OK, the bashing must stop! there, i said it. i mean it!

[Gato Moteado]

i'm not much into political correctness or curbing one's own predilection for tossing invectives at political foes. of this you can be certain, especially if you've ever witnessed my penchant for letting fly my expletive-laced, abusive rhetoric at freepers, republicans and other aberrations of humanity. but, i have come to realize, finally, that the abuse tossed around between DUers (particularly between the deanies and clarkies) will do nothing but cause great harm to what i perceive as our very good chances of unseating the unelected, fraudulent chimp in 2004. what i'm really referring to is the negative language directed toward one candidate or another by DUers that support a different candidate, particularly when it's focused on dean, clark or kerry (which is where most of it seems to be focused). hey, one of these guys is going to be on top of that ticket...don't muddy their names and turn off potential voters before the real campaign is even under way. we need every democrat, independent and disenfranchised republican on our side in november.

i thought the ad hominem attacking would have stopped by now, but every time i go into GD i see more and more of it. personally, i'm a kucinich supporter but i realize that whomever gets the nomination (and right now it looks like dean has the best shot) is the one we're going to have to get behind. all of us...together! dean is not progressive enough to be my favorite candidate and neither is clark, yet i would be thrilled with a dean/clark ticket or a clark/dean ticket. either one of those guys on the top of the ticket, contrary to what many of their critics in DU say, would spell doom for bushco. count on it! dean has shown that he is not afraid to come out swinging and that is exactly what we need...it's what gore didn't do enough of in 2000. stop saying dean can't beat bush...nothing is farther from the truth. and, i'm sick of hearing clark's critics say stupid things like "he's a republican" or "he's working for rove". how ridiculous!

none of our candidates are going to be perfect for every one of us. we're always going to disagree with one thing or another. there are things i don't like about kerry and edwards too, yet they are lightyears ahead of bush when it comes to intelligence, compassion and leadership qualities. sharpton is my second favorite candidate in the race behind DK and i know he and braun don't have a chance because our country just isn't evolved enough yet to elect a black president. but i think they need to stay in the race as long as they can afford it and we need to support them as well, because they are injecting into the debate important issues that might otherwise go unexplored. even lieberman, who really is way too conservative and doesn't seem to offer much in the civic debate, should no longer be a target of our verbal attacks (and, i have been as guilty as anyone of that charge). i feel pretty confident lieberman doesn't have a chance in hell at getting on the ticket and of this i will admit i am happy. but what joe needs from us is a little encouragement to step back to the left...when he bows out of this race we need the conservative democrats that support him now to step behind whomever the nominee is. let's not alienate them. let's not alienate anyone that could potentially be on our side.

lastly, i think the green bashing needs to stop as well. i'm a green-dem, and while i'm not hurt when someone here bashes the greens or nader, i see no benefit in it. the greens really express the political attitudes that the democratic party should: no corporate welfare, no tax cuts for the wealthy, no unjust wars, publicly funded elections (no corporate special interest money behind the candidates), environmental protection at all costs, healthcare for everyone, etc. the green party is firmly planted in the left (where most of us want to be) and what we need to do is form a coalition with them and encourage our democratic nominee to do the same. the left is too fragmented, let's work on connecting the pieces and pulling it all back to the left so it really will be the true opposition party.

i'd love nothing more than to see dennis kucinich on the ticket come november and i'm going to keep donating to his campaign and spreading the word about him until i turn blue. but i also know it's more likely to be dean and/or clark on that ticket and there's no way i want to be part of a campaign to unjustly smear them just because they aren't my perfect candidates, because i don't want to turn off a single voter. the republicans are going to try to steal it again in 2004, you can bet on it. so, we need every single vote we can get to ensure that they aren't successful this time.

being critical is one thing...we need to correct our candidates when they start to go astray, but the bashing and ad hominem must stop. so, lets save the bashing and the smearing for the ones who rightly deserve it. i'm talking about bush, cheney, ashkroft, and the rest of the fascists.

do we have a deal?

