Warning: Liberal Content. On Patriotism and Democrats
By pgaige Comments (52) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
A brief introduction; I'm an unabashed liberal and democrat. I read hear on RedState for several reasons. The first is that I find the depth (and usually the quality) of the debate to be extremely high. Responses are usually well thought out and backed up with links or other supporting information. Second, exposure to conflicting viewpoints can never be a bad thing; that’s why we have the 1st Amendment. Finally, keep your friends close and your enemies closer and all that (not that I consider the right an enemy, per se…just misguided ;-). Mostly I lurk and read, occasionally I'll post a thought or two. Never did I ever expect to post a blog. Unfortunately, I have a compelling urge to address a current point.
There's been quite a bit of spirited debate on several recommended blog posts the past few days about patriotism and disloyalty, specifically with regards to a Fox News Poll Question (which may or may not have been ambiguous, depending on who you ask). Regardless of the impetus, the general consensus of much of the community seems to center around the accusation that many Democrats, both in office and not, are unpatriotic. A few posters have specifically called such people traitors, among other names. These types of comments truly disgust me on several levels.
The first is that I believe their untrue; furthermore, I believe that anyone who truly looks at the situation rationally knows they're untrue. A liberal counterpoint is thus: I disagree with George W. Bush on many, many issues. A pertinent example here is the conduct with regards to domestic intelligence and security. I disagree with this administration's policies on domestic wiretapping, several provisions of the Patriot Act, and the detention of persons without charging them with a crime under the argument that they are enemy combatants. Disagree is an understatement. I believe these actions are in violation of the U.S. Constitution, the supreme law of the land, and general standards of privacy and human decency. Without belaboring the point, I think George Bush disgraces America and what I believe America should stand for with his approach on these issues.
I furthermore detest the way in which the President and his administration has carried out these policies. I believe that he has shown blatant disregard for the separation of powers, United States law, and the will of the people. I think this also harms America and its citizens. The key difference, however, and the main point I'd like to make is thus: As much as I disagree with the President's policies, as much as I believe they hurt America, I think he has good intentions. I truly believe that any harm that I see from these policies is not the intention of the President, but solely the result of a different policy choice. Plainly, I cannot and would not question the President's, or almost any other public servant's patriotism. 99.9% of these people are only trying to do what they believe is best for America. Most of them, the President especially, believe so strongly that their ideas and policies are best for America, that they do everything they can (circumventing or stretching laws, and expanding their own power) to implement these ideas. The ideas may be wrong…the methods may be wrong, but their intentions are to improve this country.
The problem I have then is with all of these comments about how unpatriotic and American-hating Democrats are. It's fine and good to disagree with a person's ideas. It's even more important to have checks on the methods in which these ideas are implemented. But when you start questioning a group's patriotism, the conclusion is that ANY idea or solution that the group may offer is prima facie a bad idea, because "they hate America." This sentiment, I believe, is completely untrue, and furthermore is a dangerous one to believe. It rejects ideas based on who they originate with, rather than their substance. It lowers the level of debate, and does nothing except to increase political tensions and confrontations that currently plague Washington today.
In summation, by all means, question our policies. Question our methods. But don't question the patriotism of democrats. We love this great country, and we want only the best for its citizens, institutions, and future.
Respectfully,
Paul Gaige
"And by the Far Left, I am referring to those elements who are clearly unpatriotic, hoping for failure and/or revolution in our system, and in our military efforts abroad."
I would postulate that the people who clearly hope for a failure or revolution of our system (a) is not confined to those only on the left, but includes the radical fringe who do not fall in any particular place on the spectrum and (b) is repudiated by both parties. My problem is that too often posters here at RedState lump most democrats or liberals in with these anarchists and extremists.
"dKos, as an example, tolerates all that BushHitler, Hitlerburton type of wacko rant that is plainly unwelcome here. RedState clearly repudiates the Right's wacko fringe and does not create an environment for it to flourish."
My post is in response to the idea that on RedState, there is not enough done to repudiate extremist ideas. I've read posts suggesting that Damascus be bombed, preferrably with several democratic senators present. I'm more than willing to admit the left has its own fair share of people who demonize Bush or other right wing figures. I feel, however, that characterizing someone as unpatriotic is a particularly low blow (along the lines of the Hitler analogy), and that the demonization on both sides hurts the political debate. Read just about any post on RedState that mentions Ted Kennedy or Nancy Pelosi (usually with accompanying pictures making fun of her appearence).
