« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

Can We Talk of Liberal Hypocrisy?

Two examples that reveals the unprincipled left for what it is.

It is often useful to review the past to see how it affects the present and with the rise of The One, we can see revealed the basic hypocrisy of the left that is so blatant as to be nearly unbelievable. Well, unbelievable if anyone were to mistakenly imagine that liberals and leftists actually have any principles, that is. The hypocritical shift that attitudes on the left took between George W. Bush’s days in office and that of Barack “I won” Obama is stark, but revealing.

Let us start with the left’s unhinged reaction to the Tea Party movement.

Unprincipled showmen like Keith Olbermann and Rachel Maddow pretended not to understand the protests and immediately turned any actual discussion of policy differences into some lowborn sex joke. Some Obama administration officials even began to call the protesters “dangerous” and unpatriotic. These unprincipled lefties were aghast at anyone that would have the temerity to protest “the government” and “our president.”

But let us go back only a matter of months, before the 2008 elections. Then the left was saying that it was “patriotic” to “question government.” Then protests were deemed a must, something that made participants a quintessential American citizen that “cared” enough to protest.

There was more hypocrisy with left-wing critics after the Tea Party protests were held. Contrary to the lies the left tried to foster, the Tea Party protests were not created at a “corporate” level as the left’s protests always are. By corporate, I mean that the left’s protests are created, funded, and organized by professional protester organizations funded by the deep pockets of folks like George Soros. Further, enemy states have helped fund and organize leftist protests in the USA since the 1960s. Communist party agencies have throughout the modern era infiltrated and funded leftist protest in America and still do today. Left-wing protests are the farthest things from the “grass-roots” as one can imagine.

Additionally, leftist protests also represent a wide range of extremist issues. From the unhinged antics of Code Pink, to your average commies, to those hate-filled anti-Semites and pro-Palestinian terror groups, to anti-WTO, anti-nuke and anti-war groups, leftist protests are never organized for a single reason or to represent a single “group.” When one attends a left-wing protest, any manner of leftist signs and causes can be seen.

After the first wide spread Tea Party protests, though, the left ginned up its response. And what was the left’s criticism? Why, those Tea Party protests weren’t really of just one issue, the left scoffed. Left-wing criticism holds that the Tea Party protests are illegitimate because they weren’t about only one issue all the while they’ve never once had a protest that was about one issue. The hypocrisy is that the left wants to hold the Tea Party to a standard they’ve never once met themselves.

Then the left tried to lie and clam that the Tea Party movement was somehow orchestrated behind the scenes by Fox News, or other conservative think tank groups, or some such nonsense. But, why should this bother them? They should know about secret, behind the scenes groups organizing protests. After all, their protests are organized behind the scenes by professional protest organizations and foreign enemy states. So, these unprincipled leftists are criticizing the Tea Party movements for doing the very things they themselves do with their own left-wing protests like those carried on during George W. Bush’s term in office.

So, what happened between then and now?

“I won.”

In another round of hypocritical left-wing reactions, we find that the left’s main criticism of the right with the Arlen Specter party switch is that conservatives are driving moderates out of the party and this, therefore, makes the GOP “filled with extremists.”

Of course, the fact that Arlen Specter has never been a reliable GOP vote since the day he switched from the Democratic Party to the GOP in order to win election back in the 1960s is never brought up by the left-wingers. Specter has been a thorn in the side of the GOP since the beginning and has as often as not stood against the Party line as voted for it.

But, even if that wasn’t the case, even if Specter had only been against the GOP Party line on but a small number of issues, there is quite a bit of hypocrisy in the left’s reaction to Benedict Arlen’s switch. You see, the left-wing had worked itself into a lather to excommunicate one of its own only as far back as 2006. Extremist left-wing groups like the Daily Kos even fielded a candidate to destroy Connecticut’s Senator Joe Lieberman, a man that was the vice presidential candidate for their own party only four years previous. And it wasn’t just the extreme end of the party that launched this war against Joe because the Democratic Party establishment joined the far left in its quest.

