DU for Dems only? I think not!

[OffWithTheirHeads]

Once again I see threads being posted espousing the view that DU is only for registered Democrats, often with "What part of Democratic Underground don't you understand?" as part of the theme.

We had this fight six years ago and I suppose, as more and more people join us, we will have to have this fight periodically.

First, lets look at the term Democratic. According to my handy Funk and Wagnalls:

dem-o-crat-ic (dem'e.krat'ik) adj. 1. Of or pertaining to democracy or a democracy; characterized by the fact,spirit, or principles of popular government. 2. Pertaining to or characteristic of ANY democratic party. (emphasis mine). 3. Tending to level social distinctions; not snobbish.

No where in this definition do I see "member of the Democratic party of the United States to the exclusion of all others". In other words, what part of "Democratic don't you understand?

I have been a member of DU from the very earliest of times. I have donated to DU in almost every pledge drive since the beginning. As such, I feel that I have a stake in DU. A shareholder if you will. I am also a proudly registered member of the Green Party and have been since well before DU existed. I am a Green because the party platform is far more reflective of my position both socially and politically than the Democratic Party, particularly the DLC, Lieberman, Miller, Fienstein wing of the party. I also am extremely disappointed in what I can only characterize as a spineless Democratic response to the neo-Nazi Bush cabal.

That said, you should also know that I voted for Gore, despite a campaign that at best was uninspiring and saddled with a pathetic excuse for a running mate. I held my nose and voted for Kerry despite a campaign that was the epitome of uninspiring, I donated funds to Lamont to support a very inspiring campaign to oust one of the Dems I despised and will continue to give 100% support to true leaders like Rangle, Boxer, Lofgren Frank and others who I perceive as truly trying to do the work of the people. I will not, however support the likes of Di Fi who is a war profiteer and in my opinion, a traitor to the people, just because there is a D next to her name.

I come to DU for many reasons. Foremost among them is that I can get the "real" news faster here than any other source. I get the news from people who often have boots on the ground where the news is being made and, unlike the corporate media (which I almost entirely ignore at this point) if you try to pass out bullshit here, it is usually only a matter of minutes before you will be called to task at DU. I come here to express my views, listen to other points of view, vent frustrations, learn, teach, occasionally to throw a monkey wrench at the pukes, and often be entertained. You don't have to be a registered Democrat for that.

In my opinion, DU is a place for people of a progressive bent who wish to help improve the world by thought, deed, and action for all of us, not just members of an exclusive club. Those here who say that DU is for Democrats only remind me of the "love it or leave it crowd during the Vietnam war. They were wrong, and so are you. As such, until EarlG or Skinner tell me I am no longer welcome, I will continue to enjoy my place here and I will continue to welcome the opinions from everyone from Lieberman supporters to registered Communists. That is called Democracy!

Buddy P. Gill

[Swamp Rat]

1. k&r

:hi:

[Symphony of Freedom]

2. I find Canada's NDP too right-wing...

Am I too far left for this place?

[Der Blaue Engel]

3. All that's required is that you support Democratic candidates

for office and be generally supportive of Democratic ideals. So say the DU rules.

[iverglas]

19. actually ...

Canadians really ought not to support Democratic candidates for office, given as how we're foreigners and should keep our noses out and all. The rules statement kinda doesn't recognize the presence of non-USAmericans in the forum, although we understand we are welcome.

To a Canadian on the social democratic left (we do have our own party), yer average Democratic candidate is so far to the right that we'd never vote for him/her in our own context. Except strategically, which we understand many people in the US in fact do.

And what the rules actually say in the other regard is "Members are expected to be generally supportive of progressive ideals" (not "Democratic ideals", although they may overlap ... sometimes depending on whether one is applying the definition of "progressive" currently used in the US or the definition used historically in the US and currently outside the US).

Democratic Underground may not be used for political, partisan, or advocacy activity by supporters of any political party or candidate other than the Democratic Party or Democratic candidates. Supporters of certain other political parties may use Democratic Underground for limited partisan activities in political races where there is no Democratic Party candidate.

That would explain the unending partisan posting by supporters of the decidedly not progressive Liberal Party of Canada in the Canada forum ...

[Der Blaue Engel]

64. Yes, progressive ideals...I hadn't memorized it precisely

I think one can still support Democratic candidates whether one votes here or not...otherwise, why be here? In other words, you're not against Democratic candidates (I presume) or supporting Republican or third-party candidates in a race against Democrats, right? So you, and other non-US allies are within the stated requirements for being a member of the site.

