I preface this by saying the guy who runs this site is a great guy, even though we rarely see eye-to-eye on ANYTHING political. He is a well-reasoned guy, but very well right of center.
All that being said, check out the lovely write up he gives DU....
http://www.federalreview.com/DEMOCRATIC UNDERGROUND AND JOHN EDWARDS
Andrew Sullivan has made sport of the "far lefties" at Democratic Underground lately. Andrew understands that DU is "not representative of the left as a whole. But the fact that it exists at all," he says, "shows how alienated some parts of the United States now are." We at Federal Review provide a link to Democratic Underground because, once you sift through the fecal matter, there is some reasonable discussion and argument on that site, albeit from a left-wing perspective, and we don't want Federal Review readers to merely bounce around in the right's internet echo chamber. That's why we also link to left-of-center The New Republic and far-left-of-center The Nation. Clearly, our links aren't endorsements of the views offered on the listed sites.
But can you say the same about a candidate for President? John Edwards links only 30 sites on his blog. Among these are those offering reasoned analysis of political issues, such as Lawrence Lessig's blog, or sites by people close to the campaign such as the Stinging Nettle. But he also links Democratic Underground. Now, I'm not saying that a mere link means that Edwards supports everything written on these sites, but it is reasonable to assume that he agrees with the overall tone and sentiment of the site, and Democratic Underground is driven by anger and hate more than by the occasional reasoned analysis of a few of its posters. A sampling of the offerings:
President Bush has "demonstrated an intense, all-encompassing, and lethal contempt for human life over the past several years"
Implications that President Bush had someone murdered.
And the biggie, that Andrew Sullivan highlighted, causing the DU administrators to pull it:
I Hope the Bloodshed Continues in Iraq. Well, that should bring the bats out of the attic with fangs dripping. . . . Well, there is more than one way to be "dead" for your country. They are not only not accomplishing squat in Iraq, they are doing nothing for the safety, defense of the US of A over there directly. But "indirectly" they are doing a lot. The only way to get rid of this slime bag WASP-Mafia, oil baron ridden cartel of a government, this assault on Americans and anything one could laughingly call "a democracy", relies heavily on what a hole Iraq turns into. They need to die so that we can be free.
Now I'm sure that John Edwards doesn't support such talk, and to be fair, he does say, above his listing of links, "Visit these blogs and spread the word about why you support John Edwards." But does that mean that he wants the votes of people who want the United States to fail in Iraq and our troops to die? Does he want the votes of people who think that Bush is a murderer? Or that Bush sends commandos after George Soros? Or that U.S. troops intentionally target civilians. I'm just asking. After all, Dean merely wanted southerners to vote for him, and inartfully articulated that desire by stereotyping the South. No reasonable person thought he wanted bigots on his side. Does John Edwards want these hate-mongers on his?
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
