Make Karl Rove's Day: Liberal/Progressive Sites Slight Each Other?

I review about a dozen or more "liberal/progressive" sites daily, and find they each raise issues the others do not. However, I have noticed a disturbing practice that I believe hurts our common goal to unseat the Republicans/NeoCons presently in power.

On some liberal/progressive sites, a timely issue will be raised in a post which should be addressed by other liberal/progressive sites --but you cannot link that post to certain other liberal/progressive sites without your thread being "locked" or you being "banned" by a moderator. In other cases, you cannot even mention the site that first raised the issue without getting a warning from a moderator that threatens sanctions if you mention the site again. Often, you will be criticized for linking to the "offending" site without a word about the issue raised. Not to mention the thorny issue of whether it is right to paraphrase the issue first raised on another site and not acknowledge the source you are paraphrasing.

It sometimes gets confusing keeping the unwritten rules straight when you visit a multitude of liberal/progressive sites.

And it is offensive to the concepts of "free speech" and the right to speak freely and have those thoughts find their rightful place of importance in "the marketplace of ideas." We need more discussion of ideas and less regulation of speech. How hard is it to ignore that with which you do not agree? How hard is it to discover an idea that is never raised because someone's speech is "regulated" in some way?

Democrats have long been the party with the "big tent" which welcomes a wide range of members who DO NOT AGREE ON EVERYTHING. That is the way it should be. There is plenty of common ground for all of us to agree upon. We all recognize the threat posed by Republicans/NeoCons staying in power.

As liberal/progressives we need to join together on that basis and call a ceasefire upon each other. We need to come together in much the same way that we all need to rally behind the party nominee regardless of whether they agree with us on every issue --because on the big issues they do agree with us, and that is most important.

I am sure there are legitimate reasons for the owners/operaters of the various liberal/progressive sites to feel they have been wrongly attacked and to have a personal dislike for other liberal/progressive site owners. However, in the interest of promoting the more important objective, why not put those differences aside as we face a greater threat than that posed by other liberal/progressive sites.

Just remember, when liberals/progessives snipe at each other we make Karl Rove's day. If we remain splintered in our approach, we will not be nearly as effective in unseating Republicans in November and in 2008. Rove does not have to come up with another wedge issue when we do it to ourselves. Is that what we want?

Let's join together on the big issues, take back our government, and send Bush/Cheney/Rove/Rumsfeld and the rest of the NeoCons packing.

What are examples of liberal sites that aren't allowed to be linked to?

... most likely you have visited the sites I am referencing. I do not want to violate the rules of these sites and be prevented from discussing this issue. If you suspect a site falls within this classification, then it probably does.

on whether they're really liberal or progressive.

If we come together as a unified group the Repubs don't stand a chance of winning the next election (unless they "fix" the election with corrupt workers or corrupt voting machines).

...internet turf wars. This can only weaken us.

and have never been told not too. What sites did you link to? What is their agenda? Do you place their comments - if extreme - in context or do the simply spread their message?

There are some far far left sites that I have seen links to that are completely counter productive as they seem to hat most Democrats as much - or more - than the Republicans. (Maybe from Nader's idea that to get real change - it has to become bad enough - which gave us Bush instead of Gore.) In some cases, it may be that they have a long history of Democrats rejecting their ideas. (One that has been linked to often that fits this category is Counterpunch - which virulently trashed both Dean and Kerry in 2004 with sheer unadulterated garbage. Who did they think could be elected who was more liberal or progressive than these two? To my knowledge, they didn't say.)

There are also magazines, like New Republic, that had a progressive, liberal history, but are now adamant neo-cons. It may be that older definitions of "progressive" or "liberal" miss the most important issue of the day,foreign policy. Before, most people could be defined by how they were placed on each of 2 axis, social and economic. Think of Joe Lieberman - on these 2 axis, he would fall well within the region defined by where other Democrats fell. I'm not sure what metric could be used to define an axis for foreign policy, but it would have to reflect the acceptance or rejection of the neo-con "spreading democracy" POV.

This hypothetical axis explains why people, such as Pat Buchanan, often say things we agreed with in the run up to Iraq and why Senator Lieberman, who on other dimensions is the "loyal Democrat" he claims to be is very very out of step with Democrats.

I think it is important to see what is out there, because it sometimes explains strange positions that some hold. This then allows you to counter the root cause of those believes. I have even seen Free Republic linked here - with no problem - as it is put in the context of look what they are saying.

:evilgrin:

sites, RIGHT WINGnut. Just look up and down the front page of General Discussion and General Discussion: Politics etc. and you will see a ton of articles linked from dailykos, rawstory, truthout, firedoglake etc.

So at least THIS site doesn't engage in the practice you are referring to.

Since it isn't "against the rules" perhaps you should link an example or two of what you are referring to.

... none of the sites I referred to are "right wingnut" sites.