[iverglas]

79. well gee

Thanks for the performance assessment.

In other words, you're not against Democratic candidates (I presume) or supporting Republican or third-party candidates in a race against Democrats, right?

No, wrong. I don't support *any* candidates in *any* race in the US, because I don't live there and I don't vote there and I don't do anything else there.

I find large numbers of Democratic Party candidates in the US to be utterly distasteful, and would never vote for them if they were candidates where I live, because if they were candidates where I live and had the platforms they have now, they would be candidates for a right-wing party. Progressives in Canada don't try to deny women access to abortion or deny same-sex couples access to marriage, or support the invasion and occupation of Iraq, or beat their chests about the "right" to acquire arsenals of handguns, etc. etc. etc. Even the right-wing candidates (i.e. Liberal Party) I might occasionally find myself compelled to vote for in a three-way race to ensure the defeat of a righter-wing candidate/party (as I have done once) would not support such things. And if they did, I'd vote against them no matter what, because it wouldn't matter a pinch of poop which right-wing candidate got elected, in that case.

I think one can still support Democratic candidates whether one votes here or not...otherwise, why be here?

Uh ... because as a citizen of the world, I have a rather large stake in what gets decided in the US, and I am happy to offer input for individuals in the US to consider in deciding their own political positions, and influencing their own parties and political processes.

[Der Blaue Engel]

86. How weird that you took my post that way...I was being supportive

of your right to be here.

I hereby retract my statement.

[Amonester]

81. "we're foreigners and should keep our noses out" except for moi,

because I'd say what happens in the US must concern us too. Plus one of my sisters has dual-citizenship since the mid-eighties (CAN-US). She doesn't surf the net but I know who her vote favors if it's not "not counted" (FL), so I consider myself sort of entitled to post for her and her relatives (in a way) on DU.

[ktlyon]

88. no all that is required is that you follow the rules of this web site

anyone can post as long as they don't violate the rules
there is no test for joining

[Mythsaje]

4. Yup...

When more Democratic folks represent ME, I'll decide I'm a Democrat. Until then, I'm a proud Liberal and I'll vote my conscience.

What's wrong with that?

K&R

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

10. That's fine. Just don't trash Dems here.

This is a private board, after all.

[Mythsaje]

13. You mean like Leiberman?

Or do you mean Dems in general?

[MessiahRp]

16. If Lieberman did indeed file papers today to run as an Independent

then he is no longer a Dem anyway. Bash him into the fucking ground. :)

Rp

[Mythsaje]

32. He was bashed plenty WHILE nominally a Dem...

It strikes me that as long as one CALLS oneself a Dem, one can bash away at will.

I'm not in the bashing business, so it doesn't bother me.

[endarkenment]

45. And again there are two issues here.

(part one) In primary season opinions for and against Democratic Primary candidates are allowed, however (part two) we are supposed to keep those opinions within reasonable bounds.

I will admit that we failed, many of us, me included, in keeping our opinions of Lieberman (I-diot) within bounds. Given the situation, mea culpa, sorry about that. I have few regrets for expressing just how I felt about Mr. Lieberman.

For Lieberman and Lamont, primary season is over. There is one Democratic candidate for senator in Connecticut, and that person is Ned Lamont.

[MessiahRp]

49. Well there are obvious exceptions...

namely Lieberman and Zell Meller... but otherwise we should try to support our Democratic candidates in general and try to support the candidates we feel represent us as closely as possible throughout the primaries.

I guess what pisses people off is that there are Greens and Independents who would either not vote or vote for someone without a shred of a chance in order to make some sort of statement. The statement though is always ignored and you just chucked your voice out the window because neither candidate will work harder to listen to your views if you're not going to support them with your vote.

And in these close elections where the third party candidate has no shot these same people tend to bitch non-stop about the candidates and not vote, even if the Democrat is closer to their views on 90% of the issues.

A lot of people feel like they're performing some sort of political martyrdom by refusing to vote or support Democrats when it's clear their guy wouldn't win the race with tons more help.

Now if your guy is in the race and it's close, I can't fault you for supporting who you feel represents you best. But in the larger picture you can't nitpick about every single issue being a match with your own, you have to choose the greater good. I as much as anyone hate that this is the system we have but unless some laws are passed to dissolve how elections are run here a viable third party will be a pipedream in major elections.

