Being somewhat new here,

[Toxictoaster]

at least in a regular-checking capacity, I have to ask: why in the livin'hell do we expend so much energy attacking each other's candidates? I'm sure this is an old saw around here--just wondering. The way we pounce on each other at the slightest hint of impurity (e.g., the latest Kerry endorsement story, Clark's role in Cossovo, Dean's occasional gaffes) is not only self-defeating, it's childish to the extreme.

News to all: the ideologically pure candidate does not, and should not, exist. If you agree with every single thing out of any one candidate's mouth all the time, you're probably not thinking about it hard enough.

Lay off each other and concentrate on how to use the best of each--winners or not--to beat BushCo.

[bowens43]

1. So you're new to politics?

[info being]

2. Free speech is not childish

Many of us value truth over any particular candidate.

[Toxictoaster]

6. Leave the search for truth to the philosophers.

I don't see the reason folks look to political leaders for "truth." Politics is, by definition, a business of compromise and coalition building. To say it's not simply verifies the "black vs. white" thinking so prevalent on the Repub side.

Maybe that's what really bothers me--the attack dog stuff degrades our discourse to the Repub level, but the targets happen to be our own brothers (and sister) in arms, rather than those who truly deserve the barbs! That kind of thing makes us sound collectively stupider and incapable of working together, much less against our common enemies when the time comes.

Nothing wrong with weighing candidates against each other, with passion for one or another. But the ceaseless attacks on all others, using half-baked theories and rumors culled from the the hyperfast world of the newscycle (often before the "story" is even a verifiable fact!) just damages everybody. So does the idea that the "perfect" candidate will come along--ain't gonna happen, folks, unless you just choose to ignore the stuff you don't like.

Beating Bush is the objective. We're going to do it with whatever imperfect candidate ends up on top. Don't take eyes off the prize.

:toast:

[Sapphocrat]

3. Sounds to me like...

...the surest way to dull one's capacity for critical thought.

[shance]

4. Of course you are right***

It would make too much sense for us to actually promote courtesy and mutual respect for our fellow candidates, wouldnt it?

Some of the people who are more consistent in the divisive posting arena arent really Democrats at all.

They are of, what we call, the freeper variety.*** They can bite so I would try to steer clear, although sometimes there is a need (and just a hankerin') to bite back.

Welcome to DU****Stick around awhile, it always gets interesting.

Oh, and im sorry to hear about your toaster. When did it become toxic?

:)

[library_max]

5. Welcome to DU. And you're absolutely right.

Thing is, the rabid types are far more likely to crank out message after message, and consequently they make a disproportionate amount of noise. A lot of people on DU agree with you; fewer of them post regularly. Also, you caught us at a particularly bad time, when passionate supporters of several candidates are watching their primary dreams die and taking it out on the frontrunner - with the inevitable retaliations from his supporters.