The party of tolerance, open-mindedness, and liberal thinking, not!

So much for being inclusive as they constantly state.

http://apnews.myway.com//article/20051210/D8ED9K4O1.html

 

Jimmy, the Democrats are only "compassionate" and "tolerant" of viewpoints that are in lockstep with their own idealogy.

Of course, I suspect you already know that.

 

I do but I just like pointing it out every now and then. Ann Coulter spoke at a university in Connecticut this past week.

She was heckled and booed by the tolerant left.

Even Senator Clinton was booed by the left because she supports the war in Iraq.

This is one reason I moved to the center-right back in the '70's. I used to call myself a "liberal" and supported RFK for President. I even supported HHH until a week before the election because I thought he would end the Viet Nam War quicker than Humphrey.

I saw so much hypocrisy and intolerance, I just left those labels in the trash heap of disingenuity.

 

Personally, I don't think that either major political party is tolerant, open-minded or liberal (in the non-ideological sense).

I guess that if you want to find those things, it makes most sense to look at the level of individuals.

The problem with political parties is that they are dominated by activists. It's the activists that perform the party's work and who often end up occupying its offices.

And unfortunately, activists are most apt to be political true-believers. They are people with very strong views and with aggressive agendas to push.

I think that Lieberman would have a great chance of winning a general election (and in so doing, becoming our first Jewish President). That's doubly true if the Republicans run a fire-breathing social conservative.

But Lieberman's chances of winning the Democratic primaries (dominated by the party's core voters) is much more remote.

Hillary might have a better chance of accomplishing that. She still has her liberal credentials (she was always perceived to be to the left of Bill). She could win the nomination if she gets strong support from Democratic women.

Meanwhile she is busily trying to position herself in the center by publicly taking some moderate positions. That way she lets her
fellow Democrats secure her moderate's credentials for her by attacking her from her left. And with her moderate's credentials secured, it would be hard for a Republican to attack her as too liberal wihout appearing too conservative in the process.

I still think that Hillary has the best shot right now of replacing Bush. (But obviously things can change.)

 

I don't know, Bill, Hillary just doesn't come across as a very sincere and genuine person. I just don't think she will win.

She may try to portray herself as a moderate but I think voters are smarter than that.

Lieberman could win a general election, I agree.

Congress just doesn't have many principled members. Lieberman and Congressman Chris Shays (R) (ironically from Connecticut also), are two of the most principled.

 

Wow, this is the second thing that Bill has said recently that I agree with. Not that I'm keeping score mind you, I just find it amusing. I think Hilary can win as long as she doesn't retreat from her strong defense position. An anti war platform is a losing position for the Democrats. I'm a registered Democrat and consider myself a moderate. I want so much for the pendulum to swing the other way. But, I will vote against everything else that I hold sacred if the Democrats run on an anti-war agenda. Our battle against terrorism is one we can't afford to lose.

BTW, I've said this before, as much as I personally love Joe, he would have no chance in a general election because he has no charisma. It's sad, but I truly believe that plays a bigger role in electing our presidents than policy.

 

I always known you were too intelligent to be anything else.

Jimmy, when are you going to join us and step away from the political dark side?

 

Amen to that brother!



Abner

 

Perhaps when more Dems are like JoAnn and Joe Lieberman. So, now you know the answer, never, ha!

 

Now here is a Democrat with intelligence and common sense.

Kudos!

 

Oh, Jimmy, my amigo, you hurt my feelings. You mean I am not one of the intelligent democrats with common sense.

 

Ha! Actually, I do like you. You're intellectually honest and not a stalwart.

 

Hey don't forget Russ Feingold. I think people don't like him becasue he is a maverick.

 

You guys need to hop off the naive turnip truck. This debate reminds me of the intelligent design/evolution debate. The intelligent design folk rant and rave about how scientific theories (evolution theory in particular) are controversial and subject to revision etc. This is something that all scientists know (as in Kuhn), and so it amounts to the ID people ranting about the obvious and displaying how LITTLE they know about science.

Of course, the ID theory has nothing, absolutely nothing, to do with science. So what exactly are the ID supporters ranting about when their own "theory" has less to do with science than those scientific theories that they like to criticize?

