Why do some "Dems" feel the need to undermine our candidate? THREAD 2

[MoonRiver]

That thread is getting really long and unwieldy, so I thought I'd start another one and see what happens. The topic is timely as many others like it exist on DU, but it doesn't seem to want to die a natural death!

[blondeatlast]

1. You might want to ask the Mods to lock the other one if you haven't

already.

Good luck!

[MoonRiver]

2. No, I didn't think of that thanks.

[Ardee]

3. why do some "dems" seek to end free speech and lively debate of issues?

I dont know ask saywhat.....

[MoonRiver]

4. I'm curious if you read Skinner's post

and what you think about it. We're not trying to end debate, we just want Kerry to WIN, and bashing him is not going to help.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x502944

[blondeatlast]

5. Oh, indeed he did...

[MoonRiver]

6. I just noticed also.

At least he's consistent. Sometimes I wonder if these folks already have their Canadian visas ready to go if * gets another 4. Most of US don't think the US will be habitable at that point, but really can't leave.

[Name removed]

7. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[MoonRiver]

8. Talk about pompous!

Are you equating John Kerry with any participant or ideology associated with Nazi Germany?

And btw, a lot of people on DU ARE talking about running to Canada. If my husband and I were younger, didn't have careers firmly entrenched in this country, many beloved family members who can't just up and go etc. etc., we'd be among them, IF and only IF * stays in. I don't know what will happen to this country at that point. We'll all just have to hang in there and see. But I'm pretty sure this board and others like it won't exist. If the Pukes take more power, then you can be sure freedom of speech like we are enjoying right now, is gone. Do you honestly believe that will happen under a Kerry presidency? That's only one of the many differences I see between the two candidates. They are 180 degrees apart, imho. Kerry isn't perfect. Clark isn't perfect. Kucinich isn't perfect. Edwards isn't perfect. But these are all men who NO WAY can be put in the same category as our current vile usurper. So exactly what do you want to do? Stay with the devil because the presumptive Dem candidate doesn't exactly fit your ideal?

[sangha]

13. I just LOVE the Pity Parade

The Constitution's First Amend prohibits the government from censoring speech, and no one else. Some people claim to respect that right, but they don't make the effort to understand that it doesn't restrict a private entity from limiting speech in a non-public forum.

Some people think "free speech" means that Skinner has to let anyone say anthing they like on DU.

[blondeatlast]

14. Much as the poster enjoys pretending he can't freak speely

(I mean speak freely), he's still here; even after pledging several times to vote ABK.


I'd ignore him, but he amuses me, actually.

[Name removed]

16. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

30. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Don Claybrook]

9. I didn't read the first thread

So I have no context from which to work, but to answer your question in a vaccuum:

I don't feel the need to undermine John Kerry. But I don't have any compunction about questioning his words and policy positions. I'm fixed on a set of ideals, not on a particular person.

And yes, I know what evil lurks in the White House right now, and I'm not without pragmatism, but I'll continue to question all of our leaders and would-be leaders, as all of us should.

Thanks.

[MoonRiver]

10. You might want to take a look at the first thread.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x497490

I think there's a difference between questioning, and outright attempts to destroy a candidate. That's what I'm talking about. Sometimes it's a fine line, but often the difference is clear as day.

[Ardee]

17. apparently you do not think there is a difference

The thread starter that you yourself posted asks those with questions about Kerry's platform, about his voting record, about his speeches ,about his moving further and further to the right to not speak out........Criticism is not an attempt to destroy ,its a shame you are such a narrow ideologue that you failt o understand how a party arives at a direction. Or perhaps you do understand and applaud the capture of your party by the right wing.

[MoonRiver]

19. Kerry has the most liberal voting record of anyone in the Senate.

He's much more to the left than Clinton and Gore. Tell me how that means we, the Dem Party, is moving to the right??

[Ardee]

23. That is the best condemnation of the system I have ever read

Thank you.....best liberal in the Senate ....NAFTA, Invasion of Iraq etc.,etc., I gotta go hurl now!

[MoonRiver]

24. You pick 2 votes, I look at 20 years of service.

What's wrong with this picture?

[Ardee]

26. Yes the picture is certainly distorted

but not by me. Kerry didnt run for President 20 years ,nor ten, nor five but he IS now.The democratic party was not under the thrall of the neoconservative DLC'ers twenty or ten or five years ago either. Kerry's voting record of the last three years is of prime import to any voters decision whether or not to support his campaign. You may seek to obfuscate and offer weak excuses for his unconscionable support for Bush agenda after Bush agenda, as well as refuse to face the fact that the DLC supported such a path but I will never accept that.

I wonder what choice the families of the 600+ dead American troops are pondering as they decide for whom to vote? Kerry's vote for the illegal overthrow of a head of state makes him as responsible for those deaths as it does George Walker Bush. Does he not understand that international law prohibited such action, does the democratic party as a whole overlook such a violation?

Kerry's speeches continue to move him right in my opinion and each time he states that he will not bring homw the troops, my decision not to vote for him is reenforced.

