Edwards is Dogpiled, but Thompson gets pass from DU--Why?

[TwilightGardener]

This excellent thread from Rodeodance appeared yesterday, and died
a quick death:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=721859&mesg_id=721859

Edwards gets a $400 haircut, a silly but legitimate campaign expense, and we (myself included, I must admit) rag him mercilessly. Thompson appears to maintain a PAC long after his political career is over for what appears to be the purpose of enriching his own family, with less than half his money being used for actual candidates and campaigns. Though not illegal, does this not reek of impropriety? Why do we attack, and hobble, our candidates for comparatively minor misdeeds, and ignore a Republican's questionable ethics?

[MonkeyFunk]

1. he's not getting a pass....

he's just not a democratic candidate (in fact, he's not a republican candidate, either) so he just doesn't get that much attention.

[Joe Fields]

2. In my opinion, it's because he poses no real threat.

[Joe Chi Minh]

11. On the contrary. I think it's because he is.

[Joe Fields]

20. I fail to see how he poses a threat.

[TwilightGardener]

23. I fail to see this too, aside from the celebrity--he is a sign of GOP desperation,

and this PAC thing is going to be just the beginning of holes they are going to rip into this guy, I have a feeling. Over in Freeperville, they are in total denial about his lackluster political career, his cancer and this PAC thing--they either excuse it away or don't mention it. They are clinging to him like a liferaft, because they don't want Rudy, even though the Republican party in general seems to be OK with him.

[Joe Chi Minh]

41. Sorry, I completely misread your post. I thought you were talking about Edwards.

[mitchtv]

13. Hmmm that's not what the Thompson

concern trolls say, usually tho, Thompson is being used right now to point out the comparative weakness of Dem candidates..."Oh Fred will beat anyone (we? )have...", "Hillary is Satan" etc.

[TwilightGardener]

31. Yep, the concern trolls were hijacking any Thompson-related thread,

or turning unrelated threads INTO Thompson threads (oh, we'll never win the Swing-State Southern White Males! Thompson will be on Mt. Rushmore and Dems will go the way of the Whigs, etc.) and then ever since the lymphoma news came out, and now this, it's...crickets...

[ComerPerro]

3. I would say a lot of it has to do with how early in the election cycle it is

the only direct competition is between Dem candidates, at least here. It is pretty much assumed by most here that all the GOP freaks running are utter slime. No point attacking someone who may not even be the nominee.

not saying its right, just explaining it.

[Cha]

4. I defended Edwards and think

fred thompson is a pile of repukeshite.

My first Prez primary season was in 2004 and it was brutal. I'll defend any Dem except a dlclueless warhawk.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

5. Wait until he's declared himself a candidate

and then see what happens here. We'll keep this information in mind.

And there have been some threads on FDT--I was surprised at how many felt he would be the nominee for the GOP. In L&O fandom, he is not rated highly, either as an actor or a politician. The idea from fans is that he's never stuck with politics, and is an opportunist.

[BlooInBloo]

6. Because DUers are perfectly happy doing republicans' work for them for free.

EDIT: And if you think about it, it's not me *making* religion look bad. Religion makes *itself* look bad - I just like to talk about it from time to time.

[TwilightGardener]

8. I agree, and I feel guilty...

[hfojvt]

14. you mean like dissing Christianity to make liberals look bad?

[BlooInBloo]

16. Exactly. When I do it, by contrast, it's just to make christians look bad. :)

[Fovea]

7. To a lessor exent than in TVland

we are buffeted by the same memes that propel the MSM.

Sure, we have a fair number of clever monkeys, but it is probably too much to ask that
everypost, or everyone stick to the subject at hand.

Also, our heterodoxy is our strength.
The other way lies Karl Rove.

[MADem]

9. Uh, the Republican in question is not YET a candidate. There's plenty of time to rip him to shreds.

And since he's also a Republican. He won't be on the dais with the Dems at their debates.

Edwards is "getting it" from the supporters of other Democratic candidates. Same with HRC, and Obama--they're "getting it" from partisans. These people actually think they are 'helping' their candidate by putting other candidates down. It's the exact opposite effect they are having, though.

If people have a big "MY CANDIDATE FOR PRESIDENT 08" banner in their signature line while they're bashing another candidate, they're frigging stupid. Every post they make says "I have nothing GOOD to say about my choice, thus, I must bash the opposition to keep my pick up in the ratings!" They may as well have a banner that says "Flopsweat DESPERATE for Candidate X!!!"