As for the dKos analogy for how liberal blogs handle similiar problems on the left, I usually just skim the headlines on Kos, (because most of the comments are a single line), and therefore can't speak to their policies.
-Just a democrat trying to follow both sides of the debate
pgaige
That among Democrats as a group, you are not rare, I often have lively and fair discussions with Democrats. But here in the blogosphere, you are rare indeed. Most lefty's are contentious, ill mannered fools with BDS.
The few off the wall comments you have seen here on Redstate usually bring a quick reprimand from the mods, or others. Unless they are clearly tongue in cheek.
"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle
Lively discussions are great, as are tongue in cheek comments. My problem isn't with the general forum at all. I just feel that (a) this certainly isn't tongue in cheek, and (b) there have been large discussion threads dealing with the patriotism of democrates (and not just the fringe) and very few seem to think its a problem. I think its a charge that gets bandied about far too much, considering the seriousness of it.
-Just a democrat trying to follow both sides of the debate
pgaige
I would be loath to call anyone treasonous myself. But there are a few on the left I would be forced to say have acted that way, highest on my list would be Jimmy Carter. How can you go around for years making common cause with your nations enemies, and constantly bad mouthing your own country and not expect others to see you as a traitor?
"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle
posted by someone here at Redstate is comparable to five years of Senators and Congressmen, on the floor of the Senate or House or parading in front of TV cameras, asserting that Bush is "incompetent"; that US soldiers behave as if they were Nazis; that 'Saddam's prison at Abu Grahib has reopened under new, American, management'. Perhaps you can explain to me how that represents patriotism, love of country, or even responsible behavior on the part of the most senior representatives of the Democratic Party?
Sorry, I ain't buying it. Its one thing for a bunch of socialists or anarchists, throwbacks to the 1960s, and aging juvenile delinquents at dKos to toss rocks at this country --- they are all just common fools; it is quite another for the most senior members of the Democratic Party to do it.
John
----------
Why would God create something like whiskey? To keep the Irish from ruling the world of course.
You're setting up a false comparison. I never said that one was worse than the other, I said that neither constitutes unpatriotic behavior. Love of country, to me, includeds a desire to improve one's country. Sometimes, that means calling attention to a country's flaws (perceived or real) so that they may be addressed.
BTW-Love the quote-
Why would God create something like whiskey? To keep the Irish from ruling the world of course.
-Just a democrat trying to follow both sides of the debate
pgaige
but if yoiu want to shift to "improving the country" then perhaps you can explain how one can see the behavior of the most senior members of the Democratic Party, the mainstays of liberalism, as "improving one's country?"
I'll readily admit that it is often necessary to call attention to the flaws to address them, but there is a distinction in quality between 'calling attention to flaws' and damaging the country. As Justice Stewart said in describing pornography 'I don't know how to describe it but I know it when I see it' and sir the behavior of the left is far beyind 'calling attention to flaws'. Still not buying it.
John
----------
Why would God create something like whiskey? To keep the Irish from ruling the world of course.
I could make points about how many actions of senior democrats improve the country every day...unfortunately, you would disagree with nearly everyone one of my arguments ;-)
I veiw many (if not most) of Prsident Bush's policies as detrimental to the country. I think they hurt America. Yet, if I called him unpatriotic, you'd think I was an idiot (if you dont already). Damaging the country should not be the standard for patriotism, or the lack thereof.
-Just a democrat trying to follow both sides of the debate
pgaige
then I guess the whole idea of patriotism is just a conservative chimera. That idea seems to fit well with the liberal argument and action of the last 75 years.
John
----------
Why would God create something like whiskey? To keep the Irish from ruling the world of course.
"I could make points about how many actions of senior democrats improve the country every day"
If you really were trying to follow both sides of the debate, you would honestly want to hear the arguments of the conservative side about why the policies of the left do not improve American life, but rather impoverish it.
I don't think most people here think you are an idiot, you seem like someone who is just young and idealistic, as many of us here once were.
The Liberals have some accomplishments, They did manage to kill that woman in Florida, thats something. Lets see, they blocked much needed Social Security Reform, and tort reform. Oh Yea! and they are going to raise taxes and the minimum wage!
