Anyone else tired of the "ideological purists" in GD and GD:P?

[CubsFan1982]

Now they're lynching Boxer as a neo-con because SOMEONE said she MIGHT consider voting for John Negroponte as intelligence director. If they want someone who agrees with them 100% of the time, why don't they get off their lazy asses and run themselves? Sheesh. I get real sick of people going after good Democrats because they deviate from some standard of ideological purity.

:mad:

[democracyindanger]

1. That's why you should stay in the Lounge

[CubsFan1982]

3. I generally do.

But I saw a thread questioning if Boxer really was going to vote for that "torturer", so, like a dummy, I looked and saw people flaming on Boxer when just weeks ago they were singing her praises and running her for President. I sure learned my lesson, though! :D

[Pirate Smile]

4. I saw your response. It was perfect.

:)

It was the first response and I haven't returned to see the aftermath. Is it ugly? I figured it probably would get ugly.

[CubsFan1982]

6. I posted a couple more times.

Then I left. It was just people trying to impose an impossible standard on people, "well, if you don't vote the way I want you to, you're a neo-con and I don't want to be a Democrat anymore". It's impossible to please these people. They're not content with tearing down Lieberman (who really, now that Zell's gone, is the only Senator who deserves it), Kerry, and HRC, they have to go after Obama (which REALLY pisses me off) and Boxer. Sometimes I wonder if these people are really Karl Rove in disguise, sent to incite division in our party. Drives me nuts.

[saracat]

8. I am not bashing her, but I can't imagine why anyone would vote for him!

I just don't think we have anything to gain by voting for these people. Maybe we can't prevent their appointment but the only strength we have to display is hanging tough and voting together. It isn't as if bi-partisanship exists and a gesture of cooperation will help us cut a deal! Lets wait and see what she does. She does seem sensitive to voter response.

[Pirate Smile]

20. I saw Boxer on Late Edition and she seemed quite favorable inclined

toward Negroponte so I bet she will vote for him. She said he has been very responsive to the Congress and seems to respect them, unlike others in the Administration. That was all I heard.

I haven't gone back to the thread and I don't even think the original poster bashed her, she just seemed surprised at what Boxer said. However, I've seen enough of those threads to know what probably would happen.

[Kahuna]

30. LOL! A week ago it was, "Boxer '08 and roses.." This week..

she's a neocon, pnac enabler. :eyes:

[JI7]

10. it is one reason i'm spending more time in those issue specific forums

i use to spend most of it in the politics forum but have stopped. i don't even take certain posters seriously anymore as it's the same thing.

[democracyindanger]

34. Yep

It's all just so much noise. That's not to say I don't find myself jumping in a thread with some snarkiness, but there's no 'discussion' in GD or GD:P--too often it's just monkeys flinging poo.

[MisterP]

2. purists! waaaaahhhh!

[merh]

5. The purists are all over, don't let them get to you.

Just post reasonable responses as you did and/or ignore them.

I do as you do when I get frustrated with the pure posters that damn our leaders for not doing what they want them to do at all time, I challenge them to actually run for office and find out for themselves what it is like to hold the job, if they are lucky enough to win. I even offer to donate to their campaign.

Deep breath and just realize, we are independent thinkers, today I might agree with you on one issue and debate you on another. That doesn't make me right and you wrong, it just means we differ.

:hi:

[Maddy McCall]

16. I think most of them are new to politics.

JMO. :-)

[JI7]

7. yeah, i saw some of that and i got disgusted

it seems to be the agenda of some to just point out democrats who don't fit into their perfect world and try to get others to hate them.

they don't really give ideas on how to get other PEOPLE to support something which in turn would make it easier for politicians to support whatever it is. they mostly just attack the democrats for being atraitor ,sellout and some other shit.

[Dookus]

9. As Barney Frank said

"I only ever voted for a perfect candidate once in my life - the first time I ran for office. But the time I ran for re-election, even I wasn't perfect anymore."