And why were they trying to kill Joe Leiberman’s Senate career? Was Lieberman voting against the party line on every other issue as Arlen Specter did the GOPs? Was he even unreliable on a handful of issues? No, Joe Lieberman was targeted for destruction by the Democratic Party over one issue: the war in Iraq.

Now, with Specter’s departure from the GOP, the left’s criticism is that the GOP can’t stand what is supposed to be “principled” differences on a small variety of issues. The left scoffs that the right has no tolerance for dissent. Yet, they themselves tried to destroy a man’s political career over disagreement over a single issue.

So, what happened between then and now?

“I won.”

What we see here is a stark reminder that the left has no principles at all. When they are out of power they will employ any and all arguments that they think will convince the nation to their side. But when in power they will turn those same arguments on their head and use them as a weapon against their opponents. There is no consistency, no logic and no common sense to their attacks. It is all emotion based. And they are all lies.

So, what happened between then and now?

“I won.”

COMMENTS

  • Karina

    but hundreds of thousands protesting are right wing extremists and should be muzzled.

    My dad is a flaming lib (we rarely talk religion or politics otherwise we’d never talk) and he sees it the same way. He does like Glenn Beck surprisingly enough but won’t watch his show. I’ve bought him tickets to Glenns live shows. They’re so hard to just have a conversation with!

  • spinoneone

    The left isn’t out to simply destroy the tea party movement. It is seeking to destroy civil society, that is, society governed by the rule of law where the law applies to all members of society. Today’s left is seeking to impose on us a “soft tyranny” where in no one may speak against The One nor any aspect of the left’s program. That will morph, over time, into the hard tyranny of an oligarchy. The left’s plebes have no clue as to what is going on, but they feel good about what their side is doing today. Since the left’s goal is control of society, and since their plebes don’t want to have to think too much nor work too hard to have all of their needs met or guaranteed by the state, that’s just fine. Organize against this or we will be buried.

  • rogan

    Your article is important and it is crucial for our side to catalog the hypocrisy of the Left. However, while the charge of hypocrisy is accurate, it is not the whole story.

    Leftists see no contradiction in opposing protests against a Democratic administration after years of championing protests against a Republican administration because their purpose is the same – to destroy and silence Republicans. They are, therefore, being consistent. The free speech issue is always just a cover and they do not believe in it at all. The leaders of the Left know full well that they are against free speech on principle, but will use the issue to attack those who champion free speech.

    This is what must be clearly faced by all of us that are trying to defend individual rights against the relentless assaults of collectivists – they believe that they are morally justifed to lie, cheat and use any other tactic to achieve their goals because they are working for a greater good. They truely believe that the ends justify the means.

    In the eyes of committed Leftists, there is no hypocrisy in holding contradictory positions on a given issue, because the stance is always a ruse to achieve the real goal – the end of Capitalism and of individualism. The Left will use any issue or charge it can level to attack the Republican Party and anyone who stands against collectivism.

    Educated by their Leftist professors to believe that there are no true principles (except that Capitalism and individualism are evil), that dialectic “thinking” necessitates contradictions, and that words have no objective meaning (semiotics). Once they have been “educated” to reject reason and to abhor Capitalism in this way, they are quite comfortable with using any side of any issue so long as it furthers their real goals. For example, they ferociously attack Christianity as an oppressive superstition, while at the same time pushing for accomodation with Islam – a religion that shows no tolerance for anything the Left pretends to care about such as gay rights, women’s rights, etc.

    So, while we must note their hypocrisy, we must also understand that they do not care and that pointing it out to hard core Leftists will achieve nothing. They understand full well that issues are simply tools to use to reach an end that they dare not nameopenly to the general public…… yet.

    • http://hillbillypolitics.com Steph C

      I think we can all agree that pointing out the left’s hypocrisy to them does no good. I don’t think WTH is pointing out the differences to shame the left. He and we know that’s impossible. You have to have some principles to feel shame and they have none.

