If you are a purist - meaning you think Specter's change is a bad thing - listen here

[Taverner]

You think you are maintaining the purity of your party

Just like the Nazi's were maintaining the "purity" of Germany, the Stalinists maintaining the "purity" of Communism, or the Cultural Revolution students maintaining the purity of Maoism. In your quest for purity, you forget that there are others out there who disagree with you. You forget that someone might have a differing opinion.

This is willful ignorance. You CHOOSE not to listen to dissent because it disrupts your bubble.

Remember that there are those out there who disagree with you, but have a common ideal for the US

There are those out there who have different experiences, yet want to contribute in a positive way to the American System.

Would you rather every single politician be Dennis Kucinich? Sure, I like him, but if he were every Dem we'd be second to the Peace and Freedom party come November.

[valerief]

1. I vote for ALL POLS to be clones of Dennis Kucinich!!!!

Yessiree!!!!
:headbang:

[John Q. Citizen]

2. I think the Dems should pay any Senator one million dollars to switch sides. If you are against that

you are a purist.

Right.

[John Q. Citizen]

5. If you oppose making bush head of the CIA, as long as he registers Dem, you are a

purist!

[Taverner]

10. When Bush was head of the CIA, did you know anything about him?

I didn't either.

Because he hadn't done anything (on record) at that point

Sure, now we can castigate him, but at the time (the 70's) the only thing he had done was to have Ruby taken out. And that didn't come to light until the 80's.

[John Q. Citizen]

16. I mean junior. So are you a purist? Or do you support making W head of the

CIA as long as he first changes his registration to Dem?

God, I hope you aren't a purist.

Just think of the great feeling you will have when W changes parties, ha hya that will show them!

Bush Senior was made head of the CIA by Ford. That was after he was a congressman. He begged Carter to let him stay on, and even offered to never run again for office if Cater did. But Carter was a purist

God I hope you aren't like Carter, a purist I mean.

[damntexdem]

3. So, WHO thinks it's a bad thing -- other than the GOP?

I think that it is a mixed bag.

[TorchTheWitch]

55. I do

He's only doing this so he has any chance to keep his seat, which may very well likely keep a REAL Dem out of that seat. He is still ideologically a Repuke, and he's not going to vote any differently. We don't need any and shouldn't WANT any fucking Dems in name only.

[lame54]

69. that is a very real concern...

he may vote our way for a year - get elected as a dem - and then go right back to being an obstructionist repug

[rug]

4. Disliking Specter is Stalinism? Who knew.

[Taverner]

7. No its purity for purity's sake

Arlen Specter was one of the only Republicans to question W's war

Arlen Specter is more interested in torture convictions than our current administration

Yet, because he's a centrist, he is considered a pariah in some circles here

[DireStrike]

59. He is not a centrist.

He has oddball views on a few issues but is mostly republican. That does not make him centrist.

[dmallind]

9. No, but "we don't need any DINOs" is close

When you seek absolute conformity you are not very many steps away from totalitarianism.

The even stranger thing is that most of the calls for conformity come from the furthest to the left of the party, whereas the actual one official Democratic Party version of what is expected of a Democrat - the party platform - is actually quite a moderate/centrist document.

[rug]

11. That's a rather absolute statement.

[dmallind]

13. Really - it does not contain a single absolute.

[rug]

15. "When you seek absolute conformity you are not very many steps away from totalitarianism."

We're talking about Arlen Specter here, not Mussolini's march on Rome.

[dmallind]

32. Not an absolute statement at all - but true nonetheless

Sure I understand we're not talking about blackshirts here. But when a goodly section of DU does not want a well-known Senator to say (I paraphrase of course) "the GOP is too right wing and wacko for me so I'm joining the big tent guys where moderates can be welcome" simply because he does not always vote exactly the same way Eugene Debs would have wanted it's quite a ways down the path to that kind of control that is being sought.

