DU Pledge: No more attacking the candidates (note to mods)

[jeter]

I refuse to do Karl Rove's work for him. Let us agree that any of the candidates would be a better President than Bush. Attacking each other only keeps our numbers down. Bush's popularity is sagging, yet our own candidates are not overcoming him because each candidate has so much baggage from attacking each other. We don't need a circular firing squad.

Promoting ones candidate is fine. Our straw polls are fine. Rooting on a candidate is fine. But some of these attacks are crossing the line of defeatism. This election is too important. I wouldn't be surprised if some Freepers come in here and start up many of these flame wars and laugh their asses off when go ballistic on each other. Come on guys. Let's keep our eye on the prize. Defeating George W. Bush. Please participate in this poll and vote to stop these attack threads. A message encouraging support would be great as well.

I, add name, hereby agree that I will do everything in my power to ensure that George W. Bush is defeated and therefore, I will not attack:

Dean, Clark, Edwards, Kerry, Braun, Gepthardt, Kucinich, Sharpton and even Lieberman.

[jeter]

1. Hopefully if the number is high enough the moderators

Will begin pulling threads that attack ANY of the candidates. I don't like censorship. But this is a democracy. If the people here on the board agree with me - then the moderators will be forced to start locking such threads.

[Booberdawg]

3. DU is not a democracy. Rules are determined by admin, not by

popular vote. Sorry.

[jeter]

4. Well if enough of us demand this...then they will listen

I would think that a web site called "Democratic Underground" would have some appreciation for democracy.

[Booberdawg]

10. I agree with the problem you point out in your original post

but that's what happens in primaries. Just giving you a heads up that this is not going to fly. Sorry.

[Booberdawg]

12. And you addressed this to mods - makes it an ATA issue

you know this is going to get locked.

[drfemoe]

26. since the original post

doesn't ask for rule changes, maybe it will stay open.

I didn't vote on what "DU" should do, but what "I" am willing to do.

Let's don't change this into a 'persuade the mods thread'.

edit: oops I missed that () in the title ..

[MercutioATC]

22. If that was the case, we'd have sex threads back...

:evilgrin:

[Feanorcurufinwe]

23. When it comes to messageboards

I prefer a benevolent dictatorship to the tyranny of the majority.

[bearfartinthewoods]

50. they do and how rude of you to imply otherwise

they also have a keen appreciation for the fact that this is the most important subject we could possible consider. and that people differ in their perceptions of what is an attack and what is a criticism.

[Kanary]

2. Haven't attacked.

Discouraged to see attacks.

Won't attack.

Not my style.

Kanary

[elperromagico]

5. I don't engage in attacks,

but let's not get into the George Bush/Fox News definition of attack. Any time a Dem candidate criticizes the Bush policies, someone at Fox starts yelling, "They're attacking President Bush! Why must they attack President Bush?!?"

Serious questions about a candidate's credentials are not attacks.
Genuine concerns about a candidate's past are not attacks.
Comments about a candidate's policies are not attacks.

Questions like the above need to be asked, and are not attacks. Now, I have seen some childish posts around here about the appearance of candidates, and posts which make a blanket statement like "John Kerry is the only qualified candidate" without any sort of evidence.

I fear that any attempt at curtailing the childish attacks will result in the restriction of serious, thoughtful discussion about the candidates and their Presidential qualifications.

[jeter]

11. Questions are fine.

I'm not talking about asking a legitimate question. I'm talking about threads that start off:

- Clark is a war criminal

- Dean is a draft dodger

- Kerry is an elitist, etc.

Those are over the top and cross the line.

[elperromagico]

17. So basically, you want a change of language.

I see. As far as I'm concerned, if the poster can back up a claim, no matter how wild it may seem, with evidence, the post ought to stay.

So, if someone comes around shouting, "(candidate name) molests horses," they'd better by God have a photo or testimony from one of the horses.

[knight_of_the_star]

18. Question?

How would you get the testimony of said horse?

[elperromagico]

62. It was a joke. J-O-K-E.

n/t

[rumguy]

6. how to define attack from raising legitimate questions?