      But there’s a whole bunch of other people out there sitting on the fence. It is to these we need to direct our attention. If we don’t speak up about these things, then the only ones speaking are the left.

      • http://www.publiusforum.com Warner Todd Huston

        You are both right!

        • http://hillbillypolitics.com Steph C

          :-)

          I was just summarizing and reinforcing what he said.

      • LibRick

        are left leaning. You say “you have to have some principles to feel shame and they have none.” Painting the opposition with such a broad rhetorical brush may help in “getting things of one’s chest” but does little to tilt that fence rightward and may end as a self-canceling exercise.

        That said, I do understand the valid point you are making about speaking out on hypocrisy. Just know, many of us on the left have a moral compass that points as true as yours…the difference is in the chosen process and procedure to achieve that end and not in judgment of the inherent goodness or badness of a person based on political affiliation.

        • http://andrightlyso.com/ civil_truth

          I don’t want to presume your view on the “social conservative” hot button issues, but the prevalent complaint I hear from the left is that social conservatives want to use government to interfere with individual choices on personal lifestyle issues (as in the phrase “keep government out of the bedroom).

          I think you have been able to tell that much of this is a “bad rap” on conservatives and that there is a lot more nuance and complexity to conservative views and that conservatives for the most part are not a bunch of control freaks. But my intent here is not to initiate a debate over “social conservative” issues.

          Rather, I would just note from the first paragraph that the left is claiming that they stand for individual freedom and government out of people’s lives – and they accuse (rightly or wrongly) that conservatives are on the side of government power.

          Here is my question. If we put aside the “social conservative” issue aside and look at the rest of the issues that affect our daily lives – work, taxes, government services, health care, transportation, education, etc., that in talking about ordinary people, not our politicians in Washington -is it not the case that it is the conservatives who strongly argue for less government involvement and more for people to take charge of their own lives, and that it is the left who want the government to take a bigger role in controlling these areas of their lives.

          In fact, even for most lifestyle issues – the food we eat, the cars we drive, the clothes we wear, the energy we use, the soap we use, etc. – I look at these, it is the left that wants to regulate and restrict and control, not the right.

          Thus, in the terms of the issues, if people really want government out of people lives, why do they look to the left, not the right, to protect their freedom.

          Are abortion and gay rights really the only things that matter to people – are we talking about a Faustian bargain that if the left will ensure that the government doesn’t interfer with those two areas of life, people are willing to give consent to the left’s program for the government to increasingly control everything else in our lives and the institutions that form the structure of our society?

          Or is it that the demonizing over abortion and gay rights really just a tactic – and that really supporters of the left really do want government to impose the things they want and value – even when that means taking money and restricting the freedom of others (or perhaps especially when someone else has to pick up the tab) – and then will mount up on their soap box when the worm turns.

          So in brief, why is it that you look to the left (and the Democratic Party) to protect your liberal values? Or are you questioning that assumption, which is why you are engaging with us here at RedState.

          And if you are questioning, I hope that you are finding that what we’re saying is not what you’ve been hearing through the media filters and erroneous conventional wisdom.

          • Mike gamecock DeVine

            are content to have people in their states decide and mainly oppose judicial and/or federal govt impositions.

          • LibRick

            but please keep in mind it’s an honest extemporaneous answer to your question. So here goes:

            Wouldn’t putting aside the “social conservative” issue remove one leg of the Republican party stool? I’d prefer not to exclude 1/3rd of the loaf. My social views are colored by my faith and I identify with those that think like me but I don’t think government. is the vehicle to enforce my views. I answer to my family and my faith on that front but it does influence my world view.

            But let’s put it aside for now and focus on why I “look to the left (and the Democratic Party) to protect” my liberal values.

            You mentioned work, taxes, government services, health care, transportation, and education. Each, a big topic. I’ll try to be brief.

            On Work: Our country needs a strong middle class. The middle class brings stability to a society. America has done well in the past but with the “world economy” we now face, the playing field is not flat. The democrats are at least giving lip service to this. The republicans seem less successful in the mainstream on this front.

