Are standards a bad thing?

[theboss]

I probably have too low a post count to bring up this question, but I am curious. In recent weeks here, I've seen support for Larry Flynt's gubenatorial campaign and Al Sharpton's presidential campaign. When the vast number of misdeeds by both are listed, excuses are made, their actions are downplayed, or the standard "Yes, but they are not as bad as Republicans" line is brought out. This troubles me.

So, my question is, am I hopelessly old-fashioned or completely out of touch in saying that I would never - under any circumstances - vote for a pornographer? Or that I simply can't look past Sharpton's involvement with the Tawana Bawley fiasco, what I view as the incitement of violence against Jewish merchants, or involvement with drug dealers?

I guess my question is, should we as party faitful be accepting of anyone as long as they put a "D" behind their name?

To me, the most disgusting political speech of the past twenty-five years was Pat Buchanan's address at the 1992 Republican Convention. I was about to vote for the first time and not fully developed an ideology. But I knew - then and there - that I could not ever be associated with a party that put someone like Pat front and center.

So, again, am I out of touch to be unnerved that there seems to be a place in the Democratic Party for people I find reprehensible?

[jiacinto]

1. I don't like Sharpton or Flynt either

You aren't alone.

[nini]

2. Standards are good.

I think what is going on- especially with flynt - are people are looking for a 'in your face' response the repukes.

when it comes down to election day.. I'm sure everyone will be serious and make a sensible choice.. IMHO

[DarkPhenyx]

5. Or we'll wake up Nov 8 with a hangover...

...saying "What? The motherfucker won?"

[nini]

13. no kidding..

It's harder and harder these days to think people will use their brains anymore.

[Lars39]

3. As regards free speach, Larry Flynt has pretty high standards,

without his money backing up some lawsuits, we might be even more muzzled than we are at the present time.
Al Sharpton has been invaluable for getting a lot of Democratic issues out on the airwaves.

Democrats are said to represent the "Big Tent", ie everyone. Representing everyone is a big task, but it is do-able.

The Republicans want to marginalize and outlaw whole groups of people.
Decision: inclusive vs exclusive? Which do you want to be?

[theboss]

6. I want to be inclusive

But I don't want to be disgusting either. I may want to live in a diverse neighborhood, but I still may want to avoid certain elements of society (criminals, deviants, Opie and Anthony fans, etc).

[Lars39]

7. If you want a repressive,purged, lily-white party, then vote Republican.

You know, somebody could look at you or me, and say the same thing:
I just don't want to be around them. What makes your or my sh@t smell better than anybody else's? :shrug:

[outinforce]

8. The Question, I Think

The real question, I think, is ust how inclusive do you want us to be?

I see statements such as this:

"Democrats are said to represent the "Big Tent", ie everyone. Representing everyone is a big task, but it is do-able.

The Republicans want to marginalize and outlaw whole groups of people.
Decision: inclusive vs exclusive? Which do you want to be?"

and my first question is this: do we want the Democratic Party to represent pedophiles?

And, if not, are we not being "exclusive"?

Or, do we want the Democratic Party to represent wife-beaters? Or would we want to be the party that marginalizes and outlaws whole groups of people -- like wifebeaters, kitten-drowners, and others?

I would find it hard to vote for a pornographer. And I hate it when someone suggests that my dislike for pornographers means that I am somehow an exclusive person who is against a Big Tent.

[Lars39]

9. So don't vote for him. You make the same choice not to buy his mag.

If you are talking about convicted pedophiles that have served their sentence, and have had their voting ability restored...I don't see anyone actively campaigning for the felon vote, but does that mean we shouldn't let them vote Democratic if they are so inclined? I'm not specifying pedophiles, I mean any felon. (I personally do not think that pedophiles can be reformed, and would rather they remained in prison.) A felon that has paid his debt to society should have his vote restored. Obviously the Republican Party doesn't want to stick up for humans in general, so that leaves the Democratic Party. :shrug:

[theboss]

10. Two different issues

I have no problem with a felon who has served his sentence having his voting rights restored and being courted as a voter. The issue is should an unrepetant pornopgrapher be put front and center as a face of the party.

