Talk:Democrat In Name Only

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article was nominated for deletion on 2005-09-18. The result of the discussion was keep.

• Previous deletion debate

"The terms RINO and DINO tend to be used pejoratively by conservative Republicans and liberal Democrats, respectively, to slander members of their own party for maverick positions"

I don't think that's very fair or true. How is it "slander" to say that when it is true, at least in the view of the beholder? And in the example of Michael Bloomberg, he actually was a Democrat, but joined the Republican party to skip the primaries. (unsigned, but this was User:RNJBOND. Sig added Jmabel 18:15, Sep 8, 2004 (UTC))

It is totally fair and true, but you're right, it's not appropriate for a Wikipedia article. And you're wrong about Bloomberg - there was never any indication that he was considering running for the Democratic nomination. If we're putting people up there just because they switched parties, we should put up Eisenhower and Hillary. Ike never declared his political affiliation until he ran for President, while Hillary was President of her College Republicans!--Xinoph 05:46, Nov 15, 2004 (UTC)

To be fiscally liberal means to have a liberal economic policy -i.e. Not spending money. I presume a RINO is usually a Democrat in Republican clothing -and the Republicans supposedly want to be fiscally liberal. So how does a Democrat become to fiscally liberal to be a Republican? (unsigned, anonymous) approx Sep 8, 2004 (UTC))

No, actually, that is not what fiscally liberal means. "Fiscal conservatism" means concern for minimizing government debt. "Fiscal liberalism" is the opposite, being more open to government debt. I'm not sure if the etymology of the latter term is by analogy to the other or harkens back to the older non-political meaning of "liberal": free with one's purse. And I'm not sure what your remark is intended to address, since the comment that you are responding to didn't use either term.

Apparently then, we have the most fiscally liberal president in modern history right now, and Reagan is a close second. Wolfman 02:25, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Yes. And I'm not sure "liberal" in this sense is related closely to political "liberalism", I think it may derive from "liberal with one's purse", a much older meaning of "liberal". -- Jmabel | Talk 05:48, Nov 7, 2004 (UTC)

Back to RNJBOND: The word "slander" seems to have been removed from the article after RNJBOND wrote this, which is as it should be. -- Jmabel 18:15, Sep 8, 2004 (UTC)

Joe Lieberman did not support the empeachment of president Clinton, he just criticized Clinton for his affair, at least I'm pretty sure of that Pimpalicious

You're absolutely right. I changed this once before, but it was reverted. I've changed it again. RadicalSubversiv E 09:24, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Contents 1 Removing Lieberman and Isakson - Why? 2 Quote on Moderates in GOP 3 VfD 4 Sourcing 5 DINO's 6 Citation? 7 The List 8 Why the split? 9 RINO/DINO 10 Barack Obama??? 11 Deletions? 12 "Conservative Democrats of the Past"

[edit] Removing Lieberman and Isakson - Why?

Why do you keep removing these two from the list? The list is meant to communicate people at whom the charge has been levelled, which is certainly the case for these two. Are they your pet Senator and Representative, or something? -Joseph (Talk) 20:16, 2004 Oct 19 (UTC)

Having Lieberman on the list makes sense, given the definition, but Isakson doesn't - from all indications he'll be a moderate-to-conservative U.S. Senator after being a moderate-to-conservative Congressman. If the charge was levied against Isakson, it was specious and probably happened during the recent U.S. Senate primary in Georgia. Nationally amongst conservatives I've never heard Isakson's name mentioned in the same breath as Guiliani, Lincoln Chafee, and Schwarzenegger.--Xinoph 05:51, Nov 15, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Quote on Moderates in GOP

This seems totally unnecessary and biased. The article neutrally explains the term fairly well without the commentary. Unless we can find equivalent commentary for the DINO section, it should be deleted. --Xinoph 05:42, Nov 15, 2004 (UTC)

That doesn't explain your other edits. You deleted some people who are in currently in the news right now for doing or saying things that lend credibility to the RINO charge. Specter was on Sean Hannity's show last night defending himself against the charge. And yet you deleted him from the list? -Joseph (Talk) 05:50, 2004 Nov 15 (UTC)

I don't believe I ever deleted Specter - if I did it was a mistake. I did recently add Olympia Snowe and George Pataki. The only person I've deleted recently is Johnny Isakson, who from all I know is fairly conservative (see my comments above).--Xinoph 05:55, Nov 15, 2004 (UTC)

Your first edit of the night is where Specter was removed. -Joseph (Talk) 06:18, 2004 Nov 15 (UTC)