"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle
so eloquently....Damaging the country should not be the standard for patriotism, or the lack thereof.
"asserting that Bush is "incompetent"...that 'Saddam's prison at Abu Grahib has reopened under new, American, management'"
Both appear to be factually correct.
Mr. Bush has demonstrtated competence issues, and, as far as we can tell, the prison was reopened under American management...then closed, again under American management.
There have been dense people visiting RedState but you have got to be the closest to the density of lead of anyone who has ever left their mark on our carpets.
John
----------
Why would God create something like whiskey? To keep the Irish from ruling the world of course.
Your unwillingness to own up to dkos's bad behavior makes my point about liberals' failure to dissassociate with bad behavior on their side. Most see dkos and RedState as opposite sides of a coin. You would prefer to ignore them, preferring to come here, which you freely admit has a much higher level of debate & discourse, and lecture us about our corrosive behavior. What am I missing?
"I would postulate that the people who clearly hope for a failure or revolution of our system (a) is not confined to those only on the left, but includes the radical fringe who do not fall in any particular place on the spectrum and (b) is repudiated by both parties. My problem is that too often posters here at RedState lump most democrats or liberals in with these anarchists and extremists."
Who are the right-wingers who hope for failure or revolution? Tim McVeigh? Skinheads? David Duke? If you think these types are welcome here, you're mistaken.
"I've read posts suggesting that Damascus be bombed, preferrably with several democratic senators present."
I haven't. Right wing bomb-throwers are routinely shown the door.
"...the demonization on both sides hurts the political debate. Read just about any post on RedState that mentions Ted Kennedy or Nancy Pelosi (usually with accompanying pictures making fun of her appearence)."
Many on this site feel that these two (to name just two) lack judgment and pursue policies that are to the detriment of the country. Example: Kennedy's policy on Federal judges. Please cite something he has done to reach across the aisle.
As for Nancy's pictures, I've seen maybe three on RedState. Democrats made fun of a sitting vice-president for misspelling "potatoe". So what? Politics is hardball. Get used to it.
My point about Kos was that I don't know what their behavior consists of. There's no disassociation, just a point that this single issue is one that is pervasive on RedState, and I think its both untrue and exceptionally detrimental to political discourse.
"Many on this site feel that these two (to name just two) lack judgment and pursue policies that are to the detriment of the country. Example: Kennedy's policy on Federal judges. Please cite something he has done to reach across the aisle."
By this response, anyone who disagrees with your judgement, or whose policies you feel hurt the country would be unpatriotic. My argument is that a difference of opinion does not make one a traitor, even when they disagree with you 100% of the time.
Finally, Timothy McVeigh, David Duke, and their ilk do not in any way equate to Nancy Pelosi, Jimmy Carter, or even Michael Moore. I'm nearly certain you weren't trying to make that connection, but I figured it was important enough to mention.
Hardball politics is fine. The livelier the debate, the better informed everyone is. Calling someone a traitor based on their political views, however, is over the line.
-Just a democrat trying to follow both sides of the debate
pgaige
by all means, question our policies. Question our methods. But don't question the patriotism of democrats. We love this great country, and we want only the best for its citizens, institutions, and future."
That would be the citizens that are not inconvenient, such as the million aborted every year, the ones, that adulterous
husbands don't find inconvenient.
Don't call people who write to the Russians requesting their
aid in defeating Republican candidates unpatriotic.
"KGB Letter Details Ted Kennedy’s Offer To Help USSR
This letter which details Senator Edward Kennedy’s offer to help the Soviet Union defeat Reagan’s efforts to build up the nuclear deterrent in Europe was unearthed by a Times of London reporter in the 1990s after the KGB files were opened."
Don't question Sen Kerry. Don't ask him why he stood in front of the US Senate Committee on Foreign Relations on 22 Apr 1971, and stated that he had met with America's enemies (during the time we were at war with them) and had adopted and was promoting their positions. The democrats nominated this
person to be their presidental candidate in 2004, but don't question any one who voted for him. They're patriotic.
Don't question Sen Durbin, when he calls our military, worse than Nazis, Soviets or the Pol Pot.
Don't question Sen Rockefeller, when he flies to Syria, in Jan 2002 and tells them all of America's plans for the Mideast. Check Fox News Sunday 13 Nov 2005 with Chris Wallace for his admission.