The same holds for the liberal/tolerant ideology versus the conservative/intolerant debate. Are liberals tolerant and inclusive about every idea? Of course not. Wake up for crying out loud. Liberals can be intolerant of many things: bigotry, narrow mindedness, hatred, and institutionalized stupidity, for starters. And, yes, liberals often go too far and pull too many schemes out of the PC playbook. In the process they can appear shrill and whiny. Is this surprising?

However, like the ID debate, take a look at the other side. Even as conservatives rant about liberals not being 100% inclusive and tolerant, they need to take a look at their own party, which is nearly "defined" by the "me first, screw everyone who doesn't look and act like me" ideology. So where does that leave the conservative ideology? Are you arguing that conservatives are MORE inclusive than liberals? That would be hard to justify, but go ahead and try for a laugh. If you aren’t making that claim, then you are condemning your own party by attacking liberals for not being all-inclusive. It’s the classic pot calling the kettle black (er African American) .

 

This is why I like you, Tom, your honesty and objectivity.

The main reason I posted this is that Democrats rant and rave about being a party of ideas and inclusion. John Kerry is very famous for expressing this. Yet, Joe Lieberman's ideas are condemned, he's about thrown out of the party, and he is not included in major policy making decisions of the party.

 

As long as it's only two, you are probably all right.

If the Democrats can find it within themselves to make constructive criticisms, suggesting ways to make security policy better, then I'd definitely welcome it and might even vote for it.

Unfortunately, there's a big part of the party (the loudest and most active part) that seems to criticize simply in hopes of embarassing what they always refer to as "this administration". Everything is partisan advantage. They attack the war in Iraq because they sense that it makes Bush vulnerable, without the slightest idea about how they would extract our forces without things spinning out of control, or alternatively, of how they would prosecute the war more effectively.

It seems to me that the Democrats are kind of coasting their deeply felt hatred for Bush and the Republicans. That's easy to do and it definitely arouses the base.

But if the Democrats really want to win over moderate voters, particularly those that opted for Bush last time, the party has to put out a more positive message.

In a weird sort of way Lieberman's lack of charisma is charisma. Anti-charisma, you might call it.

Every time he opens his mouth he sounds thoughtful and even reassuring. You kind of trust that he's just not the kind of guy who's going to rush off chasing hare-brained schemes. After eight years of Bushian inarticulateness and (arguably) ill-advised Middle Eastern military adventures, the public might be ready for what Joe is offering them.

But if he doesn't feed Michael Moore/Howard Dean-style raw meat to the Democratic party wolves, if he doesn't feed the anger, he might find it awfully hard to get nominated.

 

It really seems to me that the Dems have allow the momentum to be changed here in the last two weeks. I have always felt that the republicains best bet is to allow people like Dean, Kerry, and Pelosi to speak. I mean there was a reason John Kerry didnt do any interview the last two months of the campaign. Everytime he open his mouth he contridicted himself and it was in a campaign ad 15 minutes later. As for Hillary, I have to wonder with they anti war people on her butt if she can win a early primary. Thats why Liberman was knocked out last time. IMHO, he would have beat bush had the Dems ran him instead of Kerry.

I think Tom mentioned the intolerance of both parties. I have to Say that you may have left out the seeming lack of tolerance for any disenting opinion on social policy. Its upseting to me that if someone suggest that affermative action is not right that they are immediatly labeled racist and outcast without possibly listening to the debate. The Republicains do the same thing, but fortunatly for them the word liberal has turn ugly the last few years and they are using it to their advantage.

And as for the "me first" attitude of conservative. I have personally experienced more selfishness from "liberials" who hold a belief on entitlment. Keep in mind, alot of conservative, like myself, have worked very hard to achieve what they have and dont want to "give" it away, although i know my share of greedy scumbags. I think a "me first" attitude is part of a selfish person no matter what there political beliefs are..


One last thing...The Dem are major pissed off at Joe right now, and they seem to be moving farther from his position. Any chance for Liberman as the Republicain Candidate for Pres in 08?

 

The problem, Tom, is that if one disagrees with a liberal, especially on social policy, they are automatically branded a bigot, narrow-minded, hateful, and/or stupid. How tolerant and compassionate is that?

Some of the best jokes are based in truth, as is this one;

Q: How do you know when you've won an argument with a liberal?

A: They call you a racist.

 

This post....

The above post validates the very reason this thread was started. Somehow it reminds him of the ID debate (?) and then he proceeds to declare how everyone not of his ideology thinks.

Give me a break.....