Democrats.com Unity Pledge

[William Seger]

http://democrats.com/elandslide/petition.cfm?campaign=unity

[Renew Deal]

1. I posted this the other day.

What I find interesting is that there is a lot of this going on. I say Terry M. talking about unity last night. We have people here screaming about unity. I don't even things have gotten that bad yet. I remember Gore and Bradley. They were killing each other. This is probably the result of being labeled as Bush-lite and not real democrats. That behavior is divisive.

[mmonk]

2. I might would sign it

except for the fact of the foreign policy leanings of candidate Lieberman.

[William Seger]

7. The pledge doesn't proscribe criticizing policies that you don't like

"We welcome the vigorous competition of ideas in our Democratic primaries. But we insist that this competition be conducted with civility, respect, and even love for fellow Democrats. We reject all divisive efforts, whether by individual candidates or their supporters."

[William Seger]

4. I just got it in an e-mail this morning

Sorry if it's a dup, but I didn't see it here in a three-day search.

Yeah, Gore v. Bradley was pretty ugly. Let me see now, what happened that year... it seems so long ago.....

[Renew Deal]

5. It's not a dupe

I was just mentioning that. I also got the email the other day.

[UnityDem]

8. Uniting behind someone other than Dean

I find it interesting that some are saying Dean can not beat Bush.
Maybe that's true. Maybe none of our 9 can.
However, if there is truly a belief among the 4 "establishment" candidates that Dean is our WORST choice, then 3 of them need to make a tough choice.
Kerry, Lieberman, Gephardt, and Edwards need to come together and decide which of them should be the party's "pro-war" candidate and the other three drop out. If they don't do this BEFORE Iowa and N.H., then I believe that it will be too late.
Dean will have so much momentum that it will be only he and Clark (another perceived "anti-war" candidate)left standing and Dean will have a huge advantage in organization/endorsements/ and probably money.

Doubt this will happen. Their egos are too big to see the handwriting on the wall. All 4 seem not to be able to read or believe the state after state numbers that show them all falling.

None of this bothers me as Dean is now my first choice and Clark is my second choice. However, I am just saying if the 4 of them REALLY believe that Dean is such an awful choice, they need to get behind one of them - which 3 would step aside? - would you want your candidate to do so if it meant stopping Dean?.

[newyawker99]

10. Hi UnityDem!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[KG]

3. a loyalty pledge!

how cute!

[William Seger]

9. Actually, it's a "unity" pledge

... and as symbolic as it may be, it's probably more effective than cynicism.

[Bronco69]

6. I got that email too

I didn't sign it because I don't necessarily like taking oaths, pledges, etc.

[Jerseycoa]

11. The pledge itself reads fine

I agree with every word of the pledge. But why do they have this attached to it? I'm not sure how highlighting this controversy fosters unity. It makes the unity pledge look like an excuse to pressure two of the candidates.

"A secretive group called Americans for Jobs, Health Care and Progressive Values launched an attack ad campaign in Iowa claiming Dean "cannot compete with Bush on foreign policy." The group has ties to the Gephardt and Kerry campaigns, and appears to exist only to attack Dean. We call upon Gephardt and Kerry to denounce this secretive and divisive effort, and announce their support for the ultimate Democratic nominee."

[William Seger]

12. Because the air needs to be cleared over that incident?

Or to try to discourage more such ads? Those are at least two good reasons, IMO. Regardless of what "Jobs, Health Care and Progressive Values" desires, Dean may well be our nominee -- at least theoretically, it's still up to the party members to decide that -- and this ad benefits nobody but Bush*. The point is, knowing that it will be a close race in the best of circumstances, why should we spot the BushCo Slime Machine a head start like that?

I was an early Kerry supporter, and I really do believe that either he or Gephardt would make a fine president, but I would indeed like to see both of them repudiate not just that particular ad, but that negative strategy. I personally do not think that Gephardt or Kerry were instigators of that ad, but I would like to see them strongly discourage their supporters from engaging in that kind of activity.

On edit: One thing I should add is that the ad itself really is outrageous, anyway. Bush's* foreign policy is a disaster! Bush's* foreign policy is sheer stupidity and arrogance in the service of corporate fascism, and clearly it's not in the best interests of the US. What the ad really does is feed the lie that Bush* has been legitimately fighting some kind of "war on terrorism" and has been "making us safer." ALL Democrats should be standing up calling those lies what they are, not implicitly endorsing them.

[Jerseycoa]

13. No question

The ad is repulsive, ignorant, fearmongering. I denounce it myself. However, to point to Kerry and Gephardt when there is no proof they are connected to that ad is divisive in itself.

I disagree with you that candidates can't criticize each other in a primary, as long as it is valid criticism. They should also be criticizing Bush, as well, and they are. Aside from the Osama ad, which again I personally denounce and would like to see pulled, I saw no problem with the other two ads. Just ordinary campaign kind of stuff.

We can't muzzle our candidates just because we want them to focus on Bush and not on each other, sorry. Focus on Bush AND each other in the primary. Focus on Bush in the GE. That's politics.