[Name removed]

1. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[La_Serpiente]

2. how nice

:eyes:

[VelmaD]

3. Hee...

I read this and was getting ready to type out a well-thought-out response. And then an AIM window popped up with some chick wanting to know if I wanted to see her without her panties and I just can't do it. *snort*

Anyway, I'm sorry we're all upsetting you. I know you have a good point but I can't agree to be a good girl and not fight. Sorry. *hangs head in shame*

[Wonk]

4. Have you read Skinner's thread that's pinned to the top of GD yet?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=879675&mesg_id=879675

[Gato Moteado]

7. yeah, i read it.....

...and it probably is what prompted me to write this post, mainly because i agree with it but i didn't think it really addressed the issue of smearing dem candidates. i perceived it more to be in regard to DUers bashing each other.

like i said, i think constructive criticism of our candidates is good. we need to keep them honest. it's the smearing of these guys, especially dean and clark, that i find offensive considering they're probably going to be the ones we will be counting on in november to displace the fascists.

don't you agree?

[PurityOfEssence]

5. But...but...I'm a Philisdean; I JUST CAN'T STOP MYSELF!!!

Seriously (looked that one up in the dictionary, and thought I'd give it a whirl, strange concept though it is) we are experiencing one of those peak moments, and traditionally things get heated here.

The stakes are very high, and the deciding time is nigh, so it's to be expected that it'll get pretty heated. I know I've contributed to this, but I--like most nuisances--claim that I'm largely responding rather than initiating.

It was inevitable, when faced with a shockingly bad enemy (Junior) that different approaches to unseat him would clash. It's hard to keep one's head at time like these, yet these are the defining times of character, and too much slack shouldn't be given.

I'm sorry for the nice people who've been so very hurt and troubled by all this, but this too shall end, and take heart.

I, as are many, am highly resistant to groupthink and bandwagon approaches, and when one couples this with a belief that stampeding to a decision is simply not necessary, you can see why I'm obstructive to some of the current approaches. Let's just leave it at that. This place will never be free from rancor, but there's a very strong community standard of fairplay that we can all trust.

P.S.: We can do MUCH better than Dean from the choices available: Edwards, Kerry and Clark all can beat Junior; the former and latter even have a better chance, in my non-humble opinion.

[Gato Moteado]

10. it's not the hurting of feelings i'm concerned about....

...it's the hurting of our front runner's chances (whomever he or she might be) that concerns me.

hey, i'm all for constructive criticism and persuasive arguments. it's the ad hominem and unjust smearing that is getting ridiculous. calling clark a repuke or saying dean can't beat bush are the types of things that could ultimately hurt us. besides they aren't true.

[PurityOfEssence]

13. Okay, point taken somewhat, BUT...

Serious and shrill name-calling are out of line. Bear in mind, though, that many groups have used this tactic to scream down a candidate.

There's a poster on this board who's physically disabled and used to automatically shriek that Edwards "voted against the disabled" and was a callous so-and-so at every occasion. It was based on a vote for an appeals court judge with a checkered record. This person did untold damage to Edwards on this board, and when confronted with press releases about his proposed initiatives on the subject, she refused to read them, and refused to back down with the vitriol. This, I would say, is completely beyond the pale of decency. That is the kind of name-calling and knee-jerk ad hominem candidate crushing that is wrong.

I fully agree that calling a particular candidate a "nazi" or something like that is completely out of line.

Far too many people feel "entitled" to be above reproach, and this is what overheats things. I fully agree with wanting to shut down this kind of behavio, but there's some serious contention going on here, and it's necessary and to our ultimate benefit to let it run its course.

If you think that "hurting the front runner's chances" is off limits, then let's just coronate Dean and shut the fuck up right now. That's ridiculous. Within the bounds of accuracy and some decorum, it's IMPORTANT to bring out the vulnerabilities of the candidates; I GUARANTEE you the Republicans will. It behooves us to determine these things now, and the ridiculous, childish, panicky full-flight to end the torturous agony of actually having the question open to discussion is ridiculous. It's idiotic. Primaries are a big audition process; it's like opening a show out of town. It's like a shakedown cruise for a new ship. We want to stop that, and that's ruinous. The Party stalwarts are wrong for wanting to determine a nominee too early.