            On government services: We need the government involved in infrastructure, CDC, libraries, public places, military, veterans support, law and order and protection of the weakest among us. The government is the people. If the government seems intrusive today, and it is, it merely reflects the unwillingness of the people to take personal responsibility. The democrats seem to have figured that out and don’t have a problem legislating to the lowest common denominator to maintain order. (this is an area that I really dislike the democrats on) Republicans push for personal responsibility but don’t articulate a plan B.

            On Health care: My hope is that someday, our children, elderly and those who are infirm will never have to worry about being cared for or receiving proper treatment. I think America is great enough to make this happen. The democrats push this ideal as a major issue. The republicans do not yet speak in one voice on this matter.

            On Transportation: Infrastructure is important to interstate commerce. Again, the democrats at least talk about the issue, even if much of it is pie-in-the-sky.There’s not much in the mainstream from the republicans on this issue that I’ve heard.

            On Education: Democrats speak about tuition assistance and more money for schools etc. Republicans seem to be against tax funding for public schools but are for tax paid vouchers. I find that a bit dissonant.

            On Taxes: The democrats are for taxes to fund everything. They are pretty clear that in order to achieve their agenda, there is no upper limit on taxes. Scary, but honest. Republicans keep talking about tax cuts as a solution but I’ve never heard what the bottom level on taxation is. Is it 0 taxes? I doubt our government could function with that rate. I liked the idea of the fair tax because it put a hard number to taxation. But again, the republicans didn’t push for this.

            I suspect everyone on this site has issue with most of what I said but please keep in mind the question was about why I look to the left.

            And to answer your last question: I engage at Redstate because the level of writing and commentary is far above any blog I’ve yet seen, Right or Left. I learn a lot about the real conservative perspective without filters here and I try to let you all know what an non-kos liberal thinks.

          • http://impudent.blognation.us/blog kyle8

            the current economics being used by the administration will destroy the middle class. Anyone who was around during the 1970′s and is honest will tell you this.

            On infrastructure, Republicans talked endlessly about that during the elections. Under the Democrats you can bet that a lot of money will be spent, and not much will get done. (after all the payoffs to local crooks and the unions)

            On taxes, There is a rate of equilibrium on the Laffer curve that gets you the maximum amount of tax revenues, No one knows just where that is but I suspect it is at around 30% overall rate of taxation based on international observations. We are waaaay above that.

            On education, No living or dead democrat politician ever gave a flying “F” about real education. What they care about is indoctrination, political correctness, and giving more jobs to their most compliant servant constituency, the teachers unions.

            On health care, you think it sucks now? Just wait till there is only one place you can go to get it.

            Republicans are not great, they are sometimes very stupid. But you will have NONE of your needs met by the Democrats, they will screw you over every time.

          • LibRick

            are well taken and well founded. I said there were holes in my post and you easily found a few of them. If you look closer I’m sure you would find many more. This is not to say that I recant my statements but more to ask your indulgence on a quickly crafted brief response to the enormous question Civil Truth asked me. Each issue can be discussed and argued in volumes.

            Hopefully, you all will let me stay here awhile longer so I can articulate a more detailed view on each of these topics –.just one at a time …. please.

          • http://impudent.blognation.us/blog kyle8

            It certainly is nice to actually be able to have a discussion with someone on the left without the usual name calling.

            I think that you will find that many here are like me, we are not so much Republicans, we are conservatives, or libertarians, or some sort of right winger, but most of us realize that the Republican party is a very poor conveyor of our desires.

            our main contention is that the problems of the party are not too much conservatism, but rather a lack of adherence to our conservative principles.

          • http://andrightlyso.com/ civil_truth

            I appreciate your giving a straight answer, and I think that I or others more expert on some of these issues could at least clear up your misunderstandings of what conservatives would say about these issues.

            However, what I was asking about what a more political philosophy question, addressing underlying priniciples behind your policy positions. Instead, you listed you opinions.

