Do you find all the talk of 'purges' within our party disturbing?

[Padraig18]

Perhaps it's just the word 'purge' itself, laden as it is with negative, historical imagery, but I find the posts asking whether so-and-so should be 'purged' from the Democratic party both disturbing and completely antithetical to the tenets and traditions of our party.

How say you?

:shrug:

[opihimoimoi]

1. Who gains more in the end:::??::: The Pubs gain as we fragment even more

[Ms_Mary]

2. I agree. I think the focus should be pulling people in.

[Padraig18]

3. That's how I see it, too. n/t

[Guaranteed]

21. I see it more as trimming the fat

and keeping the good stuff, off which we can build.

[Sympleesmshn]

52. I get a bad feeling when talking of purging

Purging reminds me of Soviet Russia. We do not want that. Our Party is stronger as a united group then as little pieces.

[kentuck]

4. A challenge to the DLC is translated as a "purge"..

They learn well from their Republican brethren. :)

[Padraig18]

5. I mean the actual use of the word 'purge' itself.

:)

[kentuck]

9. I recall the first time I read it the other day...

It was from someone defending the DLC. As if when someone offers a different strategy, it is a "purge". It is not a "purge". It is telling people like Al From and simlar theorists that their strategy has not worked. We will not follow them any further down this road. That is not a "purge". That is a challenge to their failed policy and strategy.

[Guaranteed]

20. It is a scary one.

Maybe it'll wake some of those DLC whores up.

[angrydemocrat]

50. Whaaa Whaaaa

Poor Poor BullGooseLoony It's all the DLC's fault:cry: :cry: :cry:

[Guaranteed]

54. LOL is that your pathetic attempt at derision?

Have you been following politics for the past three years?

[cali]

6. Yes, yes and yes

Perhaps it's just semantics, but use of the word puge- and it's been used repeatedly here at DU recently- demonstrates a lack of historical context that I find disturbing. Certainly I'd like to see a loosening of the grip on the party by the DLC types. I think that's happening due to their own record of failure, and that's a good thing. Purges, not so much a good thing.

[Padraig18]

13. Exactly.

I'm not disturbed by the anger, or the calls for change, but at the use of such a heavily-laden word as 'purge'. It has a very precise historical context, and to throw it around so casually demonstrates a true lack of understanding, IMO.

[A Simple Game]

57. Semantics and context.

The Republican purge of the CIA is bad, if we had purged the White House of Republicans, that would have been good.

Does the DLC deserve to be purged? It is past time for some of those people to realize that they are not helping our cause. If you can't defeat the president with the worst record in our history, maybe you should have sense enough to let somebody else try.

Is purge the wrong word? It apparently has a more evil meaning for some than it does for me. In a past job I had to purge(clean) many different loops or systems quite often. Probably why the word carries less bad connotation for me.

[cali]

58. Historically, the word purge is closely connected

to totalitarianism and fascism. Thus, the discomfort some of us have with the use of the word. It's really that simple. Purge connotates a violent disposal of idealogical forces that oppose the dominant strain within a system.

[freeplessinseattle]

7. It does conjure up frightening visions of lynchings and running people

out of town, waving clubs and tossing fruit, sounds so aggressive, nazish, and I can't help but think of nulimia, so that brings up other graphic, negative images, and with the party or eating disorders purging doesn't address the problem.

(hey, it's the middle of the night, I've got the delusional profundity going on)

[robbedvoter]

8. Yes. A country club party becoming an aryan-like institution

From bad to worse.
How about doing something to INCREASE the base? Like maybe stop this "middle class" nonsemse - and go for the rapidly growing poor/working class demographic - cathered to only by faith based crap from our tax money - to benefit BFEE.

[PATRICK]

10. sounds like AP Wire service talk

Mostly I am hearing- from democrats- talk of filling empty chairs(MacAuliffe is retiring anyway) and questioning the leadership positions and the consultants of the DLC and then the DNC. Also the reactionary talk of various DNC and DLC "spokespersons" seems to have launched(as usual) the first strident negative epithets and missiles of fear and anger.