I'll leave you with this thought: the greatest failure of the left is that it has left so many people turned off on the process that they don't vote. Feeling disenfranchised like that, if we take away their primary, they'll feel even more cheated and continue opting out of the process. The default setting for far too many of the weak in this country is NOT VOTING. My--and most others on this board--reflex action is to vote, without question, even when hopeless. We'll just further fuck ourselves if we try to force a candidate on the electorate. They'll just say: "great, another rich liar." We can't TELL them how to vote; there's far too much of that coming from the Dean camp with their pronouncements of moral superiority, and his people aren't the only one carping out that tune. Many will be rubbed the wrong way by that form of autocracy.

We owe it to ourselves to have everything out in the open; you'll be surprised what become the dominant issues over a little time.

It's also elitist bordering on monarchistic for the most powerful to somehow claim an exemption. That's Republicanism, and it's just plain wrong. Everyone should have to answer for his/her actions, and fealty to the person who just happens to be succesful at the moment is slave mentality and religious self-subjugation.

Believe me, I liked the spirit of your thread-starting post. I was being whimsical with my first post, but it has foundation in reality. There's no way we're going to be polite to the most powerful (while granting ourselves the right to slag and hammer the weak candidates) and somehow not draw attention to the weaknesses of those leading candidates. The right already knows about them. We need to have a general campaign where we maintain the initiative, not where we're explaining the daily gaffes of the current frontrunner. The way we do that is to choose wisely and point out those frailties ourselves and do something about them.

[Gato Moteado]

17. whoa.....

....i certainly wasn't suggesting in any way that we cancel the primaries and coronate dean.

believe me, you and i agree more than we disagree. and, you're right...the repubs already have their knives sharpened to try to smear whomever our candidate is.

the main reason the bashing and smearing troubles me is that i feel it is exactly what will turn off those potential dem and independent voters you mentioned come november.

i'm not saying you have to like candidate x because he or she is probably going to be the nominee. but, i do feel that spreading damaging negative energy within our base directed at a candidate or candidates could very well take a chunk out of their potential support. how big a chunk would be affected by DU is not known at this time, but consider that the 2000 florida election totals were certified with chimpy having only 537 more votes than gore. maybe that's a bad example because we know that gore's real total was much higher than chimpy's. but imagine what would have happened if gore had formed a coalition with the greens. he might have gotten a big enough chunk out of the 90,000 votes that went to nader and made it impossible for the slimy repukes to steal florida. remember also that at least 100,000 registered dems in florida voted for chimpy. these are the people we want to turn on, not turn away.

i'm all for the process in place to weed out the weak and allow the strongest candidate to emerge. but, let's do it with rational discourse not ad hominem attacks that will only cripple our nominee when he or she emerges.

[PurityOfEssence]

20. Whinnie, whinnie, snort, snort

Quite true. I don't think you're that far off in your take on this, but I think you're denying human nature.

This is the time for infighting. This is the time to clear the air. Sure, it may turn off some people, but it'll also enliven some people. The galvanization that'll come when we finally do pick someone will be a time of unbridled glee, and those who have a weak constitution in the face of strife and acrimony will have a much better time then. This is not that time. Letting it be a bit of a slugfest is GOOD; if it degenerates into a slagging hatefest, that's bad. Look at how the mods run this board, though: they're containing the dangerous ones, and letting steam get blown off.

Coronating a candidate now is a bad thing, regardless of who it is. Letting the primaries run their course can almost not fail: if we nominate someone more moderate and lose splinters to a third party, we will also gain many more swing voters; if we nominate a more leftist or anti-war candidate we will lose swing voters, but gain the splinter voters and many who never vote. It's good either way. (You'll note I use the term "anti-war" to encompass Dean; there are only two nominees farther to the right than him, and possibly only one.)

