Lanny Davis’ odd harangue

Yesterday, TNR’s Martin Peretz took to the Wall Street Journal’s editorial page to highlight his support for Joe Lieberman and his disgust for Ned Lamont and his supporters. Today, it was Lanny Davis’ turn. The headline captured the tone nicely, “Liberal McCarthyism.”

Mr. Lamont and all other liberal Democrats should remember the McCarthy era and not fall into the trap of the hypocrisy of the double standard — that it’s not OK when Ann Coulter dispenses her venomous hatred, but it is OK when our side’s versions of Ann Coulter do.

It’s one of the odder arguments I’ve seen in the Lieberman-Lamont dust-up so far. To prove his point, vague though it may be, Davis suggests that some Bush critics and opponents of the war — get this — sometimes write angry remarks in blog comment sections. A few even write irate emails, sometimes with capital letters.

In Davis’ mind, these random and unknown liberals are analogous to “the likes of Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter and Michael Savage.” Indeed, as far as Davis is concerned, it’s proof that the left is not only intolerant, but even engaged in some kind of modern-day McCarthyism.

I know; I don’t understand it either.

I came to believe that we liberals couldn’t possibly be so intolerant and hateful, because our ideology was famous for ACLU-type commitments to free speech, dissent and, especially, tolerance for those who differed with us. And in recent years–with the deadly combination of sanctimony and vitriol displayed by the likes of Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter and Michael Savage–I held on to the view that the left was inherently more tolerant and less hateful than the right.

Now, in the closing days of the Lieberman primary campaign, I have reluctantly concluded that I was wrong.

First, it’s hardly groundbreaking news that there are, on occasion, angry liberals who share their thoughts in print.

Second, it’s hard to argue with a straight face that someone that no one’s ever heard of who left a comment on a Kos thread is the moral and political equivalent of Coulter or Limbaugh.

Third, Davis blasts “liberal bloggers” — but doesn’t actually mention any.

And fourth, if someone who purports to be a liberal Democrat wants to have an impact on the progressive discourse, turning to the Wall Street Journal editorial page to equate the left with Joe McCarthy probably isn’t the most effective strategy. Just a thought.

It’s called reaching for straws…

  • “What drives so many Democrats crazy about Lieberman is not simply his support for the Iraq War, it’s that he’s unashamedly pro-American.” – William Kristol

    Do you get that Lanny? According to Joe’s NeoCon buddies, everybody who disagrees with Lieberman is anti-American.

    We are sick and tired of being called anti-American because we want to protect our troops, save our military from destruction, and retrieve America’s reputation from the spitoon YOU’VE thrown it in, Billy.

    I am sick of being attacked by these incompetent thugs and I am sick of Lieberman’s providing cover for them and his disdain and hatred of anyone who won’t blindly back Boy George II just like he does.

    And Lamont is not lying about you two being best buds either, Joe.

    Joe – Lieberman – Had – Better – Lose – This – Damn – Primary!

  • WTF? Yesterday we were “Stalinists” in the WSJ pages, now we’re McCarthy?

    The rats and leeches are certainly showing their true colors.

  • The Lieberman camp and apologists just can’t, or won’t, accept the fact that the distaste for Joe isn’t just about his Iraq war stance. (See the New York Times mystified article about why Hillary has escaped blame for supporting Iraq). They can’t grasp the fact that Bush is so hated, his policies so disastrous and destructive of our country, that we despise Joe, not for his views on Iraq per se, but for his kiss ass relationship with Bush, his Fox News embrace of “bi-partisanship”, his parroting and legitimizing of Bush’s dissent is treason policy. Joe is the smirking, self-satisfied face of Bush in Dems clothing.

  • “[W]e despise Joe, not for his views on Iraq per se, but for … his parroting and legitimizing of Bush’s dissent is treason policy.” – Frak

    Once again, Frak gets it exactly right.

  • Frak certainly hits the nail square on the head.

    As to all these otherwise-unemployable idiots, it’s always funny to watch a moron too stupid to know they’re a moron, act out their moron stupidity in public and then be shocked when they’re exposed as the moron they have been all along. Which explains idiots like Peretz and Davis and the rest of the fools.