[Kerry Edwards 2004]

11. Questioning Leaders

Hi Don. I agree that questioning a candidates words or positions is perfectly valid and very welcome. I enjoy seeing a good give and take on the issues or on the strategy used in a campaign. What I do object to are those comments by some that are made for one reason -- to tear down the candidate. There is nothing constructive or even interesting about comments that seek only to name call. I would think that those that wish to criticize Kerry or the campaign would be just as offended as we are when those type of comments are made. They dilute the valid criticism that is raised by others. What do you think?

[Don Claybrook]

12. Fair enough

To both you and the poster who replied to me above, I would agree that attacking John Kerry without substance is not of any help to anyone but George Bush. And if that other thread contained that sort of thing, then I'd say you both have a point.

Here's another way of saying what I was trying to say: There exists a perfect platform, a perfect set of ideals that could be embodied by a candidate (this is, of course, completely subjective on my part). No one candidate will ever even come close to embodying these ideals. So my task is to pick a candidate who comes closest to those ideals. In a race between Bush and Kerry, it's clear that Kerry comes closer by about two hundred thousand percent or so. But it's still my task to push for/agitate for/speak for that ideal position, just as it's everyone else's task to do the same in regard to their own beliefs. When you throw all of that together in a mix, I think it's what's referred to as "the will of the people". As a side-note, the current president is subverting the will of the people by lying about his intentions and motivations.

But if you're checking to see if I'm a secret freeper or out to bring Kerry down, the answer is no. You'll draw your own conclusions, of course, but this is an attempt to answer your question, 'what do you think?'.

In short, I'm more liberal than John Kerry, who is by most accounts one of the most liberal senators. But I have a pretty good understanding of what the American electorate is like at this point in time, and I understand the politics of Kerry moving to the center in order to be elected. I'm just a part of the element that wants to see him win, while dragging him to the left just as much as we're able.

Thanks.

[Kerry Edwards 2004]

18. I agree with you Don

Hi Don. I agree with what you have said. I too am more liberal than Kerry on a number of issues. I was more liberal than my own favorite candidate John Edwards. You are absolutely right that we will never get a candidate that agrees with us on every issue. I also agree that we should always have the ability to criticize or question our candidates. I still have an old button that says "Question Authority." Ha! Ha! If I wanted to be in a party where you are not allowed to question I would be in the Republican Party. I too believe that it is our responsibility as citizens to voice our opinions on the issues whether our candidate agrees with us on those issues or not.

Thanks for your comments.

[Bill Todd]

20. Well, since you ask

What I think is that this is what happens when aggressiveness polarizes the debate (creating a self-reinforcing spiral). And by far the most aggressive people I've seen here are the ABB crowd, who of course are also in the clear majority.

I'm far from the only person inclined to push back under such circumstances, but I agree that it often does not further the cause of legitimate debate.

I also think that such polarization is not a very good thing for the party to be experiencing, especially under the current circumstances.

- bill

[sangha]

22. IOW, it has nothing to do with extremist arguments like "Kerry is PNAC"

or the other slogans that get chanted on DU. That's not aggresive.

[blondeatlast]

15. As long as the critique is focused and thoughtful,

we should be allowed to criticize the nominee.

But there are those on both sides the boards who insist on insulting anyone who dares to disagree with them; never offering anything constructive, just slamming John Kerry because he is John Kerry and not the "ideal," or their pet candidate, or God Himself.

I have the time and intelligence for thoughtful debate, but "my way or the highway" has to go.

[MoonRiver]

21. Exactly.

If we take the dogmatic approach we're no better than *. Civilized debate is good. But putting forth spins and wild attacks, often totally unsubstantiated, against our candidate are intolerable and might even keep US from the ultimate goal of defeating *.

[JHBowden]

25. Cognitive dissonance with several of the Dean supporters.

Some people maxed out their credit cards for Dean, gave hours upon hours of volunteer time, and don't want to feel stupid for doing it. Therefore, by pretending Kerry is some sort of conservative, they can rationalize that they made the right investment and didn't throw money away.

Most of the Dean supporters are with Kerry, and not all Kerry bashers are former Dean supporters. I'm merely observing that most of the "underminer" crowd falls under the description I provided above.

[Name removed]

27. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

28. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

29. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[GalleryGod]

33. C+ At best, "Bill"

Where you typing from,Billy?
Empty Warehouse in Brattleboro?

[Name removed]

32. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[GalleryGod]

31. Well put and I expect Pretty Acurate.

Sorry to say...

[Direckshun]

34. ...

I would have to say that somebody is "undermining" Kerry's campaign if they are attacking Kerry with the intention of bringing him down and assisting Bush in victory.

But if someone is questioning or attacking Kerry simply because they want to understand or expose his controversial stances for their own good, I don't see that as "undermining."

Besides, I don't think the Democratic Underground is the place you need to be worrying about Kerry being up-ended. The underminers, if there are any, are easily wiped out around this part of town.