At lower levels like city and state government, that's where a Green or Independent party should be working hard to increase their election wins and visibility so that when it comes time for these national races they can put up viable candidates with real government experience, rather than someone with name recognition and money (i.e. Nader, Ventura, Ross Perot, etc).

In the interim I believe in putting my effort into reforming the Democratic party to work for the common people and to move away from being a corporate sponsored enterprise (which it isn't entirely but there are a few like Chuck Schumer and the Clintonites who cling to that).

There are obviously things everyone here on DU have in common with Democrats. If we work together in national races to push the party vote to the left wing candidates we can make a change. And hopefully the domino effect will push those candidates to pass real election reform that opens the doors for third and fourth party candidates to make real headway in the future.

For right now though, it is what it is.

There are always going to be crazies like Zell Miller and Joe Liebermans in a progressive party. Progress is to move forward and some people joined when they were considered progressive and now have stopped progressing. They get left in the dust of the "good ol' days of the party" while we all move forward.

We can continue to move forward but it will take everyone with similar views, Dems, Greens and Independents alike to think with some clarity and make it happen. We should be working together and using the issues we agree upon to set forth an agenda of change. Instead we fight and bicker and work against each other. All the while the right which also has two camps (fiscal conservatives and neo (social christian) conservatives) put aside their differences to vote for their guys in election. They do it no matter how bad their guys are.

So while we in-fight and splinter our vote and our voice, they vote in unison and appear to have a unified message while we do not.

This is what frustrates many of us.

If I am incoherent I apologize. I am trying to write as I think this through.

Rp

[omega minimo]

78. You've put the heart of it very well, but it is more urgent than you think

"You" editorially and those who agree with soft-pedaling and postphoning the CENTRAL fact of the dangerous position this nation is in:

"In the interim I believe in putting my effort into reforming the Democratic party to WORK FOR THE COMMON PEOPLE and to MOVE AWAY FROM BEING A CORPORATE SPONSORED ENTERPRISE (which it isn't entirely but there are a few like Chuck Schumer and the Clintonites who cling to that).

"There are obviously things everyone here on DU have in common with Democrats. If we work together in national races to push the party vote to the left wing candidates we can make a change. And hopefully the domino effect will push those candidates to pass real election reform that opens the doors for third and fourth party candidates to make real headway in the future."

"We can continue to move forward but it will take everyone with similar views, Dems, Greens and Independents alike to think with some clarity and make it happen. We should be working together and using the issues we agree upon to set forth an agenda of change."

You are absolutely right but it has to happen NOW.

"Real election reform" will be the day that we wake up to election results and don't fear or KNOW that Republican-controlled machines delivered their candidate instead of the voters'.

[WinkyDink]

77. In a primary, one is not expected to endorse BOTH (or more) in the SAME

Party. We at DU chose Lamont.

And now Lieberman has chosen to leave the Democratic Party, and hence, will never find support here.

[JuniperLea]

5. Read the rules...

2. Who We Are: Democratic Underground is an online community for Democrats and other progressives. Members are expected to be generally supportive of progressive ideals, and to support Democratic candidates for political office. Democratic Underground is not affiliated with the Democratic Party, and comments posted here are not representative of the Democratic Party or its candidates.

[SteppingRazor]

6. But most of the posts you reference...

are in response to posts calling for support of an Independet candidate -- Lieberman -- over the Democratic nominee. And that is certainly against this site's rules. Naturally, anyone can come to this site. But posts that call for support of a candidate other than the Democrat, in a race where a Democrat is running, are clearly against the rules here.

[Jacobin]

7. Your experience and beliefs parallel mine

I've been here a long time.

I don't listen to people who tell me that I don't belong here.

There are DLC types and moles for certain candidates who have popped in and out of DU over the years.

Two parties would be nice to have, instead of one and a half. I'm fighting to get the other half of the democratic party back in power and fitted with new stainless steel spines.

:-)

[trumad]

8. Nice letter Buddy....

Hey, just as long as you follow the rules.

BTW: Have you written a letter to the head poobahs of the Green party asking them to intervene in the scam in Pennsylvania? You know--the Greenie who got on the ballot with the help of repukes so that Ricky Santorum can win?