People clinging to their philosophy, proven critically wrong in several mortally dangerous areas(that only corporate money and positions could save the party, that the platform had to be such and such, and campaign methodologies including gaming of the primaries away from democratic reform principles, totally silent and ineffective dealing with fraud/suppression/civil rights problems) these are crying purge and peril. They should be worried more about their faulty judgment. They should be worried even more by the fact that some might think the kind of dirty battle needed to pry their fingernails loose isn't worth the trouble and the troops and money will go elsewhere.

Yes, purging is talk that is destructive to the short term goals of the party. And the short term is extremely critical to the good of the country. Those who want to pay the price of beating down the recurrent plague of conservative retrenchment and proud timidity really don't think rebuilding for the next twenty year cycle is the answer. Better to make a third party or conduct political pressure outside party politics. I sense wisdom and compromise is possible, amazingly, from the progressive and popular side of the party, who really hunger to win.

God knows what the DNC and DLC leadership imagine their function in a crisis is. Doing their job would admit to the winds of change. NOT the change as defined by the false media or RNC, but just perhaps by the changes brought into the party they never thought were possible- and in some cases tried to repel.

In the Real Democratic Party, change is not a purge by bully kingmakers, but by the will of the people from the ground up to the leaders and causes they really support with real money and activism. No, real leadership is not hiding and wringing one's hands with the silenced, muzzled majority, but the masses surging to lead the real majority of rational decent Americans back to sanity(at least). If they can't even recognize the stew of leadership they should stop putting the lid on it and pretending it isn't there.

[RC]

11. I disagree!

The "Leadership" of the Democratic Party is walking hand in hand with the enemy within, i.e., the neo-cons that have engineered the political coup that has sent the Unites States on the road to being the most dangerous Rogue nation since the 1930's.
Until sanity is restored, we need to work hard to have leaders that will lead responsively, not toe the line of the "Loyal Opposition."

As an example:
Why were prominent Democrats so quick to endorse Kerik?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x2817788

[bettyellen]

12. kicked out would be okay with me, if we could do it to Zell Miller.

wish that would have happened a while ago. traitors like him should go, whatever you can it.

[JohnKleeb]

38. of course Zellout should

The guy frigging endorsed Bush but as for more conservative democrats, they should be able to stay.

[Rhiannon12866]

55. Zell Miller went totally over the edge

He scared the hell out of me, with his total meltdown of a speech, and then challenging Chris Matthews to a duel!!! The Democrats have a very big tent, since they include so many of us with different beliefs and who support different candidates, but, in the end, we have to come together. Zell Miller refused to do that, and totally flaunted his support of the worst opposition candidate of his lifetime, so he should be out. I agree.:shrug:

[Leilani]

53. Zell is the exception......Agreed!

Purging used for differing opinions?

Of course not.

[Smarmie Doofus]

14. "Purge" is a dumb word to use....but if, for Instance, Iraq is THE moral/

political litmus test of this era ( and to me, at least, it IS) lots of the party leaders ( including Kerry, I might add)are utterly out of step with the majority sentiment in the party . I know exactly *one* registered, politically active democrat who is in favor of continuing the current policy in Iraq.

Or any watered-down version thereof. Everyone else I know favors withdrawal. Might just be the people I know.

[Padraig18]

15. I absolutely opposed the war, BUT...

I have come to accept that there were some people who sincerely believed that there was a legitimate, diplomatic benefit to be had in granting the President the power(s) given him by the IWR; while I disagreed with them at the time, I can accept their explanation that they were deceived by Bush. That said...

The question has now become where these same Democrats stand NOW as regards Iraq, i.e., are they now willing to come together to oppose the Bush administration's CLEAR policy of neo-imperialism? If they are, I can forgive them both their vote on the IWR then, and their current and future votes which are clearly for the benefit of those in our armed forces currently stationed in Iraq and Afghanistan. I personally favor withdrawl at the soonest time possible, but I also understand the extreme unlikelihood that this will happen any time soon, given both that Bush is POTUS and the Republicans control Congress.

