In case you haven't heard, the entire Senate Democratic caucus sent a letter to the Washington Post complaining about a column that David Broder, the paper's respected moderate liberal columnist wrote criticizing Democratic leader Harry Reid for saying the Iraq war is "lost."
We've talked about it quite a bit here at NB (here and here for some of our coverage) but today's New York Sun makes a point worth posting today:
"The episode illuminates how thin-skinned and intolerant the left is in this country of a press corps that is anything less than completely pliant. It began with the Democratic presidential candidates refusing to participate in a presidential debate that would be aired on the Fox News Channel, a network so reflexively right-wing that its regular paid contributors include Michael Dukakis's campaign manager Susan Estrich, National Public Radio's Mara Liasson, and the 2006 Democratic candidate for Senate in Tennessee, Harold Ford Jr. First they came for Fox News Channel, then they came for David Broder."
That's exactly right. The problem Broder is encountering is that even though he is a liberal, the fact that he has crossed the far left on its most important agenda item (surrendering in Iraq) has made him anathema. Same with Joe Lieberman.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
The Libs constantly say tha
May 2, 2007 - 19:50 ET by motherbeltThe Libs constantly say that Republicans don't tolerate dissent within the party. This from the party that wouldn't let a pro-life member speak at the convention. Hillary thinks her opponents shouldn't accept contributions from anyone that criticizes her. And Paul Begala called Broder a "venomous gasbag" for his commentary. Can you imagine if a Republican had called Broder that????? It's amazing how quickly and violently they turn on one who steps out of line, isn't it????
Whoever posted this link had it exactly right
Democrat Seal and Mascot
hey motherbelt, like they say
May 2, 2007 - 19:59 ET by VT Con Manhey motherbelt, like they say a picture is worth a thousand words. The mascot says it all about those people. (Libs)
The motto should read as &q
May 2, 2007 - 23:43 ET by kevcadThe motto should read as "The Official Squeal of the Peoples Democratic Party".
Reminds me of the scene in th
May 3, 2007 - 00:07 ET by Dan The Man 2Reminds me of the scene in the Movie Lost In Space where the creatures they found eat their own.
Nuke em til they glow then shoot em in the dark. -- save my gun, shoot a liberal.
I think I may see a connectio
May 3, 2007 - 10:37 ET by BeowulfI think I may see a connection explaining why the Looney Left is so adamant in support of Islamic extremists - The Democratic party is supposed to be the party of tolerance, yet we are constantly bombarded with their fanatic vitriol against anyone who disagrees with them in the slightest. Compare this to the Islamofacists - who are supposed to be representative of the "Religion of peace and tolerance". Anyone else see a similarity of behavior???
The Closed Mind Builds Strong Barriers
Remember, when threatened lib
May 2, 2007 - 19:59 ET by zfRemember, when threatened liberals will eat their own.
"Enemies, foreign and do
May 2, 2007 - 20:07 ET by ThisnThat"Enemies, foreign and domestic". Rational Americans are always reluctant to point fingers. But it's now becoming evident. These are not Americans anymore. They are exposing themselves as true enemies of this country, now. It's taken decades, and most of the previous events have been isolated and not supported by traditional mainstream institutions. Now, it's different. When we have an entire, respected (at least in the past) political party openly declaring war on all dissenters, it's time to take this seriously.
I wouldn't say that it reveal
May 2, 2007 - 21:18 ET by DBWI wouldn't say that it reveals a larger issue, just makes it more obvious. Unfortunately, its so pervasive that no one on the left sees it, and even a large percentage on the right don't really see it either.
Sounds like our leftist frien
May 2, 2007 - 21:36 ET by Del DolemonteSounds like our leftist friends would like to send Broder to the same place their ideological heroes abroad sent Solzynitzen (pardon my Hawaiian). Or the Russian Front. Paging Colonel Klink!
As for Lieberman, I voted for him in 2004 in my state primary. He got dressed and tied like a hog and tossed overboard by the fever swamp munchkins shortly thereafter.
All you need to know is that an anti-Lieberman website actually put up a Photoshopped racist picture of him in blackface standing next to Bill Clinton. And I thought Bill was the "First Black President"?
Maybe the Dems are thin-ski
May 2, 2007 - 21:47 ET by gueinMaybe the Dems are thin-skinned because they have enjoyed predominantly favorable press no matter what they say. If this had been a conservative attacking a member of the press, it would have been labeled exactly what it is: W-H-I-N-I-N-G. Begala has some nerve calling anybody a gasbag; when he looks into a mirror, there's a gasbag looking back at him.
