How To Purify The Democratic Party

[BeFree]

There is a great deal of support for purity expressed on DU.

Witness the calls for 'Don't even think about not voting for a Dem'.

Is that a demand for purity, or what?

[porphyrian]

1. A demand is meaningless if it can't be enforced.

Let 'em bitch and moan all they want, if that's the best they can do.

[TechBear_Seattle]

30. "Shunning" is a very effective method of enforcement

Ridicule anyone who speaks about accountability or making candidates earn the vote, scapegoat those who oppenly supported an alternative when the party loses all by itself, delete posts and, as a last resort, cancel accounts.

I would say that the demands are quite enforceable.

[porphyrian]

40. I was speaking more generally.

The points you bring up, while valid, involve the target breaking some clearly-established rules in a specific private system, though there is a certain amount of flexibility in which offenses are enforced, how hard and when. However, shunning does nothing to change the target's beliefs or opinions (except maybe to strengthen them), nor does it change a single vote or force anyone out of the Democratic party, which is what I meant. We don't have any special right to say anything we want to here, we do it at the pleasure of those who own the place, who've put up with assholes like me since almost the beginning. Maybe to get some things said that need to be we simply have to change tactics.

[TechBear_Seattle]

44. And that clearly established rule is, "Be pure in your party loyalty." n/t

[Buzz Clik]

2. Independent thinking is dangerous and should not be encouraged.

[aquart]

3. No, it's not.

And I would never use that word. Vote for YOUR choice in the primary. If you are a Democrat, then you vote for the choice of the MAJORITY of Democrats in the general election. Because you respect the democratic process of majority rule, and because you are a Democrat. Nothing "pure" about it.

But if the democratic process is not comfortable for you, then perhaps YOU are the one who doesn't find it "pure" enough.

[BeFree]

5. So

What word would you use?

And what's wrong with cleaning up behind the elephants? And getting rid of bushco enablers?

[cali]

4. So what?

Who cares what a few people on some website say? Vote, don't vote, whatever.

[BeFree]

7. Who cares?

Indeed. Who cares what you say? If anyone here is calling for purity it has been you, cali. Just last week you were calling out a candidate for speaking to 'outside' groups.

[cali]

11. lol. I've consistently said I don't give a shit if people don't vote so

don't go throwing that bullshit. I criticized Obama for going on Robertson's 700 club and I stand by that criticism. Only the simple would think that was a call for purity. And, as a matter of fact, I hate the idea of "purifying" the democratic party.

[BeFree]

15. Hey! You remember

Yes, your call was to close down the big tent, imo. And I found that to be the height of hypocrisy. But like you say, who cares what you think?

[cali]

26. what nonsense. My OP was NOT a call for purity

it was in opposition to it. But don't let me get in the way of your delusions or dissembling or confusion or whatever it is. Have it, you deep thinker, you.

[BeFree]

28. Hah

You were saying that Obama was to be decried for speaking to the religionists in his own religionist way. That, basically, he was being impure, in your eyes, and that you wanted him to be pure and speak the way you wanted him too. And now you deny yourself?

[cali]

32. is this the silly season or what?

Yeah, I criticized a dem candidate. Shock! Horror! How dare she!

Let's be clear: I didn't like Obama's swathing abortion rights in religious language. My objection was not a call for him to be excommunicated from the party. It was a criticism of a candidate's actions. I didn't want him to be "pure", and I certainly didn't say anything like "This is terrible! He's impure! I won't vote for him under any circumstances!!"

Furthermore, genius, I've also posted threads praising Obama. Why don't you just admit it? Your problem isn't with my criticizing Obama; your problem is with me, personally.

[BeFree]

36. My problem is

With people who belittle others to make themselves bigger.

[cali]

38. You mean like this?

"And I found that to be the height of hypocrisy. But like you say, who cares what you think?"

Yes, you're as innocent as a lamb.

I'll say it again: People lie about what I said, or twist my words, I'll hit back. Don't like it? Don't do it.

[baldguy]

6. People who say "If my guy doesn't win the primaries, I'm voting GOP!" aren't real Democrats.

[BeFree]

9. There ya go

I like that demand for purity of dem party goers. But really, it goes deeper than that ... don't you think?

[baldguy]

45. At this point, anyone who votes for a Republican is suspect.

If demanding that people who glorify freedom, independance & liberty to cast a ballot for democracy and against dictatorship is too much for you - too bad!

