I may be close to the kind of liberal you are seeking...

http://donkeydigest.com/?p=293

just look at the grief Joe Lieberman is getting for actually holding an opinion that did not get approved by a Clinton

Actually, Joe is still holding a view on Iraq that was approved by Clinton (in 1998). Joe hasn't left the Democrat party (yet), but they sure have left him.

So now we're going to do Malkin in for - what? her temper? I saw no problem with the immigration-driven polipundit split that led to many polipunditeers moving to wizbang. I embrace you all. Poli wanted his (her?) site to reflect his (her) views. We are supposed to be the big tent, only chucking out extremists like Joseph Sobran and David Duke and Cunningham. Prejudice and corruption.

You've lost some of my respect now that you're electing to engage in purges and putches of the right without having all your cards out and ducks in a row. Malkin has worked too damn hard, risked and given too damn much, for you to waltz in and attempt to purge with nothing more to support your decision than an off-hand comment.

What was Reagan's 11th commandment?

Thou shalt not throw another Republican under the bus. What's gotten into you?

I, too, like Michelle. I seem to remember things on the conservative side also getting rancorous to the point of ugliness over the Miers' nomination. Blogs and bloggers I really enjoyed became unbearable over the sniping and attacks, and that was just among us righties. We'll put up with some differences but there are some lines a solid conservative dares not cross. For many of us, W crossed it then. Judging from some of Andy Card's reminiscences of that time, W was plenty peeved at the Right, too. What suggests to me that the critics of the nomination were right is that, according to Card, W wanted a woman, any woman, to fill the slot. As a conservative (and a former lefty feminist at that!), I suspected it at the time and find the confirmation deeply offensive.

The latest Dem to wander off the reservation, apparently, is Juan Williams, who has written a book taking the racebaiters and bad influences to task for (I'm guessing) ruining a generation or more of black culture. He'll be the next one they throw under the bus. As long as Williams stays away from the topic of the Middle East he has some really good ideas.

I don't know what liberal blogs you read, but everywhere I look is rational attacks on unruly Dems, those that spout misinformation or hatred or stupidity or corruption. You talk about Michael Moore as if he is on TV and radio 3 hours a day like Savage, O'Reilly and Limbaugh--or as if Democratic and left wing activists are waiting for the next mission from Mike. The idea that the Republican party is a big tent is laughable---how many of your elected officials are NOT white Christians? How many are anti-war or think we should trim defense spending? How many are willing to publicly ask for a tax base to support the cost of government?

There is a monolithic conservative view and it is only possible to hide it behind distorted rhetoric for so long while you make policy with the other hand. What is most evident from watching Republicans is their concern for business and the wealthy, their love of war, their desire to judge people for moral choices, and their willingness to do anything to stay in power. That is certainly a strategy, but not one with lasting positivity.

Far right wingers need to realize that despite blanketing the press with "institutes" and pundits and the radio waves with right wing rhetoric and propaganda, the masses still have yet to fall for it all. As much as you want to criticize Democrats, I hear very few real ideas from these loudmouths, save for attacking Democrats. The problem is that major issues cannot be solved with pithy radio, or uninformed rants, or appeals to emotion, or by ignoring the beliefs and opinions of 40-60% of the country. You need to bring your ideas and beliefs to the table with the rest of us and work out a solution we all find palatable.

You are correct of course about Michelle Malkin.

I'm not sure though that I agree it was just her temper.

Some people start off about as wonderful as they can. But once they obtain some power they don't know how to wield it properly. Michelle Malkin is one of those. She has gained a lot of power over the past 3 to 5 years as a wordsmith and influence peddler. So have many on the right with their blogs and such.

The problem starts when they go from having an opinion on a subject to their opinion is the only opinion and heaven help those who disagree.

This is the problem the President has encountered from the right. People who have become full of themselves and cannot forgive the President for disagreeing with them. How dare he!

I too had this very same problem but in a more limited way. I have no influence to peddle, no one listens to me except perhaps my poor wife and children. But I was so angry with the President over his immigration policies I wanted to disown him.