[tigereye]

47. great quote.

n/t

[Longgrain]

11. I nearly got flamed in the Lounge once for saying I loved Hillary.

It was just sort of a joke, I posted a thread something like, "I Love Hillary Clinton and I want to Marry her" and some one posted a list of ten reason why I shouldn't love Hillary Clinton. So I guess ideology is every where on DU.

[Democrat Dragon]

12. your rant has been taken out of context

*ahem*

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=1611068&mesg_id=1611178&page=

I don't give a shit if Boxer votes for a bill to ban medial marijuana nationwide.

I don't give a shit if Kerry votes for a bill for an extra 40 billion on the quagmire in Iraq.

I don't give a shit if Reid votes for a bill to ban gays from churches

I don't give a shit if Clinton votes fro a bill to allow drug sniffing dogs in schools...

But what I do give a shit about is if they condone a man who has blood on his hands.

BTW, ever heard of Party purists?

[CubsFan1982]

15. My rant is perfectly valid.

Given the people that have responded to your call for action. Admittedly, I took the original post the wrong way, but I most certainly did not regarding the flames that ensued.

Let me ask you this: you pay taxes, right? Well, buddy, you've got blood on your hands, because your tax dollars are supporting the war in Iraq. We all have blood on our hands, OK? And as far as Negroponte being a torturer, put up some solid evidence or stand down. I'm not defending Bush, or Negroponte, but if you're going to throw charges around like that, you better have proof to back 'em up. If you don't, that's libel.

[Democrat Dragon]

19. um....I'm not 18 yet

http://www.derechos.org/nizkor/negroponte/eng.html
http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=05/02/18/157206
http://thinkprogress.org/index.php?p=263
http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=04/05/07/1450219

If someone forces you give them your money and they use it kill someone, then are you responsible for funding the murder?

[CubsFan1982]

23. Do you work?

If you do, you pay taxes, but that's beside the point.

What I'd suggest, then, if what you've posted constitutes hard evidence, that you forward those links to your Senators and make them aware of your concerns. That, I don't have a problem with. What I DO have a problem with is lynching good people because they make an unpopular decision. I have a problem with people who freak over Barack Obama allegedly approaching the President of the United States for an autograph after the SoTU, like it was an abandonment of principle - and it wasn't even him. Unfortunately, that's what GD and GD:P has devolved to.

[Withywindle]

38. BWAH!

I remember that. I hope the OP had the good grace to slink away for a while in utter mortification.

That's why we need the DUDQA (DU Drama Queen Awards) threads again. Those were brilliant! Lots of capslock, lots of excess exclamation points, lots of over-the-top Oscar-moment scenery chewing. Gives everybody the chance to have their Mad Scene.

My favorite very DUDQ-worthy thread was this thing that went on and on and on smearing Obama all over the place on the suspicion that he MIGHT vote yes on Gonzales. A pre-emptive strike. Not based on anything he actually said or did, of course, and in fact when the day came 'round he voted NYET. Some threads like that, you just have to point and laugh. And for God's sake don't post in 'em, it only kicks 'em up.

Don't even get me started on what I thought of the threads about Kerry and January 6.

[enigmatic]

39. God, we so need that here...

I'd love to see that..

[KG]

13. as one that's been accused of being an 'ideological purists',

i think there should be more of them!

[bowens43]

40. I agree . It amazes me that so many 'progressives'

are willing to compromise their beliefs. It's no wonder our party has become nothing more then a slightly less vile version of the republican party.

If our party has a problem, it isn't those who stand up for progressive and liberal ideals, it's those who are willing to toss aside those ideals who are the problem.

[tigereye]

49. life and politics are about compromise

it's reality. At least Boxer stands up for her beliefs most of the time. I would like to see most of the folks who are so quick to condemn, elected to Congress or the Senate, or even in their state legislatures, and then see how hard it is to be in office and not have to compromise.