I hope that that isn't too esoteric a distinction for some here at DU.

[Smarmie Doofus]

32. Is this what you are saying?!

1. Bush policy in Iraq is neo-imperialism.

2. Said policy is unlikely to change soon.

3. Therefore: Dem. leaders should not advocate withdrawal.

It's either too esoteric for me or just baaaaaad logic.

[Padraig18]

34. Not what I'm saying at all.

Maybe I just put it badly. In short, what I mean is that votes on this issue which ACTUALLY constitute physical and economic support for our armed forces and their dependents themselves (body armor, housing, increased pay, VA/retirement benefits, etc.) are fine, and do not constitute an endorsement of the neo-imperialist agenda.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

16. I Apologize...

I started a thread that said "Should Moderates Be Purged From The Democratic Party" and spawned a "thousand" imitators...


I was inspired to start the thread by the acrimony I see between different factions of our party...


As long as we have a two party system the parties need to be as broad as possible...

If the Republican party is broad enough to have Linc Chaffee the Democratic party is broad enough to have Joe Lieberman...

[Padraig18]

19. I don't think you meant any harm.

I never did, actually, and you brought something out into the open which needed to be discussed. It's been the "elephant in the room" that no one here has been willing to talk about openly, and I think it's a good thing (overall) that it's out there now.

:hi:

[DemocratSinceBirth]

22. I Embrace The Big Tent Theory...

It reminds of the joke of getting a unanimous verdict in a criminal case that you can't even get twelve people to agree on what kind of pizza they want...


I think the Democratic party as all parties should have one test...


That it members support the candidates who have been elected through it's democratic process...


Approximately twelve percent or so of self identified Democratics voted for Bush...


Why be a Democrat and vote for Bush?

That's like saying you are a vegan while chewing on a Big Mac...

[kentuck]

23. A small distinction....perhaps not so small..

Democrats chose Joe Lieberman to run as VP on the national ticket...I doubt we will see Chaffee on any national ticket anytime soon.

So, yes our Party is broad enough for Joe Lieberman and anyone else but, at this critical time in our history, we need someone that will stand up to the Republicans, not lie down with them. Just my opinion. Does that mean I want to "purge" them?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

24. Nope...

Joe Lieberman was selected by Al Gore who won the Democratic nomination...


I'll tell you one thing a President Lieberman looks a hell of a lot better than a President Bush...

Wait to Bush starts picking the new members of SCOTUS....

[kentuck]

26. Joe Lieberman was selected by Gore but....

we all voted for him anyway. Not because we liked the guy but out of Party loyalty mostly. "..a President Lieberman looks a hell of a lot better than a President Bush..." A President Howdy Doody would look better than a President Bush so I don't know if that is a relevant point?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

33. Howdy Doody Wasn't On The Ballot...

A Bush-Lieberman match up was within the realm of possibility..


I am just saying in a universe of flawed choices even Joe Lieberman is better than George Bush....

[kentuck]

35. "...in a universe of flawed choices .."

We should not be accepting advice or leadership from such flawed leaders, Bush nor Lieberman, in my opinion. Neither will get you anywhere in the end. One will drive you off the cliff and the other will discuss how to get a rope down to you...

[Padraig18]

25. When to oppose them is the key, IMO.

I don't think there should be a 'lockstep opposition' litmus test, but I DO think there are key, 'party-line' opposition votes where true Democrats need to step up to the plate and bat with our team. Our party has always been a broad coalition party, with both hawks and doves, e.g., and I don't see any great harm in it remaining so, in general. When it comes down to key, party-line votes, however, that should be a different matter.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

28. I Think 22 Democratic Senators Voted For IWR

nt

[Padraig18]

29. I forget the precise number.

:shrug:

[JohnKleeb]

40. I know for certain, most of the dems in the house voted against it

and some of those ranged from more conservative democrats to some DLC democrats to progressive dems.

