out loud 'cause it would be against TOS. DU is so strange sometimes. Say whatever evil you want against Alan Grayson but DWS? Heh.

Grayson lost. He is not the candidate. Canova lost. He is not the candidate. Once a primary is over, the general election candidates should not be attacked here. DU works to support actual candidates in general elections. It does not work against them.

During primaries, it's permissible to criticize a candidate. Once the general election candidate is selected by the voters, DU supports that candidate.

I have zero to do with any election in Florida. I have elections in my own state to work on and candidates here to support. I really have no comment about DWS, except to note her popularity in her district.

Shouldn't complete ignorance of a subject be more of a concern than the ToS when it comes to not commenting about it?

happens in her district. Nothing, for the most part..

Micromanagement of the district is not part of the job description.

And maybe "nothing happening" is the way her constituents like it. Ever stop to consider that? Rhetorical question, as clearly you have not.

You're the one criticizing a representative for a district in which you don't even live, making specious claims with no basis in reality.

I've been here for years, you can look up my account age and see. I've been through many election cycles. DU's TOS is pretty clear and fair, I think. They won't bust you for saying DWS is doing a poor job, critique is fine. But dumping in DWS just because? Forming or joining an Internet hate mob on DWS? That's bad form.

Its more about how you say it when you disagree than it is about disagreement. DU has a long and good history of tolerating reasonable and reasoned dissent.

was not to "bash" but to state a fact or two. Bad form? Really? Oh my..

but I won't ever say anything positive about her either. It truly is like walking on eggs around here lately.

We need a smilie for "walking on eggs".

I was avoiding most election related threads until the primaries were over. I still came for news and other subjects. Now I'm seeing a handful of people who jump all over any comment that does not fit their particular agenda, which makes it difficult to have a real insightful discussion.

I almost always respond to jury duty and most of them are just ridiculous. I think that 'handful' just goes around alerting anything or anyONE that they disagree with. It appears it is meant to alienate and agitate. It certainly isn't enhancing any meaningful discourse.

Sure isn't like it used to be.

it certainly is not like it used to be.

I remember those days. I know I was on DU far too much for awhile, but we met a lot of great people. I am still friends with some of the old gang over on Facebook and we can have political discussions without cranks hovering over us with their fingers on the "alert" button.

How its said is as important as what its said.

Stating facts has never been bad form here, that I've seen, even if it paints Democrats in a bad light.

•Voted NO on banning federal health coverage that includes abortion. (May 2011)
•Voted YES on expanding research to more embryonic stem cell lines. (Jan 2007)
•Voted YES on allowing human embryonic stem cell research. (May 2005)
•Voted NO on restricting interstate transport of minors to get abortions. (Apr 2005)
•Emergency contraception for rape victims at all hospitals. (Sep 2006)
•Rated 0% by the NRLC, indicating a pro-choice stance. (Dec 2006)
•Provide emergency contraception at military facilities. (Apr 2007)
•Ban anti-abortion limitations on abortion services. (Apr 2014)
•Access safe, legal abortion without restrictions. (Jan 2015)
•Ensure access to and funding for contraception. (Feb 2007)
•Focus on preventing pregnancy, plus emergency contraception. (Jan 2009)
•Voted NO on prioritizing spending in case debt limit is reached. (May 2013)
•Voted NO on terminating the Home Affordable mortgage Program. (Mar 2011)
•Voted YES on $192B additional anti-recession stimulus spending. (Jul 2009)
•Voted YES on modifying bankruptcy rules to avoid mortgage foreclosures. (Mar 2009)
•Voted YES on additional $825 billion for economic recovery package. (Jan 2009)
•Voted YES on monitoring TARP funds to ensure more mortgage relief. (Jan 2009)
•Voted YES on $15B bailout for GM and Chrysler. (Dec 2008)
•Voted YES on $60B stimulus package for jobs, infrastructure, & energy. (Sep 2008)
•Voted YES on defining "energy emergency" on federal gas prices. (Jun 2008)
•Voted YES on revitalizing severely distressed public housing. (Jan 2008)
•Voted YES on regulating the subprime mortgage industry. (Nov 2007)
•Member of House Budget Committee. (Mar 2011)
•296 women have served in Congress; vs. more than 12,000 men. (Nov 2013)
•Voted YES on reauthorizing the Violence Against Women Act. (Feb 2013)
•Voted YES on prohibiting job discrimination based on sexual orientation. (Nov 2007)
•Voted NO on Constitutionally defining marriage as one-man-one-woman. (Jul 2006)
•Voted NO on making the PATRIOT Act permanent. (Dec 2005)
•Rated 100% by the HRC, indicating a pro-gay-rights stance. (Dec 2006)
•Rated 94% by the NAACP, indicating a pro-affirmative-action stance. (Dec 2006)
•Recognize Juneteenth as historical end of slavery. (Jun 2008)
•ENDA: prohibit employment discrimination for gays. (Jun 2009)
•Constitutional Amendment for women's equal rights. (Jun 2011)
•Prohibit sexual-identity discrimination at schools. (Mar 2011)
•Ratify CEDAW (Discrimination Against Women). (Jan 2011)
•Endorsed as "preferred" by The Feminist Majority indicating pro-women's rights. (Aug 2012)
•Enforce against anti-gay discrimination in public schools. (Apr 2013)
•Sponsored removing deadline for ratification of the ERA. (May 2013)
•Enforce against wage discrimination based on gender. (Jan 2013)
•Protect LGBT families from illegal immigrant deportation. (Sep 2011)
•Provide benefits to domestic partners of Federal employees. (Dec 2007)
•Re-introduce the Equal Rights Amendment. (Mar 2007)
•Give domestic partnership benefits to Federal employees. (May 2009)
•Recognize the 40th anniversary of Stonewall. (May 2009)
•Honor the 100th anniversary of the NAACP. (Jan 2009)
•Voted YES on enforcing against anti-gay hate crimes. (Apr 2009)
•Voted YES on expanding services for offenders' re-entry into society. (Nov 2007)
•Establish a domestic violence volunteer attorney network. (May 2007)
•Increase funding for "COPS ON THE BEAT" program. (Jan 2007)
•Harsher sentencing for "pill mill" operators. (Mar 2011)
•Sponsored evidence-based & proven prevention for street gangs. (Mar 2013)
•Rated 85% by the NAPO, indicating a tough-on-crime stance. (Dec 2014)
•Provide public education to help our children succeed. (Nov 2004)
•Voted NO on reauthorizing the DC opportunity scholarship program. (Mar 2011)
•Voted YES on $40B for green public schools. (May 2009)
•Voted YES on additional $10.2B for federal education & HHS projects. (Nov 2007)
•Voted YES on allowing Courts to decide on "God" in Pledge of Allegiance. (Jul 2006)
•Voted YES on $84 million in grants for Black and Hispanic colleges. (Mar 2006)
•Comprehensive sex ed for sexually-active adolescents. (Feb 2013)

the party, and nationally.