Mac Ranger pointed me to this LA Times commentary which, like the Time piece I posted on below, is another example of liberals in serious denial and attacking each other. Some of these statements I have a hard time believing are actual uttered by any serious (or make that sane) person! As with the previous post, we are being provided a window:

NED LAMONT’S challenge to Sen. Joe Lieberman in next month’s Connecticut primary has blossomed into a full-scale Democratic civil war. What’s at stake is the legitimacy of partisanship.

A good window into the competing mentalities can be found in two arguments, one by prominent Lieberman supporters, the other by a prominent critic.

Actually we are seeing three windows. The pro and con Leiberman forces and the media elite. Let’s start with the ‘proof’ that Bush is more of a threat to mankind than Bin Laden as presented by the media elitist:

Even though all but the loopiest Democrat would concede that Bin Laden is more evil than Bush, that doesn’t mean he’s a greater threat. Bin Laden is hiding somewhere in the mountains, has no weapons of mass destruction and apparently very limited numbers of followers capable of striking at the U.S.

Bush, on the other hand, has wreaked enormous damage on the political and social fabric of the country. He has massively mismanaged a major war, with catastrophic consequences; he has strained the fabric of American democracy with his claims of nearly unchecked power and morally corrupt Gilded Age policies. It’s quite reasonable to conclude that Bush will harm the nation more — if not more than Bin Laden would like to, than more than he actually can.

Seems Jonathan Chait, the author of this piece, has just realized the President of the United States is a powerful position. Stunnning. The only catastrophies in the wars has been the establishment of Democracies in Iraq and Afghanistan. What Chait is doing is ignoring all the good again, like sleeping during the day and bemoaning the everlasting darkness of night. The political and social fabric that has been shredded is simply the left’s egomaniacal belief they were the holders of all views good and worthy. They have been disrupted from this fantasy by years of losing elections and with none of their Chicken Little stories coming true. Anyway, Chait sets the stage by providing us a clear view of his perch in all this. So let’s now see the pro-Leiberman ‘issues’:

This is what Lieberman and his backers don’t understand. They piously insist that “partisanship stops at the water’s edge” and that they won’t take political potshots at a Republican president when he’s waging a war in America’s name — as if Bush were obeying this principle, and as if Bush were just another Republican president rather than a threat of historic magnitude. Lieberman seems to view the alarm with which liberals regard Bush as a tawdry, illegitimate emotion.

Seems Chait doesn’t like the fact that his own emotional instability regarding all things Bush is viewed as a kind of sickness of the mind and soul. Well, most people don’t want to hear they are obsessive and in denial. But Chait leaves that to now jump on the KoS ranters and their emotional outbreaks:

But if Lieberman’s allies are irritating and often wrongheaded, alas, his enemies are worse. Lieberman recently declared, “I have loyalties that are greater than those to my party.” Markos Moulitsas, the lefty blogger from Daily Kos who has appeared in a Lamont commercial and has made Lieberman’s defeat a personal crusade, posted this quote on his website in the obvious belief that it’s self-evidently absurd. But shouldn’t we all have greater loyalties than the one to our party — say, to our country? Partisanship isn’t nothing, but must it be everything?
…
The whole anti-Lieberman blog campaign has a self-fulfilling quality: They charge that Lieberman isn’t a Democrat, they drive him from the party, and they declare themselves to be correct. The more ex-Democrats they create, the more sure of their own virtue they become.

Chait is completely unaware of the mirror he is looking into here. After all that fear mongering about Bush the Destroyer Chait has the gall to ping Markos for being a different falvor of leftwing nut. But I do have one question for these liberals trying to come to grip with themsleves. If Bush and the rest of us are Fascists for believing in America and her causes and what she represents for the future of mankind, what do you call someone who puts their pary above country? Is that a super fascist? Are the KoS Kids simply condensed fascism because their circle of acceptable views is miniscule? Wasn’t Saddam a Hyper fascist because he believed in the views of only one person? How do we scale from a country united to a party obsessed to a dictator using maniacal control? Chait is actually poking at this question:

Moulitsas and many of his allies insist that they just want Democrats to win. But in fact, they believe that any deviation from the party line — except for a few circumscribed instances, such as Democrats running for office in red states — is an unforgivable crime. They have consigned large chunks of the center-left to enemy status. It is an odd way to go about building a majority.

Well, it is not odd if ‘purity of thought to a single mindset’ is the goal. Chait chastises anyone who disagrees with his mindset about how dangerous Bush is. So this Kettle-viewing-the-Pot dance has hypocrisy stage center. America was built on the ideals of refuting a single world view mandated by a small, self absorbed click. The Court of any Kingdom is nothing more than elites rationalizing their superiority over the rest of society, and thus rationalizing all there actions to control the masses and maintain the view the elites are the best to lead. America through off this concept to try something new. Let the people themselves decide and then be true to their decision. Liberals are up in arms against this idea because they are not the majority view. Well my message to them is “too bad, learn to deal with it”.