Maybe loathe isn't the right word at all, but now you are reading this diary so...
There are clearly defined qualities that `we' loathe. There is a reason that' we' keep attacking `our own', and that is because `our own' doesn't represent us.
(Note: I am trying to develop a consensus that most Kossacks can rally around, but I may be way off base so let me know)
I would like everyone to think about all the hassles that some of the Christian Fundamentalists have had with Specter. Sure, he is Republican, but he appears to be somewhat not in complete lock-step with those who want to put a lock-box around women's vaginas. So, do they want to toss him out? Sure some do, but not others, and why? Because while he maybe out of step with Dobson, he is in 'perfect' marching sync with the Corporate Agenda.
The two main parties should be in complete disagreement over two main meta-issues, which I will unfairly simplify here: economic issues and `social issues'. Both are fairly obvious, how much money goes towards corporate welfare and who is dictating your morality: you, your family and possibly God, or the creepy guy down the street who never got laid and has a terrible penchant for quoted Leviticus.
I think most Democrats, even strongly pro-choice Dems. would recognize the wisdom of currently not running someone who is pro-choice in Nebraska (see the dairies on Nelson) IF that guy happen to be completely out of step with K-street. Where Nelson lives may necessitate the need, politically, to be anti-choice, but HE DOESN'T ALSO NEED TO WOSHIP PLUTOCRACY!
So here is the criteria I have constructed on who `we' tolerate and I think it covers most of the internal debates on Dem. purity.
1. If you are from a Dem/Moderate state, you have to be pro-choice and against plutocracy. (This is why Casey is getting such heat here! Look where he lives! No reason to run anyone not firmly in the pro-choice camp. Leave the delicate mental-jujitsu and parsings on his stance to someone from Red-land. This also explains the loathing of Biden. I forget which state he comes from, but there already is a party THAT WORSHIPS corporations. No Dem gets to do this, EVER!!! On this note see Feinstein, D.)
2. If you are from a Red state, you have to be against plutocracy. (This explains the vitriol against Nelson. Obviously, some people always are going to be against Nelson for his abortion stances, and I promise to address this later. For many of us, we loathed Nelson because we have a mythic standard in our mind, "Fine, fine, if I have to get another Senator to pass legislation to protect the environment, get heath-care for my family, etc, then I will accept Nelson even though his anti-choice stance is disgusting. Oh wait! He is anti-choice and pro-plutocracy?!? There already is one of those parties. What the hell is he doing in ours?!?
3. You can't do the `heavy lifting' of the opposition for them. No attacking Dems. and no providing nice photo-ops with the President so he can claim that there is bi-partisan support for screwing anyone not making $50 million a year while not paying taxes.
I am fully aware that I have generalized and simplified a lot of people's records, but I expect my Dem. Senators to always stand firm on anti-plutocracy measures, Biden et all, because this is the issue where we ACTUALLY NUMERICALLY REPRESENT `THE PEOPLE'. Is there a single state in America where people actually oppose Single-Payer health care or were for the credit-card bill or bankruptcy reform? If there is one, then I understand why that state's Senator would have to not toe the Democratic line. In contrast, sadly, there are states where representing the people actually means being anti-choice.
I admit, I am willing to `give' a little on the whole gay-rights choice issue, and I will explicitly draw my personal line, and if people want, they can vilify me on this stance. I am willing to give a Senator who is anti-plutocracy the right to state his disgusting anti-tolerance rhetoric IF he comes from Red-land and he/she doesn't actually expect any real movement towards this hateful agenda. If I have a Senator who really wants to help the little guy but has an anti-tolerance agenda then I am willing to let them bloviate, no attacking other Dems please, if they recognize their disgusting agenda will never see the light of day in practical terms. Of course this is very pie-in-the-sky because blocking said agenda would require us to be in the majority, which I firmly believe would happen, if we actually didn't screw the `little-guy'. As many others have said, with a Dem leadership Nelson et all never get to vote on the choice issues.
Now my viewpoints may be completely wrong, but there is no current evidence because our party, by and large, also sides with the plutocrats and hasn't adopted a pro-people standard. If we actually elect a Congress that helps real Americans, have a Dem. majority, and anti-tolerance legislation is seeing the light of day, then I am more than willing to admit I was wrong about my faux tolerance towards Red-staters and their hate agenda. Until that time, I stick by my three above, very simplified points.
