The "liberals" have been purged from the Party already....

[kentuck]

How much influence have they had in the last few elections? They have gone along with the Party not because they have agreed with the candidate or his policies so much as they have wanted to show a united front and defeat the Republicans. However, all their "uniting for the good of the Party" has gotten them nowhere. Figuratively speaking, they have been "purged" from the Party.

The leaders of the Party have looked down their noses at the left wing of the Party and taken them for granted. Where are they going to go, they asked? So that's another perspective on the raging story of "purges".

[Cary]

1. I don't really understand this.

Our political parties are supposed to be coallition parties. Republicans seem to be able to hold their noses and work with their wingnuts. I suggest their extremists are more odiferous than ours.

Did you see Peter Beinart on C-Span? I understand they are airing it again at 10:00, which is a half hour after this post.

I'm more of what he suggested was a "hard liberal". From your post you seem to me to be a "soft liberal". I have a lot more in common with you that I have with Republicans. I thought it was very interesting how a Republican caller said he was afraid of Beinart because he held views similar to his but he wasn't out there on the 2nd Amendment and gay marriage.

We can scare the snot out of them. We should do it.

What do you think? I'm about to read Beinart's article.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A49824-2004Dec8.html

[kentuck]

2. Because 'hard" liberals are just another side of the present Republicans

And if the people have to choose between a "hard" liberal that believes and supports the lies of the war in Iraq and a "hard" conservative who believes the same, we have a losing strategy. Thanks for making that point.

[Cary]

4. I beg your pardon?

No. I do not believe and support the lies of the war in Iraq and I don't believe this was Beinart's point at all.

I didn't catch the whole thing, so maybe I'm wrong.

He was referring to the so-called "War on Terror." A hard liberal is one who supports an aggressive position on that.

The war in Iraq has nothing to do with the "War on Terror." It has to do with neo-conservative notions of world domination. Anyone who subscribes to that is not a liberal. Arguably they are not true conservatives either.

[kentuck]

5. The "terrorists" attacked us with boxcutters....

and you want us to believe the same thing that Bush wants us to believe? There was no better way to fight this war on "terror"? Kerry had it right the first time. They were a bunch of criminals that got a lucky hit on us and we should have hunted them down just like we would any other criminals. There were not nations with atomic bombs, that were an imminent threat to us, that attacked us. So we declare war on the world or may as have declared war on the world. Jus thow much of htis "war on terror" do you believe?

[Cary]

6. They didn't attack us with boxcutters.

They attacked us with our own jetliners loaded with aviation fuel, which they acquired with boxcutters.

The problem is that ordinary people, today, have access to extraordinary weapons, whether it involves jetliners or fertilizer and diesel fuel. Or it could be Sarin in crowded subway.

I bought, and still buy,the need to take out the Taliban for harboring Al Qaeda. That made sense. Iraq, on the other hand, is utterly senseless.

I don't see any particular formula, one way or the other, that will provide all of the answers. On the other hand we need to be aggressive.

The terms "hard" and "soft" liberals are Beinert's terms. I never heard that until this morning and frankly I haven't thought enough about whether it's a useful distinction. But generally I'm on your side here Kentuck.

No "hard" feelings?

[kentuck]

7. I'm easy to get along with..

:) Otherwise, I would have been gone a long time ago. I have thick skin.

[leftofthedial]

3. The Dems have not been a liberal party since Carter

You are correct. It's become almost a cliche, but even people who don't support repuke policies will vote for a Republican that acts like a Republican before they'll vote for a "Democrat" who acts like a Republican.

There's another post about about weakness that's preety much on target too. How are people supposed to believe Dems will stand up to our enemies when we won't even stand up to the little piss ant bully bushturd?

No liberals, no guts and, as numerous posts this weekend showed, no clearly articulated principles.

We gotta fix this shit.