The whole idea of being a working governing party that can accept dissent is to NOT implode into a purity-oath circle jerk like the Republicans are now. Specter won't even be the rightmost Democrat in Congress let alone in the voting booth, and some people act like he should be spat on and rejected as a Johnny-come-lately who can't be trusted (even though he started off as a Dem before a good number of us were even born).

Maybe it's because I have been told I'm not a real Democrat because I favor things like the RKBA (as does our party platform) or free trade (Dem president) or the DP (bipartisan); even though I'm MUCH closer to the platform voted on by folks elected entirely by Democratic party members) that this silly far-left imagined purity to what they THINK the Democratic party should be or once was resonates as the self-defeating self-marginalizing claptrap it really is to me.

[Bjorn Against]

23. What is anyone seeking conformity to?

I always hear people talk about this "ideologically pure" position, but no one has ever defined what makes someone ideologically pure. We don't have a progressive manifesto that we demand purity to. What I DO see is people demanding that we support anyone with a D behind their name even if we oppose virtually everything they stand for, if anything is a form of "purity" it is the demands to support the party leaders whether we believe they are right or wrong.

[Zodiak]

74. ....and like this OP, they project their loyalty oaths on the left

Sorry....I look at what Spector stands for first, then I consider his party.

Blind party loyalty is for suckers.

[TheBigotBasher]

45. I just wish the so called centre

would actually vote with their programme. Cutting huge swathes of programmes from the Recovery Act, then adding Rethug tax cuts - for nothing. Cutting back on make work pay and then not funding it in the budget.

There is a Presidential programme that voters wanted delivered. Republiucan voting Democrats should stick to that (and no the right of the Democratic Party is NOT moderate).

[Bluzmann57]

6. I disagree with Spector on EFCA

And I mean I REALLY disagree with him, but I also respect the fact that he has seen the republican party move so far to the right that they may never come back. He does seem like an opportunist though. Oh well, he will add something to the party I suppose.

[Taverner]

8. I do too

Not all of us agree - but the fact that the GOP has become the clearinghouse for the closed minded is highlighted by Specter's move.

[ColbertWatcher]

14. I think if the GOP run Ridge against Specter and Specter still wins ...

... and Pennsylvania let's him know that they want EFCA, Specter will vote for EFCA.

[Raine]

30. Agree

I'm glad he joined our party. :-)

[demmiblue]

12. Lol... I couldn't read past Nazi!

:rofl:

[Buzz Clik]

19. No kidding.

[JonLP24]

21. lol

:rofl:
I don't like authoritarians which is more of what Stalin was.

[Tempest]

22. I stopped reading it after that as well

Specter's conversion may be fine for Democrats, but not for progressives.

[Forkboy]

29. Me either.

Lesson #1 on how to torpedo your own argument. Don't invoke Nazis unless speaking about Nazis.

Or video games, where, like zombies, killing Nazis never goes out of style. :)

[Moochy]

61. Me Neither

Republican talking points sound worse when a "democrat" regurgitates them.

[tkmorris]

17. You invoked Godwin's Law on yourself

You seriously expect your argument to carry any weight after that?

[Buzz Clik]

18. How the hell did you manage to invoke the Nazis into this?

Jesus Christ.

[Bjorn Against]

20. You can not possibly compare opposing Specter to Nazism or Stalinism

First of all there is no such thing as "ideological purity", it is a made up phrase that no one can define. If you came up with a list of all the "ideologically pure" progressive positions you would instantly be hammered by numerous progressives who disagree with some of those positions, as progressives we disagree all the time.

Second even if there were a list of ideologically pure positions that would still be far far different than the type of "purity" that the Nazis had in mind, no one has advocated shipping those who disagree with us off to death camps.

People have the right to disagree with Specter's positions, and they should not be expected to embrace him for the sole reason that he puts a D behind his name. He holds the same positions that he held as a Republican, and nearly his entire agenda goes against my values. I should not be expected to embrace every single person that calls themselves a Democrat because issues are always more important than the party, and I will support or oppose politicians based on their record of supporting civil rights, human rights, and peace rather than the letter that resides next to their name. Specter has a poor record, and there is no reason for me to think that record is going to change.