[OffWithTheirHeads]

20. Actually, I despise that!

I didn't say the Green Party was perfect. No party is blameless and a crook is a crook no matter what letter is next to the name. I will condem the Penn Greens just as vociferously as corrupt Dems. Corrupt Repugs, however, is just redundant.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

9. Sorry pal, but I'm not with you on that one.

You know damn well "Democratic" in this case stands for Democratic Party. Bringing up Webster's defintion is useless.

[OffWithTheirHeads]

21. Yeah, we wouldn't want facts (or dictionaries)

to get in the way of our opinions

[GOPBasher]

11. I agree with you, as long as you tolerate ppl who disagree with you.

I agree that DU is for anyone basically left of center. And I like that you indicated in your last sentence that you would tolerate people more conservative than you are, or "Lieberman supporters," as you called them.

Politically, I'm probably somewhere between a Green and a Lieberman supporter -- not as far right as Lieberman but not as far left as a Green. If you accept my being here, I'll accept your being here.

[OffWithTheirHeads]

24. I welcome people who's opinions differ

How else does one learn?

[MissWaverly]

12. There have been some slimey folks on here lately

If they are creepy crawlies that come here to cause trouble, let the door hit them on the way
out. I don't like being personally attacked for expressing my ideas and I think our site
should not tolerate any one who brags about civilian casaulties as "fresh kills" Enough said.

[blm]

14. You can't find inspiration from the anti-corruption Democrats, how sad.

I have and don't let the RW media tell me that I am not inspired by a lawmaker's record and positive efforts.

I trust the congressional record and National Security Archives before I let the GOP controlled media lie to me about a Democratic or Republican candidate.

[w4rma]

15. I'm sorry but the rules are that Democratic nominees are supported

over independents (including Greenies).

You can BE a Green or an independent or a communist or whatever if you want, but Democratic Underground isn't going to be here for you to use in Green/Independent candidates against Democratic candidates.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

17. I'm a Democrat and have no problem "bashing" dems who drift right.

Nor, do I have a problem voting selectively when my nose is overwhelmed by politicians who vote for Republican policies.

[gully]

18. YOUR opinion is not what the USER RULES are determined by

In my opinion, DU is a place for people of a progressive bent who wish to help improve the world

DU rules state: "Democratic Underground is an online community for Democrats and other progressives. Members are expected to be generally supportive of progressive ideals, and to support Democratic candidates for political office."

[OffWithTheirHeads]

27. Do you find something in my post

that says otherwise? If so, we have a failure to communicate.

[gully]

33. This is what I was referring to.

In my opinion, DU is a place for people of a progressive bent who wish to help improve the world by thought, deed, and action for all of us, not just members of an exclusive club. Those here who say that DU is for Democrats only remind me of the "love it or leave it crowd during the Vietnam war. They were wrong, and so are you. As such, until EarlG or Skinner tell me I am no longer welcome, I will continue to enjoy my place here and I will continue to welcome the opinions from everyone from Lieberman supporters to registered Communists. That is called Democracy!

This place isn't about "democracy" or we'd allow Republicans to partake. It's a place to share with like minded supporters of Democratic candidates.

peace

[OffWithTheirHeads]

42. Actually, we DO allow republicans to partake

as long as they do it respectfully.

[gully]

43. Republicans who support Democratic candidates for political office.

eom

[Avalux]

22. Your opinion does not trump the DU posting rules.

As long as they are not violated, no problem. The "Who We Are" statement is very clear:

"Democratic Underground is an online community for Democrats and other progressives. Members are expected to be generally supportive of progressive ideals, and to support Democratic candidates for political office."

Advocacy or active campaigning for 3rd party candidates is not allowed.

[BlooInBloo]

26. adovcating for 3rd party not allowed? Are you serious?

I recall threads enough to make a sweater of green party advocacy (and I don't recall them getting shut down) - and that, despite the fact that they are funded by the GOP.

Is it REALLY DU policy to bar 3rd party advocacy, or is it merely NOMINAL policy to prohibit such?

[Avalux]

29. It's policy.

We aren't perfect, and do our best to shut down those threads blatantly in support of green, independent, etc. candidates. As the general election gets closer, we will be watching closely as we are fully aware there are those who come here just to stir things up and cause a fuss. As I said we aren't perfect - sometimes we just aren't able to get them all, especially when things get really busy. :hi:

[WildEyedLiberal]

70. Thanks for doing what you do

I wouldn't have the patience to wade through this bullshit... I tip my hat to those of you who do. :toast:

[BlooInBloo]

87. 2nd-ed.

