The Ex-Basher's Creed

[Khephra]

I ...(fill in the blank) have done wrong to a number of DUers in bashing their candidate.

I...(fill in the blank) resolve that as of this post I will do this no more.

Please forgive me for losing sight of the fact that we are all family.

Please forgive me for treating my fellow DUers like shit.

I .... (fill in the blank) resolve to refrain from posting negative comments about any candidate until they have left the primary.


....

I Scott Anthony Lowery abide by all the above, and I hope others here will join me.

I admit, I was naive. I didn't mind candidates bashing each other. I've watched enough campaigns to know that's how the game is played.

But then good men and women DUers started sounding like GOP members with their bashes.

I admit...I lost it a lot, especially when it comes to Lieberman.

But from now on...and I hope this will be respected by everyone here...I'm offering up a public apology...and maybe a chance for others to say they're sorry too.

It's time to mend some fences fight the Right, not each other.

I was an asshole. I'm sorry about that.

[oasis]

1. I can't use my real name but I agree. Can't just go cold turkey on

Lieberman though, but I will lighten up.

[Khephra]

2. It's hard for me too

I feel Lieberman personally attacked me, but from this post on he's the cherry on my sunday.

[JohnKleeb]

3. I'll try not to lament

Thats my problem really. I feel like I come across as a baby at times but I really feel bad about things. I feel so emotional at times, confused I dont know what. maybe I am nuts maybe I am not, I dont like lamenting. I hate it. I hate complaining and sounding nutty.

[Rocinante]

4. I will sign

I've never attacked anyone(except freepers) or their candidate, and I sign with no misgivings.

[Skittles]

5. Well, I've only ever bashed Lieberman

but I can't say I wouldn't do it again. I just cannot stand him.

[Khephra]

8. If you can't keep from saying something about a candidate

Then say .....

That's my new tactic.

And once again, I'm so, so sorry for any supporter that I've offended.

I was being stupid.

[maggrwaggr]

6. is there anyone on DU who actually LIKES Lieberman?

he seems like the favorite pinata here.

Not that there's anything WRONG with that.

[JohnKleeb]

7. heh

iluvlieberman but they spelt it wrong IIRC.

[Julien Sorel]

9. Perhaps I'm being a jackass (it's a gift),

but I see problems here. First of all, the term 'bash' needs definition. It's impossible to have meaningful discussions about candidates without acknowledging weaknesses.

For the sake of example, I'll use Clark.

Now, Clark has a lot of strengths, but as a Clark supporter, I am well aware he has weaknesses as well, campaign inexperience being one of them. Discussing those weaknesses is fine with me, otherwise this place becomes a cheering session, not a forum for debate, and loses credibility as a result. IMO, the problem crops up when people make incessant and in many cases, irrational, attacks against a candidate, and will not stop. You may have noticed, as I have, that a few pretty bright people who were Clark supporters simply stopped posting recently. To name three, Eleny, Tiramisu (or whatever, sorry), and Pepperbelly have cut way down on the amount of posts they make. That's too bad, because I enjoyed their posts, especially when they posted on subjects other than Clark. But I suspect they were turned off by the relentless, over-the-top negativity, and soured on the board. Who loses? Those of us who stay behind, who miss out on the input of thoughtful and passionate progressives.


I'm quite certain they had no problems with thoughtful discussion, but that they got disgusted by the conspiracy theory links, the irrational charges, and just the plain mean-spiritedness of the nature of the attacks. I could post links, but I know you've all seen them, and I hope most of you were as dismayed as I was. That's bashing, and it should stop, because it hurts everyone.

It's against my nature to violently attack -- bash -- candidates, because I know in a year or so, I'm going to be supporting one of them, and because in most cases, I think these are decent people who would do a good job, and any one of them is an improvement over Bush (that includes Lieberman). But I can and will do it, if that's what it takes to keep things even around here. It seems that some people only understand ugliness when they see it beeing thrown in their own faces, and then they get the picture and knock it off.

So I'm all for the spirit of this pledge, but I won't take it myself, because the people who cause the problems here don't even understand the concept involved. Someone who is willing to propagate the notion that some of these candidates are controlled by the Illuminati, or are Rove's agents and so on, and who do it incessantly, only seem to be swayed by being whacked on the nose a few times. Sometimes going after their own candidate is the only way to do it. I also think it's important that we be willing to discuss the weaknesses, and the doubts, we have regarding a candidate. This is a democratic election, not a tennis match, and elections are not spectator sports, where we applaud for our side's successes, and remain silent for the other side's. People can and must get involved. The trick is to stay on the right side of the line, and make certain we aren't simply being vicious out of hatred for that candidate or loyalty to our own. Anything else should be fair game.

[DoveTurnedHawk]

19. Tiramisu! LOL!

Nice rant.

:thumbsup:

Oh, and :loveya: tameszu!