After some prayer and reflection, however, I realized that President Bush is a good and honest man who seeks what is best for this country and for my family. I have my disagreements with him over Immigration, No Child Left Behind, and some other issues. But ive been wrong before and could be wrong again. Maybe these things will work out for the best? Maybe his way is better than my way? I dunno, we disagree, but he's my pick for President and the good things he has done far outweigh the bad.

God Bless President Bush.

"I don't know what liberal blogs you read, but everywhere I look is rational attacks on unruly Dems, those that spout misinformation or hatred or stupidity or corruption."

The difference here is the definition of unruly Dems. Leiberman may be unruly to you, but Dean is to us.

"You talk about Michael Moore as if he is on TV and radio 3 hours a day like Savage, O'Reilly and Limbaugh--or as if Democratic and left wing activists are waiting for the next mission from Mike."

One word- Hollywood.
Liberals can choose not to tune in to conservative radio as much as conservatives can choose not to go to liberal 'documentaries' and movies. But when is the last time a radio host caused national coverage for being nominated for oscars or being shoved down your throat on television with all the interviews?

"The idea that the Republican party is a big tent is laughable---how many of your elected officials are NOT white Christians?"

How many Non-White or Non-Christian candidates are smeared by the left wing simply because they are not Democrats? Steele, Blackwell, Thomas, Condi.... They can't be 'real blacks' because they dont think the way we do.

"How many are anti-war or think we should trim defense spending?"

I can think of quite a few. Hastert anyone?(hint- hes one of the house bigwigs)

"How many are willing to publicly ask for a tax base to support the cost of government?"

Stupid question. The entire debate of conservative and liberal fiscal policies is that liberals want to grow government costs and tax more to cover it. Conservatives want to reduce the cost of governement and tax less.

Far right wingers need to realize that despite blanketing the press with "institutes" and pundits and the radio waves with right wing rhetoric and propaganda, the masses still have yet to fall for it all.

Thats why Dems have lost 5 of the last seven elections, haven't had a majority of the vote since LBJ, don't control either the Senate or House, and dispite all the idiot GOP politicians trying to give away every election, it doesn't look like the Dems will be able to gain anything this term either?

As much as you want to criticize Democrats, I hear very few real ideas from these loudmouths, save for attacking Democrats.

There is a difference, conservatives don't expect pundits to come up with ideas for them. They leave that to the politicians. Conservative loudmouths = radio personalities. Liberal Loudmouths = Head of the DNC, Minority Leader, Whip, etc..

The problem is that major issues cannot be solved with pithy radio, or uninformed rants, or appeals to emotion, or by ignoring the beliefs and opinions of 40-60% of the country.

Both Dems and Repubs have this same problem. Go figure....

You need to bring your ideas and beliefs to the table with the rest of us and work out a solution we all find palatable.

Knife cuts both ways bub...

I guess I just see this as ridiculous, this idea that the GOP is keeping an eye on it's own elected reps and public figures, holding them accountable, etc. The same liberal media you see giving voice to Michael Moore (and very few other anti-war voices on TV, limited to maybe Donahue who got canned), also gives loads of face time to Ann Coulter, Bill O'Reilly, Rush, etc.

The media is not doing any party any favors---they are owned by the right and staffed by the faux left (i.e. centrists who have a lot invested in the status quo).

The problem with the media is not that they are liberal, or conservative, but that they do not do their jobs. That explains why two comedy shows do more for political coverage than the 24 hours of Fox News, CNN and MSNBC combined. You get people on and ask them real questions and you advance the debate; you give people 30 seconds and shout and yell or pretend that major issues are about as important as a schoolyard fight and the debate is lost.

Left wingers who are out of step with the majority of the country are given very little credence within the Democratic party; on the right they have weekly meetings with the leadership.

Howard Dean is a DLC centrist who opposed the war before everyone else did. How is he crazy? You do know that the "scream" was a audio anomaly, correct? That ABC had a mic on him that drowned out crowd noise, so it sounded like he was yelling like a crazy person instead of shouting over the crowd noise?