[Selatius]

8. In many cases, you have little choice but to vote for the Democrat.

In first-past-the-post voting with single-member districts (a district represented by one person), if you vote for the third party candidate, you cause unpredictable results that often can punish you by handing victory to somebody who is the ideological opposite of you.

This is why I favor voting systems based on proportional representation or some mixed system. These kinds of system tend to give a wider variety of political views a stake in the functioning of government, and it makes it difficult for a single party to ever gain a majority of seats in all the branches of government. Also, it liberates the individual voter to vote his or her conscience.

[BeFree]

13. Point is

That the demand for purity is under discussion.

Can some here demand purity whilst wanting to do as they please? Can we have a successful big tent as long as it is polluted with publicans?

[Selatius]

18. It's impossible to demand purity.

Because the demand has built into it the assumption that he or she who is doing the demanding has a lock on the definition of a "true" Democrat.

I find such an assumption absurd. The only real impartial arbiter of who is a Democrat is party registration papers. That is all.

[BeFree]

In that case

The party has no meaning? I really want to disagree.... but....

[Selatius]

24. You can't stop somebody who disagrees with the party platform from registering.

The party platform will continue to change, but with party registration papers, the question becomes pretty stark. Either the person is a registered Democrat or isn't.

[bryant69]

10. To be fair, some are saying "I won't even think of voting Dem until they agree with me on X"

Which is another form of purity.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[BeFree]

17. So

Are you saying that even if one disagrees with the candidate that one should be so pure as to vote for that one anyway?

[bryant69]

35. Everybody should vote according to their conscience

But I think that if some liberals had been more willing to accept Al Gore, despite his flaws, the history of the last 8 years would be pretty different.

Bryant

[BeFree]

37. Not to mention

How liberals turned against Kerry in 2004, eh?

Thing is.... the liberals have always been correct in their principles, but their actions have left something to be desired. Whereas there is nothing redeeming about the centrists and moderates.

[bryant69]

39. There is nothing redeeming about centrists and moderates?

Nice. I guess we know what side of the fence you are on.

Bryant

[BeFree]

46. Well

Stand up for the moderates and centrists, because I can't. I can't, OTTOMH, think of any progress made by them. Here's your chance, we're all eyes.

[bryant69]

61. Roosevelt was a moderate and a corpratist

He was looking to save American Business from itself.

Bryant

[BeFree]

62. Was

He soon evolved into a lefty. That's one. Can you name a modern era mod?

[bryant69]

64. That makes a positive contribution? Bill Clinton

Certainly things ran better under him than under the people who preceded and followed him.

Bryant

[BeFree]

73. OK

Bill's problem was... he didn't evolve left. He, like his wife, can best be described as Real Compassionate Conservatives, imo.

I like Wellstone types, myself.

[TwilightZone]

41. "the liberals have always been correct in their principles"

Quite the broad brush you have there.

"Whereas there is nothing redeeming about the centrists and moderates"

Oh, look...there it goes again.

[NoodleBoy]

12. People who say they won't vote for the nominee in the general if it isn't their primary candidate

Usually don't do much else except complain on the internet.

They also seem to forget that DU is not a representative sample of the American people, nor of even of all the people who vote for Democratic candidates or are registered Dems, and not even of the hardcore activist Democrats which make up the backbone of the Democratic party.

So basically, the people who threaten to not vote Democratic if Saint Dennis or their favorite candidate isn't the nominee have no impact on the party as a whole or its direction at all, and their non-support doesn't mean a whole lot, because as long as they just complain on the internet and not do a damn thing else, they'll never have any sway.

Incidentally, I've seen very hardcore lefty Dems become activists and actually work for change. After they do that, though, they seem to realize that they can't always get what they want, and rarely ever threaten to not vote Dem.

[BeFree]

19. And

Here you are... complaining on the internet. Doesn't mean a whole lot, eh?

[NoodleBoy]

27. I'm not complaining, just pointing something out before I head to my

awesome job where I do awesome political things all day.

Needless to say, it is awesome and I enjoy it immensely.

[BeFree]

34. Good luck, I guess

I guess, because I don't know who you work for. Not Saint Dennis, I take it.

Remember, politics is moved by those who push the hardest. Recently the 'right' has pushed the hardest. They've garnered the support of the wish/washy middle centrists and look where that's gotten us.

The lefties have, ultimately, been right all along, and if you don't pay attention to us, then what you accomplish may not be worth the bush it's buried under.

[BeFree]

49. Furthermore

I can recall many a paid staff person who, while denying a lefty's observations and requests, holds a certain disdain for the left whilst doing nothing more than contributing to the problems and taking our money.