[BlooInBloo]

23. The site is for whomever the site's owner says it's for. Duh.

I have no idea what all of this faux-thoughtful analysis is necessary.

[hippiechick]

25. For the record ...

I agree with you. I've fought this battle many times since 2001.

But I think DU's programmers should consider designing a "smiley in a raincoat" for the shitstorm your thread is probably going to start.

:hi:

[OffWithTheirHeads]

30. Hippiechick, you have been here a long, long time

and I almost always love your posts.

As for the shitstorm, occasionally, the air needs to be cleared. I fully expect the "Dem uber alles" crowd to object but hey, this is what democracy looks like. Sometimes it's ugly but I prefer it all the same.

[hippiechick]

50. 'almost always' ?

;) say it ain't so! :hug:

[OffWithTheirHeads]

60. I think there may have been an occasion

when we did not think exactly alike. I also think it was years ago.

[EstimatedProphet]

28. Who are any of us to decide this?

This site is run by Skinner and the admins. THEY make the rules as to who stays and who goes, THEY make the decisions as to who is violating those rules. NO ONE ELSE gets to say that the site is for certain people only. The people who say that the site is only for a certain select few are overstepping their bounds.

[LittleClarkie]

31. Not for Dems only. But also, the rules say no campaigning for non-Dems

Hence, no campaigning for Joe, I reckon.

[ScreamingMeemie]

34. But...and it's a HUGH But... One cannot actively campaign against

a Democratic candidate, which is what Lieberman supporters, Green Supporters etal will be doing come November. No, I do not welcome them trying to get a non Democrat elected... I welcome their ideas, period.

[OffWithTheirHeads]

35. Lieberman has only been an official non Dem for one day

So were those of us who supported Lamont when Joe was a Dem breaking "the rules"?

[endarkenment]

40. Read the rules.

Specifically:

"You are not permitted to use this message board to work for the defeat of the Democratic Party nominee for any political office. If you wish to work for the defeat of any Democratic candidate in any General Election, then you are welcome to use someone else's bandwidth on some other website.

Democratic Underground may not be used for political, partisan, or advocacy activity by supporters of any political party or candidate other than the Democratic Party or Democratic candidates. Supporters of certain other political parties may use Democratic Underground for limited partisan activities in political races where there is no Democratic Party candidate."

While Numbskull Joe was running in the Democratic Primary, opinions for and against him and Ned Lamont were fair game (other rules apply to how far one can go in expressing those opinions). Once Lieberman went from D to I and the nominee became Ned Lamont, in other words somewhere around 11.30 last night, the rules above kicked in. Support for Lieberman is now out of bounds, as is opposition to Lamont.

The rules cited are the tried and true rules we Democrats have long lived by: fight like cats and dogs in the primaries and then fight the Republicans together in the general election. The rules are fair, the rules are obvious, and I really start to wonder what the damn problem is with them.

[OffWithTheirHeads]

44. I don't have a problem with the rules

I have never used this site to promote a third party candidate though I have defended some, and my fingers would rot off were I to ever consider promoting a repug but, I will continue calling a spade a spade and just having a d by your name does not grant immunity from examination and criticisim.

[endarkenment]

47. Sir we are in violent agreement.

My seconds will be calling yours. Arrangements will be made. I expect satisfaction.

[OffWithTheirHeads]

58. Do I get to choose the weapons?

I choose Gummybears!

[endarkenment]

66. Very well then.

Gummy bears at 10 paces. May the best man win.

[ScreamingMeemie]

51. Hello? What part of Democratic candidate are you having trouble

understanding? :shrug:

As a moderate Dem this is just so much childish whining. Wah! I want it my way.

[damntexdem]

36. Of course not: it's also for Undergrounds. ;-)

Seriously, it can't just be for "registered Democrats," because here in Texas, we cannot register by party.

[Disturbed]

38. Democrats and (other progressives).

That is plain enough isn't it? :-)

[depakid]

65. Apparently not

There have been Greens and others here for about as long as DU's been in existence.

And- every couple of months, someone starts a thread to whine and complain about it.

[OffWithTheirHeads]

39. R U serious?

what the hell do you register by?

[NoPasaran]

72. There is no spot on a Texas voter card for party affiliation

However, if you vote in a party primary, you are considered to be a member of that party.

[Ariana Celeste]

37. Right on, man

:thumbsup: k&r!

