DU'ers bitching about Kerry: Your words are being used by the other side

[phillybri]

http://www.federalreview.com/2004_04_25_blogarchive.htm#108318520169445312

And here's a spot-on comment from a DU regular:

He can't connect with the public, he's unappealing on TV, but we'll nominate him anyway! Did we mention he's a war hero? They always win!

It's Bob Dole II. I am thoroughly discouraged so far.

[Kahuna]

1. Can you fix the link? I would love to see the remarks...

This is what I have been warning about over and over.

[Tarheel_Dem]

4. and the sad part is.........

there's really nothing constructive about the kerry bashing posts. if certain people are genuinely concerned & want to make suggestions to senator kerry about his demeanor & other affectations, he has a website for that sort of thing.

it doesn't help to air your dislike, contempt or "sour grapes" here, it only gives the opposition more ammo. i think it's pretty inevitable that the senator is going to be the nominee, and for those holding onto their hopes of a brokered convention, "IT AIN'T GONNA HAPPEN"!

[Kahuna]

8. Remember that Clark blogger who posted about problems in the..

Clark campaign? It got posted on FOXNEWS.com, talked about on FAUXNews and talked about and written about in major news sources. That didn't do Clark's campaign any good. It gave fodder to the media whores. That is exactly what DUers who make stupid comments about Kerry are doing.

[Larkspur]

77. It's called Freedom of Speech, if you don't like it move to Uzbechistan

I hear the pro-American dicatator boils dissidents alive there.

The campaign is ultimately in Kerry's hands. It's his job to promote a winning image. If he's not connecting, it's his fault not his critics.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

83. It's called freedom of speech when we criticize those on our own side for

committing mutiny and being total fucking assholes who cannot distinguish between Kerry and Bush ... you don't like it...follow your own advice.

If you and a few others want to organize attacks on Kerry..be prepared to get some free speech generated in your direction too....ain't free speech grand??? Don't you totally love how it works both ways??

[Larkspur]

112. I'm not the one silencing dissent. Kerry supporters are

I don't care if Kerry supporters attack me. I'll strike back in turn.

If you guys and gals can't handle the heat, then get out of the race. This siege mentality of the Kerry supporters is so predictable that I find it laughable. :evilgrin:

[Feanorcurufinwe]

117. In what way? How are we silencing you?

And why can we read your comments if you've been 'silenced'?


LOL

[The Magistrate]

119. You Know The Answer, Sir

If the comments of these people are met with anything but an adulatory chorus of agreement, then they are being silenced. The motto is: disagreement is censorship. Only in a venue where their comments meet with rousing affirmation are they truely free to express themselves....

"It's quiet today in the old town of Tombstone."

"LET'S GO GET THOSE BUSH BASTARDS!"

[mitchum]

97. Since this is a privately owned message board, this has NOTHING...

to do with freedom of speech.
Somebody needs to read the Constitution...

[demnan]

2. We do have a problem

I don't think it is Kerry, per se, it would be anyone we put up there. The right wing is going to tear him apart. People who post here are human and they're going to be influenced.

No matter who you are if you are the Democratic nominee from now through at least the election:

Every woman you've said "hi" to, every loan you've taken or given, every person you met in college who saw you smoke a reefer is going to be on T.V. trashing you. The conservative machine is in focus.

We should just harden ourselves to this fact.

[sangh0]

16. Totally missing the point

Yes, the Repukes are going to attack us, but the point is, that's no excuse for helping them do it.

3. I've got better things to worry about

Say what you will about conservative attack dogs, you have to admit that some of them are pretty smart. I seriously doubt there's that much that is written in DUer's critiques of Kerry that they couldn't come up with on their very own.

[apnu]

10. uh.... but they are sourcing DU in these comments!

that's the problem, sure they'll come up with it on their own, and they do. But, sourcing DU and saying "see the other side thinks he's junk" is a much more powerful message than just plain old shillin'.

[TreasonousBastard]

11. Yup...

they've got teams of investigators out there digging up all the dirt they can find. And other teams of professional liars digging up dirt they couldn't find.

Like we do.

But, while I doubt we're giving away any secrets here, it is a bit unseemly to bash our candidate, or whine about how we're just SO going to lose.

Funny thing is, I can deal with the trolls coming in here to stir shit, but I just can't deal with the whiners who should be out there working for a win, but keep coming back here warning us the sky is falling.

[blondeatlast]

21. Post 10 and 11--so right.

I don't mind the constructive criticism (I've offered some of my own) but the "my way or the highway" types make me actually want the fictional "purge."

[mouse7]

20. So you're not responsible for what own mouth says, 56kid?

The vast majority of the right wing thugs can't think their way out of a wet paper bag with a basket of battery-operated power tools at their feet. Stupidity is one of the defining characteristics of being a right-winger.

If you're not going to hold yourself responsible for your words, 56, we'll take over the job and hold you responsible for out-of-control purity rants.

25. Have you ever seen an out of control rant from me?

No.

You're thinking of someone else.

There are right wingers who are quite intelligent, unfortunately. George Will, for example. Dick Cheney for another. Stupidity is not one of the defining characteristics of being a right winger. Greed and similar attributes, yes, but not stupidity.

Right wingers have no monopoly on stupidity. There are plenty of people on all sides of the political spectrum who are stupid.


Where in anything I wrote have I said that I don't hold myself responsible for my own words?

[mouse7]

28. You've got "better things to worry about," 56

You've got better things to worry about than you words being used by the other side. Sounds like you don't care what the effects of your words might be, or that it's real low on your priority list. That's gonna be pretty irresponsible in just about anyone's opinion.

By the way, ever heard George Will try to defend supply-side economics? There a load of stupid in that guy. Cheney, too. Cheney is continually not doing basic CYA manuevers to avoid getting in trouble. The energy Task Force, for example. Only a complete fool wouldn't have scheduled a few left groups to come in and at least give lip service to the illusion of getting input from all sides. That's BIG stupid.

39. I definitely care

about the effects of my words. But I can't control how someone else chooses to use them or interpret them.
For example, I think you continue to misrepresent my words.
But that's not going to stop me from writing what I think and giving you another chance to misrepresent them.

