On marginalizing the majority...

(crossposted from my Livejournal.)

...so, to the "librul media" pundits:

Joseph I. Lieberman is not the "Democrat Party".

In fact, Joe Lieberman isn't even in the "Democrat Party", and has not been since he was defeated by Ned Lamont in the "Democrat Party" primary in Connecticut last year.

This fact does not make Ned Lamont a "radical left-leaning liberal" any more than it makes anyone who disagrees with your star pupil a "radical left-leaning liberal".

Let's take a look at the issues you've ascribed to "radical left-leaning liberals" and the public sentiment towards them.

First: to you, a "radical left-leaning liberal" wants out of Iraq. Or, as you put it, "wants to lose". First off, what's this deal about "wanting to lose"? I thought we already won. Four years ago. Should we not be out? Should we not be in the business of nation-building, just like our fearless leader once said? No, you say, we should "stay the course", "until the job is done", "not be cowards".

Except, this is what you are exactly telling the "Democrat Party" to do on this issue. But then, taking a stand only counts if it agrees with Joseph I. Lieberman. Otherwise, it's "obstructionism", "bullying", and "radical left-leaning liberalism".

But, let's look into this. "Radical left-leaning liberals" want a timetable for leaving Iraq. According to a recent Gallup poll, so do 57% of Americans. You've just labeled over half the country "radical left-leaning liberals." That's gotta help your bottom line, right?

Second, to you, a "radical left-leaning liberal" takes his cues from the "evil blogs" like Huffington Post, Daily Kos, Think Progress, etc. These "evil blogs" have scores of normal people from all over the country talking politics. They have original ideas, and -- gasp! -- sometimes think for themselves! Imagine that! Our public servants being influenced...by the public! Can't have that, can we? No, we need them to only listen to beltway insiders, like Lieberman and most Republicans. Or, even better, we need them not to listen to anyone but themselves. That's how the Decider works.

But wait...if a "radical left-leaning liberal" listens to the will of the people, doesn't that mean that a "sane" liberal or conservative, by contrast, listens to very few people? Gee, that's right. Once again, you've labeled a larger chunk of people than you ought to "radical left-leaning liberals."

See, there's this thing called a bell curve. Radicals usually comprise the very ends, the lowest point, the fewest. The middle usually comprises the 75 or so percent of the rest. However, apparently your bell curve is upside down, 'cuz your "majority" (as opposed to the "radical left-leaning liberals") looks like it's pretty small...in fact, even smaller than the fringe! That's a nice trick there.

Finally, to you a "radical left-leaning liberal"...well, I'll just come out and say it. To you, a "radical left-leaning liberal" is someone who doesn't agree with the one true Democrat, Joseph I. Lieberman. So, to you, 75% of the world population are "radical left-leaning liberals," on Joseph I. Lieberman's views on the war in Iraq alone.

It's hard to call people "radical" or "fringe" when they comprise the majority of the world's view on things. So I'd wish you stopped calling the majority a "radical fringe". It just makes you seem, well, radical.