[Lars39]

12. He has the right to run if he wants to; you have the right to vote for

someone else. Why should your wishes outweigh the people who might want him to run, or his wish to run? Let the voters be the censors/deciders.

[sangha]

22. Be honest

No one is making Flynt the "face of the party"

The Repukes do the same thing you're doing here - Portraying all Dems on the basis of one Dem.

[wuushew]

19. Larry Flynt is a true patriot!

everyone who hasn't seen "The People vs. Larry Flynt" need to do so.

[sangha]

4. Vast # of misdeeds?

Or that I simply can't look past Sharpton's involvement with the Tawana Bawley fiasco,

Why not?

what I view as the incitement of violence against Jewish merchants,

Sharpton has never incited violence, which may be why you never provide any evidence to support your ridiculous charge.

or involvement with drug dealers?

The only involvement with drug dealers that Sharpton has had was either

a) Convincing them to stop selling drugs
b) Helping the Feds bust them

[SyracuseDemocrat]

25. Why can't he look past Tawana, you ask?

I can't look past Tawana either. He defamed that poor DA and accused him of being a rapist with NO proof at all. To this day he has not apologized and even bitched about paying the settlement that that poor man certainly deserved. Sharpton is an opportunist, and I for one am glad that he has no shot at the nomination.

[ArkDem]

11. Standards are good but many times they go out the window

at last call.

[BOSSHOG]

14. Many people oppose Jerry Springer because of their standards

but as Springer said yesterday on Crossfire, "wouldn't it be great if I were the 51st Democratic Vote in the U. S. Senate?" Everyone has standards including me. Therefore I will not vote or support a rapist, a corporate criminal or a deserter. I believe Larry Flynt exhibits greater "standards" than bush every will.

[theboss]

16. The larger point

I guess I just want candidates who are appealing in and of themselves. Candidates who are good people, have done noble things, and convince me that they will continue to do noble things. The "Flynt and Springer are better people than Bush" cry doesn't do it for me.

W is not the baseline for human behavior.

What I'm saying is that if my choice was W and Larry Flynt, I would write in my dad's name, because we are doomed as a nation at that point.

[damnraddem]

15. Sure, standards are great. But whose standards?

Your standards obviously differ from those of some other posters.

But the thing is: when you vote, get involved in campaigns, and so on, you can do so based on YOUR standards.

[Loonman]

17. I can't look past the Tawana Brawley thing, either

So my opinion on Al is I have no opinion; whatever he says means nothing to me.

[Ripley]

18. It's a free country man.

I think Larry Flynt is just doing a big publicity stunt folks, don't get too worked up.

As far as Sharpton goes....I don't understand what you are saying about his involvement with drug dealers. Sounds like something I've heard on the radio about Clinton's inolvement with drug dealers.

Care to provide some facts?

[theboss]

20. HBO Real Sports

http://www.nydailynews.com/front/story/5581p-5131c.html

The tape is Sharpton and an FBI informant discussing a coke deal. I saw the tape when it aired and Sharpton seemed enthusiastic as all get out.

[Ripley]

23. Sounds like a set-up to me.

He wasn't arrested for doing anything wrong. So what is your point?

[thehonesttruth]

21. is thinking a bad thing?

hell, no
standards, are what makes you, er, well you. and the more you think, the more you will find that there is good and bad in both parties, all religions and every corporations. don't fall for generalizations, seek the truth, and for goodness sake, vote for the ones that you feel best represent you. don't be a sheep, if if didn't like or dislike things you would be a rock.
however, don't become preach-y on every little nuance in the world. good luck with it.
BTW, i have so few standards, but i don't care if you are a discrimanating customer.

[newyawker99]

26. Hi thehonesttruth!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[jagguy]

24. its not a bad thing

but count on the fact that any candidate has to appeal to a broad base to weed out those who should not be there. Bush people will freak out over that but realistically he's not much different from other pols.