[This diary speaks for me alone. I am NOT an Admin nor a FPer at daily kos.]
Does it exist? Does it care? Does it have standards? Two issues. First for the second time this week, an ill informed diary attacking the NYTimes Editorial page has climbed to the top of the recommended list. The first described the Editorial page as "neocon." The second condemned it because it published drivel from a Right Wing columnist on its Op Ed page. It shocked me to see that the daily kos community did not understand that the NYTimes Editorial page opposed the Iraq Debacle, has harshly criticized Bush in terms never before seen in the respectable world of newspapers, called for the filibuster of Alito, the end of torture, editorialized against Bush's unconstitutional actions, etc. The community also seems not to know that newspapers use their Op Ed pages, in part, to publish views opposed to theirs. That the NEWS pages are NOT the editorial pages. What happened?
The second issue on the flip.
The second issue I want to rail about is NOT civility - I do not care about that. It is about character assassination. Others care about the profanity, the "idiots," etc. I don't. You can call me all that -- as long as I get to call you that too. But I can refrain from it if you do too.
No my issue is this:
If you don't see impeachment as pragmatic (4+ / 1-)
Than you must view every soldier that dies this year as merely a theoretical consideration, not sensibly or realistically stood up for.
That's sad.
and this:
You argued impeachment wasn't pragmatic. You cited political hopes in 2008 as being more important.
You thereby, in my view, condoned the crimes of this administration, while simultaneously stating that politics are more important than justice.
I think the phrase I saw in another thread, which I find apt, is collaboration. You won't find an apology here.
Of course I didn't argue that. I argued that for the same reasons impeachment as the starting point of oversight will not lead to conviction and removal, it would benefit Republicans greatly in 2008. To wit, it won't get rid of Bush and it will help foist McCain on us in 2008.
But even if I did argue it, how can that possibly excuse being called a collaborator? How can that excuse being accused of not caring about whether troops are killed in Iraq? How does that excuse being accused of condoning Bush's crimes? How can that excuse being called a Bush lover, as Paul Gaskin did to me? And if you think it DOES excuse it, who among you will write the diary saying that of Russ Feingold?
I don’t support impeachment, and I don’t support impeachment hearings, even though I think the president has probably committed an impeachable offense," Feingold said in response to a question from Al Schulz of La Crosse.
"We are not required to impeach the president simply because he’s committed an impeachable offense, which I think he did with the illegal wiretapping. We have to decide whether it’s in the best interest of the country to go through that process."
If you won't say it about our elected officials, how could it possibly be ok to say it about a fellow kossack? How can we have discourse if disagreement can be allowed to be the basis for character assassination?
I point this out not to single out impeachment proponents. There has been too much character assassination coming from those of us who do not agree that calling for impeachment now is wise. Too many have done what is not right - tried to shout down impeachment proponents.
I understand the impulse. We have lived through many uproars here over the years. The first wars were the 2004 primary battles. And I say this to all of you who think it gets bad now with the incivility -- you ain't see nuthin' like that. And guess what? The COMMUNITY not only survived, it thrived.
Then there was SYFPH during the 2004 Election. We survived it. And then the first earthquake -- OHIO.
And Fraud diaries claiming speculation as fact were banned. People left. But as bad as it got, character assassinations were not part of the heat. And afterwards, the community thrived.
Then came Pie. That one was ugly. Markos screwed up imo with his "women's set" comment. And he apologized. But there was a significant group dedicated to character assassination. And I was adamantly criticizing those that did that. To me THAT was unacceptable. And it still is.
Then London conspiracy theory diaries. That was an easy call it seemed to me. Banned those diaries. And the community thrived afterwards.
You see the pattern of course. The daily kos community and management demanded adherence to facts. Argue for any view you wish, but stick to the facts. Daily Kos has always been rigorous on this point. Or used to be anyway.
There were other minor brouhahas - I was the instigator of some of them. Lawrence Summers. Race. Troll Cops. And other stuff. But we survived them. I think mostly because CHARACTER attacks were never a part of them.
I was called and called folks idiot, or naive, or ill informed, etc. I know that bothers folks and I am fine with a moratorium on that. But character assassinations have always been verboten.
The point is whatever the fights, as long as we did not question each others' character or integrity, we could work through it. I always thought that when it reached the point of character assassination that was when the line was crossed.
Let me put it this way - I don't get along with a lot of people here (shocking I know), even with a lot of the most prominent people here. But I am confident that they are committed Democrats, honest and working for what they believe is the good of the Democratic Party and this site. I will never question that about them.
So, in sum, it seems to me that the COMMUNITY has forgotten about these two uncrossable lines.
(1) Daily Kos demanded the FACTS.
(2) Daily Kos demanded respect for the character and integrity of community members UNLESS they had proven themselves to lack in these areas.
What happened?