              And of the 14 candidates for Senate who’d never held office in the 2008 campaign only Al Franken has even come close to winning office.

  13. First off, you make it sound like we either need to just love Salazar (and Udall) as they are – or primary them. That’s a false choice.

    What we should be doing, regardless of our view of each candidate, is to let them know how we feel on issues that matter to us. So if we think Lieberman deserves some consequence for his actions, then, as we live in a democracy, damn straight we should make it clear that we want to see that.

    Second, I haven’t seen anyone anywhere propose expelling Lieberman from anything. The only person who brings that up is Lieberman. He clearly will be welcomed to caucus with the Dems. (It’s also not clear that his doing so has any impact.) So saying people want him expelled is B.S.

    And as a lot of us have said, what is important is that there is some kind of real consequence. I don’t care if it’s he gets 10 swats with a paddle in the well of the Senate – but if the party shows no consequence then party means nothing.

    1. anybody who has spent any time writing, calling, and e-mailing Ken Salazar can attest that these efforts do NOTHING to affect or change his positions.  Which is OK, I guess, because Ken hasn’t tried to hide his positions on issues very much.  But, public pressure doesn’t work in Ken’s case.

  14. If only from a purely political stand-point. Ideologically, I myself have called Sen. Salazar’s office to complain about the way he voted on certain legislation.

    I think some folks are still in post-election euphoria and think that we Democrats can do whatever we want and things will be fine.

    First of all, who is actually going to primary Salazar? Who’s liberal enough for the far-left? Who’s going to be able to not only beat Salazar, but win a statewide election against a Republican Party that won’t be nearly as broken as it is today?

    I don’t think anyone coming off the “bench” is going to declare outright war on the middle by running against a popular Senator.

    1. Or disagree vocally when Salazar makes a mistake, which he has.

      What we’re saying is the “false choice” of “loving” somebody or primarying him is what too many people are demanding, and is the sort of hubris usually associated with Republicans.

      1. You know, I think it’s really ironic that we’ve had all of these threads about the future of the Republican Party. Everyone is saying “They should go more toward the center. They’re too far right. They let the base decide everything.”

        Well I just have one question for Pacified and TakeBackTheHouse: how is this any different than when the Republicans pander to the base and try to run RINOs out of their seats? We Dems think that the GOP should go to the middle, but we get to move far-left and pander to our base? Doesn’t make one bit of sense to me.

          2. even though I have opposed the war from the beginning, I stopped being able to stand Sheehan and Code Pink a long time ago? I mean I sympathise with her deeply as a mother who lost her son but I just can’t silence the voice in my head that screams “flake”.

            1. The sad thing is that she was really used by some folks who have now deserted her now that it’s obvious she has some true mental issues.

              I don’t think there are too many folks that are truly ‘bad people’ that post here, although I have a suspicion that “Co Pols” is a fat union boss, full of thuggery.

              (_|_)

        2. Republican failures began in large part with the silly question “Who is a real Republican?” Once Democrats start doing the same thing, they’ll be on the road to the same fate.

            2. Is to elect the most progressive officials possible given a particular district/state/national demographic. That’s the second, more underlying thesis of Crashing the Gate, which is that western Democrats have learned to be progressive in ways that are most electorally-viable while framing the debates over policy in a more systematically-progressive way.

              Kos doesn’t want to eliminate conservative Democrats. There are a few that he outright loves despite overwhelming policy disagreements (Tester and Webb are both more conservative overall than Lieberman, e.g., and Kos went to bat for Walt Minnick of Idaho who will become one of the most conservative Dems in the caucus).

              Markos’ beef, as is many of ours on the progressive left, is with Democrats who fundamentally undermine the party. Zell Miller did it in 2004, Lieberman this year. There are plenty others (Dan Boren (OK) and Tim Mahoney (FL) who is gone now, for example). This is why Kos has little problem with Democrats like Gene Taylor, who only vote with the party 60% of the time but don’t say things like “I’m not a Democrat” or “Nancy Pelosi eats babies” but has a bigger problem with Reps like Ellen Tauscher or Jane Harman of CA, who both have railed against the fundamental tenets and leadership of the party.

              That being said, I think Salazar is a good fit here. He’d be better at Interior, methinks, but he’s a good fit for the state. Not the best fit, but it’s good to have our Senator be seen as a dealmaker and always have a seat at the table. That’s better than a very progressive backbencher. He’s wrong on Lieberman, but he’s good for the state.

              1. What it comes down to is this: Senator Salazar has done some things that make some angry. He has done other things that make some happy.

                Let’s judge what he does next year and the year after before we start threatening to undermine our own political gains by throwing someone who could potentially lose the seat because they’re too left-wing for Colorado.

        3. What a surprise.

          Actually, I shouldn’t be so snotty since I used to be as naive as both of them and felt that was the only way to go as a party. The cold light of political reality, however, has opened my eyes to the fact that douchebags (Pacified is right–Lieberman really is a douchebag) sometimes have to be bargained with and that DINO’s like Salazar may not make us, the liberal base, very happy, but they do make the majority happy.

          To primary Salazar, which is what this diary was originally about, is the question at hand. And as much as I would love to primary Salazar, I have truly come to believe, by talking to those in my County Party as well as average voters when canvassing, it won’t happen. Most voters are quite satisfied with his performance in the Senate, whether the minority progressive left of the Democratic Party like to admit that or not. To deny it is political suicide.  

          1. We all get to set the agenda, not just the fringe.

            I say we run them out of the party for running a primary campaign!  🙂

            Seriously though, Joe Lieberman is a douche, there’s no argument there from me. But suddenly being one defender of the douche, and not the douche in question, is enough to get run out of a Senate seat after one term?

            Be careful what you wish for lefties. If you do end up knocking Salazar out and losing, you’re likely to have the class III seat become a safe GOP seat for the rest of your lives.

          2. Dude (and/or Dudette) you have to give me more than a couple of hours to find when people are talking to me on a ColoradoPols thread. All appearances aside, I do occasionally do other things.

            Let me respond to your only question for me by saying that I am only saying here that giving Lieberman a Chairmanship has no purpose beyond furthering some inside games of the Senate.

            I am not trying to purge him from the Party. The voters of the State of Connecticut chose a different Democrat for the job. Even then, I still did not call for him to leave the Party. He did that on his own when he campaigned against the Democrats in a number of races including, but by no means limited to, the Presidential race.

            Even then I did not call for the Party to push him away.

            I merely said that a Democratic Party leadership role should not be granted a candidate who actively fought to defeat the Democratic Party.

            If that is “pandering to the base” then Hell Ya, I am all for that. And I encourage the Republicans to follow that in absolute measure. There is a big difference between being an inclusive party that encourages broad views and one that ignores the public will.

            Lieberman campaigned on, and was defeated on, an approach to national security. If the voters had elected McCain then it would have been appropriate to appoint Lieberman Secretary of State, but the voters wanted something different. Giving Lieberman a Chairmanship over Homeland Security makes sense from a crass inside politics Senate power play view, but does nothing to improve the Democratic reach into the center of the political spectrum.

        4. If we have a theoretical Congressman who is voting to support his buddy – who composed a justification for this country to torture.  He supports the erosion of our civil liberties in the name of “homeland security”.  And he supports another buddy who has been spending his time lately actively tearing down the Democratic Party and its agenda all while claiming to be a Democrat.

          Wouldn’t you say something?  We’re not asking for much.  Not, as the “right” would say, support of NAMBLA, MoveOn.org, and hot man-on-dog action.  I don’t think we’re even asking for “perfection” as a moderate.

          Sometimes, just sometimes, though… it seems like Salazar goes out of his way to vote opposite the desire of Progressives.

        5. That’s sort of an amorphous term. By what measure is Joe Lieberman a centrist? Why would removing his committee chairmanship be a move to the “far left”?  

            1. Too many closely related threads, didn’t mean to wander.

              If someone wants to primary Salazar that’s their prerogative, it’s a fools errand for many reasons but primary’s are generally good for the health of a party. You can force incumbents to move their positions relative to the challenger, you can wake up safe incumbents who are coasting, etc.

              1. or less evil guy depending on who’s side you’re on.

                The fact that the Republicans are salivating over the mere prospect of a primary opponent for Salazar is enough for me to be against it.

                Also, where are the calls for a primary opponent for Ritter? He’s done a hell of a lot less than Salazar has.

              2. You can make the party stronger (like what happened with the Hillary v. Obama presidential contests, which also made Obama a much better campaigner) or you can end up hurting the good guy (or less evil guy depending on who’s side you’re on.)

                You’re right, though, that whoever wants to run against Salazar, it’s their prerogative (and political funeral if you ask me.) What I am against is an organized, grassroots campaign against Ken purely because he’s not ideologically pure enough for the far-left. It seems like a kind of “political cleansing” that only serves to weaken our coalitions, and drive out the middle.

                The fact that the Republicans are salivating over the mere prospect of a primary opponent for Salazar is enough for me to be against it.

  15. There’s a big difference between kicking him out of the caucus and stripping him of his chairmanship.  You’ll notice Obama’s statement is very specific on that.  

    Last time I checked the name of the committee is Homeland Security AND governmental affairs.  Notice how Lieberman seems to have ignored that latter part.  

    1. That what they’re saying, it’s probably right but not 100% certain.

      Personally I say fuck Lieberman (R), but I’m also not interested in giving him any more oxygen. Let him stay with us if he’ll vote the right away, and hopefully he’ll get capped in 2012–or too busy trying not to to talk smack.

  16. Does President elect Obama’s rather abrupt decision to resign from the Senate on Sunday have anything to do with the vote on Tuesday as to whether or not to oust Lieberman as Homeland Security Committee Chairman?

      1.    Does control of the Senate revert back to the GOP until January with Obama’s resignation and Lieberman’s questionable status in the Dem caucus?

          Biden better make his resignation effective 12:01 a.m. on 1/20/09.

        1. the Governor of Illinois will appoint a replacement (assuredly a Democrat) ASAP for the  lame duck session. They will then have to defend their seat in 2 years when Obama’s original term is done.

          Good point though, OQD, I hadn’t thought about it.

          1.    Not that there are that many Repubs petty enough to try something like that!  But it might be their last chance to be in the “majority” for a while.

  17. I don’t think Salazar will have a strong primary challenge.  I will also state that primaries usually help the eventual candidate.  There were some issues that both Salazars handled better because they had already had to campaign before the general.  A cakewalk to nomination should rarely occur.  I can’t imagine anyone wanting to run against Ken right now.  That said, I would vote for Mike Miles but I would rather he ran for something else.

    The other issue is Lieberman.  My understanding is that Homeland Security & Govt Affairs is not a top-tier committee but is important.  Now, I don’t see what he brings to the caucus in the way of issues.  (But his vote.)  C’mon people!  He’s a Democrat dressed as an Independent.  When push comes to shove he will stay in the majority caucus, maybe for personal, maybe for political reasons.  And if he goes to the Republican caucus, that is up to him but I personally think he will be a poison pill for the Republicans.  

    Ultimately, I think Lieberman must be treated as an adult.  Lose the chairmanship because he’s been a poor chair and let him decide which way to go.  We can’t make him stay but we can kick him out.

  19. Ok, so a person created http://www.ProgressivePartner.org and sent out an email. No contact info, real names etc – almost certainly it’s one person. Wow!

    This strikes me as making a much bigger deal out of the primary idea to then shut down any negative comments about Salazar’s support of Lieberman.

    Let’s keep in mind that until we see some people doing more than an anonomous website, there is effectively zero effort to primary Salazar.

    In the meantime, for those of us that think Lieberman deserves at least a public spanking, do exercise your right and responsibility to let Salazar’s office know.

  21. This is about Salazar.  Making this about Miles is a strawman, since coloradopols is the only one who brought up his name.  

    Salazar should be challenged in the primary.  

     He does not back the party nominees.   Salazar backed Lieberman when the Connecticut Democrats nominated Lamont for Senate in 2006.

     Salazar pushed through the appointment of Gonzales, the architect of US torture.

  22.     “Every Senator will have to vote the way he or she believes they should,” Leahy said, in a reference to the upcoming vote on Lieberman’s fate in the Dem caucus next week. “I’m one who does not feel that somebody should be rewarded with a major chairmanship after doing what he did.”

       “I felt some of the attacks that he was involved in against Senator Obama…went way beyond the pale,” Leahy continued. I thought they were not fair, I thought they were not legitimate, I thought they perpetuated some of these horrible myths that were being run about Senator Obama.”

       “I would feel that had I done something similar,” Leahy concluded, “that I would not be chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee in the next Congress.”

    ————-

    I’ll add to that, watch these two Rachel Maddow commentaries and then say it’s wise to reward him with the Homeland Security Committee Chairmanship:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v… and

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v…

    We the people, elected a new Congress and Obama as President to effect change. Think of each position of power as a zero sum game, starting with a vacant Chairmanship. In order to promote their agenda, Democrats have every right to appoint a true Democrat and a team player to the Chairmanship of every committee. Who is the Democratic Senator who will do the best job as the Homeland Security Committee chair? Lieberman is by no stretch of the imagination, still a Democrat. He hasn’t done squat as chair over the last two years. He’s hostile to the Democratic Party and it’s goals. He has said he’ll vote with Republicans on filibusters. He doesn’t deserve the Chairmanship.

    1. I’m inclined to think he knows what he’s doing and if keeping Lieberman in his present position is what Obama wants to do at this point, I’m inclined to believe he has thought this through.  He certainly seems to  be pretty good at figuring out how to get where he wants to go.  

Leave a Comment

Recent Comments


Posts about

Donald Trump
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Lauren Boebert
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Yadira Caraveo
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado House
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado Senate
SEE MORE

251 readers online now

Newsletter

Subscribe to our monthly newsletter to stay in the loop with regular updates!