Does anyone give a wet damn about the candidate-bashing in GD?

:eyes:

Make your decision like an adult. Change your mind if you like. Vote. That's about all there is to it. The 'bashing' is like watching two poster children fight under a blanket.

I used to like Kerry, but was turned off by his supporters.

If I wanted abuse and condesention, I'd vote Bush.

I don't consider myself to be bashing certain candidates, but I'm sure someone sees me like that.

And then what about poor Joe Lieberman who is bashed all the time?

The definitions of discussing and bashing change depending on who you ask.

More seriously, I am sometimes concerned at how DUers treat other DUers, not how they treat public figures.

Most of the time, it falls into 'debate,' which is good. I'm no judge of anything, mind you, so this is just my perspective. Every so often the debate gets really heated, and a few people - no names necessary, as it always seems to be different people - start flame threads that beget flame threads, etc., and suddenly we have people leave the board (youngred and AmyStrange are the newest casualties).

So it goes.

If anyone ever sees a message from me that says something like, "I'm leaving because... (a) I can't stand the heat or (b) it's a pointless troll fest here," then you can pretty much be assured that Homeland Security has taken me and my computer, and that some poor sap of a secret agent had to spend a few minutes trying to imitate my often demented style of writing.

But if I should simply disappear from this place, it only means my life is much too complicated to hang out here, and I'll probably be back later.

Most threads that irritate me are easy to avoid. I played around in some of the Catholic bashing threads, but I soon decided that was a waste of time. Now I simply don't go there. I suppose in this Big Tent we have to make room for Catholic bashers too. And quite frankly, honest efforts to expose corruption in the Catholic Church have been very effective. But it's just silly to claim that the Catholic Church, or religion in general, is at the root of all evil.

I feel the same way about the candidate bashing threads. I don't go there. I'd much rather read about the positive aspects of a candidate's campaign than the negative ones.

Peace

I try to limit what I would consider "bashing" to the threads that deal with the candidate I support. I'm sure I've been guilty of breaking that self-imposed rule on occasion but like tjdee said...everyone seems to have a different impression of what constitutes bashing. The only thing that really bugs me is the self-righteous indignation that comes from the biggest offenders who refuse to see they are just as guilty as anyone else.

with the absolute haters.... and it simply doesn't matter whom the candidate is...(OK... I'm somewhat flexible on Joe Lieberman LOL)....
I couldn't stand the skull and bones crap about Kerry that seemed to go on forever, and I don't like the Dean haters either. Disagree yes... point out your problems... but none of these guys are anywhere near as bad as Bush.

Directing attention to any candidate's OWN words and OWN actions in the political arena is fair game for all.

I've managed to avoid clicking on any of them :-)

it helps when you haven't chosen a candidate

when you've chosen a candidate, but simultaneously wish all the candidates well, because any of them would be a vast improvement.

Om.

when he bad-mouthed Dean and the democratic liberal base. We must criticize as necessary; but bashing is counter-productive. Let's talk issues, but let's all agree to support the candidate, whether it's Lieberman or Kucinich or anyone in between.

a candidate does something dumb, they're going to get savaged. Sometimes, around here, a candidate merely has to exist to catch a beating. Pretty much ALL candidates fall under this, so don't think I am whining about any one in particular. I actually don't read the flame threads. I just wind up mourning the bodies that get dumped by the roadside.

I would cheerfully vote for any candidate that could successfully supplant the squatter-in-chief, even Lieberman, though very reluctantly. After last night's forum, I have decided to support Gephardt. I thought he was excellent. I realize that he has gotten little support on DU and I'm not sure why. He really wants this and has given up everything for it. He's the Democratic Bob Dole. He is not running for re-election in Missouri. Joe Lieberman is running simultaneously for his senate seat. He has little to lose, as do most of the others. If Gephardt loses this, his 27-year career's over, even though he has attained the leadership position.