[Renew Deal]

44. You would get banned at FR for criticiting the boy king.

At least we have a more open forum. Remember, not everyone supported Kerry in the primary. Some will like him more than others, but I bet the poster would prefer him to Bushler.

47. just to be clear

I rarely post critiques of Kerry even though I do have some critiques of him
I am defending people who do post critiques however.

Actually, are you responding to me? I can't tell for sure.

[Renew Deal]

70. I'm just making a comment.

I was looking at your post when I responded.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

75. That's like saying murder should be legal since people are going to die

anyway.

78. what?

I like engaging in rational discussion, civil disagreement; but that requires that the point made has some minimum level of validity which your point here does not have.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

81. It does. Your defense of the " attack Kerry" threads claims that if

those attacks didn't eminate from DU, that righties would dream up and execute these attacks anyway. You therefore defend much of what is nothing more than mutiny on DU by claiming it would occur whether it was started here or not.

That is, indeed, very much akin to saying murder should be legal since people are all going to die anyway.

The real point of the thread starter is that we are doing the deeds for our opposition and being cited, referenced and credited with such. We don't need them to kill us off...we have US.

88. this is why I don't agree.

I wrote
Say what you will about conservative attack dogs, you have to admit that some of them are pretty smart. I seriously doubt there's that much that is written in DUer's critiques of Kerry that they couldn't come up with on their very own.

All I'm saying here is that I don't think it's that big a deal.
A defense is implied I suppose.

I defend critiquing. Discussion. Tweaking.

The real point of the thread starter is that we are doing the deeds for our opposition and being cited, referenced and credited with such. We don't need them to kill us off...we have US.

I think it's for the moderators to decide if critiques are doing the deeds of the opposition.

It's been awhile (a long while) since I took a logic class, but equating discussion with murder is suspect to me.


Cutting off discussion and tweaking is kind of like saying that if you are against the war in Iraq you are unpatriotic, if you ask me.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

92. I didn't equate discussion with murder

I think it's for the moderators to decide if critiques are doing the deeds of the opposition.

It's been awhile (a long while) since I took a logic class, but equating discussion with murder is suspect to me.


I made an analogy based on your logic that it was no big deal since it would happen anyway. Nowhere did I EQUATE discussion with murder.

As far as the moderators deciding, I have no problem with that...I also have wide latitude to critique the critiquers in that equation and I will continue to do so.

93. fair enough

I meant that approving of murder and approving of criticism are of a different nature. There is something about the type of action of murder and the type of action of discussion that are different enough that I don't think the analogy you are using works.

But like I said, it's been a long time since I took a logic class, so I'm not sure quite what the fallacy is I'm sensing in using the analogy you're using. Since I just feel it's suspect, I'll stop trying to defend that point.

As to this point
I also have wide latitude to critique the critiquers in that equation and I will continue to do so.
Exactly!!. Go for it. More power to you.
I think both sides should be given that latitude though.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

94. Both sides should be given lattitude within reason

If my critiques were disruptive, I'd get the boot. If their critiques are then they should. This site was dedicated and founded on the proposition that people can and should organize, discuss and find ways to correct the coup that occurred in 2000.... it's useful to live true to that.

[ArkDem]

5. Yes, DU is going to be a major factor in the election.

.

[phillybri]

6. No, it's not, but it gives creedence....

...to the GOP's argument that we're not satisfied w/ Kerry.

This kind of thing will be all over the place. Look at how much face time Zell Miller's gotten lately...

[Kahuna]

7. Right... They don't have to cite an "unnamed source" They can..

post a link with actual named sources. And they will do it again and again. And so, DU's mission to elect a democratic president will instead give aid and comfort to the enemy. Go figure.

Once again, I have to state that I believe a lot of posters who do this do so knowing full well that they may make the "big time." 'Kewl. I'm famous dude.' :puke:

12. Anybody who bases their vote

on this kind of stuff (that is, that there is some division in the Democratic party), instead of on the positions and qualifications of the actual candidate, is probably already looking for a reason to vote for Bush - a reason, a justification or a rationalization; so like I said above, I don't see what there is to worry about here.

Seems like a tempest in a teapot and possibly an attempt to silence critiques. More likely though is that it is just evidence on the poster's part that they are being a worry wart.


Edit-- I do understand the worry about the critique coming from the inside. I'm not trying to unequivocally discount this worry. I just happen to think there are better things to worry about.

[sangh0]

17. Ahh, the Purist Sneer

I guess some of us differ over whether those people are "good enough" to vote for a Dem. Personally speaking, I would like to see Kerry get votes from people who don't base their vote on "that kind of stuff" *AND* from people who DO base their vote on "that kind of stuff".

I would also guess that some of us would not agree with the claim that those people are "probably already looking for a reason to vote for Bush". Only someone blind to the public's opinions would think that only Repukes vote on the basis of "that kind of stuff"

18. I'd like votes from both kinds also

It's not a purist sneer at all. I think you're reading something into what I was saying that is not there or at least not intended to be there.

I'm very pragmatic.
I have strong idealism, but I know when it needs to be tempered.

I really don't think your quarrel is with me, but with those who are not as pragmatic. I understand your quarrel with them but I tend to cut them more slack than you do judging from the ongoing discussions over the past few months.

[sangh0]

22. I might be over interpreting

but I must say I really don't understand why you would assume that those voters are mostly Repukes looking for an excuse to vote for Bush*. I also object to your mischaracterizing those who note the consequences of attacking Kerry (as opposed to critiquing) as trying to "silence" dissent, an argument that I've heard often on DU, and often from people who have tried to silence other arguments that they don't like. An example of this would be how some Nadir supporters claim that the ABB argument is an attempt to censor them.

Just yesterday, I read a post of yours arguing that a post which pointed out another poster's lack of of experience winning elections was somehow inappropriate. However, I did not accuse you of trying to "silence" anyone. I preferred to assume that you honestly thought it was somehow inappropriate over assuming some nefarious motive on your part.

27. interesting stuff

You write
I also object to your mischaracterizing those who note the consequences of attacking Kerry (as opposed to critiquing) as trying to "silence" dissent

That's why I wrote "possibly" in italics. I don't think the original poster here was trying to silence dissent. I have seen those who do try to silence it though.