[TwilightGardener]

12. No, I don't think it because he's not a candidate yet, because

we have plenty of fun with Newt, who isn't running, and some other non-threatening "R" third-tier or undeclared candidates as well (Tommy Thompson and his Jewish comments, for example). I am just wondering if it's specific to Thompson (he does appear to have some weirdly star-struck fans on DU) or if it's just more fun to trash Dem candidates, or other people's preferred Dem candidates, as you say (and good point, by the way).

[MADem]

18. He's an old idiot with a wife with giant boobs who likes to run around half topless.

That's been a topic of discussion here, and surely more interesting than dull old cash--we will get to that soon enough. He's bald. Bald guys tend not to win. He has cancer. That's not a great recommendation, either. He's too fucking folksy for words, and I think America has HAD it with folksy types. They want someone who speaks clearly and won't disgrace us on the world stage. Just with Bouncing Booby on his arm, he loses that fight.

The GOP is talking the old fool up because they're desperate. They figure, hell, he PLAYED a president, he can do it!! They just have a lousy field (again) this time. But that has everything to do with their paucity of good ideas. Ya can only do so much with a sow's ear of a platform!

[TwilightGardener]

25. Agree 100% with your assessment!

[depakid]

15. Edwards is getting criticism alright

and it's come early enough that with any luck, his campaign will learn from it.

Dismissing valid criticism as merely product of "partisanship" is not only incorrect- it's also politically inane.

[TwilightGardener]

17. I'm not dismissing valid criticism of Edwards--I engaged in it myself,

and I still feel he did something kinda dumb that gave his enemies an opening, and I hope, as you do, that he learns from it. The difference is, when we get a real, red-meat ethical screwup on a Republican (potential) candidate, why do we not run with it?

[depakid]

21. Seems to me, like other posters pointed out

that the Republican campaigns are not really in our fishbowl yet.

As things heat up, I'm sure we'll see plenty of derision directed their way....;)

[MADem]

22. It's not the criticism in and of itself, it is the QUALITY and direction of the criticism --and not

just of him--that I find "interesting."

It always seems to be the same old hectorers, pounding away, starting thread after thread on the same fucking subject, as though they don't REALLY want to "discuss" the issue, they want to ADVERTISE it; to play the "GOTCHA" game. That's what I mean by 'partisan.'

I'd almost think it was Pay 2 Post stuff, only it's so fucking bad. Any candidate who paid for that kind of crap would be on drugs, or have a lousy "tubes and internets" advisor. So I'm left with the thought that it's well meaning advocates who don't know the first thing about sales.

And it's OBVIOUS, what they're doing. It's not even cleverly managed or decently spaced.

See, I have no dawg in the fight yet. I'm waiting for Gore to lose forty pounds and jump in the pool!!!

But because I have no dawg, I can see the crystal blue waters quite clearly, and I see what people are doing. I think some of these sneak attacks suck, frankly. It clutters up the board with fifty threads on the same subject, and gets people at each others' throats. No need for that shit, IMO.

If there's a real need to discuss an issue, confine it to a thread or two, so all viewpoints can be seen in one click. Otherwise, it's just a series of small, virtual fistfights around the DU bar.

[depakid]

27. Sure, there's some of that, it's to be expected

and it's often transparent.

Yet there are also quite a few reasonable and objective people who look at situations and think "how is this going to play?"

The trick is: don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.

[MADem]

33. I don't have a baby or a bathtub, yet, I guess that's why I see it more clearly.

I'm waiting for the debates. I want to see their brains engage, I want to hear from the candidates, not their anxious surrogates.

It just smacks of bad sportsmanship to me, when there's a blanketing move and pounding from all sides. It makes me predisposed to dislike the candidates supported by the persons pulling those stunts, too--though I know they're not to blame for it. It's just well-meaning, over-eager types who think they're helping...but they aren't.

[The Count]

10. It's like saying media doesn't report "the good news" from Iraq

Thomson just didn't cross my radar yet - I'll be happy to give him the GOP treatment the moment I hear about him (last I heard he made some anti-semitic remarks and blamed being cold and tired for it - but for a Republican - it's like saying he woke up this morning.
And if someone would put his campaign rhetoric here, in my face day in, day out, I may bother to check in which ways it contradicts his actions (he's a GOP-er, so it has to). But with him not being in the race and all that, you can see the futility.

[piedmont]

19. Because Edwards is a candidate for OUR party. We care much more about the quality of our nominee.

Once we're through the primaries, I'm sure the Republican candidate will get MUCH more attention from DU.

