[Kevin]

http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110008763

WASHINGTON--My brief and unhappy experience with the hate and vitriol of bloggers on the liberal side of the aisle comes from the last several months I spent campaigning for a longtime friend, Joe Lieberman.

This kind of scary hatred, my dad used to tell me, comes only from the right wing--in his day from people such as the late Sen. Joseph McCarthy, with his tirades against "communists and their fellow travelers." The word "McCarthyism" became a red flag for liberals, signifying the far right's fascistic tactics of labeling anyone a "communist" or "socialist" who favored an active federal government to help the middle class and the poor, and to level the playing field.

I came to believe that we liberals couldn't possibly be so intolerant and hateful, because our ideology was famous for ACLU-type commitments to free speech, dissent and, especially, tolerance for those who differed with us. And in recent years--with the deadly combination of sanctimony and vitriol displayed by the likes of Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter and Michael Savage--I held on to the view that the left was inherently more tolerant and less hateful than the right.

Now, in the closing days of the Lieberman primary campaign, I have reluctantly concluded that I was wrong. The far right does not have a monopoly on bigotry and hatred and sanctimony. Here are just a few examples (there are many, many more anyone with a search engine can find) of the type of thing the liberal blog sites have been posting about Joe Lieberman:
• "Ned Lamont and his supporters need to [g]et real busy. Ned needs to beat Lieberman to a pulp in the debate and define what it means to be an AMerican who is NOT beholden to the Israeli Lobby" (by "rim," posted on Huffington Post, July 6, 2006).

• "Joe's on the Senate floor now and he's growing a beard. He has about a weeks growth on his face. . . . I hope he dyes his beard Blood red. It would be so appropriate" (by "ctkeith," posted on Daily Kos, July 11 and 12, 2005).

• On "Lieberman vs. Murtha": "as everybody knows, jews ONLY care about the welfare of other jews; thanks ever so much for reminding everyone of this most salient fact, so that we might better ignore all that jewish propaganda [by Lieberman] about participating in the civil rights movement of the 60s and so on" (by "tomjones," posted on Daily Kos, Dec. 7, 2005).

• "Good men, Daniel Webster and Faust would attest, sell their souls to the Devil. Is selling your soul to a god any worse? Leiberman cannot escape the religious bond he represents. Hell, his wife's name is Haggadah or Muffeletta or Diaspora or something you eat at Passover" (by "gerrylong," posted on the Huffington Post, July 8, 2006).

• "Joe Lieberman is a racist and a religious bigot" (by "greenskeeper," posted on Daily Kos, Dec. 7, 2005).

And these are some of the nicer examples.

This just goes to show folks, such actions are human ones.

Not left, not right, but human.

No side has clean hands.

[Zeeb]

Sure, everything in this country has become extremely divisive. You're either fully on one "side" or the other. If you consider yourself a liberal you must hold the "approved" opinions or you will be shunned. Likewise, the same is true for conservatives. People are unable to be moderate these days and that is reflected on these forums(not that he world revolves around them). I rarely see truly independent or moderate opinion here, instead people are pretty zealous about how they identify themselves and everything gets tied to that identity.

[Kr0nos]

This has absolutely NOTHING to do with McCarthyism. *duh*

[BRussell]

Wow, there have probably been hundreds of thousands of anonymous postings on the internet about this Lieberman primary, if that's all they can find, those liberal blogs must be exceedingly tame. There's much worse stuff here on MacNN.

[Kr0nos]

Originally Posted by BRussell

Wow, there have probably been hundreds of thousands of anonymous postings on the internet about this Lieberman primary, if that's all they can find, those liberal blogs must be exceedingly tame. There's much worse stuff here on MacNN.

4 sure! This is just another lame a55 attempt to smear the political left.

[Shaddim]

Why would the Right try and smear the Left, they do a smashing job on their own.

[BRussell]

The funny thing is that these internet postings, among millions posted by anonymous people on the internet, aren't as bad as the public statements of conservatives' most cherished public figures with millions of followers, like Ann "the widows enjoy their husbands' deaths on 9/11" Coulter, Bill "go ahead al qaeda and blow up San Francisco" O'Reilly, and Pat "the feminists and gays are to blame for 9/11" Robertson.

But don't pay attention to them, those anonymous liberals on the internet who no one has heard of are so terrible!

[Jawbone54]

Originally Posted by MacNStein

Why would the Right try and smear the Left, they do a smashing job on their own.