Regarding the post about winning elections. I'm glad you gave me the benefit of the doubt on that one, because I might have been a little strident in my response there and all I was trying to get at was that I didn't think it mattered whether we personally have won or lost an election when suggesting strategies to someone who is running for office. I certainly didn't mean to suggest there that it was inappropriate to make the point.

I'm not sure if I was assuming the voters are mostly Repukes who base there votes on this kind of stuff. I was thinking more along the lines that they are a narrow spectrum who read freeper boards. I may be wrong about this, but I think that most of this stuff on DU and other boards probably is not even noticed by your average voter.

[sangh0]

35. two points

I'm glad to hear you appreciate my giving you the benefit of the doubt. I hope you use that as a model the next time you get the feeling someone is trying to censor someone else.

WRT to the main thrust of this thread, I think you are missing an important point, which is being able to truthfully say that these "criticisms" (which are really attacks) come from liberals makes those criticisms appear far more credible to the typical voter, who tends to be somewhat uninformed about the details of many issues.

37. yes, I think I was missing the subtlety of that important point

that's the usefulness of maintaining this dialogue.

[mouse7]

23. Vast majority of US voters base their votes on this kind of stuff

Positions and qualification? You're kidding right? Have you paid any attention to political science in the US in the last 50 years? It's exactly this type of superficial crap that elections turn on.

You need to police the purity rants said here. If you want to rant negative crap about party candidates, start your own website or blog.

31. again, you're thinking of someone else

I don't think I've gone on any purity rants.

I know I haven't posted or ranted "negative crap about party candidates,"


I don't understand why you're attacking me. All I'm suggesting is that I don't think we need to worry about this stuff too much.
I really don't understand why you're directing this venom at me .


edit-- by the way I didn't write that most people base their vote on positions and qualififications, I wrote "anybody who bases their vote on this kind of stuff (that is, that there is some division in the Democratic party), instead of on the positions and qualifications of the actual candidate, is probably already looking for a reason to vote for Bush

[MadHound]

15. But hey, a lot of us aren't satisfied with Kerry friend

What are you wishing us to do? Stifle ourselves? So much for that first amendment eh.

Look, Kerry is a milquetoast candidate, designed to appeal to appeal to the center and his corporate masters at the expense of the traditional base. Hence, he is coming out for a corporate tax cut and he is going to keep the Iraq war going so that he doesn't appear to be "soft on the war on terra". These, among many other things piss a lot of people off, and yet we are supposed to suck it up silently? Fuck that, I'm loud and proud, and if you don't want to hear what I say, put me on ignore.

But attempting to stifle me so as not to give fuel to the 'Pugs, on top of the bullying and fearmongering to get my vote is not the way to go about winning friends and influencing people. Instead of beating us over the head and trying to bully people into line, why not try addressing our concerns instead, toss us a bone you know. It is the traditional way of building coalitions, and the best one devised. Instead the left is being virtually ignored, excepting when the Democratic party fails and we become the scapegoat.

So the Pugs are using the left's words against Kerry. Well this has happened before, and will happen again. I think you are assigning way too much importance to what goes on on this board. But even assuming that this is important, rather than trying to bludgeon the left into line, why not try to address some of our very real concerns. Otherwise the party will simply alienate the left even more.

[H2O Man]

19. Many on the left support Kerry.

Not because he is a perfect candidate, but because if we want to move our nation from the far right to the left on the Great Graph of American politics, we must journey through that middle ground. No one wants the dissatisfied to quietly accept the unacceptable, or to quit fighting the good fight. But consider, please, the possibility that there is a time to speak loudly, and a time to be kind of quiet. Do you think that it is possible, my friend, that with ALL THAT IS AT STAKE AT THIS POINT IN TIME, that we could be best served by backing Kerry, getting bush out of the White House, and then being loud? Do you think it's possible that many of the people on here share the EXACT same GOALS as you, but sincerely believe that a different tactic is needed? True revolutions in cultural values are hard work, and require extreme maturity and discipline. All I ask is that you give that serious thought, and that you respect the fact that many of us are indeed on the left ..... we just prefer victory.

[MadHound]

24. Victory uber alles friend? Sorry, I've been down that road before

In fact it is that sort of mentality that got us on the left, and the Democratic party into this quandry in the first place. Sorry, but after thirty plus years of being the good Dem trooper, and not having a thing to show for it, well it is obvious to me, and many others in the same boat, that are going to continue to be taken for granted until we make ourselves heard. This is part of what gives the current crop of leftist independent candidates their momentum and fire, disaffected leftist Dems who unable to stomach anymore, who are tired of being ignored unless their vote is wanted, and then we are browbeaten and victims of scare tactics.

Instead of using negative tactics to procure our vote, why don't you try the lost art of compromise. It is one that has worked well in the past for Dems, why not now? FDR was afraid of the Socialist in his first re-election, so he stole their unemployment and SS planks, and became the most elected president in history. Why don't the Dems try this again, co-opt universal health care or living wage for their own? It would lure many many disaffected leftists back to the Dem fold. But instead it seems that bully boy tactics and fearmongering are the tactics of choice these days. A pity really, because it is a tactic that will continue to drive more and more leftists away.

[H2O Man]

34. I respectfully disagree.

However, I also respectfully note that your position is well thought out, and based upon experience and conviction. I suspect that we have common goals, and are heading in the same general direction. Thirty years of experience may be seen as either a long or short time, and so perhaps that difference in perception best illustrates how and why we see benefit in different tactics. I'll be curious if, come November, one of us may move a tiny bit closer to the other's point of view. Point of fact: for many years, I helped build houses. I did the "mud" work on foundations. Underground, the heavy and difficult work, that few people take notice of. I'm convinced that there is little gain in planning to build anything without a strong foundation. I am concerned that some people, either wittingly or unwittingly, chip away at that foundation. But I accord others the right to their opinions.

[mouse7]

26. Those concerns were addressed in the primaries.

You had you chance to say your piece and win people to the candidate of your choice during the primary season. If your candidate did not do that, that's on you and your candidate. Don't influct your hard feelings on losing on us. You need to control the sour grapes and purity rants.