            Which illustrates something (which I call a meta-issue) that often happens in discussions here at RedState or elsewhere between conservatives and many on the left: the right wants to present an underlying set of principles from which it then can analyze issues and come up with positions/solutions. The left is concerned about feelings and intentions and getting desired results, and doesn’t care to analyze the means to get there. The right tends to be more objective and external; the left tends ot be more subjective and focused more on their internal state. The left views the right as callous and heartless; the right views the left as irrational and expedient. It’s two ships crossing in the night.

            I’m generalizing, of course, and I’m not necessarily putting you into this framework, as I think you may have missed the thrust of my question, as indicated by your 2nd paragraph (about social conservative issues). That is, you’ve have been willing and able to engaged in reasoned discussion wiht conservatives here rather than retreating into ruts of feelings and emotion. So I’ll try again.

            You see, I wasn’t asking for your positions on various issues. And in particular I didn’t want to start a discussion on this thread about the merits of social conservative views. There are plenty of other posts for that discussion. I was trying to explore more what are your guiding values and principles that draw you to the left (or modern political liberalism).

            Rather I was asking more to explore what I see as a basic disconnect in logic or consistecy. In particular, if the left is so exercised about the social conservative views (where the controversy really boils down to abortion and gay rights) on the grounds that they government to keep out of people personal lives, why is this preference limited almost exclusively to those issues?

            I listed a multitude of other issues – both societal and individual lifestyle – where I see the left as wanting the government to take charge and control behavior (including the coercion of redistributing wealth and capital).

            That is on almost every issue except the handful of hot button social conservative position (and even there, it’s really not the case that all conservatives want government action) – it is the conservatives who want government out of people’s lives.

            Thus I see an inconsistency here, which leads me to ask whether those who identify with the left don’t care about the government intrusion except for the hot button issues, which means the inconsistency arise from those being intensely emotional issues?

            Or are they taking an expedient results-oriented view and adjust their opinion of government based on what they think the outcome will be – i.e. yes to government when government will do what they think they want and no to government when they don’t like the actions they think it will.?That is, results first, and then tailor the reasons to justify the desired results.

            This is what I see a lot with Democratic leaders and advocates – this post-modern attitude that values and words have value only in so far as invoking them advance their goals, and that their meaning can be changed because their worth is only in so far as these words can be used to persuade

            Or is it that they just can’t see any consistency because all that matters is good intentions and feeling good about themselves.

            So care to have another crack…

          • LibRick

            You stated that ?on almost every issue except the handful of hot button social conservative position (and even there, it?s really not the case that all conservatives want government action) – it is the conservatives who want government out of people?s lives.?

            You posit that conservatives want the government out of people?s lives but you exempt some social issues. Aren?t you adjusting the equation to fit a predetermined outcome for the sake of expedience?

            As I stated before, I don?t think you can put aside the social issues. Social conservatives are not outliers that can be standard deviated out. If part of being leftist is as you put ?results first, and then tailor the reasons to justify the desired results?, I?m not clear on why you would want to tack in this direction to arrive at your premise. It seems a bit sophistic in the modern sense of the word.

            I?ll take it that you are honestly trying to reduce the terms in order to get to a core philosophy. You did mention wanting to explore ?a basic disconnect in logic or consistency? among the left regarding these social issues. Respectfully, I can?t speak to that based on the terms of this discussion. So here?s my liberal leftist philosophy in broad generalizations on the role and size of government.

            Government is necessary for an ordered society. It is the fence that makes for good neighbors. It constrains the excesses of some and mitigates the weaknesses of others. By its very nature, government, at any given time, will be intruding on the lives of somebody. The left tends to accept this as a foundational premise upon which their views are constructed.

            In order for government to function taxes are levied. Though there is debate on ?how much? is enough, I think the philosophical difference between the right and the left lies more in the ?what for? aspect. Beyond the necessary spending for infrastructure, defense, etc., the left believes the government should act as a safety net (social security, health care, education, etc.) for the weakest among us and are willing to accept the cost burden associated with that net. The underlying principle here is that a group is morally obligated to take care of its weakest members — If not the family, then the local community; if not the local community then the county; if not the county; then the state; if not the state then the federal government.

