Democrats Struggle With Putting Principle Over Party

The accusations of sexual harassment being made against Democrats such as Al Franken, as well as Republicans, is causing conflict in the minds of many Democrats. Some are even reexamining the legacy of Bill Clinton. The usual mode of thought of many partisan Democrats is that bad things are only bad if done by Republicans, as they find ways to rationalize comparable behavior by Democrats. We have finally found an issue where many Democrats are breaking from strict party loyalty.

As I discussed in a post earlier this month, most voters consider party over ideology. In 2016 most Republicans stuck with party and voted for Donald Trump despite his differences from conservative Republican orthodoxy. Similarly most Democrats stuck with party over principle and voted for Hillary Clinton, mostly oblivious to the fact that she backed essentially the same agenda which they protested when George W. Bush was implementing it.

It is good to see that some Democrats are now questioning party loyalty in response to reports of sexual harassment. I wish more Democrats had questioned party loyalty when it came to backing a war monger, accepting Clinton’s far right wing record on First Amendment issues (which now extends to her calls for censorship post-election), and in ignoring the influence peddling by Bill and Hillary Clinton. Donald Trump probably would not be president today if more Democrats had stood for principle and refused to accept Hillary Clinton as their nominee.


  1. 1
    djchefron says:

    Thats funny. You have no principles other than crooked hillary and you would use anything fak, neo-nazi to Russians to make your faux point

  2. 2
    Ron Chusid says:

    I have no principles? Funny coming from a race-bating supporter of an authoritarian warmonger such as yourself.

    You consider peace, civil liberties, and separation of church and state to be faux points, yet you claim someone else has no principles?

    I support ending the unnecessary and foolish wars you and Clinton support. I support defending the First Amendment rights which you and Clinton oppose. I support single payer health care which Clinton campaigned against.

    I use neither neo-Nazis nor Russians–a bizarre claim from a racist authoritarian like you who is far closer to the Nazis than I and most decent American are.

  3. 3
    djchefron says:

    Wikileaks, that woman who you said I should read and lo and behold she hangs with neo-nazis. Your dumbass and people like you put my black ass civil liberties on the chopping block but your white ass dont give a rats ass about that just like your hero sanders who BTW you need to check yourself and look at his war record before you call people war mongers. So no you have no principles other than promoting your self as the great white savoir of the republic. If people like you would only listen to yourself

  4. 4
    Ron Chusid says:

    Still trying to pass off that lie?

    The writer of the author does not hang with neo-Nazis. You just found an article smearing her, and then extrapolated from there to make that false claim.

    Even if she did, it does not mean I have anything to do with nwo-Nazis. The point of the article was to show that your source was misquoting Wikileaks. It had nothing to do with Nazis. Rather than admit you were wrong and face the facts, you went with smearing the source.

    Of course you oppose Wikileaks because they exposed the corruption of Clinton and the DNC, and oppose the neoconservative interventionism you support.

    I agree Sanders’ war record is not perfect, but it is far better than Clinton’s. Pretty much anyone’s record is. That is one reason why I supported Obama in 2008 and Sanders in 2016 as each was the best shot of trying to keep Clinton from getting the nomination. His war record is also a lot better than claimed by Clinton supporters who use their usual smears to distort his record, such as with the lies Clinton told about his position on Libya during one of the debates. They also distorted his record by falsely claiming votes to continue paying the bills once we were in a war he opposed were the same as supporting going to war. But once again you prefer partisan lies to the facts.

    As for civil liberties, I support civil liberties for everyone. I do not divide people by race as you often do. I, but not you, oppose Clinton for her support of the drug war and mass incarceration, which was devastating for minorities. I but not you opposed the racist campaign she engaged in against Obama.

    So yes, I am the one who has principles, while you are just a lying authoritarian war monger who engages in McCarthyism and race bating.

Leave a comment