[Maddy McCall]

14. They are very flighty and fickle.

Sometimes Keith Olbermann is a hero. At other times, he's Satan.

A couple of weeks ago, Andersen Cooper was a media whore. Today, he's a god.

Mary Landrieu has been a Repub-Lite many times in the past. But for about a week she was the bastion of liberty.

They are fickle in GD. They only look at what's going on today instead of during the whole careers of the people they crucify or adore.

I don't pay them any attention.

[CubsFan1982]

17. Exactly.

Couldn't have put it better myself.

[enigmatic]

21. Yep

I used to get enraged by them; now they are just funny to me.

[Democrat Dragon]

22. I don't pay attenion either

I don't even those threads.

You've also got "Party purists", who are comftable with a Democrat giving * a blow job, simply stating that he or she "is not perfect".

[enigmatic]

18. Yes

And add the cultural/partisan hypoctritical purists to the mix, too.

I saw yout posts; you did good.

[Tweed]

24. Some of them are Freepers trying to drive the party apart

Such a waste of time

[CubsFan1982]

26. I completely concur.

One thing the Repugs have ALWAYS had on us is unity. When the primaries are done, they support the nominee. We, however, continue to act as a circular firing squad; Deaniacs against Kerryites, Clarkists against Edwardsians, and so on. It's self-destructive. No wonder we're seen as the party of losers.

[Glenda]

41. SPeaking of (lack of) unity...

ONe time I went over there and asked "What do we think of (some moderate republican - I forget who)"? ANd they yelled at me and told me to think for myself and form my own opinion.

Jeez. Can't I just get a simple summary of an unimportant republican? {of course, in some ways, they are ALL unimportant :) }

[Kahuna]

31. Yep! Maybe not freepers but third party supporters, nonetheless.

And they're just as bad as freepers. Because THEY pretend to be on our side. Freepers don't.

[ScreamingMeemie]

51. I'm on loan to the Democratic Party. They either change, or i will, with

a clear conscience, back a viable third party. You should consider it too. We've been getting sold out.

[Redleg]

37. I think you are on to something.

EOM

[ScreamingMeemie]

50. All I've seen of late are DLCers trying to get us to walk in step.

I refuse.

[xmas74]

55. I will agree with that

On another site that I post on we have a number of freepers posting there. If you follow them to their own site, they actually have posts up plotting the takeover of all lib, Dem and progressive forums. This is one of the forums that they bitch the most about and want to take over.
They seem to have nothing better to do w/ their time. I have never met so many whiners, considering that "they won" (whatever).

[ulysses]

25. wank, wank.

I respect Sen. Boxer a great deal, but I reserve the right to think somewhat less of her if she votes to confirm Negroponte to this position. John Negroponte is an evil bastard with innocent blood on his hands. If that knowledge makes me an "ideological purist", then I accept the title, for what has to be the thousandth time.

[CubsFan1982]

27. The purists remind me of a PSA I saw during the election.

Maybe you all have seen it, it's the one where someone drops a piece of trash on the sidewalk and a crowd forms around it, and they're all complaining and saying "Somebody should do something about this," and then another person comes into the picture, picks up the trash and throws it away.

There are two types of people; the people who will stand around and bitch about how wrong, unfair, or stupid something is, and then there are the people who go out and do something about it. I'm curious to know how many of the "purists" actually go out, work for the party, work to elect Democrats, and, if there's something they don't like in the party, try to change it rather than complain about it. I can only attest to my personal experience, but I've worked for campaigns, I've done activism, I try to energize my fellow students on my campus, I've run for office, etc.

It would just be interesting to know who falls where, is all.

[ulysses]

28. maybe the more pointed question

would be to ask how many of the "purists" actually believe that the party will change anything any more.

[CubsFan1982]

29. An even more pointed question:

Have the "purists" even TRIED? I'm talking about participation -- changing the party from WITHIN. Those who just sit back and bitch accomplish nothing. I can understand those who have tried and failed, but to not have tried at all is worse.

