Why the Left Is Furious at Lieberman

Latimes ^ | July 18, 2006 | DUNCAN BLACK

[sr4402]

But too many in the Lieberman wing of the party have elevated civility and the illusion of bipartisan comity over challenging Republicans' failed policies. In the process, they have echoed GOP jargon in dismissing critics as "angry" and "hate-filled."

[sr4402]

Quiet the opposite, I would think. Isn't this admitting that the Democratic party has abandoned civility and turned their hatred upon their own?

[Brilliant]

"But too many in the Lieberman wing of the party..."





That seems kinda ridiculous. There is only one person in the Lieberman wing, and that is Lieberman himself.

[sr4402]

There is only one person in the Lieberman wing, and that is Lieberman himself.

That is correct. This is the straw dog the Latimes is pushing out. This is something the MSM does all the time; they invent straw dogs and howl at them.

[Dante3]

I found Lieberman among the best of Democrats, felt I could live with him as POTUS, until his vote in illegal aliens. Only two Democratic senators were patriotic enough to stray from the herd.

[johnny7]

What reeeeeeally infuriates them? “The Kiss”.

[MeanWestTexan]

I think they hate him, in part, because he (at least appears to be) a fairly observant Jew.

The liberal base hates anything approaching a semblance of respect for God.

(That said, Lieberman is a pathetic liberal, and his faux hawkishness is a fascade developed by the MSM.)

[kjo]

Yes, the liberal MSM (but I repeat myself) hates anyone who pubically demonstrates a belief in any organized religion (except Islam).

The very good news is that newspapers like the LA TIMES are continuing to go under. Their anti-religious, pro abortion, pro homosexual tilt will finish them in the end.

And the end is not twenty years away.

[HamiltonJay]

Yea, yea.. that's it.. the Rabid irrational folks from the moonbat left, that lash out at everything and everyone who won't be indoctrinated into their hogwash... and are turning off anyone who's remotely civil.. but hey the problem with the Democratic party losing elections is all because they are too nice... yea yea.. that's it.

[maine-iac7]

Lieberman never became a card carrying member of DSOC/DSA - (Democratic Socialists of America, now in control of what used to be the democratic party - (also dedicated to the destruction of Israel)


They've finally got just about every other seat = they gotta get rid of this holdout.


I infiltrated, as an investigative reporter "NO press Allowed!"- (1982!)- a meeting of this group in a church - in the virtual shadow of our state capitol's dome. They have, with patience and great deliberateness, infiltrated and taken over the Democratic Party. At that time, they called their movement "the Democratic Socialist Organizing Committee [DSOC](later the Democratic Socialists of America),[1] which worked within the Democratic Party but in support of its left wing."
If one were too empty the pockets of the majority of the demRats in DC, a party membership card to the Socialist Party would fall out.


The public should be educated to the answer to Zell's question as to where 'his' party has gone.
Here's a good start on who they are - and what they stand for - make no mistake.

The Socialist Party of the US:

http://www.slp.org/slp_states.htm

Todays demRAts - yesterday's DSOC - BAck then, TeddyBoy was their shining hope for the presidency, but even lost the Democratic PRIMARY. So they regrouped with the strategy of infiltrating and absorbing the democratic party. They have been very successful.


http://www.dsausa.org/dsa.html



Their ("socialists in democrats clothing) stand on Israel/Palestinians:)
http://www.slp.org/pdf/statements/mideast_res.pdf

[NotJustAnotherPrettyFace]

Bump! I've been saying much the same thing for years on this forum!

[Soul Seeker]

Let's just get to what this is really about.

Power.

The Kossacks/McGovern wing want power.

They've historically had a stake in American defeat/appeasement since the Vietnam war..perhaps further back but their factions really came into their own at that time. This is THEIR issue and it's THE issue that has brought them to the Democrats power table.

If they can't take Leiberman out in a primary dominated by the activists that are the children and granchildren of McGovern....in a Liberal state...if a WELL FUNDED and highly publicized camapaign against the incumbent...one that doesn't even suffer from the unity of a party against them as some Democrat politicians, high profile, will NOT support Leiberman...they are failures and their seat is at risk of being pulled.

If Lieberman wins, they've suffered a blow. If it's a tight race, the party won't be able to jettison the elements..but they won't fear them. If it's not too close, Kos and his buddies go the way of Michael Moore. If they win? America is in trouble as the Democrat Party will officially go the "Full Kossack".

Yes, I'm supporting Lieberman. I respect his stance on the war and the liberal activists only HE in this party has had the guts to confront. And, as an AMERICAN, I really don't think it's a good idea to have one of only two major parties become completely unhinged about the survival of this country. Maybe that doesn't sufficiently mark me as "partisan" enough, but so be it.

I have two agendas.

Exercise the extremists that would turn us over to the U.N. and terrorists at a heartbeat because they hate our country beyond reason that usually reside in the Dem party, and exercise the Liberals from the Republican caucus.

I'd like to return to the days of the "loyal opposition". I'm okay with fighting between Liberalism and conservatism. I'd prefer conservatism be the dominant voice in representative numbers of course. But I am not okay with Howard Dean, Nancy Pelosi, and Kossack as the voice of the Democrat Party. I don't see how any conservative, let alone American, could be. And for this reason while many "Republicans" and "Conservatives" welcomed Dean as Chairman from a partisan standpoint, I've NEVER favored him.