|
So, when people were ragging on Edwards about his money or his hair, I went after a lot of DU'ers who did so for being shortsighted, unfair, innaccurate, inconsistent and/or not backing up their assertions with evidence.
Not being a fan of Hillary, I have stepped into threads where people have bogus-ly slandered her record or claimed that she hasn't done anything.
Yesterday, I jumped in to defend Jim Webb not for his FISA vote, which I didn't agree with, but simply to say that, yes he is a good and intelligent man, who voted differently than I wanted him to. All but a few posts in that thread had all but written Webb off as "stupid", "coward", a tool and the like, attacking his intelligence and his character --again, without evidence.
All that said, why do I need to defend good people against attackers at DU?
What the hell is the matter with some people at DU that attack other Democrats without having proper evidence and without fairness? Some DU'ers who attack other Democrats as lacking character or spine or intelligence because that representative voted differently than the poster would have. I mean, Dianne Feinstein drives me crazy with her votes sometimes, but I don't doubt her intelligence (she is very smart), or her character (she's been consistent and principled many years), or her courage (I think she makes up her own mind and never votes against what she believes). My own congressman, Tom Lantos, voted for the IWR and people actually suggested that he was a tool, a dummy, etc. Actually, he's very smart and he's tougher than any of us having survived the holocaust and he's extremely principled and nevermind that his votes could actually lose him the primary this time around.
So, that's my beef with the DU'ers that attack the Dems and do so without evidence, without fairness and without accuracy and frequently, they do it using Republican talking points.
|