[ulysses]

32. sure.

I've been a Democrat my entire life, and officially so since I turned 18 in 1987. There was never any question.

Until 1996, when Bill Clinton signed the welfare "reform" act. That year marked the first time that I voted for a non-Democrat, and I voted for Ralph Nader. I did the same in 2000.

You probably didn't mean that when you spoke of changing the party from within, but that was the only avenue open to me as a simple voter. And it was from within the party - I've always remained a Democrat. The fact that certain party elements didn't listen isn't my problem.

Did the effort fail? To an extent, yes, but as you say, to not have tried at all is worse.

[DU GrovelBot]

33. ## PLEASE DONATE TO DEMOCRATIC UNDERGROUND! ##

==================
GROVELBOT.EXE v3.0
==================



This week is our first quarter 2005 fund drive. Democratic
Underground is a completely independent website. We depend almost entirely
on donations from our members to cover our costs. Thank you so much for
your support.

[Telly Savalas]

43. I heard Grovelbot supports Senator Boxer's consideration...

of Negroponte.

You're selling us out, Grovelbot!!!

[auntAgonist]

35. whoa! I just read some

threads over there!! Attack city!


I'm NOT posting there. NO way!

[Redleg]

36. Yes. If a Dem doesn't agree with me 100% then they aren't real Dems.

EOM

[Solon]

46. I never see that...

I see hot heads on both sides that spew hatred at candidates because of stupid shit they do. And yes, praising a murderer for what he does best is stupidity. This isn't about ideological purity, its about where the breaking point is for many people. No politician is "ideologically pure", not even Kucinich, to every Democrat out there, but there should be limits as to what WE the VOTERS should tolerate. Assuming she does vote for him, its enabling a MURDERER to be intel czar, why the hell vote for that? Its like Abu Graib and all the other shit these people do is just political capital to be spent, as if the lives of hundreds of thousands don't matter, and we will gladly sell them down the river for a few votes, possibly. Where is the high ground in that? Where is the ethical standing? Hell, what the hell will the rest of the world think?

[Borgnine]

42. There are several extreme sides in the GDs that irritate me.

-The ideological purists... those who are so pure and proud of themselves that they refused to vote for Kerry.

-The extreme PC police... those that are just waiting for you to make a comment, joke, or sarcastic remark that they can deem "anti-something," then derail a thread in order to call you out and prove that they're a bigger liberal than you.

-The "we need to abandon our principles" crowd... the opposite for the ideological purists. They view Democrats and Republicans like sports teams, and they'll argue that we need to become just like the Republicans in order to win, not caring about what we actually stand for and why we're fighting the Republicans to begin with.

-Those that argue just to argue.

[libodem]

44. Negroponte scares the hell out of me

I would hope she wouldn't vote for him. I respect her very much. It seems incongruent.

[liberalhistorian]

45. I totally agree, and it's

always been one of the major weaknesses of libs/progressives. It's also the main reason why we're always getting our asses kicked in elections. The other side is fully UNITED despite their differences, and believe me, they do have a lot of differences among the various groups that make up the republicans. THAT is the main reason why they've been so successful.

Our side, OTOH, has always driven me crazy in that we have to have TOTAL agreement on EVERY SINGLE ISSUE or we dissolve in divisions and infighting. Total, 100% agreement on everything is just NOT possible, people, it never has been and it never will be. We MUST learn that lesson, or we will continue to be marginalized and it'll be our own damn fault.

[ScreamingMeemie]

52. I consider that one of the best reasons to be a liberal. When it comes to

major party platform, you can bet I'm a purist. I like it that way. Otherwise, why not vote Republican? :shrug:

[Bluebear]

54. There ya go.

[Placebo]

48. I agree.

:thumbsup:

[arwalden]

53. They Do Look A Little Silly And Naive.

Ya just want to grab em by their shoulders and shake some sense into them!

GET A GRIP! STAP OUT OF IT! GROW UP!