Why I take this so personally

[dsc]

I was asked yesterday why I took so personally what a Dean Basher had said. For the moment both who and what was said is irrelevent. But the question deserves an answer so I am giving it.

I take personally, in the sense of strongly disliking, any trashing of any of our candidates. Because with every poisened penned post, every snide content free bash, and every distorition of record that they post be it about Kerry, Clark, Dean, Gephardt, Lieberman, Sharpton, Kucinich, Braun, or Edwards it renders us less likely to evict Bush. And four more years of Bush means among other things, the vastly increased likelyhood of passage of an amendment taking away any rights I might have in a relationship. I take that very personally. It means no ENDA and I take that very personally. It means NCLB will stay the law of the land and I take that very personally. It means a lousy economy and I take that very personally. So yeah I take this crap personally.

Let me be perfectly clear. Every time you spend more time trashing other candidates than you do promoting yours or trashing Bush you are a parasite on the party. You suck the life blood out of us. You give aid and comfort to our enemy. And yes, for the record, that includes 'Dean supporters' who do that to Clark and Kerry or anyone else. You don't help your candidate. You probably don't directly hurt the object of your attack. You simply spread ill will and make the jobs or the people who actually do know who the ememy is immensly harder. You also make it more likely that those awful things above and pages more will happen for another four years. The party doesn't have the blood to give this year. It just doesn't. And I sure don't either.

[wndycty]

1. Just make sure you are consistent. . .

. . .and I hope you take it personally when someone attacks another Democrat, not just Dean.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

2. dsc is

[dsc]

4. Good grief can you read?

And yes, for the record, that includes 'Dean supporters' who do that to Clark and Kerry or anyone else.

That is in the last paragraph where such posters are called parasite. I, just yesterday, criticised a Dean supporter for his Kerry bashing thread. I have done so often, far more often than you, I would be willing to bet, have criticised Clark supporters.

[Scott Lee]

28. Please read the post you are responding to next time. Thanks.

Believe me, it does wonders for your argument.

[wndycty]

29. Thanks for the lecture

:kick:

[dsc]

30. I would like a response to my post

I pointed out where I had addressed your concern. So did you read my post or not before you responded?

[wndycty]

31. I stand by my post. . .

. . .you can say whatever you want, but your actions will speak louder. I am not accusing you of not being consistent and I am just going on the record saying I expect consistency. You can read it however you want. I take you on your word.

[dsc]

32. I have been

and frankly you should have bothered to do a basic search before you posted. I did before I posted and found not one time where you took on an anti Dean post from a Clark supporter. Again, I have done so now twice in the past 24 hours to Dean supporters.

Here is one of the two times I did so in the last 24 hours.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=4563&mesg_id=7751&page=

[wndycty]

34. Hey I did not accuse you of anything. . .

. . .no reason to be defensive. Since I made no accusation I should not have bothered to do any kind of search. I accused you of absolutely nothing. Please do not be so defensive. And while you are at I just told someone to leave Dean alone:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=8023#8284

Now you will notice that I did that before you challenged me. "Obviously if you had bothered to do a search..." LOL Look we should all treat all of the candidates with a decent amount of respect, but more importantly ALL OF US ON DU need to grow and thick skin, its politics baby.

[dsc]

35. Your post is five hours after my post

and that is the one I searched before. I am referring to post 6.

[wndycty]

36. Post #6 on which thread. . .

. . .seriously.

[dsc]

37. sorry post 4

my bad. Faulty memory and couldn't look back. I mean post 4 on this thread.

[wndycty]

38. Look I don't keep track of everytime I criticize a Clark supporter. . .

. . .should I PM you ever time I do so that you can enter that into the official record. Should I do a search so that I can prove to you that I have in the past...tell me what are you looking for?

[dsc]

39. Your post was accusatory

and frankly I wasn't the only one who thought so. I do think before you posted the response you did, especially given what I wrote in my post about Dean supporters, it would have behooved you to check my general tone if you didn't know what it was. The fact is you clearly didn't. I really don't think that is too much to ask. Evidently you do.

[wndycty]

40. So now we are talking tone. . .

. . .oh please. Aren't we being a little sensitive?

You are talking about how you think it would have behooved me to check your tone. How do you know I didn't? Are you a mind reader? I did not answer the way you wanted me to so now its my problem? Look you are just going to have to take my word for it. If not, that is not my problem that is yours.

[Butterflies]

3. hear hear

You explained that perfectly. :thumbsup:

[mitchtv]

5. i can hardly visit DU anymore

I scan , see the bilge a, and go on . These people get me sick. The problem is, after a few months of this, you beleive all of them and end up hating them all. I am fast losing all respect for several of my favorites .

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

6. but not me right?