[MadHound]

43. Excuse me, but dissent isn't simply limited to the primaries

I have the right to dissent throughout the election process and beyond, not that the Democratic party gives a rat's ass, but it is my right. And I'm not even looking for purity, never have been. All I'm looking for is a few bones tossed the left's way, something, anything to acknowledge the traditional Democratic base.

But noooo, it's all about the money now, and how high the candidate can jump to please his corporate masters. Sorry, I can't blind myself to that sort of madness, and will speak the truth about it at every opportunity. If you don't like it, put me on ignore, I don't care. But don't ever try to deny me the right to speak freely, OK friend.

[TreasonousBastard]

36. Actually, yes...

stifle yourself.

Puerile First Amendment arguments over a private forum dedicated to getting a Democrat in the White house just don't cut it.

Kerry is our candidate, for better or worse, and the job is to get him elected, not muse over who might have been better, or why he's such a lousy candidate.

Whining about any of Kerry's possible faults may have been an amusing execise during the primaries, but that's over and there's a job to do.
The first decision has been made, and it's not going to change. Kerry will make an excellent President, certainly better than what we have now, and anything that does not work toward his winning is just plain wrong and does not belong here.

Get with the program, or get out of the way.

[MadHound]

41. I love, love, love, how you term that.

"Peurile first amendment arguements". How enchanting, belittling, demeaning, and self revealing. Look friend, you may not believe in the Constitution, but many of us do, and will exercise our rights whether you like it or not.

If you don't like what we have to say, do something about it! Rather than using bully boy tactics and fearmongering to try to get your way, use that wonderful lost art called compromise. Hey, it worked for the Dems for many a year, and it will work again if you give it a try. You want the votes on the left, you want to neutralize Nader and the Greens. Then toss us a bone, like universal health care, or a living wage plank. You will get many more votes from the left with a little compromise that you will with the bully boy tactics.

But hey, I can see from your post that you're a big fan of binary thinking, "with us or against us", "Get with the program, or get out of the way". That's your choice friend, but let me tell you something. It was thinking like that that got the Dem party into the spot it is in now, and continued use of that type of thinking will simply drive more people out of the party until there will be no Democratic party at all. So the choice is yours, let us hope you choose wisely.

[TreasonousBastard]

96. You have no right to...

shout "FIRE" in a crowded theater, which is what you are doing here.

Just as you have no right to tell someone to buy a Toyota if you're a Ford salesman. You can scream 1st Amendment all you want, but you'll still be fired. And you'll get a serious asskicking for wearing a white sheet at an NAACP meeting.

The 1st Amendment applies simply to government suppression of speech, and nowhere says that private organizations can't control their own.

I'm not into bone tossing. I'm pissed because there's been nothing said about major overhauls of the criminal justice system, universal floating pension plans, fully merging the US military with UN forces for peacekeeping, and a number of other impossible goals.

But, I can't have everything I want, so I'll take what I can get. And I won't piss on our candidates here just because I can't have my way.

[MadHound]

109. Hey, I'm not expecting everything I wish for either friend

But I do think that it is better to build coalitions with compromise rather than a cudgel. But hey, that's just me, oh and the Democratic Party up until about twelve years ago. Even FDR had to compromise, and the fruit of that compromise we are still enjoying to this day in the form of Social Security and Unemployment Insurance. Darn those Socialists anyway, forcing FDR to compromise like that.

But hey, if you want to continue to try and browbeat people into line, go for it. Just don't expect much success.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

86. Well he was apparently more inspiring than Howard Dean..after all he beat

the crap out of him in every state but Dean's own.

Gee..I'm sorry the majority of the voting Dems thus far disagreed with you...gosh we should follow Bush's lead and dismiss everyone else's votes for the sake of a bunch of malcontents.

[MadHound]

111. Excuse me, but who said anything about Dean?

Geez people, I've never said anything about Dean. What I criticize Kerry, and somehow I'm automatically a Deaniac? Puhleeze! Sorry, but my man was the only one in the race who wasn't a corporate whore, Kucinich.

And no, I'm not asking for anybody to dismiss anyones' votes. What I am asking for is an end to the fearmongering and bully boy tactics, and instead work in that old Democratic spirit of compromise, you know, give a little to get a little. But apparently too many people are too fond of cudgeling people into submission to give compromise a chance. More's the pity, for it will probably cost Kerry the election.

[jonnyblitz]

130. because Kerry people think that the only reason why we have

issues with him is because we are disgruntled Dean supporters. It couldn't possibly be his stands on the issues whatever they might be on any given day. :eyes:

[mitchum]

98. Someone else needs to read The Constitution

This is not a first amendment issue (since DU is not government owned/controlled)
Try again...

[MadHound]

113. You are right,

But only to a certain extent. First Amendment also has applications even on private chat boards. Also, this kind of bully boy attitude is spilling out from the chat rooms into real life, and the First Amendment certainly holds sway in the forum of public life. Clear enough?

[meti57b]

138. If you aren't "satisfied" with Kerry, that means you want ... bush.

[Guaranteed]

29. LOL nt

[orwell]

9. Fire When Ready

The recently released CBS/NYT poll is very bad for Shrubbie. Where are all the posts applauding this. I just went to two threads and nobody here says anything. If the poll was bad for Kerry there would be 20 posts each by now.

I'll say it again, we are lucky to have John Kerry as our candidate. I wish more people here knew it. (pssst...he is the candidate...have you heard?)

How would you like to be putting lipstick on that pig G.W. Bush? Would you feel comfortable with him as your "standard bearer." I didn't think so.

Circular firing squad indeed.