  • All of this wailing about how the left is treating poor Joe is nothing more than the right trying to deflect the movement to effective tactics. God forbid that the dems should ever start to get a message and stay on it. And the left based crying seems to be some reaction to the departure of smiley/happy, touchy/feely politics that are not effective against blood thirsty rethuglicans.

  • I’m so happy to hear that Ann-the-Man Countlergeist, druggie Limbaugh, Bill O’really and all the rest are concerned for the well-being of the Democratic Party.

  • Fledermaus,

    that means tomorrow we’ll either be anti-Semitic Inquisitionists, or Maoist Nazis.

  • Ed,

    Ann-the-Man Countlergeist, druggie Limbaugh, Bill O’really

    I believe you mean “Bill Loofah O’really”

  • 2Manchu,

    I suspect that somewhere we have already been called anti-Semitic for opposing Lieberman. It’s just been drowned out by all the charges of Anti-Semitism’ being leveled against anyone who wonders what the f**k the Isrealis think they are accomplishing by killing so many Lebanese civilians.

  • Will the Washington set ever realize that people are really getting pissed out here? That seeing the names of the soldiers killed in Iraq each day is setting off emotions just as deep as we experienced on 9/11? That we are not jaded but are outraged by a system that would enable Bush to be president and to bring us a war based on a gross and deliberate misreading of intelligence and an insane over reaction to the terrorist threat.

  • I wonder if anyone will ever express these thoughts.

    “We are fighting Terrorism in Iraq at a cost of $300 billion and climbing,

    so we don’t have to fight it in America where it might only cost $30 billion.”

    opps, just did 😉

  • Ugh. I’m so sick of this meme already– we liberals cannot be weak and feckless AND mean, all-powerful and capable of railroading a senatorial campaign.

    Pick one, please.

    Joe has had this coming for a LONG TIME. It is related to his Iraq stance and so much more. I don’t know anyone who didn’t slap their hand to their forehead when Gore announced Lieberman was his running mate. He’s a santimonous prick who has only gotten far, far worse over the past 6+ years.

    The Lieberman-Lamont race is not about kicking out a disobedient moderate, “liberal McCarthyism” or “liberal thought police,” it’s about the fact that Lieberman IS more of a Republican than he is a Dem, he has more in common with them, and they LOVE him because he happily carries their water for them. IF the party is going to stand for something, is going to approach something cohesive, kicking out Lieberman is a good place to start.

    By the way, when are people going to stop treating opposition to the war as some lefty cause? 81% of Dems oppose it, over half the general population opposes it. So Lieberman’s support for Bush and his war is totally out of step with the vast majority of the party and most of the fucking country.

    But it’s all the liberals fault, right? The only thing that bugs me more right now is if Lieberman loses he’s going to pretend that liberals assasinated him instead of facing facts that HE’S NOT POPULAR.

    (ahem)

  • G2000, comment #1 FTW!

    Rove, er, ahem, I mean Joe is pulling out ever tactic in the book, even now claiming that Lamont must denounce a suspected DOS attack on http://www.joe2006.com.

    I wonder what the real reason why Joe’s site is down. I’d bet someone forgot to send the bill in.

    How low can you go, Joe?

  • “Lance, don’t forget the whole Mel Gibson issue.” – 2Manchu

    Actually, as someone who found his whole ‘blood guilt’ ‘passion of the christ’ snuff film little more than an anti-semitic screed, I would very much like to forget Mr. Gibson and all related issues. That the drunken fool should claim that Isreal is ‘behind all the world’s wars’ surprises me not.

  • I would love to see one of these techies make a YouTube video for after the race of all the wing nuts endorsing Joe.

    Something for the November election, “Even Rush/Sean/Ann/Bills love the Democratic Party.

    Man would that throw them into an absolute rage.

  • What, exactly, is “liberal McCarthyism”? Generous McCarthyism? Progressive McCarthyism? Tail Gunner Joe’s whole shtick revolved around sniffing out all the commie traitors in government. If memory serves, he didn’t actually find any. Is Davis suggesting Lamont supporters are calling NoMoJoe un-American as McCarthy did to the witnesses in his kangaroo court? Or is it just a case of Davis, a DLC hack, smearing the good people of CT who have the temerity to choose who they want to represent *their* interests in DC rather than the lobbyists that Loserman and Davis prefer to represent?

  • Comments are closed.