[emulatorloo]

26. If you want a definition of "ideological purity" take a look at the GOP nowadays

It hasn't reached it yet, but it is getting real close. Only extreme right wingers allowed. No room for moderates. etc.

[Bjorn Against]

28. Well they certainly aren't progressives.

The Republicans embrace their party platform in near lockstep, Democrats can not find any agreement on theirs. There is quite simply no such thing as an "ideologically pure" progressive position, many of us do have certain values we hold important to us and we will speak out when any politician goes against those values but that is not anywhere near the same thing as ideological purity.

[Taverner]

39. Exactly - WE CAN'T BECOME THEM!!!

[DireStrike]

60. Too bad their ideas are wrong.

The purity? Not an issue so much with me.

[readmoreoften]

27. Wanting "pure" drinking water is also wrong.

So is "being pure of heart." Not to mention all those "ideologically pure" gay people who dismiss those who criticize them as subhuman.

Also, while we're at it, let's demonize "consistency." It's suspiciously close to "pure." :sarcasm:

[Fire1]

50. ABSOFUCKINLUTELY!!! SUSTAINED DAMMIT!!!!

[readmoreoften]

24. Those are ridiculous comparisons. COMPLETELY ridiculous.

Are labor unions "purist monsters" when they refuse to accept offers of company unions?
Would the NAACP be "purist monsters" if they refused membership to Klan members?
Are NARAL "purist monsters" if they refuse to align themselves with anti-choice politicians?
If the HRC used donations from LGBT people to fund anti-equality politicians are their supporters "violent purists" for being pissed?

The Democratic party, as a whole, has almost no practical definition to begin with other than "taking power away from Republicans". By accepting Specter, the Dem party is doing "purely" what it has done for the past two decades--attempted to wrest power from the Republican party by any means necessary, even if it means becoming Republicans themselves.

Having IDEAS and PRINCIPLES does not predict some sort of impending atrocity.

[leftstreet]

25. +1

[JVS]

31. Wow Godwin in second line! There are some pros and some cons with Specter coming over.

[Taverner]

34. No I'm just sick of the pre-judging going on with the Specter shift

If you don't see this as a win, then - well, you need your head examined

[JVS]

36. This is a win for the next 18 months. It might be a loss in the subsequent 6 years

Calling it an unmitigated win is pre-judging. We have to see what kind of performance he yields.

[Raineyb]

62. Prejudging?

Only a complete dumb ass would decide that Specter is trustworthy because he suddenly decided to become a Democrat. We're judging him based on his past performance. Are you suggesting that we're supposed to forget the rather opportunistic phrasing of his reasons for changing? We're supposed to forget all the times he made noises that sounded like he was going to do the right thing only to do the wrong thing? You do that at your own peril. Me? I don't trust him I don't care what letter he has after his name.

[alarimer]

33. He is opposed to nearly everything in the Democratic Party platform.

Why do we need people like that at all?

[Taverner]

37. What Abortion rights? The Stim package? Vetrans funding?

Which exactly of your pet issues is he not in favor of?

[Fire1]

51. He 'flip flopped' on MY pet issue. He started out endorsing

EFCA. Now he's against it. Fuck him.

[Oilwellian]

72. Here are a few

Consider Specter’s most significant votes over the last eight years, ones cast in favor of such definitive right-wing measures as: the war on Iraq, the Military Commissions Act, Patriot Act renewal, confirmation of virtually every controversial Bush appointee, retroactive telecom immunity, warrantless eavesdropping expansions, and Bush tax cuts (several times). Time and again during the Bush era, Specter stood with Republicans on the most controversial and consequential issues.

And you think he's a "moderate" or "centrist" and welcome him to the Democratic party? WTF?

[DeltaLitProf]

58. Health care?

If we get a good bill through the Senate with 60 votes, Obama's second term is MADE.

[iamthebandfanman]

35. WTF are you talking about?

are you really here calling other democrats that dont agree with you nazis , communists, and maoists?