[im10ashus]

41. It's the rules of DU.

You can support any candidate here, as long as they are a Democrat. It's quite clear, actually, and that's why it's not called Democracy Underground. We support Democrats.

[OffWithTheirHeads]

46. Don't you mean Democratics?

sorry, couldn't help myself.

[ScreamingMeemie]

52. No...I am a registered Democrat...not Democratic.

I belong to the Democratic Party...not the Democrat Party. :hi:

[im10ashus]

59. LOL!

Yeah, that's the ticket. :rofl: I'm not giving you a hard time, just so you know. :hi:

[proud patriot]

48. I came to DU registered green myself

I have since re-registered Dem in the hopes
that people like Conyers , Waters , Boxer ,
Fiengold , Gore , Lamont will become a larger
part of a new Democratic Majority in the House and
Senate .

:patriot:

[ScreamingMeemie]

53. And we are better people for knowing you.

:hi:

[proud patriot]

56. awe thanks

:loveya:

[longship]

55. Good for you!!

There are many Greens here, and probably a few Republicans, too. As long as they obey the rules, I suppose they are welcome. But they cannot use DU to support their candidates. Dems da rulez.

[proud patriot]

57. Indeed

The rules are the rules .

[longship]

54. Nobody says you can't take sides

But you cannot support a non-Democratic candidate over a Democratic one. Not here.

Lieberman is not the Democratic Party nominee for Senate in CT. So, it would be against the DU rules for you to support him here since Ned Lamont is the *only* Democratic Party candidate for that office.

People takes sides regularly in primaries. Some of the best and most heated debates take place in threads on those topics. Democrats get bashed here all the time. However, not in support of non-Democratic Party candidates.

[annabanana]

61. see rule #2 . . .(do you REALLY need a link?)

"Democratic Underground is an online community for Democrats and other progressives. Members are expected to be generally supportive of progressive ideals, and to support Democratic candidates for political office."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/forums/rules.html

[Raydawg1234]

62. I'm not gonna worry, I just registered as a Dem so I could vote for Lamont

[OffWithTheirHeads]

63. If I li.ved in Conn

I would have also. Good for you and thanks for helping take our country back.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

67. You Are Absolutely Correct.

Those that spout the 'this is for democrats only' line are far too narrow minded.

I am, however, hard-assed when it comes to non-democrats supporting and encouraging voting for other non-democrats. That is in fact against the rules and is where I'll draw the line when it comes to tolerance.

But as far as simply not being a democrat, that in itself means nothing within the spirit of being here. There are some posters here who are not registered dems that offer amazingly insightful pieces and contribute every bit as much as anyone. Just don't try and convince people to vote for Nader, is all. LOL

[OffWithTheirHeads]

68. AAAAAAKKKKKKK! You said the N word! Don't you know the

legend?

And so it shall come to pass, whomsoever says the N word three times whilst holding incense and turning counter clockwise shall release the ghost of CARLOS upon those who dwell at DU and the evil will permeate all threads hereinafter.

[Lilith Velkor]

76. NOOOOO!!11

:rofl:

"Discuss."

[ScreamingMeemie]

69. Hooray!!

We agree again! :toast:

[omega minimo]

74. Actions speak louder than words

:hi:

[Selatius]

71. I agree with your words

I have always characterized myself as a "little 'd'" Democrat for the reason that I find certain members of the Democratic Party very disagreeable. Joe Lieberman is one such example. There are others like Joe Biden who are simply hand servants of corporate interests, but then there are tremendously good Democrats like Dennis Kucinich or Russ Feingold. I'd support those in a heartbeat regardless of party affiliation. DU only requires that you support Democratic candidates for office. It never stipulated that you have to march in lock-step each time. There is room for disagreement, and anybody who claims otherwise should be ignored as simply trying to shut down debate.

[OffWithTheirHeads]

73. for what it's worth

the most money I have ever given to ANY candidate for office was to Howard Dean. Now thats my kind of Dem! I still have a Howard Dean button on my golf bag.

[im10ashus]

80. OMG! You golf!

That's it! We have no room for golfers here. :evilgrin:

[OffWithTheirHeads]

84. Shhhhhhhhhhh don't tell anyone

Not only do I golf, I also own guns and eat meat and smoke cigars. And eat Brie and drink Chard and support universal healthcare. Go figure.

[omega minimo]

75. Mrs. Grumpy nailed it:

"No, I don't agree with them trying to get non-Democratic candidates elected. I welcome their ideas-- period."