:D

[JailBush]

7. Three Problems

1. I don't agree that bashing Dem candidates necessarily diminishes the chances of bashing Bush. If we mindlessly support all the candidates, we impeach our credibility.

2. Your argument is similar to the arguments used during Campaigns 2000, 2002 and 2003: Just shut up and play the game. So where has business as usual got us?

3. It isn't just about getting rid of Bush. There are many other races to consider - national, state and local. This election should build a foundation for future races. And even if we get rid of Bush, we're going to have to do what ever it takes to make his replacement kick ass.

I don't think any of the Dem candidates are shining stars, and Lieberman and Gaphardt are assholes. Period.

[indigo32]

8. "I don't think any of the Dem candidates are shining stars"

That illustrates the problem right there. Eventually it gets to you and you get to thinking worse than "they aren't shining stars."
Which naturally leads to thinking just screw it all. WE CAN'T AFFORD THAT. Thats my BIGGEST GRIPE about all this. We just can't afford to turn people off.
I honestly don't know what we expect. Perfection ain't running. S/he wouldn't put them through it/or would be chewed up and spit out. Such is our system. There really are good things about ALL of these candidates. AND NONE is Bush-Lite.

[JailBush]

13. Of course, there are good things about MOST of the candidates.

Lieberman and Gephardt are assholes. Period.

We can say good things about the other candidates, but let's be realistic - it isn't likely that any of them are going to move Heaven and Earth to clean up the system, especially if they don't receive a tidal wave of support form the public. And mindlessly praising The Leader is not the kind of support I have in mind.

[bearfartinthewoods]

24. fo you want us to lie to each other ? or just to ourselves?

this whole deal of speak no evil is getting to me. the idea of the primaries is to find the best! that means evaluating each candidates positives and nefatives. for sure, the candidate's supporters aren't going to mention the negs so if the other candidates don't, how in the hell to we ever get the full picture?

these people are not shining stars...they are human! what the hell is wrong with picking the best human, warts and all?

please, don't lie to me and tell me any candidate is without faults.
i'm an adult and i prefer to make informed decisions.

[Cheswick2.0]

43. I have missed all the posts where you advocate for a candidate

Have you made a choice yet? If we are here to find the best candidate maybe you can tell us who you think that is.

[Cheswick2.0]

42. today O'Reily was bashing Dean using Lieberman's remarks against Dean

What we say does matter. Honest disagreement with issues or certain votes someone has taken is legitimate. Twisting facts and making wild accusations is not.

[grok]

9. That which does not kill you,

makes you stronger.

For the final battle.

Grok

[LuminousX]

14. That which does not kill you

leaves you weakened and feeble.

[Cheswick2.0]

41. thank you

You are right. It is one thing to criticize a candidate, it is another to lie about them.

[Fleshdancer]

10. I take it personally when others bash all supporters of a candidate

It seems weird to me when one day, I'm having a funny conversation with people in DU or agreeing with people on Latest Breaking about the 9/11 commission, bush, or wolfowitz for example and then I go to the politics or GD forums and the same people are calling me names. And why? Because I support the candidate they don't agree with? I can understand people bashing a candidate, it's the primary season, people do that. It's the bashing of supporters that gets to me.

Once again, for the record, I have never insulted supporters of other Democratic candidates. Never. Yet it's assumed that I'm a one issue voter, angry, stupid, ignorant, etc because I will vote for Howard Dean.

When I go on threads that ask "Deanies, why do you support Dean?" (or whatever the title) I give clear, concise reasons and the only people who respond are other Dean supporters. Why ask the question if you're not interested in the answer? Is it too far fetched that I plan to vote for Dean because I actually agree with him on many issues? That your chosen candidate is no more God-like than mine? That NO candidate is perfect for everyone??

[Nadienne]

20. I read your post

And I wanted to reply, but the thread was locked because of "Deanies" in the title.

Even though I don't support Dean (though of course I will if he wins the primaries), I wanted to let you know that I liked what you had to say. Believing in a candidate is important. You are a good spokesperson for Dean and his supporters.

You're right, though: A lot of people here, once they get a favorite, don't even bother investigating other candidates.

[Fleshdancer]

21. thank you Nadienne

what a wonderful post, thank you.

[rumguy]

11. It toughens up the nominee

so they'll be stronger in the gen. election...

[indigo32]

12. It wears down supporters that will be needed for that nominee to win

n/t

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

15. Some of them richly deserve criticism - "bashing" if you like.

I, for one, have no use for the fatuous four who voted for the death of people so they could wave the flag with Bush. This election is more than a referendum on the white house. It's also about the heart and direction of the Democratic Party. The one I've belonged to since 1965. If it's to be controlled by cynical politicians who are willing to sacrifice lives or sell out the people who count on them for the sake of political expediencey, then they are welcome to it as it continues to sink into a pale imitation of the republicans.

[TexasPatriot]

17. I agree

though i havent been alive as long as you've been a democrat. if there are reasoned and rational concerns they should be explored - and if that's painful, well, odds are that's because dems (since Clinton and the DLC) are a bigger tent than they used to be.

I would argue that part of that is due to a dem willingness to move to the middle to win. It was my hope at the time that we'd inch back left (and i think the efforts by Hillary re universal healthcare were a foray into that direction) but it didnt work out, and i (along with many of my relatively left-leaning friends) grew restless...

It was my hope that when we moved to the center, it would push the pubs to the right. It did so, but unfortately we let them run a campaign of deceit and didnt energize our base when we should have in the last election.

Today, when the general populace of the country gets afraid, it has an authoritarian shift ideologically. We're still fighting over this - and to expect our candidates not to reflect this ideological divide does the democracy and the party a disservice.

[zulchzulu]

16. It sounds like you don't like politics; maybe you find another hobby

If you're suggesting that everyone just sit and watch the candidates speak and say nothing about how the other candidate's issues are lacking and theirs is the best, then you should probably get out of discussing politics altogether. It's called debating, it's called positioning, it's called clarifying why one candidate is better than another. Also, whatever one person finds on another candidate (especially from gathering from the net) is already in the hands of Rove Co.

Discussing political positions are part of politics. Taking that away is like playing baseball without a baseball.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

19. Not true. Some of the ad hominem attacks against candidates and their

supporters here wreak of the poorest debate tactics and the worst of propaganda and serve to clarfy nothing.

When these very attacks are copied, pasted and used by Republicans in the general election, don't be surprised if they get half of their negative talking points from right here at DU.

BTW, you might want to search this posters very thoughtful posts prior to suggesting he get out of politics.

He and I often disagree but he is a thoughtful formidable opponent.

[dsc]

22. Thank you

I greatly appreciate that. It is good to have the respect of a person I respect as much as I do you. I hope he starts his reading of my posts by rereading the original one in this thread.

[rucky]

18. Criticize the candidate - not the supporters

that's where I draw the line at personal offense

[many a good man]

23. Bad Bash versus Good Bash

I can't put my finger on it exactly, but some "bashing" is informative and helpful whereas other kinds of bashing are just revolting and dispiriting. Its hard to say where the fine line is drawn.

And I don't just mean the candidates I like versus the candidates I don't like; I find something to respect in all of them (even Joe). I'm concerned most with policy positions #1, ability to campaign well, and integrity. Senseless seething is just a waste of my time. I've lived too long to think any candidate who has risen to these heights is going to be all perfect. I want to know as much as I can to help me make my decision. Unfortunately a lot of what is written here does not contribute one iota to my understanding.

Throughout this campaign I've seen a strong convergence on many issues which distinguishes our party from the opposition. This forces candidates to distinguish themselves, usually by exaggerating or misrepresenting the others' positions. Too much senseless bashing makes a lot of people lose interest in ALL the candidates.

Let's find a better way.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

25. awesome post

[dsc]

26. kick

:kick:

[David Zephyr]

27. Kick!

Kick!

[frustrated_lefty]

33. A few thoughts

This is coming from a Dean supporter, so I'm not hiding that fact.

Raising objections and criticisms to individual candidate's stances on issues is productive, informative and helpful. Personally, I want people to make well informed decisions about matters that affect them. If they don't vote for my guy, ok. That's their right, that's how democracy works.

What I find objectionable here is a combination of people repeating the same accusations over and over and over, and the failure of people making the accusations to do the slightest research before they post their accusation with an authoritative tone. Repeating the same accusation can be a good thing, if there is a basis for the accusation. What I find with regard to Dean posts, and suspect others feel similarly, is that a thoughtful, detailed response is made and ignored. And then later that same day, or the next day, the same accusation appears in a new post. And it goes on day after day. Finally, you stop replying because it's apparent the people making the accusations aren't doing so in search of answers, they're doing so simply to bash.

I'm equally frustrated by the absence of research done by people making accusations. A recent thread accused Dean of raising property taxes and was little more than a Dean-bash fest, that bad man raising taxes! Anyone who has done the slightest research on the subject would know why it occurred and what occurred as a consequence. The issue was taken entirely out of its context.

I'm rapidly approaching the point where I stop reading this forum. There are a lot of good people here, but their signal gets drowned out by a lot of noise. And I'm not saying this simply with regard to Dean. I've posted in threads trying to reign in pro-Dean people who I thought were unfairly demonizing other democrats or were otherwise taunting their supporters. This used to be a helpful and informative place.