Why is it permissable to slander Democratic candidates as "Greens"?

[readmoreoften]

I'm a little lost. On DU, you can get tombstoned for promoting Green candidates. But apparently it's fine and dandy to call Democratic candidates and their supporters "Greens" on DU, even if the candidates or their supporters are in no way "Greens". I don't mean an offhanded comment. I mean people who are relentless in DEMANDING that certain candidates running as Democrats are actually affilated with other parties without offering proof.

Primary candidates who are left of the DLC are not "Greens and Naders". Nader did not run as a Democrat.

This is "Democratic" Underground, but we can't even get a decent discussion going about elections because as soon as a primary is discussed, Democrats who are opposing incumbents are labeled as "Greens".

How can someone running as a Democrat, be a "Green"? It makes no sense to me what-so-ever. It is misleading voters to tell them that candidates running in the Democratic primary are Green when they are no such thing. Why are we allowing this kind of dirty politics here? Why is this permissible?

Listen, I'm not the biggest fan of the DLC. But I am a YELLOW DOG DEM. However, in the primaries, there should and must be a choice. Frankly, I'm a little nervous that people here disagree with that concept. People are always mentioning that certain groups are being pushed off DU... like fundamentalist Christian Dems and Dems who don't like profanity.

What about diehard Dems who are sick of being called socialists and greens?

[countmyvote4real]

1. I'm strongly attracted to "green" challengers of Dem incumbents.

If I haven't heard about them beforehand, I make sure to review the ballot. If I see a green or progressive party candidate, they will get my vote in the primary election. I know that it won't be enough to get them elected, but the diminishing returns for the incumbent should get some attention.

[readmoreoften]

2. ACK that's not what I'm talking about! :)

I'm not downing you in any way by that scream of frustration! :) Let me re-explain. I'm not talking about posters who blast DUers for promoting Greens in the primaries. (That is prohibited on DU. You can't promote Greens.) I am talking about people who CALL progressive DEMS "Green" in order to promote more conservative Dems in the primary.

Just like I think that it is absurd to argue that Hillary Clinton is actually a Republican trying to "ruin it" for the party, I think it is absurd to say that the Anti-War Dems who are challending her in the Senate are "Greens" who are trying to "ruin it" for the party. They are registered Dems and running as Dems, but on DU, it's okay for people to call them Green.

I'm not saying that we can't argue facts and records. That's fine! But it's impossible to argue or discuss anything, if Dem challengers of Dem incumbants are immediately dismissed as GREENS and NADERS. It's almost beginning to feel intentional.

[omega minimo]

3. Maybe the question is

who has a vested interest in demonizing anything "left of the DLC"?

[readmoreoften]

5. Well, I think the answer to that is simple enough, right?

My question is... what is the intention of this site. Hell, I get into pissing matches over issues ALL the time. I'm not saying that we have to agree perfectly. But why is the discussion of certain Dem candidates completely shut down? I thought we were here to discuss and promote various Dem candidates. I thought that was the MAIN FUNCTION of DU.

I would add to the list of "rules" at DU, that you can't claim that candidates belong to a party that they do not. I'm not saying that people can't say that Lieberman "acts" like a Republican or "might as well be" a Republican. But when people say that Lieberman IS a Republican, that he is a member of a party of which he is NOT in fact a member, then it is a campaign of disinformation.

To say that Jonathan Tasini (because that is who I am referring to) is actually a member of the Green party and trying to triangulate NY into a Senate loss, well that is just PURE DISINFORMATION. He's a Democratic candidate running against a Democratic incumbent on an anti-war and pro-labor platform. If he loses the primary (which he probably will because he is outspent) then Clinton will go up against the Repub (who will lose for certain) and that will be that.

I, frankly, don't understand why it isn't permissable for me to call someone a "troll", but complete and unsubstantiated attacks on a Dem candidate's actual PARTY can stay up.

Call it a policy suggestion.

I think I'm just becoming aware of this, because I'm generally a yellow dog Dem (but not a centrist) and this is the first campaign where I have a very, very strong opinion. I'm surprised that out an out lies about something as obvious as party affiliation are permitted.

[SensibleAmerican]

4. How is that any different from calling a candidate a DINO

IIRC, this action is not prohibited on these forums.

[readmoreoften]

6. Well, I think it's very different during an election season. Here's how:

If I say that candidate "A" is a DINO and other people are saying that candidate "B" is a DINO, then people would choose between the DINOS. But they know that a Democrat will go to the election.

If I say that candidate "A" is a Dem or a DINO and that candidate "B" is running as a "Green", people think that they *actually are not members of the party* and that they are triangulating the vote. They think that there is a third party candidate who is going to "steal votes" from the party and then they begin to campaign against them.

I think it should be fine to call a candidate a DINO. Call my favorite candidates DINOS, I don't care. But don't say that are "Greens" or "Third Party Spoilers."

Does that makes sense?

[AtomicKitten]

7. I don't think calling anyone "Green" is slander in the real world.

However, here at DU labels are used as a weapon.

[readmoreoften]

8. Yes, that's why I think it's a problem during election seasons.

I don't think it's slander either. I just think it's inaccurate. I get frustrated by people getting deleted for expression frustration at a troll, when others are allowed to post OBVIOUS misinformation about candidates. I just think it's weird.

[AtomicKitten]

9. It's the age-old battle between those trying for

solidarity - referred to as "cheerleaders" here at DU - and those that don't believe in holding one's nose to achieve a solid voting block.

That's it in a nutshell.

All the rest is name-calling and snotty repartee. The sad part is that nobody is wrong.

[nealmhughes]

10. For one to consider a Democrat a Green or a Socialist as slander, then one

then one must assume that the "mainstreatm" Democratic Party is lacking in environmental and social policy.

Call me a Green, because I am, in the sense of the environment, anticorporate stance, etc., although not in party affiliation.

Call me a Socialist, because I am, just not a member of any Socialist party organizations.

But still call me a Democrat, because I am and always have been and unless something very drastic happens, will remain one.

I consider these labels to be badges of honor, not slander.

[readmoreoften]

11. I suppose I meant they are being used "slanderously"

Or more accurately in a way that is misleading. That leads voters to think that Democrat "A" will "Nader" the party. Hey, I'm for the environment (so's Al) and for labor (which is a key Dem. position, in my book.) I don't think I'd cry if America socialized some industries, but I don't think that has much to do with real socialism.

I just find it strange that the major elements of our CORE identity is now located in other parties according to many of our members. Say that you'll vote DEM no matter what and I understand. But say that you won't vote for the candidate with the best policies on labor, war, and civil rights *in a primary*, and I'm just plain confused.

If Rudy Guiliani ran tomorrow, who would we be as a party? What would we be standing for?