Purge Joe Lieberman, how about Bill Clinton

A lot of people on the left have said that while Lieberman may have a fairly liberal voting record on most issues, the reason for his dismissal and vilification is that he provides aid and comfort to the enemy by providing cover to the Republicans. For the most part, they are talking about the Iraq war. There was some idiocy about how he was supposedly one of the few democrats who slammed Bill Clinton about Monica, but this was exposed as a lie.

If democrats were interested in purging those among their ranks who have provided more cover to republican talking points and policies, they should start with the one they call the Big Dog, President Clinton. Start with a policy that some democrats call outright discrimination, bigotry, and even un-american. I strongly disagree with a ban on gay marriage, however President Clinton signed into law the Defense of Marriage Act that recognizes marriage at the federal level as between only a man and a woman. So now when liberals try to claim that those opposed to gay marriage are bigots, these opponents can ask in return "did you vote for a bigot in 1992 or 1996?"

Clinton's opposition to gay marriage is minor in comparison to his overall undercutting of what many democrats feel separates them from republicans, their faith in the government to help those in need. After a miserable attempt to greatly expand the government by having a big government solution to the health care problem, democrats lost control of the house and senate in 1994. To kick off his reelection campaign, Pres. Clinton declared in his 1996 State of the Union that: "The era of big government is over." So in declaring that the New Deal and the Great Society were products of a bygone era, Pres. Clinton dealt a strong blow at what many liberals consider to be the among their defining issues and defining traits. That the government should be heavily involved in providing solutions through larger government programs, ranging from universal, single payer health care, national daycare, a larger safety net, and wide ranging government intervention in business regulation.

Pres. Clinton's actions that followed reinforced republican themes, when he signed Welfare Reform later in 1996. This act helped to validated many republican talking points about lazy welfare recipients, but most importantly, it sent the message that the top democrat in the country agreed with republicans who claimed that big government is not the solution, but is the problem when it comes to fighting poverty and bringing about social justice. This hit at the essence of what it means to be a democrat more than a position on the Iraq war does.

There are other issues that Pres. Clinton provided enormous cover for republicans, that democrats seem to forgive. He cut capital gains taxes, lowering them from 28 % to 20%, a move that enriched the wealthy, investor class and allowed republicans to say that this cut helped the economy. He and Al Gore actively pushed through NAFTA and favorable trading status for China, which many democrats blame today for the loss of American jobs and suppression of wages. He also signed The Telecommunications Act of 1996, which many progressives blame for the consolidation and spread of conservative media. Most all of this happened before the 1996 election, yet there was no mass defection of liberals from the party in 1996, no primary challenge to Pres. Clinton, not even a Ralph Nader to apply pressure from the left.

I understand the Pres. Clinton isn't running for anything and Sen. Lieberman is, yet that doesn't mean that liberals still have to kiss Pres. Clinton's ass like many do. When Clinton campaigned for Lieberman, many left wing bloggers went out of their way to rationalize Clinton's appearance as him just helping an old friend or that Clinton had so much more class and stature than Lieberman, that it made Lieberman look small in comparison. Clinton is too popular to purge, so he has to stay.

Hate is not a family value

This was a barb thrown at fundamentalists, usually on the right, by liberals. Often, it was a very good criticism of how awful their behavior was on quite a few areas, but usually regarding the demonization of gays by evangelicals. Lately, it seems like the dreaded emotion of hatred is coming from the left. The level of disgust towards President Bush is very similar to the hatred that liberals once regarded as unhealthy when directed towards President Clinton. Given how partisanship works, and that Bush has made very few efforts to reach Democrats lately, this is all pretty understandable.

What should disturb liberals is the amount of vileness directed towards those in their own party who somehow don't measure up to some standard, that is often vague and often not fairly applied. In a world where Iran, various Muslim terrorist groups and North Korea issue threats against the US, you would think that someone in these groups would be a more apt target for their disdain. Instead, they act as if Sen. Joe Lieberman is public enemy number one. The rhetoric from the left blogs is so over the top and irrational, it makes their other overheated arguments against the right questionable.

One leftist blogger, Jane Hamsher, posted a racially offensive, doctored photo of Sen. Lieberman in blackface. This led Lieberman's primary opponent to issue a condemnation of this:

Lamont's campaign manager Tom Swan condemned this, calling it very
offensive and said he requested that it be removed.