Hope your not one of those.

[PVnRT]

57. And you're not?

[BeFree]

59. I am

But I am not complaining about people complaining,..... or am I?

Sure, that was a cheap shot I took at the boy. But really, can you complain? He didn't.

Intercourse takes many forms and I was just hoping to get a noodly rise. Oh well.

[mdmc]

14. I've always voted for the best candidate

(but I don't want to get TS'ed) so
GO DEMOCRATS
:dem:
:kick:

[Joe Fields]

16. Here's how you purify the democratic party.

Get rid of it's leadership. They are the problems. They are the ones who have moved away from democratic ideals and philosophy. Us democratic party members are just fine. It's the party leadership that has got to go.

And that's how you purify the party.

[BeFree]

22. Bingo

I like you, Joe. Maybe some day we succeed in taking back our party?

[Joe Fields]

31. I'm hoping I can live to see that day, and truly bring back democracy.

We cannot afford to give up, now, can we?

And thanks. We are not alone.

[TwilightZone]

20. Oh, no - - you mean that there are people on a Democratic website trying to get Democrats elected?

What is the world coming to?

[BeFree]

23. Well

To some of us, it's more than just winning. To some of us it is a matter of principles. Just look at where our party's leaders have led us.

[WillyT]

21. I Prefer Distilled Democrats

:evilgrin:

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

25. Purify it into what? The Democratic Party is a conglomeration of interests.

Which results in a centrist party with disparate voices and wings.

I will vote for Democratic candidates if I think them fit for the office they're seeking. If not, I won't.

[BeFree]

29. Ewwww

According to some, you are impure.

But really.... what would you rather drink ... a pure glass of water, or a polluted glass?

IOW

Would you rather drink from a glass you knew what was in it, or from a glass which you had no clue?

[galileo3000]

33. Please, please, please listen! I've got one or two things to say.

Brian: Please, please, please listen! I've got one or two things to say.
The Crowd: Tell us! Tell us both of them!
Brian: Look, you've got it all wrong! You don't NEED to follow ME, You don't NEED to follow ANYBODY! You've got to think for your selves! You're ALL individuals!
The Crowd: Yes! We're all individuals!
Brian: You're all different!
The Crowd: Yes, we ARE all different!
Man in crowd: I'm not...
The Crowd: Ssssh!

- Monty Python's Life of Brian(and the late great Graham Chapman)

"Always look on the Bright Side of Life."

[Orsino]

42. The establishment of a party is an implicit demand for purity.

The phrase "loyal Democrat" similarly implies that one only votes for Dems.

But every organization has its purists. Fortunately, their power is not absolute.

[hunter]

43. I'm certain I'll vote for the candidate I decide is best.

Demands for purity have never swayed me.

I didn't vote for Nader, I've always thought he was a monkey wrench used against the "reasonable" but ultimately clueless progressives.

No difference between the parties? Well not a lot, but a Clinton is a lot better than a Bush.

I'm speaking as somebody whose own political views tend very much toward the left, and as a fairly hard core environmentalist. (For example, I would remove ALL automobile traffic from Yosemite National park, and make it accessible only by foot and quiet electric transit.)

If anybody feels stomped on by all the arguing here, they can still vote for whoever they want to. I doubt anyone is running off to vote against the Democratic Party simply because they got their feelings hurt in a DU firefight. If they are going to vote for someone they'd like to have a beer with, or someone who promises them some sort of ecotopia, then they need to have the fortitude to argue, or else their voice and their vote will have a very uncertain and sometimes negative impact.

[CT_Progressive]

47. Its a demand to "not be retarded".

If you don't vote Dem, you give up all of this, which we gain with a Dem as President:

1. Congress no longer needs veto-proof support for bills. Squeaking by with a simple majority becomes just fine. And if we ever lose control of congress, we gain the power of the Veto.
2. Cabinet Secretaries & Appointments (DOD, DHS, Dept of State, etc.)
3. Judicial Branch Appointments, including SCOTUS and U.S. Judiciary. We know how important that is.
4. Regulatory Agency appointments (DEA, FCC, FEC, FEMA, FTC, FDA, SEC, etc)
5. Being in control of "Executive Privilege." Now, we get to wiretap them. (or, you know, stop breaking the law - either way, we win this one)
6. Set National Policy. We all know that its not just the President that sets policy. There is a lot of party politics that influences this.

And lets not forget the last one:
7. We stop Republicans from destroying our country and others.


