Heads up--we're all assholes!

quote:

Liberal McCarthyism Bigotry and hate aren't just for right-wingers anymore. BY LANNY J. DAVIS Tuesday, August 8, 2006 12:01 a.m. EDT 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. One Sunday morning on C-Span I debated Nation editor Katrina vanden Heuvel on the Lieberman versus Lamont race. Afterwards I received a series of emails--many of them in ALL CAPS (which often suggests the hyper-frenetic state of these extremist haters)--that were of the same stripe as the blog posts, and filled with the same level of personal hate. But the issue is not just emotional outbursts by these usually anonymous bloggers. A friend of mine just returned from Connecticut, where he had spoken on several occasions on behalf of Joe Lieberman. He happens to be a liberal antiwar Democrat, just as I am. He is also a lawyer. He told me that within a day of a Lamont event--where he asked the candidate some critical questions--some of his clients were blitzed with emails attacking him and threatening boycotts of their products if they did not drop him as their attorney. He has actually decided not to return to Connecticut for the primary today; he is fearful for his physical safety. I do not blame Joe Lieberman's political difficulties on the liberal blogosphere. Most Connecticut Democrats voting for Mr. Lamont are genuinely outraged at President Bush for his Iraq War policies. They are entitled to express that outrage by voting for him and against Sen. Lieberman on that basis alone, although Sen. Lieberman's record as a progressive Democrat and his opposition to President Bush not only on most domestic issues but also on the conduct of the war cannot be disputed--despite egregiously distortive ads paid for by Mr. Lamont with $4 million of his own money. Moreover, the support he gets from these haters should not be attributed to Mr. Lamont--nor should he be blamed for their extremism, bigotry and intolerance. But he ought to denounce them. He hasn't as yet. Mr. Lamont and all other liberal Democrats should remember the McCarthy era and not fall into the trap of the hypocrisy of the double standard--that it's not OK when Ann Coulter dispenses her venomous hatred, but it is OK when our side's versions of Ann Coulter do. Mr. Davis, former special counsel to President Clinton between 1996-98, is the author of "Scandal: How 'Gotcha' Politics Is Destroying America," forthcoming from Palgrave.

I wondered if someone was going to bring this issue up. This really is an interesting dynamic in the Democratic party right now, and much will be told by tomorrow morning. It really is a bellweather report on how the Dems. are going to come out of the gates from here to November. If Lamont wins (which the polls predict and I hope does win), you can expect to see the message will be a bit more fierce as most Dems. will attempt to grow a spine and go on the offensive against Bush's policies from here on out. If Lieberman wins, we'll likely see a more tepid response as the Dems. merely hope for a little anti-Bush sentiment giving them back the House/Senate.

I tend to side with those hate-mongering librul bloggers on this for a very obvious reason: Lieberman is a fucking douchebag. And the message being sent is a very obvious one. The media is harping on a vote against Lieberman is a vote against Bush's Iraqi War policies. That is a very big one, to be sure. The funny thing about that vote is - there's no "hate" involving such a sentiment - IT'S THE FUCKING MAJORITY OPINION SENTIMENT by Americans according to ALL polls right now.

So if we go by such logic, that would entail that the majority of Americans are somehow hate-mongering libruls who despise everything Bush touches and is involved with the Middle East. If you guys want to attempt to sell that idea to me, please attempt to do so.

But a more subtle message voting against Lieberman is really the one that fired up those librul hatin' bloggers in the first place, and I think it's one that's being very much overlooked or glossed over by the media. Lieberman really is the GOP poster boy. He was Faux News favorite man. Hannity loved the guy. Fuck, Lieberman is being endorsed by every Right Wing Noise Machine extremist shitmonger out there. I mean EVERY DAMN ONE OF THEM! Malkin, Coulter, Hannity, Limbaugh, you name them he's on their fucking little bitch list. The guy did NOTHING but utilize the GOP talking points on Faux News every chance he got. He continually berated and chided his own party Dems. not on points of merit, but on points drawn up by the GOP that made many in his party yell out: "Hey dumb ass, those points are refuted with A,B, and C - did you not get the fucking memo?!?!?!?" He was a continual critic of the Democratic party at every chance he got.