            ?Let them eat cake? is not a philosophical option among the left. From a pragmatic perspective, the left believes the safety net helps maintain social stability. It keeps the masses from storming the doors to our homes and helps to raise all boats.

            In practice, this philosophy has not always yielded positive results but we?re discussing the philosophy and not positions on individual issues. I hope I came a bit closer to the mark this go round and forgive me if I was again off base. Your questions are quite heady and I?m likely not up to the task of doing them justice. I do however, appreciate the dialog with you.

          • http://andrightlyso.com/ civil_truth

            …because I’m running out of time.

            My putting aside the social conservative issue was arguendo – that is, I was assuming the left critique was accurage for the sake of advancing my main argument.

            But in fact, which I’d do at a later time, I would argue that pro-life and conditional opposition to gay marriage are positions that can be consistent with limted government. So I don’t truly concede that social conservatism is necessarily inconsistently contrary to limited government.

            As for your main point:

            1) Conservativism do not argue “let them eat cake”. Conservatism agrees with responsibility to our fellow man – it’s that we rely primarily on private volunatary community action rather than coercion by government,

            There is a fair bit of recent evidence that private initiative works better, which means that your pragmatic rationale for government action as proplylaxis against the howling mobs is questionable. (More often it is government actors that incite the howling mobs against an unpopular minority or scapegoat group.)

            2) My understanding of the left is that their usual justifications for government interaction are based upon enforcement of positive rights rather than pragmatism. Instead, I think that conservatives are more likely to take a pragmatic approach in acceding to certain government interventions.

            I’ve got to go now. Bye – and thank for the conversation. It helps me focus my thoughts too.

          • LibRick

            I appreciate that you employ logical argument. Pretty rare these days. But to reiterate, I was describing the left philosophy in this academic exercise, in isolation from any external factors. Have a great weekend!

          • Mike gamecock DeVine

            that there is a myth that repubs don’t care as much for the poor, lower income and elderly because they don’t want new entitlements. But the fact is that we don not want to eviscerate the existing safety net for the truly needy as Reagan dubbed it and that our policies reduce the number of poor and lower income.

            The dems continue to favor race based policies and proven failed welfare policies that create victim dependents.

            more later

        • http://impudent.blognation.us/blog kyle8

          this statement: “Just know, many of us on the left have a moral compass that points as true as yours?the difference is in the chosen process and procedure to achieve that end and not in judgment of the inherent goodness or badness of a person based on political affiliation.”

          Is utterly in opposition to my personal and extensive experience with the left. I think you are living in denial.

          • Mike gamecock DeVine

            isn’t their preferred process for judges to impose what they think is best so long as its what they prefer but can’t get enacted via the democratic process?

          • LibRick

            eat my intellectual lunch with both halves of your brain tied behind your back but I’ll give it a go.

            First I said “chosen process and procedure.” not preferred. Some choose to express political views through the Republican party. The party represents the “process.” The specific actions taken to achieve the agenda is the “procedure.” Works the same with democrats.

            I chose not to mention judges nor the “preferred process for judges.”

          • Mike gamecock DeVine

            going to show you the highest respect and post a detailed reply this evening.

            And I appreciate your clarification re process and procedure.

            I would say up front now so I won’t have to bore regulars later, that I am a former dem party activist and official in SC of 18 years before my conservative epiphany in 2000 primarily because I saw that conservative policies help the poor and middle class more.

            more later

            ps I live for discussions with thoughtful libs like you.

            God bless

          • Mike gamecock DeVine

            Liberals have, until recently chosen to impose their views via unelected judges and bureaucrats as they can’t win majorities when they are honest about their views.

          • LibRick

            regarding the terms process and procedure as applied to the politics but in my field of aerospace if we viewed process and procedure as synonymous, we would never get a bird off the ground.

          • Mike gamecock DeVine

            No, but seriously, substance in the law/politics are the actual provisions of the law one is trying to get enacted or that one is enforcing/implementing and in politics, the parties are basically defined by their substantive differences on desired policies.