O

[H2O Man]

13. There are many interesting thoughts

on this thread. I think that while the enemy camp may not use much of the things posted on here per say, that they do keep fairly close track of DU and similar loose-knit left-wing organizations. Always remember that they are very well organized.
I am far less concerned with the republicans than with our party. We see the seeds of discontent taking root on here daily. Petty concerns about "my candidate lost, and I'm mad" go beyond being selfish and annoying; they pose a threat to our ability to unify behind our candidate. I would not have put Kerry in with my top choices, but as he's the candidate, I'll support him 100%.
I also find the degree of ignorance expressed here to be of some concern. One should read and become familiar with the US Constitution, for example, before making statements about constitutional rights.
I'd think our goal would be to organize, educate, and register voters, in order that we can remove bush from office this fall. There are many, many good and dedicated people on here, who are no doubt working in these areas. But there are also a good many people who need to study up on "intro to political science".

[phillybri]

14. Kick

:kick:

[Guaranteed]

30. So, are you trying to say we shouldn't be critical of Kerry? nt

[Guaranteed]

32. BTW, that link wasn't the "other side."

It looked like they were Kerry supporters, to me.

On edit: I guess it's a little of both. I think the guy was trying to be neutral.

[Redneck Socialist]

33. All hail King Kerry, perfect in every way!

No dissent will be tolerated! :eyes:

Whatever.

Don't criticize Kerry because the right might read it.

When will it be OK to criticize Kerry? After he wins? Nope can't do that might hurt his reelection chances. After he wins a second term? Nope can't do that might hurt his veep's election chances.

I don't much care what those on the right are thinking. If Kerry pulls a boner I'm going to call him on it, all the while continuing to work for his election. After his victory I'm going to continue to fight for those issues dear to me. If Kerry is on the wrong side of those issues I going to let him know.

Stop obsessing over what the wingnuts on the other side are doing. They are going to gibber, twitch and rant regardless of what we do.

[mouse7]

38. Do your "dissent" on your own bandwidth

You want to attack the party and it's candidates, you can do it on your own nickel. Nobody is saying you have no right to criticise. However, you don't have any right to do your criticism here. If you want to attack the party and it's candidates, do it on your own blog or website.

[Kahuna]

45. Amen! The only purpose it serves to publically criticize Kerry..

is to help bush. Period. No one has to publically bash Kerry on the internet. I'm sure that we all have friends and family members we can address our concerns to. And if we don't have friends and family members to address our concerns to, it speaks volumes and is a topic for a seperate discussion.

[Bill Todd]

129. Attacks on Kerry are no longer appropriate here, but criticism is

At least according to the rules ("SPECIAL GUIDELINES RELATING TO THE 2004 ELECTION", which seem to be in effect now even though the nomination is not yet 'official'):

"Constructive criticism and even outright disappointment with the candidate may be expressed, but partisan negative attacks will not be welcome."

If you feel that is too permissive, you should discuss it with those who write the rules.

- bill

[Feanorcurufinwe]

40. Why don't you try 'dissent' against the Republicans?

After all, they are the party in power.

Just a thought. :eyes:

[sangh0]

42. Priorities

Every one has their own priorities

[AntiCoup2K4]

48. Dissent against the Republicans? What a great concept!

I've been practicing it since I was 14. When's the DLC going to try it? Instead, they call 1994 a "liberation" and claim 2002 as a "moral victory". Who's dissenting against whom anyway?

[Feanorcurufinwe]

49. What the fuck are you talking about?

I certainly don't care how you feel about the DLC. What does that have to do with anything?

[AntiCoup2K4]

50. If you don't care about the DLC's destruction of this party..

..then God Himself couldn't heal your blindness. Geezus, do you really think a one party fascist global state is a GOOD thing??

The idiots at NDOL/PPI/DLC/PNAC sure do.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

53. That's only in your imagination, it doesn't exist in reality.

I just want to point out the blatant dishonesty, mean-spiritedness, and lack of tolerance of opposing views in your argument.

I said: "I certainly don't care how you feel about the DLC. What does that have to do with anything?"

You responded: "If you don't care about the DLC's destruction of this party then God Himself couldn't heal your blindness. Geezus, do you really think a one party fascist global state is a GOOD thing??"


So because I disagree with you, I'm in favor of " a one party fascist global state " ?


:puke:


:puke:

:puke:

[Feanorcurufinwe]

126. do you really think a one party fascist global state is a GOOD thing??

Do you?

[Guaranteed]

52. What he's talking about is that

that is what he IS doing. And he expects our candidate to do it, too.

He DOES hate the Republicans. He hates them so much that he expects our candidate to show some righteous indignation, too. For me, particularly in the area of foreign policy.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

54. Actually, no

He says he dissents against Republicans, and then follows up that assertion with more attacks on Democrats.


When in a battle, you have a better chance of winning if you point your weapons at your enemies than at your allies.

[Guaranteed]

55. Well you can't blame someone who gets angry

that their allies, especially their general, aren't shooting.

[sangh0]

56. Yes I can blame someone who gets angry

particularly when they get angry over something that's not true

[Feanorcurufinwe]

57. I can blame someone for misdirecting their anger at their allies.

Just like I can point out that saying that Kerry "isn't shooting" is false. An untrue statement.

[Guaranteed]

60. Here's what I want Kerry to say:

"George Bush has taken advantage of the people's trust in him since 9/11 and invaded a sovereign nation, illegally, for his own political and financial purposes. He has soiled our country's good name, weakened us militarily and financially, created a political liability and created MORE terrorists, instead of less. He has distracted us from the real war on terror, removing resources and attention from Afghanistan and placing them in Iraq. While most of the terrorists who hijacked planes on 9/11 were Saudis and had countless high-up Saudi connections, Saudi Arabia, and Bush's buddies who run the place, have been left untouched. Bush has shown no regard for the safety of our country, and instead has pursued his own interests using our tax dollars and the lives of our sons and daughters, all the while lying to those who make such difficult sacrifices, only for his gain."

Some of the nastier stuff impugning his motives can be taken out, but that sounds about right to me.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

61. Who cares what you want him to say?

Why don't you run for President? Then you can tell yourself what to say, lol.

[Guaranteed]

62. Do you disagree with me?

Or do you just not give a shit about the truth and what's best for our country?

[Feanorcurufinwe]

64. Yes, I disagree with the idea that Kerry needs your advice.

lol

[Guaranteed]

65. Exactly. You won't pull the trigger.

LOL, maybe Kerry should listen to you:

"My God, I fucking HATE Bush. He is a scumsucking piece of crap. Downright EVIL. The spawn of Satan himself. I'm ABB- ANYBODY would be better than Bush. I just can't stand him. Worst president EVER."