It's something that you rarely see in the GOP with a very good reason - party unity is critical for message. It's not that you can't disagree with your party's message at times. There is a pretty wide umbrella in the Dem. party on issues like abortion for example (Reid is anti-choice, Hillary is pro-choice, etc.). But what Lieberman did at all stops was he took his disagreeances and beat his own party members over their heads with it at every chance he got.

One does not have to wonder why Hannity juices for the guy. Who the fuck wouldn't if you had a guy in the opposing party doing your work for you?

So that is what is at stake here, and like I said much will be told after this primary is over.

___________________
Whence September dusk grows crisper still,
with leaves all crimson conquered,
I yearn to shout,
and dance about,
and stick pickles in my honker...

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 The funny thing about that vote is - there's no "hate" involving such a sentiment - IT'S THE FUCKING MAJORITY OPINION SENTIMENT by Americans according to ALL polls right now.

It is the current fucking majority opinion, though it certainly was not always the case. It used to be a minority position (sure, when the flags were flyin' and guns were blazing).

quote:

So if we go by such logic, that would entail that the majority of Americans are somehow hate-mongering libruls who despise everything Bush touches and is involved with the Middle East. If you guys want to attempt to sell that idea to me, please attempt to do so.

And if we go by my logic, there has been migration back to the left as the war has dragged on. Whether that is due to general impatience by the populace, or if it has been aided by some media-suasion (you've got to at least grant a little of that), there is no question it has happened.

And the rub is that Dubya hasn't wavered in his conviction. Whether that is a good thing or a bad thing will ultimately be determined by time, but it is a quality I would generally want in a leader. The population at large sits in a more luxuruios position. It was similar in the 60's/70's. It's no secret that the longer an armed conflict goes on, the more the hunger to pursue and end to that conflict wanes (and I do stress "pursue an end").

If nothing else, the article is an illustration of how much more divided and vitriolic both sides have become under the last 2 presidencies. We are all assholes. Fuck you. Just kidding.

Glenn Greenwald puts in this perspective about Lieberman and his neoconservative views (and buddies that love him for it). He discussed at the beginning of the article an op-ed by Bill Kristol which demonstrates Kristol's hard-on for Lieberman. Here's the cut in to the rest:

quote:

The most bizarre and frustrating aspect of listening to discussions by the national media of the Lieberman race is the expression of surprise and anger over the fact that Democrats would want to eject Lieberman from the Senate. Imagine if there were a prominent Republican Senator in a primary fight and Michael Moore, or Al Franken, or Molly Ivins, or whoever was the most hated liberal of the moment made it one of their priorities to work for that GOP Senator's re-election, and even touted that Senator for Defense Secretary in a Democratic administration or as a vice-presidential nominee alongside Russ Feingold or Hillary Clinton. Such a thought is just unimaginable. Republicans would never have anyone, certainly not in any position of prominence, who attracted the admiration and enthusiastic support of ideologues on the left. And yet here is Kristol desperately defending Lieberman by unleashing vicious smears on his opponents -- they're anti-Israel and anti-American -- and openly hoping that Lieberman becomes Defense Secretary or Vice President in a Republican administration. If Bill Kristol sees Lieberman as a leading light of the neoconservative wing of the Republican Party, why would anyone think it's at all surprising that Democrats would see him as something anathema to their party? And it isn't just Kristol. The most enthusiastic supporters of Lieberman are not "moderate" Democrats, but are instead the most extreme Bush "conservatives." It is the Sean Hannitys and Michelle Malkins and Rush Limbaughs and Ann Coulters and Fred Barnes who consider Lieberman their ideological soulmate and who are most supportive of his candidacy. Why is that? Isn't the obvious answer because the issues that are most important to the country are (a) the endless, limitless "Global War of Civilizations" and (b) the radically enhanced police powers which that "War" justifies at home? In those areas, Joe Lieberman is as pure and reliable ally as it gets for the most extreme elements on the neoconservative Right. The idea that Lieberman is some sort of "centrist Democrat" and that the effort to defeat him is driven by radical leftists who hate bipartisanship is nothing short of inane. Why would Sean Hannity and Bill Kristol be so eager to keep a "centrist Democrat" in the Senate? Lincoln Chafee is a "centrist Republican." Are there any Democrats or liberals who care if Lincoln Chafee wins his primary? Do leftist ideologues run around praising and defending and working for the re-election of Olympia Snowe or Chris Shays or other Republican "centrists"? Do Bill O'Reilly and Sean Hannity love other Democratic "centrists," such as, say, Mary Landrieu or Joe Biden? The answer to all of those questions is plainly "no". The love which right-wing extremists have for Joe Lieberman isn't based on the fact that he's a "centrist." If Lieberman were a "centrist," extremists would not care about him. They would not be vigorously urging his re-election, or praising his potential appointment as Bush Defense Secretary, or touting him as a Vice-Presidential running mate for George Allen. They do that because he is one of them -- a neoconservative extremist who is with them on virtually every major issue of the day. As I've written about before, neoconservatism -- primarily issues of militarism in Middle East and ever expanding government police power domestically -- has caused a political realignment that is fundamentally re-shaping the ideological spectrum: quote: Throughout the 1990s, one's political orientation was determined by a finite set of primarily domestic issues -- social spending, affirmative action, government regulation, gun control, welfare reform, abortion, gay rights. One's position on those issues determined whether one was conservative, liberal, moderate, etc. But those issues have become entirely secondary, at most, in our political debates. They are barely discussed any longer. Instead, what has dominated our political conflicts over the last five years are terrorism-related issues -- Iraq, U.S. treatment of detainees, domestic surveillance, attacks on press freedoms, executive power abuses, Iran, the equating of dissent with treason. It is one's positions on those issues -- and, more specifically, whether one agrees with the neoconservative approach which has dominated the Bush administration's approach to those issues -- which now determines one's political orientation. Alan Dershowitz recently wrote an Op-Ed -- appropriately enough in The Washington Times -- urging the confirmation of John Bolton as UN Ambassador. To give credibility to his argument, Dershowitz began the column this way: "As a liberal Democrat . . . " Does anyone believe that the advocate of "torture warrants" and counting innocent Arabs as half-civilians or quarter-civilians or not counting them at all -- and the new enthusiastic defender of John Bolton -- is even remotely close to being a "liberal Democrat" these days? Dershowitz may have been a "liberal Democrat" in 1993, but in 2006, Dershowitz -- like Lieberman -- is pure neoconservative. It's the same reason that John Podhoretz's favorite new blogger is "centrist Democrat" Marty Peretz. And 1993 conservatives like Pat Buchanan, George Will and William Buckely are becoming increasingly alienated by the authoritarian neoconservatism of today precisely because it is a departure from the traditional conservatism to which they subscribe. The United States is on the brink of extreme disaster in the Middle East, both in Iraq (where we have no viable exit strategy despite the rapid collapse of that country) and elsewhere (where we are poised to repeat the same mistakes on a much greater scale). And all of that has been used to justify unprecedented abridgments of basic liberties at home. The policies which brought us to this point were championed -- and still are championed -- by the Joe Liebermans and Bill Kristols and their neoconservative comrades. Where one stands on those issues is, far and away, the most important determinant of one's political character, and any residual doubts about where Lieberman fits on the political spectrum are fully resolved by reading Bill Kristol's full-scale defense and embrace of his candidacy http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/...mists-love.html

I think he also brings up a really cogent point about party idealism and how the Republicans have successfully shifted their ideologue from the older Republican values to the more extreme neoconservative constant war/domestic intrusion policies of today. It has left a number of older Republicans like the Pat Buchanans wondering where the hell the party went. Fiscal conservatism, for example, is pretty much a pipedream.

Anyway, I think such perspective was successfully drawn out by the Lamont camp, which is why I think he'll walk away with this primary in his hands.

___________________
Whence September dusk grows crisper still,
with leaves all crimson conquered,
I yearn to shout,
and dance about,
and stick pickles in my honker...