Don't question Sen Nelson, Sen Dodds, and all the others who flew to Syria to offer their support to a member of the Axis of Evil.
There may well be some Democrat leaders, besides Sen Lieberman, who believe in America, but this article lists more than 30 Democrat leaders, who the writers claim will support them and Sen Lieberman is notable for not being on the list.
http://www.cpusa.org/article/articleview/769/1/135/
In fact, they spend a lot of words praising the American who's entire campaign message was support for the terrorists, who tried to defeat Sen Lieberman.
The ordinary person, who votes Democrat, may well believe in America, but it's the Party leaders who are showing who they really support, and they aren't showing they support Americans.
If the leaders of the Democrats believed in America, there would not be one single challenge to any law, requiring that
voters show proof of American citizenship before being allowed to vote. The democrat leaders fight every single law that requires identification to vote, for one reason, they know they would never get elected if only American citizens who are legally eligible could vote. Look at Washington State's governors election in 2004. Won by 129 votes, thousands of felon's voted, but don't question things like that. They're
patriotic.
It's a sad day for America, when one of the two major American
political parties, has only one American patriot in their leadership, and that party tries to unseat him.
All of these references, save the abortion one (which really has no place in this discussion) deal with actions of elected Democrats. Patriotism, however, is not solely actions, but mostly motivation. I would maintain that all of these actions (whether right or wrong), were taken because the people involved believed they were doing the best thing for AMERICA. They saw flaws, real or perceived, and they worked to fix them. Again, criticize their methods all you want; but to say their motivations are to hurt America is untrue.
-Just a democrat trying to follow both sides of the debate
pgaige
criticize their methods all you want; but to say their motivations are to hurt America is untrue.
It really is the motive that is important, not the results. As long as your heart is pure, the results are inconsequential. liberals WANT to eliminate poverty so their policies which have destroyed the family in the inner-cities, creating an under-class of citizens who can NEVER throw off the shackles of poverty, are unchallanged.
INTENT is so much more important than RESULT! The result, that our enemies such as al Qaeda and Ahmadinejad echo EXACTLY the same words as liberal Democrats in criticism of the President, are irrelevant, it is the INTENT that is important.
That their motivations are to hurt the PRESIDENT are unchallenged. The libs have attempted to undermine this President every day since Florida 2000. Selected-not-Elected™ is the mantra they have lived by for over 6 years.
That they MIGHT bring down the US in the process is irrelevent. Power is all that matters, and as long as THIS President is in power, they will attack him!
process = liberal
result = conservative
You’re a persistent cuss, pilgrim.
John Wayne to Jimmy Stewart in The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance
that when the result is not the one the liberal wants, the process must be repeated, but on a larger scale and with more resources.
The Academy: researching the Illiberal Arts
Conservatives love America as it was founded to be. Liberals love an idealized version of America our founders would be clutching their hearts over.
The reason liberals get labeled unpatriotic is not because they are thought not to love the piece of land on which they tread, but because they want to change the fundamental things about America that have made it so successful and powerful - qualities such as self-reliance, belief in God and the sanctity of life... when the Contstitution is referrred to as a "living document" to be ammended by fashion and deteriorating social mores, that is unpatriotic.
What happens if you disagree over "how America was founded to be." Self-Reliance. Absolutely. Believe in God? Debateable (See the thousands of cases on the Establishment Clause). Sanctity of Life? I don't remember that one in the constitution. The constitution, via the 5th amendment, allows the state to take life provided the due process of law is accorded.
A belief in a living constitution doctrine does not make one unpatriotic.
-Just a democrat trying to follow both sides of the debate
pgaige
Then you clearly have not read enough history of our founding fathers, or the debates surrounding the founding of our country.
The document that started it all clearly states their intentions: We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed, by their Creator, with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.
Life is an unalienable right - if you forfeit that right by alienating it from others (murdering) is a different matter than alienating the unborn from it. Or the elderly, or infirm based on a "quality of life" standard.
Creator: Undefined in terms of religion, but clearly attributes a higher power than man from which these rights derive. Without that, we are just another country, whose government has absolute authority over us.
If the Constitution is a living document, then it can be changed to support the belief system de jour.
Today, all the rage is Imminent Domain! So let's change the taking clause in the Constitution to say that the government can take ANY private property from ANY citizen for ANY reason at ANY time! We no longer have property rights, but that is OK, because the "living document" Constitution says it is legal.
Why not change that living document to say that Universal Healthcare is a right granted by the Constitution. All of us are entitled to FREE healthcare, paid for by the government.
WAIT! maybe those were not good examples..........
A belief in a living constitution doctrine does not make one unpatriotic.
No, but it makes one foolish, given to misunderstanding of the nature of freedom, and given to vainly following the arguments of sophists.
"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle
They are blessed with an unwritten constitution and as a result the parliament can change it at will --- they don't even have to resort to the courts, they can change it when they change their socks. And its obvious how well their living constitution is working out for them in the past 50 years.
Contrary to the views of liberals, we have always had a living constitution. If we want it to reflect the temper of the times we can go through this process called amendment. Its a tough process, intentionally tough, and requires the people to be serious about changes. Which accounts for why liberals are so enamoured of having judges make the determination.
John
----------
Why would God create something like whiskey? To keep the Irish from ruling the world of course.
Heck if he got the normal set of stays and appeals a convict gets in california they will abort him in his twenties.
Veritas magna est et praevalet.
What happens if you disagree over "how America was founded to be."
I suggest you re-examine the many historical accounts regarding our founding. The Federalists is high on my list of suggested reading.
In the meantime, ask yourself this simple question:
"Are you willing to make the ultimate sacrifice in order to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States?"
If you are able to answer that question in the affirmative, then you are a patriot.
***
“The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so.” – Ronald Reagan
Re: Conservatives love America as it was founded to be.
I very much doubt that any sensible conservative wants to return to the America of 1787: you know, slavery, no rights for women, that sort of stuff?
killing innocent inconvenient children has no place in the discussion, since it is impossible to know whether the dead children would have been patriotic.
Benedict Arnold saw a flaw in the American system and worked to fix it. It's amazing how history has been twisted.
" Again, criticize their methods all you want; but to say their motivations are to hurt America is untrue."
Ok, to make this short, I am criticizing their methods, and I have no earthly idea how you have determined their motivation,
but I believe you are wrong.
remember, its all about intentions not results. And, if the Brits had won there would be statues of him everywhere in the colonies.
The winners always get to write the history books.
John
----------
Why would God create something like whiskey? To keep the Irish from ruling the world of course.
As he stood in the waiting room, the doctor approached him
The doctor told the man, "Your wife's brain is dead, but her heart is still beating!"
The man looked worried. "We've never had a Democrat in the family before!"
...that any contact with "America's enemies" is somehow wrong.
Example: "Don't question Sen Nelson, Sen Dodds, and all the others who flew to Syria to offer their support to a member of the Axis of Evil."
When Nixon flew to Russia and China, was he offering support for Communism? Of course not.
Jim Baker says it well: "For 40 years we talked to the Soviet Union. During that time, not one bomb fell."
Even during World War II we negotiated with Germans and Japanese-even as we nuked Japan, we talked to them.
Talking to your enemies and supporting them are not always the same.
You can't defeat an enemy you don'tunderstand.
You can't understand an enemy you won't talk to.
was the president not a legislator. I don't much like 500+ little tin pot dictators running around making their own foreign policy.
"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle
to the Constitutionally designated officers. Senators are to "advise and consent" on treaties. They make the argument that they can't advise without knowledge, and by this non sequitur they engage in a shadow foreign policy.
Have you ever heard of the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle? "The more precisely the POSITION is determined, the less precisely the momentum is known." What that means is that the more closely we observe something, the stronger the effect of our observation on it.
A Congressman asking his staff for a report on Syria has little or no effect on Syria. A Congressman visiting Syria has all kinds of effects, sending all kinds of signals, not only to Syria but to the whole world. When a Congressman meets, speaks, and offers advice or information to foreign leaders, he changes the situation he is supposedly trying to observe.
The Framers knew that.
The Academy: researching the Illiberal Arts
...a Senator is also an intelligence agent, and and a debrief with questions like "who was in the room with you?" offers us insight we might not acquire otherwise.
Besides, Senators travelling overseas to meet other world leaders is hardly unique to these times, and it is a normal and longstanding practice of this Nation to do so.
telling our enemies who knows what, intentionally or not.
The Academy: researching the Illiberal Arts
Maybe your ordinary joe democrat is patriotic and still loves their country and wants the best of it but they don't run your party. They are not the people that played games with the orderly transition of power in this country. They are not the people that tried to delegitimize our election process. They are not the people that have acted to stifle first amendment rights to free speech on issues they disagree with. They are not the people supporting having illegal aliens vote along with dead people etc.
So yes you may or may not be a patriot, but your party has shown a persistent willingness to do things that can only be characterized as harming the nation to achieve its own ends.
Veritas magna est et praevalet.
The Democrats' behavior after the 2000 election is the best example of a crassly political move that place power over the good of the country. Our Democracy can't survive if every election that is closer than 60-40% is cast in doubt.
Just as reprehensible is the use (or threat of) the filibuster to block votes on obviously qualified judges. Appointing judges is an executive function; the Senate plays the roles of advice & consent, but only the extraconstitutional Senate tradition of the filibuster keeps good, qualified jurists off the bench.
...to Conservatives as well.
This from the website of the United States Senate:
"The record for the longest individual speech goes to South Carolina's J. Strom Thurmond who filibustered for 24 hours and 18 minutes against the Civil Rights Act of 1957."
http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common/briefing/Filibuster_C...
By the way-it is fair to point out that the large number of non-Party affiliated voters probably represents voters disaffected with the extemes on both sides.
I know I feel that way.
The filibuster is a good thing. It is by its nature a conservative tactic, since it tends to keep laws from passing, so that change doesn't happen.
Our problem is not with the filibuster per se, but with its use to keep judges who have been appointed from being confirmed.
The Academy: researching the Illiberal Arts
I don't consider Senator Thurnman's act "reprehensable', and yet his action had at least as much import as the current judicial debate.
It's maybe disappointing, or distressful, but "reprehensable" just seems a bit vitriolic, considering the circumstances.
>>I don't consider Senator Thurnman's act "reprehensable', and yet his action had at least as much import as the current judicial debate.
But in declaring both tactics legitimate you are, in both cases, standing up for the Democrats.
You are also failing to note the significant difference between filibustering judges and laws. The filibuster creates a blockage but does not propose anything instead. With regard to laws this is a legitimate tactic. If the proposed law does not pass then there will be no new law, but existing laws will continue in place.
In most circumstances, if you filibuster a judicial appointment the position stays unfilled. Yet the people who doing this are not trying to achieve the goal of not having a court.
Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net
International Editor of
Gamecock, DeVine conservative Op-Ed for The Charlotte Observer
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson
exercising their interest in "advising and consenting", just as occurred with Mr. Clinton's judicial appointments.
My support of the tactic is not partisan, but historical and tactical, as it is available to both Parties.
was a conservative-Democrat in 1957, this statement is factually incorrect.
"It appears the filibuster can be useful to Conservatives as well."
Sen. Strom Thurmond switched from the Democratic Party to the Republican Party in 1964.
In September 1954, following the death of Senator Burnet Maybank, the South Carolina Democratic Party selected Edgar Brown as a replacement, arguing there was insufficient time before the election to hold a primary. Strom Thurmond challenged Brown and in November won the election through a write-in vote. During that campaign, he pledged that if elected he would resign to run in next party primary. He carried out that pledge on April 4, 1956. He won the primary and was again elected as a Democrat in November 1956 to fill the vacancy caused by his own resignation. He was reelected to the Senate seven times. In 1964, Senator Thurmond joined the Republican Party.
(emphasis added)
***
“The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so.” – Ronald Reagan
While "Democrats", "liberals" and "the Far Left" may not be synonymous, the continuum lacks bright lines as evidence that moderate Democrats dissociate from the Far Left.
And by the Far Left, I am referring to those elements who are clearly unpatriotic, hoping for failure and/or revolution in our system, and in our military efforts abroad.
There are those who think U.S. failure in Iraq would be a good thing.
There are those who would like to hasten an end to our capitalist system. Michael Moore comes to mind. As do radical environmentalists, many of whom are merely anarchists looking to legitimize theri cause.
The mainstream elements of the Democratic Party have done a poor job of dissociating and repudiating the fringe elements on your side of the aisle.
dKos, as an example, tolerates all that BushHitler, Hitlerburton type of wacko rant that is plainly unwelcome here. RedState clearly repudiates the Right's wacko fringe and does not create an environment for it to flourish.
We are clearly tolerant of expressive, good-faith liberals.