[Madspirit]

24. When I Do This

It's because I expect better from our own and I think constructive criticism is a good thing. I don't really mind $400.00 haircuts at all. I don't really give a damned. I am just speaking in general. I expect better from ours and I know some of them read DU so maybe stuff we say will hit home for them. I EXPECT nothing but Evil from Republicans and I think they are unable to learn anything.
Lee

[eleny]

26. Deep down I think we know that Rudy's machine will go after him

I think his candidacy is ludicrous. He was a lazy legislator who accomplished little during his years in Congress. His illness, his trophy wife and the new improprieties that have come to light are music to the camps of the declared candidates. Let them spend their energy on him. Right now we have lots on our own collective plate.

[Nimrod2005]

28. Hair that requires $400 for a cut vs. no hair at all?

:rofl:

[MedleyMisty]

29. He's a Republican

So we're all going to pretty much agree that yeah, he's bad.

Edwards is a Democrat. People are going to get emotional about criticisms of Democrats and it's going to spawn a lot more threads than everyone just going "A-yep, Republicans suck."

[Cameron27]

34. Yep, we're the ones who

will be pounding the pavement for one of them in the general, so it can definitely get emotional if we see mistakes being made, or if we don't agree with any of them on some issues.

I think it's a given that we think Republicans are evil, horrible bastards, but we're never ever going to try to get one of them in the WH.

[GreenTea]

30. Because here they suck up the mainstream media & believe it's their own thoughts.

The media tells them to trash a good man like Edwards whom the republicans want out of the race desperately and right on cue these clowns start in on some haircut...Does even one of them know or even care what John Edwards platform is, have they been to his site and see what a progressive Edwards is and what he stands for and what he wants to achieve...http://johnedwards.com/ NO, the media says the haircut matters more than anything in this whole campaign and they go right along with it...the media is shoving Obama & Hillary right down their throats every single day and these same Edwards thrashers, say yes, I'm for Obama, I'm for Hillary...it makes a good republican smile at these sheep who actually think it's all coming from their own minds...pitiful!

[TheCowsCameHome]

32. Is anyone taking Thompson seriously? Just ignore him.

[MGKrebs]

35. That's a very good question.

For my part, it's distasteful having to dig into the places where the details of Repubs lives exist. But I think you have inspired me to try. But then again, talking about repub candidates here at DU doesn't serve much purpose, because nobody here is going to vote for any of them anyway. I think we would hope that the information gets disseminated far and wide.

The right wing generates endless attacks and accusations on Dem candidates, from justified to deplorable, some of which make it into the MSM and may well influence who our nominee is. I don't see where we do nearly as much of the same thing. If Repub candidates have "issues" are we going to leave it up to the Repub dittoheads to dig them up and broadcast them? Shouldn't mainstream America be made aware of Bernie Kerik, and that Brownback favors "Intelligent design? Huckabee's a creationist, Romney either has or has not been a hunter all his life, etc. etc. ?

This might be fun.

[TwilightGardener]

37. Right--one of the purposes of this site should be to trash Republicans,

IMO--at least the ones who deserve it, because the MSM won't. Just watch Matthews going on and on about Hillary, or MoDo on Obama (Obambi)--Democrats are certainly held to a higher standard. There is SO MUCH about the Republican candidates that can be exposed and mocked, it's not even funny. The only one suffering is McCain, who is now getting his share of bad press, probably as a backlash against his "media darling" status last time around. We must not allow our candidates to be unfairly shredded, while GOPers get a pass--it's that simple. DU should be a tool for exposing Republicans' weaknesses, as well as to examine and promote Dem issues and candidates.

[merh]

36. He isn't a democratic party candidate.

No republican gets a pass from me, I just store away the information to provide to the righties I know. No use in participating in an echo chamber thread calling him the crooked so-n-so he appears to be.

[elocs]

38. Doh! Good answer!

Why give an undeclared and powerless Republican any time and space? Also, how can over 100,000 DU members be made corporately responsible for giving anyone a pass?
Keeping them all in line is like herding cats.

[cascadiance]

39. We want to make sure we have our best person nominated!

... we want to save all of the stuff to ambush the Rethuglicans later, in hopes that they get one of them we have the goods on nominated. Then we can unload on that bum at that point and sink the election for them. Doesn't do any good to help them weed out their worst now! Let them put their worst forward, if that's what they are inclined to do! The only time we should trash them is if they have a truly dangerous candidate that's so much worse than the others that we don't want to risk even getting nominated. Then trash them at will!

But if we do critique our own candidates, do so on really meaningful and important issues and in a respectful way, so that we can make sure we have the right person with the righ views nominated. Sidetracking them on a haircut bill (or an energy bill in the case of Gore) and giving too much attention to that is only a distraction. The bigger issues need to be looked at in context with these issues.

[Colobo]

40. Because nobody here gives a damn about Fred Thompson