I have a good pal who is a board member of the Lincoln Club and we had an exchange about how Democrats won’t tolerate more conservative voices in our own party — like Joe Lieberman. Another blogger buddy of mine in Boston, who’s very conservative, keeps telling me that the far left extremes have hijacked the Democratic Party.

If there’s any party that is intolerant or has been hijacked by extremists, it’s the Republicans. Note this Jon Fleischman commentary in today’s Flash Report. Note the coordinated effort by conservative bloggers to bring down am incumbent member of their own party in a Congressional race in Michigan because this Congressman didn’t meet their standard of being “conservative” enough. And note the glee in his voice in how happy they were to pull this off.

Joe Lieberman lost in Connecticut because he’s wrong on the Iraq War, he’s consistently wrong in his support for President Bush’s conservative agenda. And he is placing himself before his party by running as an idependent. Joe would make a better Bush cabinent appointee. Young voters, mostly new Democrats, brought Joe down. It was a simple choice: elect a Democrat or elect a Democrat that has the support of the Republican administration, the conservative media (Limbaugh, Hannity, Coulter, Malkin, Hewitt et al), and the right wing bloggers. The voters elected a Democrat and one who showed backbone and conviction on the war.

But I’m grateful for Fleischman’s boasting on the Michigan congressional race. His commentary is a signed confession of intolerance of moderate points of view within the GOP.
Mr. Pot, meet Mr. Kettle.

  6 comments for “Intolerance

  1. August 9, 2006 at 7:46 pm

    he’s consistently wrong in his support for President Bush’s conservative agenda.


    Other than Iraq, what part of the Bush agenda does Leiberman support? He votes with the other Senate Democrats something like 90% of the time.

    The lefty bloggers helped bring him down over one single issue: the war in Iraq.

  2. August 9, 2006 at 7:56 pm


    First, I think you meant to direct your question to Dan. Dan wrote this post, not me.

    Second, it’s really just semantics. Dan said that Lieberman is “consistently wrong” when he supports the Bush agenda. Which, I’d agree with.

    With that said, your numbers are right and I’d have to think long and hard about my vote if I were a CT Dem voting in yesterday’s primary.

    I’m guessing you got that 90% number off of ‘Meet The Press’ this past Sunday, because that is where I heard it.

    This victory, however, is still exciting. I read something this morning that said (party politics aside) what Lamont did was the impssible: this virtual unkown beat in his own party’s primary an 18-year incumbent with universal name recognition, a $12 million campaign war chest and the support of Washington insiders, the punditry and the corporate lobbies.

  3. August 10, 2006 at 9:59 am

    “another blogger buddy of mine in Boston, who’s very conservative, keeps telling me that the far left extremes have hijacked the Democratic Party.”

    heh. that one always cracks me up. in my lifetime the democrats have never been more conservative or more frightened of offending right wing voters. every time they are offered a chance to stand up to the president’s pro-war, anti-human agenda they fail to even get a majority of their own party. then you have supposed leaders like hillary clinton who supports the war and co-sponsored the intellectually bankrupt and utterly anti-freedom flag burning amendment. so now we have TWO, count em TWO proposals to amend our constitution in order to LIMIT freedom, and one of them came from the supposed left. the democrats are where the republicans were 25 years ago. the republicans are headed down a dark path towards .. you know what.

    have a nice day.

  4. August 10, 2006 at 10:02 am

    Matt — Lieberman has only sided with Democrats 90 percent of the time in the last year or so. Previously, Lieberman has only supported Senate Democrats 78 percent of the time. But where he has sided with the President lately are on some pretty big issues.

    For example, Lieberman failed to back a filibuster of the nomination of Supreme Court Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr., he is argeeable to consider privatizing Social Security, he has supported the efforts of Catholic hospitals to deny emergency contraceptives to rape victims (I have a daughter and I’m a fallen Catholic, so this really frosts my cupcakes) and he is opposed to same-sex marriage, which by virtue of the equal protection clause of the Constitution, should be allowed.

    The point of the original post is that the right wing has portrayed Lieberman’s defeat as an example of intolerance on the part of Democrats to opposing views in our party when Fleischman’s FR post about defeated a liberal and incumbent Republican Congressman in Michigan shows that the Republicans are hypocrites in this criticism.

    I mean Karl Rove has offered to help the Lieberman campaign. What further proof do you need that Lieberman is a dem in name only?

  5. August 10, 2006 at 11:25 am


    First, sorry for assuming this was Mike’s post, and not yours.

    Second: the Connecticut Dems can nominate who they like. If they want to charge Left — well, from my partisan GOP standpoint, please do so.

    Third, voting with other Senate Dems 78% of thge time v. 90% of the time doesn’t seem like a huge difference to me, although I sympathize that it can matter a great deal to activists which issues fall within that 20% or so.

    Conservatives don’t like RINOs, and liberals don’t like DINOs. I get that.

    I don’t think the revolt against Lieberman is an example of intolerance so much driven by a single issue: his support for the war in Iraq. None of those other issue you cited could have fueled a Lamont challenge. If it wasn’t for Lieberman’s Iraq stance, Lamont would still be wallowing in obscurity.

  6. August 10, 2006 at 11:56 am

    Matt — No apology necessary.

    Intolerance is the single biggest criticism of righties about Lieberman’s loss. The Righties have barraged me with messages citing Lamont’s victory for the intolerant left who opposes oppositie viewpoins.

    I send them copies of Jon’s FR commentary on the Michigan Congressional race right back to them; it shows that the Republicans are guilty of the same intolerance of opposing views within their own party. C’mon, will Log Cabin Republicans really ever shape the platform on the right?

    It’s not just the 10-to-20 percent Lieberman fails to back his colleagues, but its what those issues are about (think of the 80-20 rule in business). Joe is fine on the small stuff, but not the stuff that matters.

    Stay the course with your president and his failed policies; from my partisan Democratic standpoint, that bodes well for my party in the midterms. And where OC was about 8-2 Republican 15 years ago, is now more like 6-4; we are making strides here.

    CNN has a new poll out that 60 percent of the Nation is opposed to the Iraq war. President Bush’s approval numbers are only over 50 percent in a handful of states (not even in Texas).

    The vast majority of the national supports federal funding for Stem Cell Research. The vast majority of the country suports Roe v. Wade and upholding a woman’s right to chose; the vast majority of the country is against the erosion of our civil liberties through dmoestic spying of telephone calls, Internet messages and banking transactions. I think a lot of us on the left would be willing to cut W some slack if: 1) he’s admit to making mistakes, and 2) the right would stop questioning the patriotism of tose who disagree with the president on major policy issues during a time of war.

    Today’s NY Times has a quote from Cheney saying that Lieberman’s defeat would embolden terrorists by calling into question America’s resolve. WTF? Do you guys really believe that?

Comments are closed.