[elperromagico]

9. My point exactly n/t

[Kanola]

7. The candidate bashers have to knock their crap off

it they really want Bushit out in 2004. I am sick of seeing threads making petty insults towards candidates one may not agree with and taking it sooo much further. Btw, do you candidate bashers realize that is the kind of behavior that turns most potential voters that could swing our way off? If you continue this nonsense why not just have a re selection party for Bushit.

[bearfartinthewoods]

52. serious questions

i can tell, usually by the title when a thread is going to head south.

i don't click on them if i think the reading will make be sick.

why do you? why not leave the crap and focus on the rest?

[MisterP]

8. note that democracy is not strict rule by polls...

[jeter]

13. Huh???

Democracy is about voting. Everyone can vote here. Finding out what people think.

[Gringo]

14. Agree to a point.

I try to stick to boosting my favorite (go Dean!), and I try to limit my "attacks" on the other guys/gals, because they are all fine candidates and any one of them would make a MUCH better president than Bush.

That being said, I have been highly critical of Gephardt for missing so many crucial votes. I don't consider that an attack. I'd certainly vote for Gep if he was the nominee, but when a man who purports himself to be the savior of the working man doesn't show up for a vote that could lose 8 million people their overtime protection, I'm pretty disappointed.

I also was critical of Dean's stupid comments RE the filthy confederate rag, but I continue to support him. I think the problem isn't "attacks" per se, it's ad hominem attacks - like "Clark is a GOP plant" or "Kucinich is an ultra-left extremist". Unfortunately that is the level of discourse in this country. I continue to be amazed at how many times I hear Dean called "ultra liberal" or "left-wing" in the mainstream media. He may be many things, but he's no ultra liberal. Somehow the first impression sticks...

[rumguy]

15. when dean is such an easy candidate to bash

it would be unfair not to be able to bash him...it would be like torture...

[BootinUp]

16. Sorry, Voted No because

you did not qualify the "will not attack" part. It is essential that we discuss, debate, and even argue about the facts. I am completely against flame wars and try not to particiapte in those threads, but some "attacks" when backed by reasoned argument are necessary to sort this thing out.

Cheers

[Fleshdancer]

19. Not only will I NOT attack other candidates...

...but I'll give the positives:

Clark: A man of honor. Our country is lucky to have him as a citizen, as a General, and yes, even as President. I'm lucky to say he reminds me of my late father...also a military man.

Kerry: His record speaks volumes. As a senator he fought for me and if he wins the primaries, I will fight for him. A man of many passions, many strengths...he is sadly underestimated in this race due to campaign a shake-up. Hardly seems fair.

Edwards: Destined to do great things. This is just beginning for him. I see him as President someday, just not at this exact moment.

Kucinich: The President of the United States in a perfect world. The heart of Wellstone, need I say more?

Gephardt: He rose to the ranks of leader of the House. Very smart, very pragmatic, I'm glad to have him on my side.

Sharpton: His wit and intelligence will forever give him a seat at my fantasy dinner party. If Gore starts that liberal tv network, we know who to hire.

Lieberman: He has proven to be a man of deep conviction and belief. The leaders of our time seem to lack this virtue. While I wish he would change for me, I respect that he doesn't.

Moseley-Braun: Being a woman myself, I find CMB to be somewhat of a forgotten hero. An intelligent, well-spoken minority woman who not only survived, but thrived in DC...something that is still not easy to do, no matter how equal us women like to think we are.

[drfemoe]

27. um .. one more

give us one for Dean?

[CivilRightsNow]

20. Alot of the people starting threads like this...

Must have a real hard time existing in real life where there are no moderators and one has to develop their arguements and even their ability to deflect negativity.

This board is moderated enough, there is no need for self censorship.

People have valid concerns and emotions are hard to keep completely uninvolved. I think everyone has a right to loudly and passionately voice their opinions, infact it is their duty, if they believe strongly to keep trying to find ways to appeal to those that do not share their beliefs.

[burr]

21. Why make a pledge which only others can break?

I may be an idiot, but I'm not a sitting duck. :spank:

[pansypoo53219]

24. too bad

the candidates haven't pledges as well.

[bhunt70]

I voted, I agree.