There are safety valves in place, including yours with this thread; note that some other threads with MANY more posts were started after yours and are now locked. Struggle is good. Think of us as soccer hooligans in the UK: they smash up property and people and cast a bad light on the sport, but do they dampen enthusiasm for the game itself? Most of the more timid or casual won't be put off by our periodic furore, and if they do, well...they might have a gentle and low-impact life, but it's the life of the spectator.

[Robbien]

6. There are many of us here that do not enjoy politics

We came to DU to find out what is going on. See if there is anything we can do. And gain support from others who feel lost as scared as we are.

But all this fighting just makes me more scared. I wish regular discussion could be separated from backroom down and dirty political discussion.

[WilliamPitt]

8. DU is not America

Equating what is happening here vis a vis campaigns to what is happening beyond the walls of your home is a bad, bad idea. Because it's not an accurate representation at all.

[Gato Moteado]

11. i totally agree with ya will....

...but the fact is that DU does get exposure from time to time in the mainstream. i'd hate to see rush or one of the other propogandists (or a mainstream media outlet for that matter) expose our dirty laundry.

additionally, we really don't know how many lurkers we have here. i'd hate for DU to be an impetus for the permeation of unjust smearing of likely candidates among the general population of likely voters, no matter how big or small the effect might be.

i'm not saying i think we should impose any sort of a rule in DU pertaining to this. i'm just suggesting we might want to show some restraint. i'd like to see DUers continue to critique our candidates...i just don't see how bashing and smearing our own guys will be beneficial in any way.

and, remember this is coming from a very, very green-dem...if there's anyone who likes to attack dems for not being progressive enough it's me. furthermore, i can be as irrational and emotional as anyone. i'm just starting to get nervous when i see some of the crap i'm seeing in GD. i'm a DK man but i have a feeling dean is going to get the nomination and i don't want to give the repukes any more ammunition to go after dean than they already have. the same goes for clark, kerry, edwards or gephardt.

[mzmolly]

12. I totally agree.

Show some restraint and dignity when posting here about the would be Democratic nominee, whomever that may be? .

[Robbien]

14. I do not believe I said that DU is America

If the people in my everyday life gave me the support and knowledge to be able to join the movement to get rid of Bush, I would not need DU. But it is now getting close to the point that my aversion for the infighting is overwhelming my desire to be here. That doesn't mean I will stop fighting, just that I need to get away from all this negativity.

[bearfartinthewoods]

16. with all due respect, may i suggest the lounge?

[onecitizen]

19. Boy, Will's right about that..........

it's just like anything else in life. You have to do your own research and reach your own conclusions. Say you went to a medical community board and someone offered you advice on some ailment you had. Would you rush out and try to get or do whatever that stranger on that board advised you to do? I doubt it. I HOPE not anyway. Same goes here. Even though many of them are quite persuasive :), face it, we don't know each other or know what motives each other have. Buyer beware.......sort of.

Personally I like DU because I know everyone here has the same goal as I do. GET BUSH OUT OF AL'S HOUSE! I know very few Dems in my neck of the woods surprisingly. So I like to come here and listen to things about Dems. No right wing hypocrisy here (most of the time). But still, you have to make up your own mind about everything in life. Including politics. I wasn't here for the 2000 election (came a few mos later because of it) and while bickering was common, it wasn't like it is now. Because it is the primary season. When it's settled I have hope things will calm down. So, don't despair, hang in there with us.

[democratreformed]

9. Good Luck n/t

[Hope4]

15. Dems want a election not a selection

We hated fla and yelled and screamed so why not on here when two groups try to select who they want and exclude all the other hard working loyal dems.

I was a gentle dean supporter but I am thinking of not voting for him with the clinton (clark) vrs Gore (dean) fight to select instead of elect. Of course they have the media on their side. DK scored big time with abc but they fixed him fast.

[Gato Moteado]

18. hey, i'm all for yelling and screaming and arguing.....

...we want to shake things up. we want to talk about strengths and weaknesses and we want our best candidate to emerge. we don't tolerate it when the corporate controlled media smears and lies about the left. let's not tolerate trolling here. try not to engage in ad hominem attacks directed at candidates and try to encourage rational discussion about them instead.