I'll unscrupulously slam your candidate until he gets the nomination...

[Paragon]

"...after which time I'll be sure to be a full supporter!"

:eyes:

Serious question: Where is the threshold between stumping for your candidate and doing KKKarl's work for him?

[Skwmom]

1. Exposing the truth about a candidate

is not doing Karl Rove's work for him (it's called trying to save the Democratic party from destruction). Anything that has taken place to date is minor compared to what Rove has ready to roll out if Dean is the nominee.

[Paragon]

2. OK, but...

...much as I'd like to believe the contrary, not all DUers have a monopoly on "truth". Misguided opinions and distortion happen here, believe it or not.

[SlavesandBulldozers]

5. If i may

the right-wing spin machine, when they say "Dean is a dream contendor", is simply reacting to the number one contendor. The campaigns are on, and Rove is already hard at work. Don't buy into the propaganda that they "dream of Dean" being the contendor, that is just the Administration's "bring it on" bluster hard at work. We will unify without fear of Rove, and without regard for the media which is at his whim.

[unfrigginreal]

7. And Dean will get your vote if he is the nominee?

If not, then you overstate your concern about the destruction of the Democratic party.

[RetroLounge]

9. Your truth, not THE truth.

Sorry, thanks for playing.

[Padraig18]

12. Do you think Rove will be any more gentle on anyone else, Skwmom?

I frankly see him savaging whoever we nominate, and not one of them is a saint.

[Cheswick2.0]

3. There is no difference

I had hoped there would be a difference. But since there is not...all if fair.

[Paragon]

8. That's depressing

And probably true.

[GainesT1958]

4. Questions of policy stands and personal character...

Are fair game in a primary campaign. Negative, destructive politics of personal smears and distortion is not.

Someone has the right--nay, even the duty--to question whether or not a candidate is telling the truth when the facts may indicate otherwise. But calling somebody a liar--or implying such--when NOTHING in their record supports that assertion, that's just mud-slinging, plain and simple. And stating they said something, or did something, when they did not--that's just plain lying. Something Dub and his henchmen are particularly good at...and at which the media whores are particularly BAD at catching them!:mad:

B-)

[HFishbine]

6. Issues vs rhetoric and policy vs process

Issues and policy are fair game. They include:

- policy positions
- voting history
- professsional history/experience
- public statements

Rhetoric and process discussions only help Karl. They include:

- Name calling/meme repetition (draft dodger, warmonger, baby killer, left wing nut, bush lite, etc.)
- Who's attacking who and other discussions that pit one camp against another.

[WilliamPitt]

10. The threashold is winning

How is one doing Rove's work by vetting a candidate. Shhhhhh...be vewwy vewwy quiet...Rove is watching... :eyes:

[Paragon]

11. "Vetting"

1. To subject to thorough examination or evaluation: vet a manuscript.
2. To subject to veterinary evaluation, examination, medication, or surgery.

There's thorough examination, and then there's shoving a rectal thermometer up Fido's ass. When it comes to certain posts by certain people, I use the second definition.

[imhotep]

13. There is a threshold

and some things can not be taken back.
Such as candidate x can't win.
and candidate y is weak on a certain category.

I wouldn't expect to be asked to help someone that I just stabbed in the back. And I wouldn't want anyone's "help" if they did it to me.

[helleborient]

14. Why assume any Democrat will uncover something Rove won't?

Simply put...running an outstanding campaign will defeat the Republicans in 2004.