No reason to attack other candidates just to support yours.

bring up something you disagree with or an issue you think you candidate promotes better but there's no reason to get personal with the other posters based on their views.

Debate, don't hate.

[bhunt70]

25. I voted, I agree.

No reason to attack other candidates just to support yours.

bring up something you disagree with or an issue you think you candidate promotes better but there's no reason to get personal with the other posters based on their views.

Debate, don't hate.

[usregimechange]

28. amen n/t

[Barbara917]

29. an even Lieberman......

"I, add name, hereby agree that I will do everything in my power to ensure that George W. Bush is defeated and therefore, I will not attack:

Dean, Clark, Edwards, Kerry, Braun, Gepthardt, Kucinich, Sharpton and even Lieberman."
:7 :spank:

Are we supposed to place our right hands over our hearts and say this with a straight face? :lol:

[jeter]

30. Hopefully, the mods will lock such threads

That's what I hope.

Questions, and supporting ones candidate is fine. But threads that attack a candidate would be off limits.

70% to 30% seems pretty conclusive at this point.

[sendero]

31. there is a huge problem with this idea...

... I like this idea in the abstract. But when you try to implement it, you will find it impossible to do so.

There are legitimate discussions of the actions of a candidate that will, by necessity, devolve into "he said, she said" stuff, and defense of a candidate's words or actions by calling up similar actions of another candidate.

There are tons, I mean tons of folks here whose only mission is to discredit one of the candidates, and yet all they do is post factual or semi-factual items and let the fur fly. How can this realistically be stopped without imposing a level of censorship that by its very nature will be arbitrary? There is just not going to be a clear line between bashing and legitimate well-intentioned discussion. It cannot be drawn.

Lots of ideas sound good, but the devil is truly in the details on this one.

[jeter]

32. Why would it be arbitrary?

Apply it to every candidate. I'm not talking about asking hard questions. I'm talking about attacks.

[burr]

37. What are you talking about?

Whenever I respond to those "HARD QUESTIONS" I then get accused of making attacks. I have even seen some of my posts removed, even though the poster wrongly accusing me of making attacks never has their posts removed!

I know one thing about DU, rules are rules...and moderators are Busy busy folks. and busy busy folks are often too busy to enforce or to be fair, so that is life and I can accept it. Can you? :shrug:

[sendero]

38. Well....

... look I do understand what you mean, but who defines "attack"? As soon as you start that, then boosters from candidate A start complaining to the mods that this post is an "attack" and should be removed, and boosters from candidate B say "no, it's just a tough question".

As far as I'm concerned, the mods have a big enough job without opening this can of worms. Soon, we'll be at the primaries and this too shall pass. Then we can concentrate our attacks on the asses and fools in the current administration who richly deserve them. I'm sharpening my rhetorical knives as we speak :)

Happy Thanksgiving to everyone! I'm off to turkeyville!

[Unforgiven]

33. Dissent

My concern is not so much about hammering Presidential hopefuls as censoring and deleting posts on this board. It is my opinion and mine only that some flames are creditable and at times make a very strong point. Censoring here of all places bothers me a great deal more than just mere words, it's a gut reaction really, primitive but as basic as breathing. Something unsaid is not lost, something said then discarded, stolen or deleted is a true loss, no matter how foul or seemingly useless, it is content nontheless. Is this not what we are fighting with the state of current affairs? Some of us are deeply committed to veiw points we hold dear, those individuals will fight to defend them as they are held as personal truths and rightfully so. This is why I did not vote in this post. While I believe damage can be done by negative posts, the other side of the coin is we are weeding out the least likely candidate through information exchange. And we had better do it fast our time is much shorter then we care to admit. This is our task here in DU, I believe. Remember it's a "Discussion Board" right? While we do not have to tolerate being "freeped" we also need to be accomodating of those who support this board financially and those who make relevant posts here on a regular basis.


Wishing All Here a Safe and Peaceful Thanksgiving Holiday!

[absolutezero]

34. no more lieberman jokes?

well, for the good of the country I'll try to hold back on lieberman....zell miler is another story though

[Eloriel]

35. Defeatism is

supporting a candidate primarily because you think he's the most electable. But I digress.