To give all that up is retarded. As in, "drooling on the floor, special helmet, short bus" retarded.

[BeFree]

52. Yep

Like I said, there is support on DU for purity. And good reasons for that demand.

[WilliamPitt]

48. Name one pure thing that exists in American politics.

[Elspeth]

50. Greed

...

[BeFree]

55. How 'bout

The way 100% of the republicans vote on most issues? That's the kind of purity we dems need. Don't you think the country would be better off if we did?

[WilliamPitt]

65. With the GOP, you're not talking about purity so much as discipline.

There's massive disagreement between the different camps of the GOP coalition, exacerbated by the fact that all the frontrunners for the GOP's '08 nomination (excepting the newly-arrived Huckabee) have serious credibility problems with the Fetus-Firsters who are the party's base.

The fact that Huckabee is suddenly in this thing is proof enough of that all by itself; the base is turning to him because they can't abide the others. Then you have the rift over immigration policy that has blown up between the pro-business Republicans, i.e. the ones who write the really big checks, and the deport-'em-all crowd who are larger in number and always vote. The Neocons v. the traditionalists. Etc.

That's not purity...but no matter how much internal strife there is, this coalition will almost always vote the way a school of fish swims, as one body.

That's discipline. If you think we need more discipline as a coalition, I agree wholeheartedly.

[BeFree]

67. Discipline

May be a better word, indeed.

But folks here have been using the word 'purity' so that's what we've been working with.

The 'purity' of the voting block in congress by the republicans is impressive, eh? Purity of their message has increased their rule.

The reason they are in decline is not that their purity of discipline has decreased, it is that the message has been shown to be smoke and mirrors.

[Enrique]

51. it sounds like the opposite to me

:shrug:

[BeFree]

53. I hear you

But not very loudly, or clearly. Can you speak up a bit more? Go ahead, it's safe. Let 'er rip, Enrique.

[Enrique]

54. if people are advocating indiscriminately for Dems

then they are accepting some impurity.

If they wanted to purify the dems, then they would call for more discriminate voting, not less.

[BeFree]

56. As in?

Not demanding one votes for a dem 'or else'?

But then you have the history of how the pukes vote nearly 100% of the time in lockstep. As I told WP, wouldn't that make the country better if dems voted similarily?

[PVnRT]

58. You're not even making sense now

You complain on the internet about people wanting you to vote one way, then brush them off by saying that all they do is complain on the internet.

You don't want to feel "forced" to vote Democratic no matter what...then don't. Who's stopping you?

Do you even know what you want? Is it your guy or no one else?

[BeFree]

60. What I want

Is for my party to rule. And get revenge on the other party for what it has done to my country.

[PVnRT]

66. Uhhhh.....OK

So why do you object to people saying we should vote for the nominee whoever it is?

[UTUSN]

63. Ah, yaas, PURGES with firing squads!1 That's the ticket!1 Mark my spot with an 'X'!1 n/t

[BeFree]

70. That's pretty radical

And radicals are not well liked in the party. Did you know that?

[ecstatic]

68. Has nothing to do with purity. If you want another repug in office

then you really are not in touch with what's going on.

[BeFree]

69. What's going on....

...is a fractured party which has lead to one crushing defeat after another.

So, what's your idea? How do we gain control of our government... because for the last 30 years the republicans have ruled.

[cali]

71. actually, it's not surprising that you're wrong.

the repukes have not ruled for the last 30 years, though they have had the WH for most of that time.

[AuntPatsy]

72. I think your missing the point of some posters tiring of the attacks on Dem's on a Democratic board....

It is not so much about actually fact checking on what the Dem's are up to it is more in the lines of using the styles of the GOP and even their talking points to bash Dem's that is the real problem I think from a few posters....

There is nothing wrong with voicing one's displeasure when discussing a dem candidate but what is wrong with doing such in a much more concise and constructive manner? Wouldn't you think that if such were done in that way than people would not become so upset?

Editing to add that I find it a bit unsettling to see repubs pushed on this board and you can't deny that it happens, after the last several years I would think it is more than apparent not one of them should be given any promotion whatsoever.

[BeFree]

74. Yes

""...I find it a bit unsettling to see repubs pushed on this board and you can't deny that it happens, after the last several years I would think it is more than apparent not one of them should be given any promotion whatsoever....""

Yet the party leaders seem inclined to promote republicans. Even follow them around like lost puppies, sometimes.

[goodgd_yall]

75. PURGE!!

Round them up and shoot 'em!

:woohoo:

:sarcasm: