Dividing Democrats?

[RobertEarl]

Too many times are there threads here on DU that divide us from each other.

Basically it seems there are those who have decided that being in lockstep with whoever is in office and has a D after their name, is beyond reproach and any criticism thereof is akin to wanting to destroy the party.

I'm sorry, but that is a crock. If we feel the need to criticize the president, cabinet members or congress critters then it should be heard; not censured. Discussion should ensue if one feels that the criticism is undue; letting the arguments win or lose on their own accords.

But, like I say, what I have been seeing is that some are working to divide real progressives from the party, leaving only a conservative and pro-elite, pro-those-in-power core to make all the rules and issue edicts.

From what I have been reading the criticisms of the establishment are a sign of progress and hopefulness for a better future. A future that otherwise looks pretty damn bleak the way the country is headed.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

1. It is the responsibility of the people in a democracy to hold public servants accountable.

Even if they have a (D) after their names and/or are running for office.

[elleng]

2. We're Democrats.

Will Rogers said, 'I am not a member of any organized political party. I am a Democrat.'

[turtlerescue1]

7. And the man had it correct.

Which is both immensely amusing and equally as frustrating.

[RobertEarl]

8. I respect that

What i don't cotton to are those who chastise anyone who desires to see any official held to account. It's as if they are saying they are better Democrats just because they are willing to look the other way when a D follows the name.

When in essence, most crits are angled to make better democrats of us all.

[emulatorloo]

12. Only instance I can remember of this happening At DU was Anthony Weiner

Are there others I don't know about?

[Nye Bevan]

15. Spitzer- law and order guy who engaged in sex trafficking (nt)

[demosincebirth]

10. +1

[limpyhobbler]

3. So are you saying there are too many divisive threads, or that we should have more dissent?

Because those are opposites.

[RobertEarl]

9. Neither

I am saying that this is a discussion board and not a jury pool.

We are not here to judge each other, but to judge the quality of our representatives.

[mindwalker_i]

4. And I thought they smelled bad

http://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQPIcO7VVET7PU7ug25MYWvSgFc9wcwRM1zjsqmZy855eWVgD5kJLqJZ9Iz

on the outside!

[upi402]

5. Agree

The division was done TO us by elites who infected this party years ago. It worked. The proof is here. How else could you convince chickens to vote for Col Sanders after they've been burned? Divide & conquer.

[Bonobo]

6. Extremists on the right and centrists on the "Left" can lead to only one thing.

A center right result with the left the center redefined as the far left.

Think about if folks... and good luck.

[Son of Gob]

11. 3/10

[patrice]

13. A dividing thread about dividing. :-]

[SoutherDem]

14. Yes, some are willing to overlook something just because it was don't by a Democrat.

That should not be allowed. Too many Democrats have come to feel they can make deals with the devil and still get the full support of the base. That shouldn't be.

However, there are always two sides, sometimes more, to an issue.

Many who you say are "lockstep with whoever is in office and has a D after their name", aren't. What they are saying is it is an election year, in which we have two choices Obama or Romney or we have the choice between a Democrat or Republican for senate or the house. They are not necessarily overlooking the failures of the Democrat, they realize what the Republican would do. The criticisms which give you hope, give them fear that the divide you speak of will give a win to the Republicans. Republicans which would almost be guaranteed to be much worst than the Democrat.

But, I must say I am slightly confused by your OP in that you start sounding like we need to unite, but then you seem to support division. Almost as if discussion is good if it supports your side but bad if it is for the other. Also, you seem to start with DU and move to the party in general. But, that is just my reading of the OP, I may be misunderstanding something.

This will continue until the Democratic Party sets up a set of restrictions as to who can be and who can't be part of us, similar to what the Republicans have done. You may not agree but currently we allow from the extreme progressive/liberals to the centrist. Setting up restrictions as to who is a Democrat is something I hope we never do. Although our diversity can be our biggest weakness it is also our biggest strength.

I do agree we should be allowed to have open discussions and I have been in many here on DU. I have been accused of being too progressive and too centrist, and even a troll a time or two. But "letting the arguments win or lose on their own accords may not work. We each have our own list of demands (wants) and if our list is not fully fulfilled too many want to "take our ball and go home".

One DUer put it this way, (I would give them credit if I remembered who, but not taking credit myself is the best I can do.)
Republicans want to win.
Democrats want to be right.

[NNN0LHI]

16. Appears that criticizing Democrats a few months before an election here really means a lot to you

Wonder why that would be?



Don

[Capt. Obvious]

17. You know what this thread needs?

More rolling eyes smilies