"Why's that?"

"Because he should have had a broader coalition before he invaded Iraq."

[Feanorcurufinwe]

67. Does your post have anything to do with reality?

Or is it just your imagination?

All these 'quotes':

"My God, I fucking HATE Bush. He is a scumsucking piece of crap. Downright EVIL. The spawn of Satan himself. I'm ABB- ANYBODY would be better than Bush. I just can't stand him. Worst president EVER."

"Why's that?"

"Because he should have had a broader coalition before he invaded Iraq."



Are they from reality? Or from your imagination?

[Guaranteed]

68. Again, do you disagree?

Is Bush NOT the worst president ever? Is he NOT evil?

Well, it's a little anti-climactic if you say that, and then back it up with "he should have had a broader coalition."

You seem to be avoiding this at all costs. Let's talk about the issue, not me, why don't we?

[Feanorcurufinwe]

71. So, yes, it was unrelated to reality, a product of your imagination.

You are just making stuff up. Try commenting on the real world.

Yes. As I already said, I disagree with the idea that Kerry needs your advice.

[Guaranteed]

73. It's a straightforward question:

Do you hate Bush or not? Why?


Why is this so difficult for you? Why can't you face this?

[Feanorcurufinwe]

115. It's a personal attack.

I don't really know why the moderators didn't see fit to remove it, but trying to imply that I don't hate Bush is a clear violation of this rule:

Do not publicly accuse another member of this message board of being a disruptor, troll, conservative, Republican, or FReeper. Do not try to come up with cute ways of skirting around the spirit of this rule.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/forums/rules.html

I feel insulted at the suggestion that I don't hate Bush. I suggest you review some of the over eleven thousand messages I've posted here at DU.



And I feel compelled to point out that you launched this personal attack after I posted the following:

All these 'quotes':

"My God, I fucking HATE Bush. He is a scumsucking piece of crap. Downright EVIL. The spawn of Satan himself. I'm ABB- ANYBODY would be better than Bush. I just can't stand him. Worst president EVER."

"Why's that?"

"Because he should have had a broader coalition before he invaded Iraq."


Are they from reality? Or from your imagination?

So I ask again, did you get those 'quotes' from reality, or from your imagination?

116. Maybe he didn't think it was an insult

I don't really know why the moderators didn't see fit to remove it, but trying to imply that I don't hate Bush is a clear violation of this rule:


Do not publicly accuse another member of this message board of being a disruptor, troll, conservative, Republican, or FReeper. Do not try to come up with cute ways of skirting around the spirit of this rule.


i'm not a a disruptor, troll, conservative, Republican, or FReeper
but I don't hate Bush.

I pity him.
I don't like his policies.
I'm not going to vote for him.

But to say someone doesn't hate him isn't really an insult is it?
in the real world

[Feanorcurufinwe]

118. Clearly an attempt to avoid responding to my comment by attacking me.

It was a 'cute' way of skirting the rule.


The poster made up false quotations and posted them. I pointed out the fabrication, and the fact that the quotations came from the poster's imagination and not reality, and the poster responded by saying:

Do you hate Bush or not? Why?


Why is this so difficult for you? Why can't you face this?



:puke:

[Guaranteed]

120. I didn't imply that at all. You're being evasive.

I was not attacking your character. I asked you exactly where you disagreed with me. YOU avoided answering the question. You STILL are avoiding answering the question. WHERE do you disagree with me? Don't you hate Bush?

[Feanorcurufinwe]

131. There is no reason for you to insult me.

I think it is illustrative of how weak your argument is that you resorted to insulting me by insinuating that I have anything other than contempt for George Bush.

Yes I hate George Bush. I hope you won't keep wasting everyone's time by continuing to insinuate that I don't. I didn't answer earlier because I was under the impression that a personal attack like yours would be deleted, relieving me of the burden of having to continually assert that I am someone who is categorically and with no hesitation opposed to George Bush's evil and illegal regime - as I am. But apparently this was not considered a personal attack. So now you have your answer.


And I feel compelled to point out that you launched this personal attack after I posted the following:

All these 'quotes':

"My God, I fucking HATE Bush. He is a scumsucking piece of crap. Downright EVIL. The spawn of Satan himself. I'm ABB- ANYBODY would be better than Bush. I just can't stand him. Worst president EVER."

"Why's that?"

"Because he should have had a broader coalition before he invaded Iraq."


Are they from reality? Or from your imagination?

So I ask again, did you get those 'quotes' from reality, or from your imagination?

[Guaranteed]

139. It was not deleted because there were no insults, insinuations,

or implications. At all.

I asked you a very simple question- "Do you disagree with me?"- and you repeatedly refused to answer it. Now THAT'S "illustrative," if anything is.

In any case, now that you've "admitted" that you hate George Bush, maybe you can explain to me why you won't pull the trigger.

Cuz, you know, you don't hate somebody just because they didn't put together a broad enough coalition before invading a country. Thus, the joke I made up that you seem to be obsessed with now. I'm glad it stuck in your mind.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

140. So did the 'quotes' come from reality or your imagination?

All these 'quotes':

"My God, I fucking HATE Bush. He is a scumsucking piece of crap. Downright EVIL. The spawn of Satan himself. I'm ABB- ANYBODY would be better than Bush. I just can't stand him. Worst president EVER."

"Why's that?"

"Because he should have had a broader coalition before he invaded Iraq."


Are they from reality? Or from your imagination?

I ask again, did you get those 'quotes' from reality, or from your imagination?

[Feanorcurufinwe]

141. Did you lie, or tell the truth?

When you posted these 'quotes':

"My God, I fucking HATE Bush. He is a scumsucking piece of crap. Downright EVIL. The spawn of Satan himself. I'm ABB- ANYBODY would be better than Bush. I just can't stand him. Worst president EVER."

"Why's that?"

"Because he should have had a broader coalition before he invaded Iraq."

Were those quotes accurate, and truthful? Or were they a fabrication, a lie?