DTH

[dfong63]

10. but, but, but...

what about that sig line that i see around here so often, quoting Teddy Roosevelt, ``To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.''

if it's patriotic to bash the president, then it must be even more patriotic to bash the candidates.

[WilliamPitt]

11. ...must...bash...every...candidate...ruthlessly..nggggggggg...

[JVS]

12. What is bashing, technically?

I've probably bashed Lieberman.

I've expressed anger towards some of Kerry's comments.

I am absolutely horrified that there are people out there who want to draft Clark for our Presidential candidate, despite the fact that he has absolutely no political experience (campaigning, legislating, turning political beliefs into policy) on even a local level.

I think I said something about Kucinich having a pretty good shot in the national election but not being able to win the primaries to get there.

I started a thread in opposition to ABB, which asked "If the Democratic candidate sucks do you pledge to vote Green or third party?" But that was a kind of non-denominational and non-specific bashing of candidates who suck, and all were free to say who sucked and why.

Were any of these actions bashing? If so, why?

edit:typo

[chaska]

13. I hereby, to the extent of my powers to do so, banish Dems from the box.

"I am absolutely horrified that there are people out there who want to draft Clark for our Presidential candidate, despite the fact that he has absolutely no political experience..."

Another quote: "A conservative is one who believes that nothing should be done for the first time." A. Wiggam

It has often been noted (and exploited) that Liberals are overly hung up on this sense of (forgive me while I struggle with this) entitlement/succession/seniority. However you choose to describe it, we Dems seem determined that a candidate jump through a series of prescribed hoops. And unless those hoops are properly jumped through, no matter how qualified the candidate might otherwise be, we refuse to allow that person to represent us.

Personally, I refuse to hobbled that way. I know it's an already tired cliche but it applies - we truly must think outside the box in the case of General Clark. Reject him on these or other grounds, but at least be aware that that is what you're doing.

And Clark has loads of political experience, just of a different type.

[Q]

14. I pledge to help lower the bar...

...and not bash Democrats who act like Repuiblicans.

- Jesus. The Democratic party is dead...or at the very least...in a coma.

[chaska]

15. See post 9.

That's what I meant to do when I got sidetracked by my last post.

I don't wish to divert attention from the original post - I'd take the pledge, but I don't bash any of the candidates. Of the three options that come to mind, I could attack, defend or promote. I engage only in the later two.

[NNN0LHI]

16. You are a class act Kef. I am proud to know you. You da man! n/t

[deutsey]

17. I try to keep in mind that we're ALL going to have to work together

no matter who gets the nomination. If Dean gets it, I hope all of you Kerry, Kucinich, Gephardt, Clark, etc., will join Dean supporters to get him elected.

Likewise, if Kerry or whomever gets the nomination, I hope my fellow Dean supporters will rally for that nominee.

It's healthy to debate each other about the candidates and to proclaim that our candidate is the best, etc., but, at the end of the day, we're all going to have to join together and work hard for the person who will, I hope, oust Bush.

Just remember, unless you plan to not work for the Dem nominee unless he or she is your candidate, the person you spew flames at today will, one day, be in the same political foxhole as you fighting Bush.

I'm not saying I always live up to this view, but I try.

[DoveTurnedHawk]

18. I Don't Bash Candidates

I think the worst I've ever said has been that the bottom three are unelectable. Oh, and I railed against Gephardt a long time ago for stabbing Daschle in the back by cozying up to Bush on the war vote, but that never seems to elicit many disagreements. And I've said that Lieberman is near the bottom of my list, but that I'd still vote for him over Bush. And all of the above happened months ago, for the most part.

So yeah, I'm happy to take your pledge not to bash other candidates.

That said, I will VEHEMENTLY DEFEND my chosen non-candidate against the stupid, vicious, clueless, paranoid, baseless, anti-military bigoted, tinfoil-hatted, conspiracy theory-minded ATTACKS that have been constantly aimed at him by certain people here, particularly those grenades lobbed by the "hysterical left" who would rather see Bush win another term than compromise their "principles."

And the most ironic thing about THAT is that my chosen non-candidate probably exemplifies their "principles" better than a majority of the Democratic field, and a supermajority of the top six of the Democratic field.

Some people, however, just prefer to wallow (proudly, often) in their willful ignorance. I also can't tell you how many times I've pointed critics of my non-candidate to large amounts of information about him, only to hear, "Yeah, I'll get to it."

Apparently, however, many of those same people have plenty of time to post stupid, unfounded shit about him.

:crazy:

DTH

[DemocratSinceBirth]

20. Does Bashing Nader Count?*

I have never bashed any of the Democrats.....




*IMHO, whatever you say about Nader he does not have the best interest of the Democratic party at heart.

And why should he?

He has aligned himself with a competing party

[CWebster]

21. It's true, it can get ugly

but it is a politically ruthless world out there these days, and when they come in swinging--even when it comes from our own side--we have to prepared to fight...So, I am ambivilant about this although I understand the sentiment. A good defense is a good offense--We need to fight like our future depends on it, because it does.