Indeed, but instead of pouncing upon it, the right is almost just simply amused.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by Kr0nos

This has absolutely NOTHING to do with McCarthyism. *duh*

Yeah, I was waiting for the McCarthy connection…

[Kr0nos]

Originally Posted by MacNStein

Why would the Right try and smear the Left…

To distract from their own miserable job of governing, and because they really don't have anything going for themselves other than making their opponents look 'bad'?

[Kr0nos]

Originally Posted by Jawbone54

Indeed, but instead of pouncing upon it, the right is almost just simply amused.

If you want some real 'amusement' look at Dubya's track record (if it doesn't make you projectile-vomit incessantly first)!

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by Kr0nos

To distract from their own miserable job of governing, and because they really don't have anything going for themselves other than making their opponents look 'bad'?

You really haven't been paying attention to US politics the last few elections, have you?

On a national level, all the Democrats have done is bitch about the Republicans, billing themselves as the "Anti-Republican" party, instead of actually providing any new ideas or brilliant plans. They can't run on such a negative/unproductive platform and expect to win.

Tell your "leaders" that they're actually supposed to lead, not follow around grousing.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by Kr0nos

If you want some real 'amusement' look at Dubya's track record (if it doesn't make you projectile-vomit incessantly first)!

My above post is further proven by this one.

Why don't you idiots come up with some new ideas? Provide a plan to "fix" the problems you see, if you can.

[Kr0nos]

Originally Posted by MacNStein

They can't run on such a negative/unproductive platform and expect to win.

Seems to have worked for the Republicans fairly well, hasn't it?

But I agree with you, in essence.

Originally Posted by MacNStein

Tell your "leaders" that they're actually supposed to lead, not follow around grousing.

Dito.

[Kr0nos]

Originally Posted by MacNStein

Provide a plan to "fix" the problems you see, if you can.

Well, I'm not a Democrat, but I think a good starting point would be to get rid of Dubya…

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by Kr0nos

Seems to have worked for the Republicans fairly well, hasn't it?

But I agree with you, in essence.

Dito.

The Republicans are the ones in charge, they're not "following" anyone.

"Get rid if Dubya"? That's it? Damn, even Ray "GET HER!" Stantz had a better plan than that. But, you are right, that's about all I'm seeing from the Dems right now. If that holds, then you'll have another 8 years of Republican control of the White House.

[Kr0nos]

Originally Posted by MacNStein

The Republicans are the ones in charge, they're not "following" anyone.

O'RLY?

Originally Posted by MacNStein

"Get rid if Dubya"? That's it?

No, I said that it would be a good starting point. RTFP.

[davesimondotcom]

The left can be sactimonious and hateful. No way!

[freakboy2]

i hope we end up with a dictatorship run by the republican elite. that seems to be what 99% of the right wingers want anyway.

as for this thread: finding a bunch of jew haters on the internet isn't hard. they exist in all parties. this guy should just title his thread: anti-semitites and anti-isreali sentiment exists.

wow. i'm shocked.

A country that drops 500 pound bombs on apartment buildings has critics?!?! NFW! (btw i mean isreal not the US - everything we do, we do for The Real God (TM).)

[Kr0nos]

Originally Posted by freakboy2

i hope we end up with a dictatorship run by the republican elite.

What do you mean – 'end up with'?

[davesimondotcom]

You guys are so nuts it totally illustrates the point. Thank you.

"What do you mean end up with a Republican dictatorship?"

Hey, Kr0nos - ever hear of an election? If you don't like the Republicans, beat them in an election. It's that easy.

Oh, no I get to hear the "but they cheat" crap...

[Krusty]

I'd have to agree that the Left, along with the Right, have turned almost every major issue into a WWF-style shouting match. Civil disagreement is all but gone and practically every "argument" made is little more than a few factoids or sound bites thrown in on what is otherwise a personal attack.

IMO, this state of things is a sign that a few years from now we will probably enter another phase similar to the 1960's where we have a major cultural upheaval and shift to a whole new set of "American Values" once its over. Both the progressive and traditional movements are shoring up in to camps of "Us" and "Them" as though in preparation for such an upheavel (e.g. arguing that the other side are actually evil people rather than just having wrong ideas).

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by Kr0nos

O'RLY?



No, I said that it would be a good starting point. RTFP.

YA'RLY.

RTFP? All I've seen is more of the same, nothing new. C'mon Libs, want the WH in `08? You have to break new ground. The whole "we're better than Bush" thing isn't going to work.

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by MacNStein

You really haven't been paying attention to US politics the last few elections, have you?

On a national level, all the Democrats have done is bitch about the Republicans, billing themselves as the "Anti-Republican" party, instead of actually providing any new ideas or brilliant plans. They can't run on such a negative/unproductive platform and expect to win.

Tell your "leaders" that they're actually supposed to lead, not follow around grousing.

Democrats of course do this, but Republicans are even worse. The only thing holding the Republican party together is their hatred of gays and feminists and liberals. There are no other principles. Instead of a plan for Iraq, they have "libs want to cut and run!" Instead of a plan against violent Islamic extremism, they have "liberals are terrorist appeasers!" Instead of domestic policy, they have "liberals play class warfare!"

[Millennium]

Originally Posted by BRussell

Democrats of course do this, but Republicans are even worse.

I don't know about that. The gross overgeneralizations and oversimplifications you mention here certainly don't prove your point.

The only thing holding the Republican party together is their hatred of gays and feminists and liberals. There are no other principles.

Really? Limited government, states' rights, and economic non-interventionism don't apply?

Instead of a plan for Iraq, they have "libs want to cut and run!"

Establishing a democracy and shoring it up against insurgents until it's strong enough to do it on its own isn't a plan?

Instead of a plan against violent Islamic extremism, they have "liberals are terrorist appeasers!"

Dealing peacefully with those who will deal with us peacefully, while crushing those who refuse to deal peacefully, isn't a plan?

Instead of domestic policy, they have "liberals play class warfare!"

Staying out of inter-class friction isn't a policy?

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by Millennium

Really? Limited government, states' rights, and economic non-interventionism don't apply?

To modern Republicans? No. Republicans are just as much big-government folk as anybody these days. Notice how the government has not gotten more thrifty since Bush took office and Congress turned into the world's biggest elephant.

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by Millennium

I don't know about that. The gross overgeneralizations and oversimplifications you mention here certainly don't prove your point.

Really? Limited government, states' rights, and economic non-interventionism don't apply?

Establishing a democracy and shoring it up against insurgents until it's strong enough to do it on its own isn't a plan?

Dealing peacefully with those who will deal with us peacefully, while crushing those who refuse to deal peacefully, isn't a plan?

Staying out of inter-class friction isn't a policy?

I'm trying not to laugh at the idea that Republicans want limited government - this is the same party that wants greater federal government power than Democrats in every important respect - not only more involvement in private lives and moral issues and big brother, but they also spend more. Where exactly do Republicans want limited government? Government regulation of business? OK. Nowhere else that I can see. This is what I'm talking about. There are no principles there, just hatred of liberals. That's what Bush ran on in 2004: "That other guy is from Massachusetts. Massachusetts!"

These other things you mentioned are just you making stuff up rather than getting them from Republicans. I've never seen most of them come from Republicans.

What do Democrats believe in? In civil liberties, in fiscal responsibility, in ensuring that there's a safety net for the underprivileged, in international cooperation with our allies, in moral authority in foreign policy, in fighting a counterinsurgency against Islamic extremism, in letting people make their own moral choices, in protecting the environment, in science over ideology, in regulating the excesses of big businesses, I could go on and on.

[Chuckit]

Both sides claim to support "fiscal responsibility." They just have different ideas of where you have to waste huge wads of money in order for it to be considered "responsible."

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by Chuckit

Both sides claim to support "fiscal responsibility." They just have different ideas of where you have to waste huge wads of money in order for it to be considered "responsible."

There are claims, and then there is the truth. No one can legitimately claim that Republicans - the party of "deficits don't matter" and "tax cuts pay for themselves" - are really about fiscal responsibility. It's also a myth that they've changed under Bush. Reagan did the same thing in the 1980s - cut taxes and increased spending, leading to deficits.

Oh, but I'm not allowed to state the truth about that or I'm just a Bush-hater with no ideas.

[Kr0nos]

Originally Posted by MacNStein

YA'RLY.

The Republican Party is nothing more than a shill for neo-conservative hawks and big business interests. Sorry to burst your bubble, but being in 'charge' is everything that Republicans are not these days.

Originally Posted by MacNStein

The whole "we're better than Bush" thing isn't going to work.

I agree. It's kind of superflous, – especially since there really isn't a whole lot worse than Bush (or actually, what he stands for).

[davesimondotcom]

Originally Posted by BRussell

What do Democrats believe in? In civil liberties, in fiscal responsibility, in ensuring that there's a safety net for the underprivileged, in international cooperation with our allies, in moral authority in foreign policy, in fighting a counterinsurgency against Islamic extremism, in letting people make their own moral choices, in protecting the environment, in science over ideology, in regulating the excesses of big businesses, I could go on and on.

As far as your point about Republicans not being about limited government, I'm in total agreement.

However, while you frame what Democrats supposedly believe in very well, I don't think that is truly what they believe in anymore.

Civil liberties? Yeah, unless it comes to something they don't agree with.

Fiscal responsibility? Raise taxes, punative taxes on the successful (notice I don't use the word "rich" or "fortunate"), re-institute the death tax. Essentially, go by the assumption that all money is the government's, it's just whether they let us keep it.

Safety net for "underpriviledged?" Of course Republicans don't believe in or give to charities, right? Some of us simply believe that the government is a poor source for charity. It's, by nature, inefficient. And even the term "underpriviledged" makes an assumption that it's priviledge, not hard work that produces success.

International cooperation with allies? Otherwise known as do what the French and Germans want us to do so we can be a popular kid in school. Some of us believe we should worry about us first, how the world views us second.

I could go on and on. Mind you, some of the things that I say I say as a Devil's advocate. I happen to believe that we should work on our international image. Although, no matter what we do, some people will hate us just for the fact that we are successful...um... priviledged.

Both parties are lost in a sea of bullsh!t and neither remembers where they started.

We have fallen into a pattern of it always being an oppositional thing. Can't we all look at our similar goals and find ways to work on it together? Or does it always have to be "us" and "them?" Convervative vs. liberal?

We're all quite good at speaking in generalities. We like to label each other. It's easier that way, I guess.

I mean, can't I be a pro-choice, pro-gay rights Republican? Can't Joe Lieberman be a pro-Israel, pro-Iraq war Democrat?

[davesimondotcom]

Originally Posted by Kr0nos

The Republican Party is nothing more than a shill for neo-conservative hawks and big business interests. Sorry to burst your bubble, but being in 'charge' is everything that Republicans are not these days.

And, in turn, the Democrat Party is a conglomerate of special interest causes, some diametrically opposed to each other.

They are run by the farthest left of the party (ask Joe Lieberman), just as the Republicans are run from the farthest right of their party.

Stop towing the party line? Get your old friends running a campaign against you.

Both have lost their way. IMHO.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by davesimondotcom

punative taxes on the successful (notice I don't use the word "rich" or "fortunate")

I don't know why you didn't. They aren't trying to put taxes on me because I succeed in destroying people with a frost mage in World of Warcraft. They put taxes on people who have a lot of money — or, more succinctly, rich people.

[davesimondotcom]

Originally Posted by Chuckit

I don't know why you didn't. They aren't trying to put taxes on me because I succeed in destroying people with a frost mage in World of Warcraft. They put taxes on people who have a lot of money — or, more succinctly, rich people.

They define rich differently than I do. It's an old page in the playbook - pit one class against another. "Working people" vs. "rich people."

But how do "rich people" get rich? Sure, some inherit. But a whole lot of people that would be considered "rich" by many Democrat's standards get wealthy by being a WORKING PERSON.

How many people do you know that consider themselves rich? I can't think of a single one, that I know personally.

Yet, I'm sure my parents would be considered by many to be "rich" - they own their home outright, own a building in downtown Billings, MT and are both retired. They bought their house at auction for $40,000. It's in a neighborhood where homes sell for easily $700,000 and up.

But they have no intention of selling it, so the price they could get means nothing. My mom worries about money all the time (she's still getting used to being retired and/or looking for a reason to go back to work.)

The point I'm trying to make is that, while there are rich people who didn't earn their money, and there are poor people who just have crappy luck, the majority in the middle of that spectrum are where they are because of the decisions they make. Not by fate or fortune. Being poor doesn't make someone "less fortunate." Being rich doesn't mean someone "won at the lottery of life."

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by Chuckit

I don't know why you didn't. They aren't trying to put taxes on me because I succeed in destroying people with a frost mage in World of Warcraft. They put taxes on people who have a lot of money — or, more succinctly, rich people.

and my feral Dr00d would still wtfpwn you.

People should be taxed at a flat rate, that's equal taxation.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Kr0nos

To distract from their own miserable job of governing, and because they really don't have anything going for themselves other than making their opponents look 'bad'?

Wow you just described the Democratic party

Originally Posted by MacNStein

You really haven't been paying attention to US politics the last few elections, have you?

On a national level, all the Democrats have done is bitch about the Republicans, billing themselves as the "Anti-Republican" party, instead of actually providing any new ideas or brilliant plans. They can't run on such a negative/unproductive platform and expect to win.

Tell your "leaders" that they're actually supposed to lead, not follow around grousing.

Exactly.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by BRussell

Democrats of course do this, but Republicans are even worse. The only thing holding the Republican party together is their hatred of gays and feminists and liberals. There are no other principles. Instead of a plan for Iraq, they have "libs want to cut and run!" Instead of a plan against violent Islamic extremism, they have "liberals are terrorist appeasers!" Instead of domestic policy, they have "liberals play class warfare!"

What a load of crap BRussell.

You've become quite the troll.

BTW my point here wasn't to slam the Dems. It was to show it's not a left/right thing as some of you attempt to claim.

For example BRussell's narrow minded post above.

[ironknee]

good riddance joe lieberman
good riddance crazy mckinney

at least i can criticize the dems. how many of you can criticize the republicans that have been in power for 6 years? anything?

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by Kevin

What a load of crap BRussell.

You've become quite the troll.

BTW my point here wasn't to slam the Dems. It was to show it's not a left/right thing as some of you attempt to claim.

For example BRussell's narrow minded post above.

I'm curious, how are you able to post "exactly" in response to Macnstein's post stating that Democrats have no positive agenda, and then post "what a load of crap" "troll" and "narrow minded" in response to my post stating that Republicans have no positive agenda? Do you take Xanax to relieve the dissonance?

[itai195]

I find it pretty sad that someone like Joe Lieberman can no longer have a place within the Democratic Party. For all that I might criticize Republicans, they do a better job of keeping moderates within the party, even if the party as a whole is moving to the right.

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by davesimondotcom

As far as your point about Republicans not being about limited government, I'm in total agreement.

However, while you frame what Democrats supposedly believe in very well, I don't think that is truly what they believe in anymore.
...

That's fine with me, and I won't argue with any of your critiques of Democrats.

What gets me is this political narrative that says Democrats are only Bush-haters with no positive agenda. Politics is partially about defining yourself by defining who you are NOT, and what you oppose. There's nothing wrong with it, and Republicans do it at least as often as Democrats.

[Spliffdaddy]

As a Republican I'm absolutely thrilled with the direction of the Democratic party.

Lieberman was outed because he supports the war in Iraq.

So where does Hillary Clinton stand ?

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA

She's gonna have to pick a side. Something she doesn't know how to do. And no matter which side she chooses - she loses.

This rocks!



Keep moving to the left, Democrats. Watching them implode before my eyes is the best thing that's happened to politics since Newt Gingrich and the 104th Congress.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by MacNStein

People should be taxed at a flat rate, that's equal taxation.

QFT.

[Spliffdaddy]

Equal taxation means paying for government services as you use them.

Taxes shouldn't be based on income.

Why should I subsidize your six children's education?

I didn't have sex with their mom.

[Dale Sorel]

Originally Posted by Kr0nos

This has absolutely NOTHING to do with McCarthyism. *duh*

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mccarthyism

[itai195]

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy

Why should I subsidize your six children's education?

I didn't have sex with their mom.

Because you derive benefits from living in a country where people are educated, can get good jobs, and thus have a high standard of living. Duh

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy

Equal taxation means paying for government services as you use them.

Taxes shouldn't be based on income.

There needs to be some kind of constant taxation going on, to pay for services which you don't normally use but need to be there (i.e. police, fire brigade, military).

Having said that, I don't like income based taxation either - purely for the reason that it means I have to disclose my income (which should be something between God, my accountant and myself).

[NYCFarmboy]

what do the polls show for the general election?

I figured the moonbat dems would boot him out as they seem to enjoy suicide pacts/circular firing squards but I suspect Joe will win in the fall easily.

[davesimondotcom]

Originally Posted by ironknee

good riddance joe lieberman
good riddance crazy mckinney

I'll agree on McKinney.

But all this means is Hello Senator Joe Leiberman (I), Connecticut.

[Spliffdaddy]

Leiberman is, at least, a pretty stright-shooting honest guy - who doesn't waffle on issues based on opinion polls. I just don't happen to agree with him on most issues.

The Dems are pleading with Leiberman to not run as an independent candidate. But I doubt he cares what the Democratic party thinks...after the way they treated him.

If Leiberman chooses not to run - it's akin to handing the election to the Republicans.

All I know is that I'm absolutely on cloud-9 over the direction of the Democratic party. This marks the end of Democratic relevance in the US. Trust me.

Republicans have sucked lately, but the Democrats showed me there's a new never-before-seen level of suckage.