Today the house voted to ov
May 2, 2007 - 22:36 ET by JDWToday the house voted to override Bush's veto. Later Pelosi said, "There is great distance between us right now. Democrats are committed to ending this war..."
The Pelosi said, "There is great distance between us right now. Democrats are committed to ending this war... " She went on to say he had no respect for the bill.
As with David Broder, what happens if these people get their wish and we cut and run? How would eliminating the oil flow affect our economy?
If the troops remain and a dem is elected, what happens to our military?
The dems have no idea which way is up. The only plan is whatever is contrary to Bush's.
They cannot support winning Iraq which leads to all of these eventual problems. Their reactions, hate letters, news media BS, lies... Truth or real plans, never.
JDW
News media: Scoreboard for terrorists
It’s a mistake to see this
May 3, 2007 - 01:10 ET by KC MulvilleIt’s a mistake to see this as an intellectual discussion. There’s at least one study that claims that most people pick their party affiliation first, and then form their opinions of issues to conform to fellow party members. In other words, most people get emotionally comfortable before they examine issues intellectually. You touch a nerve before you touch a synapse. Both parties do it. Consider Reagan’s eleventh commandment: “thou shalt not speak ill of fellow Republicans…” Left unsaid is, “… no matter how asinine they are.” Broder spoke ill of Harry Reid, and he’s being attacked for it.
This “herd instinct” isn’t my natural preference, but I’m not so sure it’s a bad thing. Different people do things differently. There are Felix Ungers and there are Oscar Madisons. Some people are thinkers, and some are feelers. (I’m getting all Jungian here.) It’s just the way God created us, I guess, so vive la difference!
Broder should speak against
May 3, 2007 - 02:13 ET by radiofitz34Broder should speak against Harry Reid. If Reid puts his foot in his mouth any further, it's going to come out of his glutious maximus.
I remember what Spiro Agnew once said. Yes I know. But his most famous quote was calling liberals, "those nattering nabobs of negativism". I'm still not sure what nabob is but I just thought I'd share that.
Note to radiofitz: stick to radio lol.
May 3, 2007 - 11:00 ET by Beowulf
I have to disagree KC. The he
May 3, 2007 - 11:01 ET by BeowulfI have to disagree KC. The herd instinct is what has allowed the Leftist/Socialist Dems to take over their party.
I have a co-worker with whom I agree on many social issues - Abortion, gun control, death penalty, Iraq, etc. I have told him he is more Republican than I am even though he proudly proclaims his Democratic affiliation. Yet, even though we are in agreement on so many critical voter issues, he is still adamant that he will vote for the Hilla-Monster in '08. Clinton is diametrically opposed to both of us on all the above issues, yet, due to this "herd mentality" (I call it bovine acceptance), he will be essentially voting against the most important of his personal values simply because of party affiliation.
I tend to vote Republican simply because the candidates generally more closely match my personal beliefs and values. But I have voted for Dems, and will do so any time the Dem candidate seems to mirror my philosophy better than the Repub. Party-line voting will likely destroy this country long before terrorists, or any external threat, could hope to by allowing a radical minority to make and execute national policy.
P.S. I am registered Republican for only one reason - to keep the radical right from ever gaining any measure of control over the party - something the Dems seem to have singularly failed to do.
The Closed Mind Builds Strong Barriers
Just curious B, who would y
May 3, 2007 - 11:10 ET by MightyMouthJust curious B, who would you classify as "radical right"? Some names we might all know.
"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...
This is actually kind of a to
May 4, 2007 - 07:24 ET by BeowulfThis is actually kind of a tough question MM, since the radical right isn't anywhere near the forefront of conservatives, and unless they go waaaay over the top, they get little or no press. Political far righties would include Newt Gingrich and Tom DeLay. Fortunately, it is actually difficult for me to instantly produce a list of far-right politicians. Unless they directly affect me, as in my state representatives, I'm hard-pressed to name many. They are at the tail end of the party and don't get much national recognition. And you can see from the GOP candidates, none of them could be called extreme right. In fact, they are suffering in their party for being either too left or too moderate (I wish I knew how anyone could be "too moderate" - sounds like an oxymoron to me). I wish I could accuse the Dem candidates and party leadership of being "too moderate". The far-left is currently running their party and Obama is probably the most moderate of their candidates.