          • LibRick

            not engage a lawyer on definitions as they relate to law/politics. To quote C. Eastwood, “A man’s got to know his limitations.”

            But maybe by my definition the conservative grassroots might achieve orbital velocity. They could claim the greening of space!

          • Mike gamecock DeVine
          • http://hillbillypolitics.com Steph C

            Or Bingo!

            This was so far back in the comments section of my profile that I almost didn’t see all the reply threads.

            I can’t see a moral compass in what they do. I hear them talk a lot about values and moral guidance but their actions give the lie to the words.

  • rogan

    Steph,

    I agree with you completely. It is, indeed, crucial to continue to point out and decry the hypocrisy of the Left in the hope of creating doubt in the minds of anyone who might be open to reason.

    I simply think it is also important for all of us to be aware of the fact that this hypocrisy is not an accident, nor is it thoughtless, at least in the case of the leaders and intellectuals that guide the movement.

    Probably everyone here understands that well, but I thought it worth stating.

    • http://hillbillypolitics.com Steph C

      I was agreeing with you. Just in a much shorter version.

      :-)

  • whitman

    The Left sees no hypocracy in its own positions because for them consistency is whatever enables the people they favor to win. They will yell about Hugo Chavez being “democratically elected” but oppose free union elections in the US because unions lose them. They think we are ideological because we try to be intellectually consistent. They assume our principles are just a cover for us to oppose the people they support – because that’s the way they think.

    This is right from the Marxist-Lenninist playbook so we should not be surprised.

  • MacAoidh

    There is nothing liberal about their policies. They are statists, collectivists and authoritarians, and they respect individual liberty not one bit.

    If anybody satisfies the true definition of a liberal, it is US. We should take back the language starting with ourselves.

    • whitman

      You are exactly right. The Left has stolen the language of freedom. We are the classic liberals.

  • daveleroy

    Much agreement on this one. Note the MSNBC coverage on tea parties which was nothing more than sexual innuendo worthy of immature frat humor. Conversely, there was little coverage of May Day protests in USA and the violent, left leaning protests in Europe erupted in violence in France, Germany, and Greece. In the US, May Day protesters threw rocks through the bank windows on their march. Tea party protesters threw tea in Boston harbor. You pretty much have to go to the local newspapers to find out about the rock throwing in Olympia, Washington. Absolutely right about left wing protests these days which are a hodgepodge of various interests. Most of May Day protests were about immigration reform (don’t they do this yearly?), environmentalism (save it for earth day), anti-capitalism rantings, etc. At least they combine all their looney causes in one protest and get it all over with in one shot. Unfortunately, they protest practically every month. The rhetoric against tea parties illustrate a certain fear on part of left. There are more pissed off tax payers than there are illegal immigrants or environmentalists or anything else the left is about.

  • mikefisk

    …as much as they’d like to say it’s our problem, we know the truth.

    The modern Left is showing itself to be manifestly racist.

    Although they kinda poo-poohed it, they really didn’t go after criticism of Clinton all that much.

    They were all too eager to deify criticism of Bush.

    All of a sudden, Obama gets elected, and anyone with the temerity to question the intentions of The One’s regime get castigated?

    How about we ask that question to our leftist friends? How come it’s okay to disagree with a white man, but not a black man? And, if they try to justify it, doesn’t that make it racist?

  • clement

    2 years prior to 2006 would be 2004. The Kerry/Edwards campaign against Bush.

    • http://www.publiusforum.com Warner Todd Huston

      I was talking about his Senate run, not his run as VP. The left tried to destroy his career in 2006 when the party ran Ned Lamont against him forcing Joe to run as an Independent. But, yeah, I should have said 2000.

      Thanks I will fix it.

  • extirpates

    Liberalhypocracy should be one word rather than two.

    Politicial Hypocracy is a term that can be applied either way, it is merely a random guess that it will be used on the liberal side 95% of the time.

    For Example at Nazi Pillowseat’s weekly propaganda session.