I'm asking a question. I'm not accusing or insinuating anything. It's a simple question. Why are you evading it?

[Guaranteed]

142. You know, I coulda sworn that I just told you that it was

a joke (a very funny one, I might add) that I had made up to illustrate my point. Of course, you're a smart guy, so you knew that.

So, now that I've said it again, are you going to ask once more in your next post? Or are you going to explain your position and stick to the issues at hand?

[Feanorcurufinwe]

143. So you fabricate quotes and then call it a joke.

I agree, your comments are a joke.

[Guaranteed]

145. LOL WHATEVER

To fabricate a quote, I'd have to attribute them to somebody, now wouldn't I?

DID I attribute them to somebody? Did I say that ANYBODY actually SAID that? NO. It was CLEARLY a joke. You're just pissed because it was so effective and made you look so bad.

Don't play BS games.

And you're STILL avoiding the issue. STILL.

[Kipepeo]

146. doesn't look like he's evading it

As a third person reading the back and forth i thought it was obvious that after you made fun of his position (the advice he'd like to give Kerry) he contrasted it with his take on your position (illustrated by the quotes that you keep asking about).

Maybe he shouldn't have used quotes and it seems like that's all you're really going back to over & over when I think the point he was trying to make was more interesting:

What kind of criticism is more useful to the Kerry campaign: suggestions on positions Kerry should take or criticisms of Bush?

I actually think both are necessary (the 'OMG Bush sucks!' "quotes" he was attributing to you were a joke, in that I don't think that's the extent of your criticism of Bush) but right now I am more interested in letting the Kerry campaign know about positions I think he should take. http://www.johnkerry.com/contact/contact.php

I wish we (meaning democrats in general) could get back to the main points/arguments/discussions instead of these side arguments that don't seem to be helping anyway.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

147. He falsely characterized my position as well as Kerry's

I can state my own position just fine. When he falsely characterized my position, I challenged and that challenge went unanswered. Yes indeed the Kerry campaign does want to hear suggestions and ideas as was pointed out in the thread. Inventing quotes whether called a 'joke' or not, where the intention is to mischaracterize and mock Kerry, or me, may be an valid debate tactic, it is also valid for me to point it out when it is being done and not be sidetracked by some assault on my credentials or motives.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

72. Why pretend I didn't answer?

Why pretend that disagreeing with you means supporting Bush?

:wtf:

[Guaranteed]

76. Just answer the question. nt

[Feanorcurufinwe]

79. Yes, I disagree with the idea that Kerry needs your advice.

How many times do you want me to say it? lol

[Guaranteed]

82. Well, I'm afraid Senator Kerry disagrees with YOU on that

one:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x513194

[Feanorcurufinwe]

85. LOL

The thread you referenced says:

"John Kerry wants your ideas!



To launch this effort the right way, we need you to suggest groups,
mailing lists, web sites and communities that we should reach out
to. Email us your ideas at:

[email protected] "

And I say, if you ever do come up with an actual idea, please do email it to that address, lol.

[sangh0]

91. Stop flattering yourself

That thread wasn't addressed to you.

66. that is the straw dog again

I know sangho has critiqued me for saying this before, but I'll try again.

I don't understand the argument that says that in order to critique someone who is running for office or hope that they say something we have to run for office also. If that was how it was, the only people who could suggest to someone running for president something to say would be people who are also running for president. That just doesn't make sense. Surely you don't mean that? Perhaps you are just frustrated and that's why you're suggesting that. Am I missing something?

I always thought that elected officials or people who wanted to become elected officials in a representative democracy had some obligation to listen to their constituents or the people who are possibly going to vote them into office. At least if they want their vote....

[Feanorcurufinwe]

69. Well I didn't make that argument.

I don't understand the argument that says that in order to critique someone who is running for office or hope that they say something we have to run for office also.

The term is 'straw man' and you've provided a good example of it.


I never said: in order to critique someone who is running for office or hope that they say something we have to run for office also.

what I said was that I thought the other posters opinion of what Kerry needed to say was without value, I also implied that it was counterproductive to the goal of defeating Bush, and I suggested that the only way to get a candidate to use the exact words you want, is to be the candidate.


I always thought that elected officials or people who wanted to become elected officials in a representative democracy had some obligation to listen to their constituents or the people who are possibly going to vote them into office. At least if they want their vote....

By all means, if you don't like Kerry, vote for Bush. That's your choice.

74. this is the direct quote

Why don't you run for President? Then you can tell yourself what to say, lol.

Can you see why I might have interpreted it the way I did? It's not much of a stretch, if one at all.

(edit -- I guess I thought there was an implication in your comment that you didn't mean to have there. I retract my critique since you say you didn't mean that.)

straw dog, straw man-- you knew what I meant.

Trust me I'm not voting for Bush or Nader.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

80. Yes I understand why you misinterpreted my statement.

No harm, no foul.

[H2O Man]

58. Feanorcurufinwe

You have a wonderful style. I admire your ability to focus on the important issues. I think that some of our friends on here do not appreciate that one can share their sense of frustrations, but still be 100% dedicated to getting bush out of the White House. Yet all the roads to wisdom must first pass through those valleys of doubt, anger, and frustration. I appreciate that you take the time to point the way forward to those who believes that these valleys are the final destination. Keep up the good work!

[Feanorcurufinwe]

63. Thanks,

since I often feel I am being too abrasive ( can't seem to help myself ), it is nice to get some positive feedback.

[corporatewhore]

46. yep we should care what some blogger says

:eyes:

[AntiCoup2K4]

51. Nah, these aren't mere bloggers here.

Some of them are DLC operatives who can never get off their same old PNAC dictated talking points.

[Kahuna]

59. "PNAC dictated talking points?" That's funny. That's really a hoot..

:crazy:

[WilliamPitt]

84. Fucking great. Way to be, folks.

[dryan]

87. I have been saying this for weeks!

[Forkboy]

89. self portrait?

[WilliamPitt]

105. Do you practice these?

Witty? Erm...something, anyway. Someday you'll break through and post more than two or three words at a time.

[Name removed]

110. Deleted message

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

[Forkboy]

90. if the criticisms are valid then tough shit

stuff about his haircut and shit like that they'll bitch about anyways.If they want to repeat valid criticisms than Kerry will just have to deal.