For me, the majority of the radical right wing consists mainly of hard-core religious mental cases. Pat Robertson, Fred Phelps, and their ilk. And there is, of course, good old Rush, and Sean Hannity. Fortunately, none of these are running for office.
The Closed Mind Builds Strong Barriers
Beowulf, I hear you, and as I
May 3, 2007 - 12:48 ET by KC MulvilleBeowulf, I hear you, and as I say, it isn’t my natural preference, either. However, I think the herd instinct (or bovine acceptance) can be useful. We have 300 million Americans in this country, and (unsure) about a third of them vote. That’s a lot of people shopping for issues, and we never have the same priorities. Making compromises is inevitable. As they say, the only way you’ll ever find a candidate that matches all your issues is to run yourself. Short of that, you have to swallow some issues here and there. The herd instinct has a practical value, in that it makes the swallowing a little easier.
Personally, I think our country is dysfunctional because our constitution wasn’t designed for parties, and yet parties dominate our political system. At the very least, I think, we should break up the parties to allow more choices. (Hardly a new idea, but still a good one.) Two parties create a stalemate, but with three or more parties, the game changes from zero-sum to a coalition game. The dynamics of a coalition game are much more interesting than our boring (and dysfunctional) two-party system.
I know. When pigs fly …
KC, I agree 100% with you on
May 4, 2007 - 07:37 ET by BeowulfKC, I agree 100% with you on the damage our two-party system causes. It polarizes many, if not most, between two extremes, hence my support of moderism. While I am registered Republican, and on many issues can rightly be called conservative, I preach moderism as a rule. I agree with many conservative ideals. Shockingly, I also agree with many liberal principles as well. Neither side has all the answers, and compromise is a huge part of moderism. The problem I see with the far left is that there is absolutely no compromise in them. You're either 100% in agreement, or you're the enemy, worthy only of the total destruction of your career and reputation. It can't be denied how the left has been treating conservatives over the last 4 or 5 years. But now, perhaps because they've gotten to like such rabid, mad-dog attacks, or because they've seen how effective it can be, they have begun eating their own for non-compliance with their political doctrine.
All I was saying in my earlier post is that blind party-line voting is excessively damaging to our nation, as the example I gave of my coworker who disagrees with the Dem candidates on most basic principles, yet will never, ever, vote outside his party. As I stated, I have voted Democrat in the past, when the Republican candidate opposed my basic philosophy and beliefs. Herd mentality precludes such flexibility.
Good discussion!!! Thanks.
The Closed Mind Builds Strong Barriers
Leftwing Censorship
May 3, 2007 - 07:06 ET by P.J. GladnickThe Left in general seems to be in a big censorship mode. They can't argue with Rush Limbaugh's ideas so, instead, they are trying to Hush Rush. One method is by threatening his show sponsors. The DUmmies at the Democrat Underground went ballistic when it was announced by Rush yesterday that GM is a new sponsor and are already sending threatening messages to them as you can see chronicled in the DUmmie FUnnies.
"General Motors: A New Sponsor of the Rush Limbaugh Show"
The new liberal mantra: I di
May 3, 2007 - 07:43 ET by Ruths husband BenThe new liberal mantra: I disagree with what you say so I will deny to the death your right to say it.
Good one Ben, would make a
May 3, 2007 - 11:06 ET by MightyMouthGood one Ben, would make a good sig line too! :-)
"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...
The anti-Broder venom and v
May 3, 2007 - 08:23 ET by daveinbocaThe anti-Broder venom and vituperation expended in a blogstorm generated by the Soros Groupies reminds one of the Purge Trial hysteria in the Democrat's model for governance---Stalin's USSR in the thirties. How the Dems wish they could squelch every voice of dissent from their treasonous policies!! The compliant MSM gives them cover, but their lies are so pervasive, they fear retribution on a massive scale.
Well said Dave.The Closed Min
May 3, 2007 - 11:19 ET by BeowulfWell said Dave.
The Closed Mind Builds Strong Barriers
Of course, I keep thinking of
May 3, 2007 - 12:55 ET by KC MulvilleOf course, I keep thinking of the medieval mob from Monty Python and the Holy Grail. Some of the liberals will soon be shrieking that Broder turned them into a newt.
Liberalism is a form of total
May 3, 2007 - 11:41 ET by mattmLiberalism is a form of totalitarianism. Totalitarianism punishes dissent. And they call us "right-wingers"! Ha!