Here's the problem I have with your pledge:

First, it's counterproductive. Unfortunately, the candidates have got to be able to weather Rove's attacks. (And Rove will use outright lies, complete fabrications, if nothing else is available.) So "protecting" candidates here at DU isn't necessarily helping them, IMO.

Second, there are plenty of people here at DU who think merely pointing out an unflattering truth about a candidate is bashing and criticizing. Again, that's what primaries are all about: sorting out the candidates so ONE person emerges.

Finally, I'd be satisfied with a pledge not to lie or misrepresent other candidates' positions, record, etc. There are a handful of real troublemakers -- hardcore operatives, whether paid or not -- who live to do just that. They come from the Kerry and Clark campaigns. NOT ALL Kerry and Clark supporters fit this description, but there are a few who do. (It's my opinion that they should be banned as the disrupters they are, but DU apparently doesn't see it that way.) There are things that they like to post over and over and over again which are simply, demonstrably, factually wrong. They have been corrected again and again and again, and yet they persist.

There are others, of course, who post opinions based on an incorrect reading of the facts and reality. These are sad and pitiful creatures, but these aren't necessarily the ones I'm talking about.

Like I said, I'd be satisfied with a moratorium on the outright, disproven lies.

Eloriel

[bicentennial_baby]

40. You are funny, you know that?

" There are a handful of real troublemakers -- hardcore operatives, whether paid or not -- who live to do just that. They come from the Kerry and Clark campaigns. NOT ALL Kerry and Clark supporters fit this description, but there are a few who do. (It's my opinion that they should be banned as the disrupters they are, but DU apparently doesn't see it that way.)"

So Dean supporters are innocent angels here at DU who never do these things of which you speak? Sure.... :eyes:

[JohnKleeb]

41. It goes all ways

With supporters of all em. Dean supporters can be idiots, Kucinich ones can be, Kerry ones, Clark ones, etc, we can be all be idiots, and thats an understatement, now lol I've yet to see a Braun supporter act like a jerk but I share your setiment and :eyes:

[bicentennial_baby]

42. Exactly

There are people in every camp who act like morans, and it isn't exclusively an Clark/Kerry thing.

You're right though, have'nt seen too many antagonistic Braun supporters! :P

Happy Thanksgiving John!! :toast:

[JohnKleeb]

47. I know

:toast: I thought you said you were gonna call me Dragojlub for now on :D. :hi: :toast: have a good one. Yeah exactly. I've seen people in my own act idiotic, it goes all ways.

[bicentennial_baby]

48. LOL

I forgot to use your new name, Dragojlub! Silly me! Yes, have a great holiday, and don't get too tipsy!

[JohnKleeb]

59. lol yep

I wont be drinking today :).

[Cleita]

44. So I guess outright lies are all right with you?

Dean in particular has been subject to every sort of disingenuous accusations thrown at him, which are blatantly untrue, yet presented in such a manner as to sow the seeds of doubt even among some DU'ers. I don't think this is really acceptable.

Picking apart a candidate's pluses and minuses for enlightened discussion is one thing. Dragging them through the mud is another.

[bicentennial_baby]

45. Did you mean to reply to me?

If so, no, I don't think that doing those things are ok, but to say that it is only 2 camps throwing it at one candidate is disingenuous at best.

[Cleita]

56. No, this was in reply to post #35.

I agree with your position.

[seaglass]

61. This is why some see many Dean supporters as blind to the

faults of their candidate. They can't even see that there are those in their own camp that do the exact same thing that Kerry, Clark, Edwards etc. supporters do.

[IndianaGreen]

36. It's the primary season, stupid!

Too bad some people are depressed that their candidate is no longer the "front runner" or "expected nominee" that he was early last year.

[Noordam]

39. Asshole Clark has shown his TRUE Corporate Colors and

I will work as hard to defeat any Repug lite assholes.

No I will not agrees to kiss Repugs Ass.

[Scott Lee]

43. Sorry, I cannot in good conscience support the Rose Garden Quislings

And who are the Rose Garden Quislings? Gephardt and Lieberman, who helped hand Bush* his war, and did it proudly standing next to the Chimp in Chief in the Rose Garden.