As for the others, I like some more than others, but feel that some are just unelectable. The main goal here is to quit the sniping and put all the energy into getting behind whoever has the best chance of defeating George Bush*.:grr:

I was gonna start a thread on this, but I am a newbie here. I can see that the Clintons will make sure none if the '04 canidates will win. That is of course unless shrub becomes easily beatable. In that case Hillary will throw her name into the hopper. Just the things her and billy boy are doing are timed to pull the attention away from the canidates that are running. Look at the timing of her book release. Look when his is do to come out. Bothed timed to distract from the current canidates. They both do whatever they can to stay in the news(going to CA to support Davis). They do not want a DEM to win in '04 unless its Hillary. That would upset their (Hillarys) run in '08. Hope I am wrong but, I see the Clintons doing all they can to take the spotlight from our canidates and reshine it on themselves. They do not want a DEM to win in '04 so Hillary has an open door in '08. IMHO

candidate-talk. The first primaries are months away, the convention even further, and the goal is to choose the best Democrat and unite behind him or her. I don't have a problem with people supporting any of the candidates (even poor sad-sack Lieberman) and making good, reasoned arguments for their man or woman. I think people need to remember we're not talking about rival teams in high school football here and that there *will* be harsher criticism of their candidate to come. Criticism will come from their Democratic rivals, from the media, from the GOP. The candidates know this.

I'd like to learn more about the candidates than that their supporters like them (Duh!) and are sure they'll win.

I'd also like to see all the candidate threads moved to Politics & Campaigns because there are a lot of other political issues to discuss in GD.

.

It really does not bother me either way. I believe I have become indifferent to the political process, and have lost much faith in it. Even the best candidate has to work within what is a corporately run bought and sold election process. Unless the process itself is reformed I believe I will remain indifferent. There was no mention made of political or campaign reform. So that just tells me 6 of these 1/2 dozen of the other we're probably looking at the same doo doo! Bush I want out! There I am not indifferent at all.

candidate bashing threads. It makes me more depressed. I really wish people would post their thoughts on the candidates in the Politics and Campaigns thread.

very quickly. Just hop on over to the DK/HD thread about the AFL-CIO Retirement Age goof. Its like I am back in 6th grade listen to those half a dozen children. I think they should be able to let out there agression but move it somewhere else or put a sign on it so that we don't have to waste our time. It serves so little a purpose at the expense of so much energy.

Some are more subtle and underhanded in their style of bashing. Some are upfront and honest in the debate. Some are dirty, some are sly, everyone has a agenda...even you Will Pitt.

... is cool and necessary. But there are a lot of "bash" threads lately.

When someones says "Schmoe can't get elected because....", I just skip out. A person making such a claim either 1) can see the future 2) is a moron or 3) thinks the reader is a moron.

I'm among those who think the board has been "infiltrated" by people actually working campaigns. Some here think that is just fine, and maybe it is - but I don't consider these people equal to those who have been here a while and whose opinions are based on what they think is good for the country, not good for their candidate. One could say that "well, people working for Schmoes campaign might be just as knowledgeble and passionate about the issues and their candidate as anyone". That may also be true, but if they are getting *paid* then all bets are off. You would now be arguing like a Repuke.

I'm happy to say that I don't think these "disruptors" have had a lot of influence here. That is a good thing. IMHO :)

when their posts are festooned with buttons, stickers and pin-ups of war heros--as if that will make all the gals swoon and the boys eyes light up to see a real he-man.

I don't claim to speak for all newbies. But as a newbie who is firmly committed to one candidate, I enjoy the actual debates that go on here, mostly in the Politics forum. I go there to read and learn. And I think there are plenty of lurkers who are also reading and learning.

Usually I ignore the bashing threads, but I got involved responding to a "basher" yesterday only because I didn't want his/her comments to stand alone for the lurkers to read.

I post positive messages about Kerry because I believe he's our best shot to beat Bush, and I think Kerry would be an excellent president. But I also post positive things about other candidates, and I don't think I go overboard with the Kerry stuff.

I am not employed by the Kerry campaign, and no one directed me to this website, I got here through liberaloasis.com. And I certainly AM NOT getting paid to be here! (that would be a dream job, though)


t

For instance, millions of baby boomers and beyond need to know what the candidates think about the Social Security retirement age, and why they want this.

Credibility IS an issue, for sure, an issue brought up by this administration,but we aren't going to be fooled twice, (those of us that were fooled.)

We need to make informed decisions, and pointing out the differences in candidates contributes to this. We don't need to be stuck with a candidate who turns out to have made terrible boo-boos in the past. If we know about them and still select him/her, then so be it. We can defend him/her against the Bush machine more effectively.

And YOUR candidate Kerry also needs to be out there with credibility on why he wanted "most favored nation" status and WTO for China, when all the experts said industry wanted this so they could have factories in China, taking away American jobs.DK raised this issue also, and your candidate played the oh-so-friendly-to-labor game at the AFL/CIO meet. See!! I can candidate-bash as well as the rest of the DU-ers!! But this is on a VITAL ISSUE, not just saying he lied, she was less than honest....