Hamsher is a Lamont supporter who's work can be found on Firedoglake.com. When Lamont was questioned about Hamsher and her vile slunt he responded with this brush off:

"I don't know anything about the blogs. I'm not responsible for those. I have no
comment on them."

Yet as other bloggers have pointed out, Lamont has courted boggers, thanked bloggers , worked with bloggers , and included them his campaign ads. Kos was in his first campaign ad, Hamsher directed Lamont in a blog ad, and she also accompanied him on his trip to the Colbert Report. But somehow Lamont doesn't know anything about the blogs? If Lieberman had said something this far from the truth, Kos would have a diary calling Lieberman a liar, which he seems to have every day.

This is another problem I have with blogs, it happens on both sides, but seems more prominent on the left. It is the "We get it" mentality, which divides the world into two groups of people. Those who "get it" and "kool aid drinkers". Those who oppose the left wing blogs are further divided into two subsets, the first are the idiots, the other are those who are evil, greedy and manipulators. When someone really pisses off the lefty bloggers, the offender falls into both subsets, the evil idiot. It isn't enough to realize that there may be legitimate differences of opinion, those who are against the bloggers must have their intellect challenged and be dehumanized with nicknames like "Rape Gurney Joe". Here is a post by Hamsher demonstrating both of these, she labels Sen. Boxer as clueless and an idiot, and gets in the totally offensive slur against Sen. Lieberman.

Good thing Lamont doesn't know anything about the blogs, he might have to defend his relationship with someone like this. So it isn't just Republicans who face the wrath of these bloggers. According to Kos, Sen. Boxer doesn't get called an idiot, she is a coward. He has also heaped this bile upon three other Democratic senators, whose crime is supporting their friend. Dems went crazy over GOP criticisms of Max Cleland, yet they all let Kos get away with calling a war hero in Sen. Inouye, a coward?

Some bloggers are getting fed up with this garbage, here is one at a liberal site who unloads on what is wrong with these intolerant bloggers, however, he does it in typical, over the top blog fashion:

You know, I can't identify with anyone on the left OR center any more. This is
the left whose principles I have supported for more years that Jane Hamsher's
been alive? You mean it's become as full of haters, idiot blog commenters and
idiot bloggers as the right?

The hatred of Sen. Lieberman is so thorough, they can't even see that this guy could possibly have any redeeming qualities, be a likeable guy, or be worthy of anything. One liberal blogger who is completely clouded by hate wonders why anyone could possibly like this guy. And he isn't talking about his politics, he is talking about him as a fellow human being. Bob Sommersby at the Daily Howler explains why he likes Lieberman. Yet on too much of the liberal blogs, the world is divided into good and evil, and good will and friendship should not be extended to those who disagree with you. So it is not enough to disagree with the guy, he must be hated, he must be unlikeable, have no worthy traits what so ever.

This morning, George Stephanopoulos remarked that some liberals have been upset with Lieberman before the war for his admonishment of Clinton's affair with Monica. This fit into the point the left makes about how he undercuts the party. Yet liberal website, The Daily Howler refutes this point by showing how some of the netroots heros were very harsh on Clinton at the same time and they were vocal about their unhappiness. From Sen. Feingold:

BAKER (9/5/98): Sen. Russell D. Feingold (D-Wis.), a strong early critic of
Clinton's behavior and his Aug. 17 speech, said today that Lieberman's scorching
criticism "pretty well reflected" his own thoughts as well and added that
Clinton's effort today was still not enough.

And if Feingold is too much of corporatist, kool aid drinker for some on the left, the late Sen. Wellstone's thoughts were included:

Wellstone, however, strongly criticized Clinton's actions, which included a
relationship with intern Monica Lewinsky and lying to the public about its
nature.
"It's reprehensible," Wellstone said. "I don't support it. It's not
defensible."

So when Lieberman was against what other Democrats were against, he was undercutting the party. Wonder if Feingold's undercutting of the Democratic party will derail is presidential bid.These bloggers are the same people who condemn President Bush as simplistic for his Axis of Evil thinking. Left wing blogs are just as guilty of this type of thinking, they just don't have the sense to pick the proper enemy. They have chosen the man Al Gore picked as his running mate as the enemy over those who vow to kill us and wipe Israel off the map.

For more on this:

http://justoneminute.typepad.com/main/2006/08/beyond_the_pale.html

http://justoneminute.typepad.com/main/2006/08/ned_lamont_fail.html