[Rhiannon12866]

56. Most of our Democratic presidential candidates,

who were in a position to vote on IWR, voted in favor of it, like Kerry and Gephardt and Edwards. I think that Dennis Kucinich (my candidate, BTW) was the lone vote, of the subsequent candidates, against it. But they were not voting in favor of invading Iraq, but giving the president the authority to use force, to give him the leverage to bring this back to the U.N., to bring the weapons inspectors back in and, in the president's own words, "to keep the peace," which is what Bush* said, at the time. No one expected him to launch a preemptive attack. He was disingenuous with Congress, on both the threat to this country posed by Saddam and his actual intentions, if given this authority, and should have been called out on this, long ago.:grr:

[kentuck]

30. I agree...

A Democrat that votes against Social Security for example, or against human rights, is no Democrat at all. All votes are not equal. Some votes define the opposition just as some votes define our own.

[Crunchy Frog]

17. I find the DLC's attacks on progressives

and people like Michael Moore, to be the most disturbing. Other than that, it seems to me that the majority of people using the word "purge" are defenders of the DLC, trying to make its critics look bad.

That's just my impression.

And no, I don't think anyone should be "purged" from the party, but I would like to see more tolerance and openness from all sides.

[JohnKleeb]

39. right thats just as bad

but it annoys me when the same people who act like the whole DLC is the worst thing to ever happen then urge purging them and moderates, ironically enough, when the urge for purging they become what they hate ala the communists in the soviet union who despised the tactics of the czar but became even more tyrannical.

[GeorgeGist]

18. I think they should be politely asked to leave

and become the Republicans they so adore.

[Walt Starr]

27. It doesn't matter when the Vichy Dems give in to the Repukes

so we end up in a single party system, now does it?

[Kahuna]

31. I agree. It sounds disgusting and juvenile to me.

nt

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

36. The party is committing slow motion suicide. Time to go.

The DLC has managed to compromise the party into a "moderate" imitation of the Repugs.

Time to leave and join the opposition to the one-party government. Watching the whimpering, pandering, and pleading of our "leaders" is bad for the stomach.

If you vote for a Republican(R) or a Republican(D) you still get stuck with a Republican.

[JohnKleeb]

37. Yes, I do

I find it very disturbing.

[kentuck]

41. John, it is meant to be "disturbing"...

It is not meant to be "business as usual". Oh, they'll get over it. They always come back to the Party. They're just throwing a little tantrum. They will be over it when the next election rolls around. The "base" has been taken for granted. No more.

They should be disturbed.

[JohnKleeb]

47. Oh I certainly agree

I get more upset with purging than threats to leave the party.

[angrydemocrat]

49. Whaaa Whaaaa

Poor Poor kentuck It's all the DLC's fault :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry:

[kentuck]

59. Is that your pathetic attempt at derision?

"Have you been following politics for the past three years?"

:) Apologies to BullGooseLoony

[mattclearing]

42. People are already purging in the Democratic Party, like it or not.

The DLC and anti-Palestinians crowd are trying to purge Cynthia McKinney.

It's not about whether it's wrong to purge. It's about who gets purged and whether we get a say.

[Padraig18]

48. How are they 'purging' Rep. McKinney?

if you're referring to her seniority status, no one has yet said what the caucus rules regarding the accretion of seniority are, to my knowledge. If she is entitled to added seniority from her previous service, then she should have it; no exception should be made favoring her, or anyone else, however.

[bemildred]

43. I find it ignorant, there is no mechanism to purge a party. nt

[tjdee]

44. Jiminy, maybe we should paint our doors so we're not purged or something?

:eyes:

I'm not sure how people expect to perform this "purging", but I agree, it definitely has a negative connotation and the implications are disturbing.

More important than purging, to me, is getting together and deciding just what the fuck the Democratic Party stands for. Apparently nobody knows.

[Forkboy]

45. I do now and I did when a vocal group here called for them during

the primaries.

[Pepperbelly]

46. Purgers should purge themselves. nt

[Freddie Stubbs]

51. Not really since those talking about purging don't have the power to do it