As Pitt says,politics is a contact sport.Toughen up.

[sangh0]

95. "Valid criticisms"??

You mean like your "self-portrait" quip?

[Forkboy]

99. I figured the term would be foriegn to you

and on edit...please identify which office Pitt is running for.

Thank you.

[sangh0]

102. Is that a "yes" or a "no"

I left my forkboy-to-English translator home

[Forkboy]

106. I'll translate

when you explain what office Pitt is running for.I left my sangha to earth translator at home.

[mitchum]

100. That doesn't even qualify as a "quip"

Although brevity is indeed the soul of wit, one day the poster may realize it is not wit itself. Maybe, one day...

[Forkboy]

101. Oh my

I flunked the mitchum quip test.

I'm hurt mitchum :cry:

[mitchum]

103. Well, go lick your...

wounds

[Forkboy]

107. you're so mean

I though you loved me too :cry:

[sangh0]

104. Don't cry

I'll always consider you quip-worthy

[Forkboy]

108. see mitchum

sangha loves me!

114. I'd be worried if I were you

;)

[sangh0]

127. Not to worry

There's worse things in life than having me humping your leg

128. good riposte

I deserved it.
I was wondering if you were going to provide me with one.
:toast:

I thought a little humor was worth interjecting.

[West Coast Democrat]

121. I do not and will not post such stupid criticisms of Kerry

There's no use in it.

[incapsulated]

122. This is good news, folks!

Any campaign reduced to trolling internet forums to find something bad to say about their opponent is clearly reaching the point of desperation!

"Hey, about about Kerry, the war hero? What did he throw over the wall, the ribbons or the medals? Did we mention that he had a whole bunch of medals? For his two tours of duty in Vietnam? And that he is a war hero?"

"Hey, how about Kerry, the Democratic Nominee? Did you know that some annonymous people on some internet BB are saying he's not all that? And they say they are Democrats! He is toast!"

lol.

[West Coast Democrat]

123. Except that DUers do this sort of thing w/ Freeper posts....

all the time and say "Look! even the freepers are turning on shrub!"

[incapsulated]

124. That's a DU v. Freeper thing

Not a national election thing. I don't even read the freepers, nor do I care what they have to say. :)

[incapsulated]

125. Also..

Signs of dissent in the Republican Party are far more meaningful than the same on the Democrat's side.

The rethugs do not allow dissent, and will do their best to stamp it out if found. That is how they operate. Group-think, Borg Mind.

For Democrats to be arguing among themselves is business as usual, if it was a harbinger of disaster, we would never win anything. And there isn't much of it at all this year. If they have to go scrounging on web forums for it, you know the Democrats are pretty united.

[union_maid]

132. It's business as usual, but that's not good enough

This year - this election - isn't business as usual. This is literally an emergency of global proportions. Democrats arguing among themselves is one reason why we're in the shape we're in. The circular firing squad has to stop.

[incapsulated]

135. Huh?

What "shape we're in" are you talking about?

The Party is unified, and nobody is forming any circular firing squad except in the fantasies of the rethugs.

Don't mistake a few people on DU with the vast majority of the Party.

[kodi]

133. funny, that's what the busheviks say about critics of the iraq war

ah, the fascism that abides in small minds.

[corporatewhore]

134. who the fuck cares what some freeper blogger writes

[necso]

136. Your concern is understandable.

Endless repetition of the "message" is the best marketing strategy (like pug "talking points"). This is particularly true in an adversarial environment. So straying off of message or, heaven forfend, being critical, detract from the "message" and weaken its impact. And such small things can make a big difference.

But we are not pugs here (not mostly anyway) and we cannot be expected to act like them. Debate and dissension are healthy. And while these things are risky when facing a ruthless opponent who does tolerate them, still they are essential elements of what we are trying to defend.

If we have to become like the pugs (are now) to defeat them, then we have already lost... not that I wouldn't like a little more discipline on our side.

I don't think, overall, that the level of criticism has been all that great. But we should all try to keep a couple of things in mind. We are in the campaign phase (primary or general election, what have you) right now and what Kerry will do when elected might be, just might be, somewhat different than what he says now. Politics is also the art of compromise. I for one will probably not get a much of what I really want (a national health care entitlement; drug legalization; nationalization of power, water systems; curtailment of "multiple use" on federal lands; etc) if Kerry gets elected. But I will get the main thing, which is someone who will steer the ship of state away from the direction that it is going. To me that is what this election is all about.

I know that I for one could stand to be a little more positive. And it is all too easy to blame the candidate for our seeming inability to break free of a near dead heat. Chimpy is a spectacular failure, who is leading this country into easily foreseeable disaster and it is nearly unbelievable that more people can't seem to see this. But many people are just too afraid, too stupid, too ignorant, too gullible, too blind, too bigoted, too detached, too self involved, too egotistical or just too damn busy to be swayed. I am not sure that any of the candidates could have done much better than Kerry has. The pugs would find grounds to attack any of them and the same, potentially self defeating, "internal" criticism would also be there. Kerry is getting stronger and when November comes he will still be there, standing tall as a clear alternative to chimpy and his gaggle of malevolent clowns. Whether it will be seen this way by left, center or right is as much on them as it is on Kerry. The media fed us that BS about Gore and chimpy being much the same in 2000 ... but it was up to us whether or not to believe it. The media will feed us a load of BS about Kerry too, and it is also up to us whether or not to believe it.

Kerry is our candidate and we win or fall with him. Voting for Kerry and getting others to vote for him is the only way to remove chimpy and his thugees from office, a noble and necessary cause. But as soldiers in this great campaign, we must have the same right that soldiers have had from time immemorial ... the right to gripe. But let us not forget who the real enemy is, the evil men who have taken control of the republican party, not Kerry and not each other.

[jonnyblitz]

137. and protesting the war comforts the "enemy", right?

good attempt at trying to shut people up. It isnt going to work, sorry.

[Mass_Liberal]

144. Kerry is already doing himself in

by running a bad campaign. He doesn't need people who don't like him to do it for him.