That seems perfectly in line with the spirit of your OP and the DU Rules:

"Who We Are: Democratic Underground is an online community for Democrats and other progressives. Members are expected to be generally supportive of progressive ideals, and to support Democratic candidates for political office. Democratic Underground is not affiliated with the Democratic Party, and comments posted here are not representative of the Democratic Party or its candidates."

Yet a number of replies here that are trying to correct you and rub your face in the Rules, are missing the point themselves.

"DU is... for Democrats and other progressives. Members are expected to be generally supportive of progressive ideals."

Yet far too many threads are disrupted, shut down, hijacked, jerked off, locked, fucked up, moronified, trolled and turned into a waste of time by people who (intentionally or not) don't comprehend the DIFFERENCE between discussing progressive ideals and campaigning for candidates or parties that may be associated with those ideals.

So-- the kneejerks overreact and discussion is ended-- too many times on too many threads where an attempt was made to discuss progressive ideals that Democrats and DU need to consider and include in their strategy for success.

Another part of the Rules that would help if people understood it is "DU Rules are based on Respect." It would cut out ALL OR MOST OF THE BULLSHIT AND MAKE THE MODS JOBS EASIER (oooooopsssss-- was I yellin :blush: ) if people would:

Slow down
Read carefully
Think before reacting
Don't be an asshole

All that becoming more prevalent would make it a lot harder for the trolls, freepers, operatives and just plain ignorant jerks to fly under the radar.

Of course all of these ideas presuppose that we are here to actually discuss, possibly learn and maybe even DO something.

"In my opinion, DU is a place for people of a progressive bent who wish to help improve the world by thought, deed, and action for all of us, not just members of an exclusive club. Those here who say that DU is for Democrats only remind me of the "love it or leave it crowd during the Vietnam war. They were wrong, and so are you."

There are some here (doesn't take many, it seems to be their function to watchdog GD: P especially and prevent any productive melding of "progressive ideals" and Democratic strategy) who show up and snark one-liners and randomly accuse those who try to discuss the ideas that would potentially ADDRESS the existing splits and gaps in the Democratic voting pool. Those who bring up topics that don't have certain serial snarkers' seal of approval are falsely accused of trying to HURT Democrats rather than the actual intention of HELPING DEMOCRATS.

And on a thread where I dared to point out that demonizing gr***s and progressive issues in one fell swoop is a big mistake for DU, that attitude came through loud and clear from several posters who said "Fuck Off."

If an OP points out that in order "to support Democratic candidates for political office" it is necessary "to be generally supportive of progressive ideals" then the attacks begin. Point out that it is counterproductive to demonize certain subgroups of potential Democratic voters and to alienate them from DU and/or the Democratic Party, the snark teams come down even harder.

So much for Respect. So much for efforts "to support Democratic candidates for political office."

The message is "You have to vote for Democrats no matter what so we don't have to discuss anything that is not status quo so Fuck Off" even though Democrats have not been winning, need fresh strategies and overwhelming voter turnout-- and the situation is SNAFU and FUBAR!!!

Why do the entrenched constipated status quo snark teams get to rule politics boards at DU and the ideas that might push the envelope here and there and open up new territory and potential for Democratic success are shut down?

It doesn't seem the kneejerk Democrats are really in a position to tell anyone to "Fuck Off."

:hi:

Thank you for this great OP and thread and your presence on DU. :thumbsup:

[mainegreen]

82. "Snark team"! I like that! Mind if I use it from time to time? nt

[OffWithTheirHeads]

85. I have this horrid vision

Jumped the snark. Oh nooooo

[OffWithTheirHeads]

83. And thank you

for eloquently helping me say what I was trying to say. If your team is losing, you need to consider some new ideas. Stay the course is is not a good strategy when their is a cliff in front of you.

[omega minimo]

89. From watching Sore Loserman's performance on 8-9, it looks like

the war on "Where (and who) is the Middle of the Democratic Party?" has jumped the snark.

Will there be the same-style "demonize the left" arguments on the national Party level now?

Sore Loserman said Lamont won even though he is "so far outside the Mainstream" and yet Lie-berman now claims he is the "Challenger" to the Democratic "Extabilshment." :silly: :crazy:

DU has a good opportunity to get past the slap fights, drop the fixation on labels, find common ground and define the direction for November and beyond.

Some day maybe.

:yoiks: