Reply #1108: Unfortunatly, the underlined portion perfectly encapsulates the problem.

[SarahB]

Imagine if during the Bush Administration, Democratic Underground had welcomed people who thought the president was doing a bad job, *and* people who thought the president was doing a good job.

The thing is Skinner, this is a false dichotomy,and it perfectly shows the bias that those of us on the "non-pragmatic" "side" have seen here lately from the administrators. First of all, when Bush was in office, maybe you didn't welcome people who thought he was doing a "good job", but you did welcome those who agreed with some of his policies. There was a vocal minority in favor of the Iraq War, for instance. Some of those posters are still here today. Secondly, even today DU welcomes posts celebrating Republicans for vote in favor of progressive policies (for instance, Olympia Snowe). In other words, even during the Bush years people who supported specific Republicans and/or specific "Republican" policies were welcomed here. The most important thing was that Democrats of all stripes be allowed to express their opinions.

What you have done, in this underlined passage, is essentially lump those who disagree with Obama's policies in with those who thought Bush was "doing a good job". This is insulting and shows that you do, in fact, have a bias in favor of what I'll call the "pragmatic" side. If you look over your, and especially EarlG's posts from about a year ago, you'll see this is the case. This is not "Obama Underground", this is "Democratic Underground", and there are plenty of very smart Democrats, both in office and on this site, who disagree with the President.

There are also many inconsistencies in the banning of members. It seems that the worst sin that can be committed on this site is publicly disagreeing with the administration. My husband, who was a moderator for several terms and who you once praised as very reasonable and fair, was banned for publicly calling out the administrators. Even he admits he should have been banned; that's not my point. However, when, after a year, he apologized, said he would not do it again, you did not allow him back in. Yet a longtime member whom you have publicly admitted threatened another DUer with bodily harm have been reinstated in less time.

I love this site. I met my husband here, got locally involved here, and have a lot of friends here. The tragedy, as I see it, is that you're too closely involved to take a good look in the mirror and admit where your biases lie.

That's my 2 cents.