If either one of them happened into the nomination, I'd vote Green or Indy before I supported those war slovering bastards.

[rucky]

46. We've already been through this...

and that's how the new GD rules came about.

Just don't read 'em...or go to the Lounge. that's what I do.

[Selwynn]

49. 70% of DU has always agreed with you - its only a loud obnoxious minority

that doesnt, only a loud obnoxious minority that thinks incredibly polarized bickering, name calling and infighting is actually going to help win 2004.

So I'm not sure where the leaves us.

[UTUSN]

51. 70% DU vs. Obnoxious Minority - Good to Hear This

Agreed.

1) Attack Shrub, Tweety, and any wingnut, not other Dems.

2) "Conversion" and "debate winning" ain't gonna happen at primary level.

3) Pro-candidate-X threads, fine. Flooding candidate-Y-threads with anti-posts, not fine.

4) Criticizing candidate-Z's POSITION, fine. Replies calling the critic a Z-HATER and Z-ophobe, not fine.

5) Laundry lists of issues, pointless. Shrub don't care 'bout ISSUES.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

55. Amnesty for loud obnoxious minorities?

I'm a member of AI and most of the letters I write are to free "loud obnoxious minorities". I noticed your AI logo - who do you write letters for? Popular adherents of majority opinions?

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

53. Is this a discussion board or a DLC "me too" approval board?

Any of the candidates are "better than Bush"? Sure. Are all of them so saintly and ethical that they deserve our unqualified support? I think not. What would you consider an "attack"? Questioning their stands on issues? Calling them spineless cowards and hypocrites for voting for Bush's policies?

Have you not noticed that all of the candidates don't seem to mind attacking each other? Shall we just be good little soldiers and follow wherever the DLC/DNC commands?

"Speak no ill of other Republicans" - Ronald Reagan

"Speak no ill of other Democrats" - jeter

[Kanary]

54. From the replies, it's clear personal attacks will continue

It also appears that nothing will change on this site in that regard.

It would be nice if those of us who want discussion without rancor could just have a separate area for that.
I doubt that will happen, either. So, many just don't join in the discussions, or leave or just give up. That doesn't seem to me to be helpful for the cause in any way.

If anyone is able to start a different site or maillist for cleaner discussions, I'd sure be interested.

No need to flame me.... 'K? I get to have my opinion, too.

Kanary

[goobergunch]

57. Signed

I, the Goobergunch, hereby agree that I will do everything in my power to ensure that George W. Bush is defeated and therefore, I will not attack:

Dean, Clark, Edwards, Kerry, Braun, Gepthardt, Kucinich, Sharpton and even Lieberman.

---the Goobergunch---
DUer since April 27, 2003

[Zero Division]

58. Agreed. While there are things I find significantly disappointing about..

all of the candidates (even Clark, who is my first choice), and some much more so than others, I find them all to be significantly better than the Bush misadminstration.

Honestly, who among our set of candidates would increase the deficit, push taxes toward regressivism, create more hostility and instability in the world, block our efforts to promote GLBT rights, promote right wing judges to federal benches, enable corporate corruption, hurt federal social assistance programs, etc. more so or to the same degree as the * administration? I can honestly say that I've neither read nor heard anything (and I've seen plenty of attacks on them)that would convince me that any of them fit that description.

Sure there's plenty out there that may convince some of the less pragmatic DUers, who seem obsessively interested in polemics that are as "extreme left" as possible, that certain candidates are as bad as Bush from their point of view, but I simply don't share the same hyper-sensitive perspective.

[VOX]

60. Good move, jeter. I mark my X.

However, I do think that it is possible to respectfully discuss any weakness or bad move that a particular candidate makes. I is possible to do this in a civil, cogent manner.

It involves a certain kind of discipline, if you will. It's tempting to swing away at candidates other than your favorite, but in the end, it does the cause no good.

Finally, Anyone But Bush.

[oasis]

63. kick

[UTUSN]

64. And Another Thing: Downer/Defeatist Subject Lines

Like, "Are We Fucked?" and "(Shrub) will win in '04".

[mrgorth]

65. I continue to notice the absence of

all of the major Dean bashers. Thus, I can't sign up.

[jeter]

66. kick