Get a life dude, and get off of DU!

people like you make me wanna barf!

ope, to late... already got a lil in the back of my mouth.

[Taverner]

38. That's what your mother said last night...

:P

[JVS]

40. If his mother said "people like you make me wanna barf!" last night, you might want to work on...

grooming and keeping clean.

:P

[tkmorris]

43. Dude, seriously?

[iamthebandfanman]

44. way to insult yourself. n/t

[Mike 03]

41. I agree: His change is a hopeful thing, but I just recognize that his motives are

complex.

That's all.

DU has really come down a long ways from the good old days when people inhabited that gray area where things were not all good or all bad, but real.

The guy's got heart.

I don't agree with him all the time, but he's got laudible qualities, and more guts than most of his colleages on that side of the aisle, that is for damned sure. How many of them would dare to go onto Howard Stern?

[Fuzz]

42. So stupid on so many levels. Godwin's law being the first. Spector is in this for himself.

[whistler162]

53. Perhaps stupid but not a Godwin's law qualifier!

[cascadiance]

46. If wanting someone to do their job to SERVE THE PEOPLE is the wants of a purist...

... then HELL YEAH! I'm a purist of wanting someone to work for us!

Now, if Specter really does start doing things differently and starts serving the people's interests instead of K-Street's, he won't deserve my "purist" skepticism anymore!

Being a Democrat isn't about just having power over the other guy. It's also about being there for the principles of being for the people's interests! DINO's need not apply!

[Occam Bandage]

47. Protip: Starting off by comparing people to Nazis does not make them take you seriously. nt

[JVS]

48. This thread is so doomed to be locked

[Mike 03]

49. He's pro choice. He is in it for himself, but that doesn't mean it doesn't benefit us.

I can't believe people don't see this, such as when it comes to selecting new Supreme Court Justices.

It amazes me.

FOLKS: TWO APPARENTLY CONTRADICTORY, PARADOXICAL POINTS CAN BOTH BE TRUE.

[cali]

52. giant fail. invoking the Nazis in this context?

lame. lame. lame. And I'm certainly no purist, but I think Arlen will be a giant pain in the party ass. He's a narcissistic little prick.

[bvar22]

54. The only one I've heard DEMANDING "Ideological Purity" on DU today....

...is YOU.

[Forkboy]

63. The charge of purism is almost always projection.

You've been here long enough to know the drill. :)

[DireStrike]

56. Yikes.

Rather than attacking people's mentalities, how about you tell us why snarlin' is good to have in the party?

I am a purist. I was tempered by a one line post -

"Better he votes with us 20% of the time as a D than 10% of the time as an R."



Yes, there is an upside. And a real downside - this makes it harder to run a real D when the time comes. But as I understand it there is also a governer's race to run. Let the GOP waste money trying to take Arlen out. If they succeed, we can beat them next time around with a moderate (left of specter) dem.

Overall I see this as a slight gain for lots of probable trouble in the future.


Your post, on the other hand, just pisses me off. Nazis. Sheesh.

[DeltaLitProf]

57. This guy's going to the wall to get Obama's health care plan passed

. . . and that means a ton.

The other awfulness I can somewhat live with for this guy's soldiery against the scumball Right on health care.

[Lilith Velkor]

64. Oh for fuck's sake

[omega minimo]

65. I love the X Files

[leftofthedial]

66. just like your body rejects the swine flu virus

[Lucian]

67. Good god.

:eyes:

[quaker bill]

68. There is no such thing

as ideological purity. I disagree with the Republicans on a great many things, I disagree with the typical Democrat on a far smaller list of things. But I generally disagree with pretty much all politicians at some level, and always have.

If dissent were to bust my bubble, I guess I would have to stop dissenting. This is unlikely.

[Cary]

70. "Purist" is for the Whig Party. n/t

[Vickers]

71. Heil Specter!

:rofl:

[Fumesucker]

73. Specter is most certainly not Hitler...

As Chovexani pointed out, he's much more like Grima Wormtongue.