[edit] VfD

This article is currently being discussed as a deletion candidate. The dominant reason for its nomination is its putative violation of NPOV. I think the source of that concern comes from the lists of names. I recommend that the lists be removed from the article. They add very little (or nothing) to a reader's understanding of the topic of the article yet they will be very difficult to maintain. Vandal-bait might not be too strong a term. Rossami (talk) 10:03, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I strongly disagree. See the VfD entry. -Joseph (Talk) 15:37, 2004 Nov 22 (UTC)

[edit] Sourcing

I'm not sure what criteria are being pushed as acceptable citation, but here's one for Colin Powell. Is this an acceptable citation, or is something in particular needed, and if so, would someone please clarify the criteria? -- Jmabel | Talk 08:12, Nov 23, 2004 (UTC)

Yeah, I do remember looking at that. There's a boatload of opinions over at freerepublic.com, but these all seem to be the views of individuals—individuals much less notable than Robert Novak. This one is arguably better though, because it doesn't seem to be self-published (as freerepublic essntually is). Sure, we could include it, but I'm not as comfortable listing him on such a thin source. Especially because other usual suspects like the Republican Assemblies say no such thing about him. (Perhaps simply because he was on Bush's team?)

Determining criteria is something we should do by consensus. Let me suggest minimal standards: no blogs, no forums, no self-published articles. I would not be strongly opposed to that source on Powell. Cool Hand Luke 08:25, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for sourcing the groups you did, that does improve the article a great deal. However, I'm still concerned that there aren't references to where or when the label was applied, although the by who is a good start. If a miscreant were to come along now and try to add some random other republican to the list, they would probably add one of the source acronyms too to make it look more legitimate. Considering the disparaging nature of the label, I think it is very important to list precise sources for all of the accused RINOs and DINOs named in this article. I am still in favor of this article being deleted, but as it seems unlikely (by the current VfD count) that it will, I am glad to see it getting closer to being NPOV. ~leif ☺ _HELO 08:47, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Good point. Do we want to turn the acronyms at the end of each into external links? Cool Hand Luke 08:59, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

For example: "* Sen. John S. McCain III of Arizona (CFG, NFRA)"

Exactly. If you do that for every name, it will be a huge improvement to these lists. ~leif ☺ _HELO 09:59, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Great idea. -- Jmabel | Talk 19:18, Nov 23, 2004 (UTC)

OK. I have RINOs sourced, but the DINOs are significantly more difficult. To my knowledge, there are no "DINO hunting" groups. If anyone has source ideas, I'd love to hear them. Terry McAuliffe apparently called Miller an "in name only" [1], but Democratic in-fighting seems much less prevailent. Cool Hand Luke 09:39, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Google turns up numerous references for some of them (Lieberman and Miller in particular). The inclusion of Herseth seems pretty marginal to me. RadicalSubversiv E 10:14, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

If the DINO labels aren't sourced soon I am going to remove the list. Wikipedia cannot definitively state that these people are "democrats in name only". Someone who is in favor of keeping the list, please, edit the article to indicate who says these are people are "DINO"s. I have already removed the most recent addition to the DINO list, as it was added (without a source) after the sourcing issue was already discussed. ~leif ☺ _HELO 22:27, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

There are no DINO-hunting organizations on the left, so there's so no organized group issuing lists. However, there are unquestionably some Democrats (Miller, in particular) who have been referred to in the mainstream press (as well as lots of obscure blogs) as such -- evidence of which is plentiful with a simple google search. I have added some citations to reflect this for Lieberman, Miller, and Baucus. I'll be surprised if anyone can come up with significant citations for Herseth or Koch. I've also heard Ben Nelson put in the DINO category; I'll see if I can come up with any citations. RadicalSubversiv E 23:25, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for starting. Unfortunately, some of the sources you added are pretty questionable:

• [2] - this google search is a good starting point to find real references, but it is not one in itself. Interesting to note that a mirror of an old version of this very article is currently the 3rd site in those results.
• [3] - an article is about Miller's criticism of the democrats. Briefly notes that (unnamed) democrats have called him a DINO. I'm not saying Miller isn't one (considering his statements at the RNC he is probably more deserving of the label than anyone else on the list), but I would think there are probably better sources than a sentence saying unnamed democrats have called him that.
• [4] [5] - weblogs are by default questionable sources, but an established blogger/professional-journalist like Gillmor would probably be acceptable - except for that the part about Miller being a DINO is in the blog's comments, and not Gillmor's entry.

I hope better sources than these can be found. ~leif ☺ _HELO 00:22, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I agree on excluding all but the most notable blogs. Most Republicans appear to have been labeled RINO by a blogger somewhere. I added the news story that quotes Terry McAuliffe calling Miller a Democrat in name only. I don't think there's much better authority than that. Cool Hand Luke 00:35, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I included the Google result on Lieberman because it reflects the sheer frequency with which the label is referred to him, even if few of the sources are individually notable (no reporter with a reputation to defend is prepared to call a former vice-presidential nominee a DINO). The inclusion of Gillmor's blog was an error on my part; thanks to Luke for the correction. I think the CNN reference is adequate, but Luke's inclusion of a McAuliffe quote should settle the matter. I included the Badger Herald blog because it comes from a relatively well-known student newspaper, but I'm not particularly attached to it. RadicalSubversiv E 00:41, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Yeah, the google results were much cleaner than I would have imagined. Almost all those links were from people calling him a DINO. Perhaps we could include it as a "see also." Cool Hand Luke 00:49, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I would say to just proceed. Leif is on some sort of jihad. -Joseph (Talk) 01:10, 2004 Dec 4 (UTC)

Please refrain from personal attacks, Joseph. I honestly don't care much about the specific politicians; I'm just trying to keep Wikipedia true to one of its most important policies (WP:NPOV). What do you mean by "just proceed"? I really can't understand why you would be against having credible sources for the people being labeled on these lists. ~leif ☺ _HELO 02:00, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] DINO's

I think we might could add Sen.John Breaux from Lousiana in the list of DINO's.I believe he 's the most conservative Democrat member of Senate.I add him in the list.If you check this page you will find he should be in the list!--Sina 22:21, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Breaux isn't most conservative Democrat in the Senate (take a look at Nelson, Miller, and Baucus). Regardless, you'll have to provide a citation where someone notable calls him a DINO. RadicalSubversiv E 22:31, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

By that standard, Herseth in Koch must go. Herseth is extremely marginal, and I believe Koch has only been called DINO since he endorsed Bush—not when he was actually mayor. Interestingly, Breaux called an ex-democrat a "Benidict Arnold" for switching parties[6]. In fact, the Daily Kos blog pointedly contrasted him with Miller[7]. I would not oppose if there are good sources though. Cool Hand Luke 23:41, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

On Herseth: I don't think she should be included just based on her vote for the FMA. According to this breakdown, 36 House Democrats voted for the FMA. Unless we want to include all 36, we shouldn't include Herseth. As for Ed Koch, you are correct in that he was never called a DINO before coming out in support of Bush. Nobody called him a DINO during his actual tenure as mayor. Of course, the term didn't exist them, but the sentiment wasn't there either. Still, supporting the other party's presidential candidate is rather big, so if a good source can be found, I would say keep him.

Also, I think including Baucus on the list is somewhat questionable. Yes, he's part of the conservative wing of the party, but he isn't really widely called a DINO. I won't remove him right now, but I'd like to get a gauge of how many people think he should stay on the list, and why.

Breaux clearly should not be included. modargo 01:50, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Just a reminder that this isn't a list of people we consider DINOs, it's a list of people who have been labeled as such by others. As such, I would have no objections to including Breaux, despite the fact that I personally wouldn't judge him as such, so long as there's reasonable sourcing available. RadicalSubversiv E 01:59, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Citation?

Unless someone has citations for Don Sundquist and Rick Perry, they should be removed from the list. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:42, Dec 27, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] The List

Neutrality,

If you have a problem with the list, then try to fix the list - not censor the list.

Perhaps you might want to add NRA, National RTL & ACU ratings (both current term and lifetime).

And with non-Congressional office holders, maybe list some of their policy postions, public statements, etc.

I think the list is not perfect, but it is useful.

Why not try to improve it, instead.

It's impossible to come up with a list of DINO's that everyone would agree on. It shocks me to see Henry M. Jackson on the list. He was very hawkish, but typically Democratic on nearly all domestic issues. The list doesn't have to be removed, IMO; but I do think that anyone on the list should include a citation where someone called the politician a DINO, the DINO refused to endorse Democrats, or at least where the politician faced serious primary opposition from Democrats unhappy with what they saw as conservatism.

I'm not saying that's perfect either, as Jimmy Carter faced a serious presidential primary challenge in 1980 from the left, based on fairly conservative domestic policies (despite very liberal foreign policies), but no one could seriously call him a DINO. However, most true DINO's do face serious primary challenges from the left, as Henry Cuellar and Joe Lieberman are in the 2006 election cycle, and as Ed Koch did from David Dinkins. The "one issue" alleged DINO's, from Henry M. Jackson to Daniel Patrick Moynihan, would be hard to fit into any of the above categories, as they were overall centrists or even somewhat left of center to the point that the label is unjustified.

What I'm trying to do is put some objectivity to the list, although it would never be perfectly objective-- Carter shouldn't be listed even though my attempt at objective criteria would include him-- and additionally maybe there's a way to improve the criteria. KP 23:23, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

The list is meaningless of Jackson is on it. By that standard Truman and JFK are DINOs. The Democratic Party has shifted over time, as have the Republicans. Nelson Rockefeller was a positively liberal Republican, and there were countless Boll Weevil Democrats more conservative than the average modern Republican. -- FRCP11 09:48, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I had made basically the same remark about Jackson below at Talk:Democrat_In_Name_Only&diff=56472019&oldid=46684310#.22Conservative_Democrats_of_the_Past.22. - Jmabel | Talk 01:50, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Why the split?

Why were the RINO and DINO material split from one another? It seemed to me that treating the two in the same context was much more conducive to balance and NPOV. Was there a discussion of this somewhere that I missed, or was this done unilaterally? -- Jmabel | Talk 04:17, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)

I'm fairly certain it was done unilaterally, and I agree with you that the previous solution was preferable. RadicalSubversiv E 04:23, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] RINO/DINO

While I've heard the term RINO frequently, I'm not sure I've ever heard DINO and the article is clear that the term RINO came first -- so I'm not really sure why the title of this page is Democrat In Name Only and Republican In Name Only is a redirect. Is that too picky a point? Greyfedora 11:26, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Never mind, the link I followed was labelled RINO but led here anyway. I'll go fix it and check my facts next time... Greyfedora 11:28, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Barack Obama???

I have literally never heard anyone accuse Barack Obama of being a DINO. I doubt this is citable.

A while back, we were saying that we would only include people on this page if they were accused of being a DINO by a credible source (mainly non-blog press or organizations within the party). This seems to have totally gone by the wayside. If this is just a place for random slagging, it ceases to be a useful encyclopedia article. -- Jmabel | Talk

No doubt. It seems like most of these are just the additions of people who want to take something out on their least favourite legislator. Crunk 19:15, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

I have removed Obama, pending citation. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:28, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Should all the uncited ones be removed? I've seen talk of a decision as such, but I'm not sure. Crunk 14:40, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

I think we need to establish first what are acceptable citations, then someone needs to make a serious good-faith effort to track down citations, then we need to remove what can't be cited. A fringe benefit of referencing is that all of this would be more useful if it included indications of who has called someone a DINO. For example, if Howard Dean said this, it means a lot more than if some random blogger said this. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:45, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Barack Obama would qualify as a DINO as much as some people on this list. Barack Obama has on many times endorsed candidates that were not supported by the Democratic party. 75.3.28.188 18:06, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Can you give two examples? - Jmabel | Talk 05:34, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Deletions?

Somebody removed almost all of the names of Democratic politicians who had been accused of being DINOS from the list. Because of this, I have placed most of the names of the politicians who had been removed back up, along with a few additional ones. You may add further info. to these names I added - I just don't have the time to go into detail about them right now. All of the names which I added to the list can perfectly be described as "Democrats In Name Only" because many of them take Republican leaning positions on most, many, or almost all issues! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 129.44.27.100 (talk • contribs) 7 Feb 2006.

Reading through the history, the removals were made because there were no citations. And I don't see anything you have done to remedy that. This is not supposed to be an opinion piece about who could be called a DINO, it is supposed to be about who has been called a DINO by some significant writer or group. -- Jmabel | Talk 20:22, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

AFAIK, Dick Morris does not publicly identify himself as a Democrat and does not belong here. His time as a Clinton adviser was an aberration, and not reflective of his political allegiance. --Soultaco 00:19, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Conservative Democrats of the Past"

I can't really see why the section "Conservative Democrats of the Past" exists. The Democrats were not historically a party of the left or even the center-left. They were largely a coalition of white southerners (mainly Protestant and of British Isles ancestry) and mostly non-WASP northerners, especially working-class immigrants. The former were often conservative. Prior to the late 1960s there would be no reason to think of a conservative as somehow not a Democrat. -- Jmabel | Talk 01:57, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

And now Henry M. Jackson? He was a strong anti-communist (but despised McCarthyite red-baiting) and a strong supporter of the Vietnam War, but on domestic matters he was basically a liberal. He was a strong environmentalist (one of the leaders on environmental legislation), a strong supporter of the expansion of civil rights, strongly allied with the labor movement (which was, itself, divided over the Vietnam War). And, except for Boeing (with which he was closely aligned) he was not generally a friend of business interests. If this makes him a conservative, that certainly means Lyndon Johnson was a conservative.

In short, I'm removing his name from the list. -- Jmabel | Talk 02:49, 3 April 2006 (UTC)