EVERY SINGLE CANDIDATE(except mebee one) IS DETERMINED TO OUST THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION AND THERE IS NO DOUBT ABOUT THAT. But WE need to understand EACH candidate's position on all the major issues, and if thet entails some bashing, well, DEMOCRACY IS MESSY. It's not as if the Bush administration wouldn't use the same things, and if we have thrashed them out ahead of time...

Pointing out candidates' positions on the issues is just that, and it's entirely legitimate IMHO.

What gets irritating are the endless threads that say "Kucinich looks like an alien and can't be elected" or "Dean's smile is Stepford like and he's a jerk and he can't get elected" or "Kerry looks like Lurch and is boring and can't get elected" and the like.

I think of bashing as those posts that add nothing to the debate, do nothing to make a factual point or correct an inaccuracy in another post, and posters who do nothing to support any candidate but bash one or two in every post. Civil, adult, logical debate is needed and useful, while bashing is not. Just my 2 cents. :-)

Subtract one from the Yes category and add one to the No category. I voted without reading carefully enough and was answering the question in your title. I care about it because i think it tedious and unseemly. But, i don't participate in it.
The Professor

The incessant candidate bashing/bashers has made DU a horrendous place to be. I used to be able to stay away from GD by going to the other rooms and finding interesting topics/articles. No more. The incessant candidate bashers have spread their hate and negativity everywhere on DU. I no longer recommend this site to anyone.

must be an East coast expression....

:)

... is almost always an indication of ethical and intellectual impoverishment. While understandable in some instances (Junior, Cheney, Ashcroft, Rumsfeld, et. al.) where their track record is so replete with atrocious behavior and consistently wrong-headed positions on basic issues of democracy and civil liberties, it's less than mentally adolescent (more like infantile) to so consistently engage in such feces-flinging that gaining valid insights and comprehension through responsible discussion is preempted.

Sadly, the degree to which this occurs on DU seems to be increasing. It's one of the core reasons I eschew partisanship. Such embedded bias and zealotry seems to short-circuit reason with habitual leaps to visceralism.

Do you honestly believe that what is said in any DU thread is going to leave "dead bodies by the side of the road?"

Piffle.

Politics are Darwinian. The strongest survive and the weak become an historical footnote.

And what exactly is "bashing?" Is questioning how someone voted "bashing?" Is questioning the veracity of a statement "bashing?" How are we supposed to separate the wheat from the chaff if we don't challenge the ideas, justifications and rationales of the candidates and their supporters? If the probing of political gray areas is like a wet blanket to you, may I suggest a nice knitting circle that has a vacancy in your area?

Pifflety-piff.

Really...as long as it doesn't descend into mindless, childish, name-calling, ANY criticism and debate should be entertained and welcome. What do want us to do... go into a coma between now and NH? :crazy:

hunt the vaunted African tiger?

When November '04 comes, I'll vote for the Dem. That's when our opinions will really matter.

I have to wonder why you would even have the gall to post something as lame as this.

Bashing or debate? Is there a difference?

I've watched my guy for 30 years now,I'm certain he's well prepared to beat Dubya' and assume the Office...but there is,indeed, "Strength through Diversity" to steal a phrase.:crazy:
I like the tug o' war between the candidates...BUT...everybody "stays to Beat Bush's Butt!" that's the compact!O8)

if you can find one thread where I 'bashed' Dean.

Clock is running.

I wish the greens and freepers would do a better, less obvious job. I'm vaguely insulted that we at DU only merit the dumbest, i-have-worldview-of-an Aaron-Spelling-character, functionally illiterate, idjits they have? I mean, what the fuck?

I'm strictly an ABBEL (ABB except Lieberman). I have leanings towards a couple of the candidates and have yet to make a decision about who I will support in the primary. I'd rather read positive posts about why someone supports one candidate. Bashing just seems kind of counterproductive, but I understand why it goes on. I'd be a lot more upset to see bashing of the chosen candidate after the convention.

for that reason this thread deserves a bump.

I can take GD in small doses. Then I get really ticked and I go post something really dumb in the Lounge.

This process keeps me balanced

for that reason this thread deserves a bump.

I can take GD in small doses. Then I get really ticked and I go post something really dumb in the Lounge.

This process keeps me balanced

on all sides.