What if the media refused to include arguments that are illogical or factually incorrect?

AP and the corporate media has affirmative action for GOP lies.

I'm more concerned about the truth being crowed out of U.S. news media than I am about "moderates" being crowded out of U.S. political parties.

"...Lieberman..."

Didn't have to leave the Democratic Party, but lost a primary for being insufficiently liberal. Which is one point in Fournier's favor.

And "moderate" is really just another word for conservative. The middle in political discourse (but not, I think, among the people) has moved so far right that Obama, a Rockefeller Republican, can be called a liberal. A Republican "moderate" would be someone who is just not crazy. What a standard.

Lieberman doesn't really explain anything, however. He was at the time a liberal with an obnoxiously pro-Iraq War stand. People didn't vote against him because he wasn't a doctrinaire liberal. They voted for him because he was part of a hated cabal that practiced deceit.

I guess, at this juncture, it's important to define "moderate." "Moderate" in the Dem party is really code for conservative whereas with the Rethugs it means sane.

OMG, Greg (12:36), I wrote my comment before reading the others. You must be my long lost twin...

Joining with the above: Blue Dogs are not moderates or centrists. They are conservatives and should always be referred to as such.

Or scumballs, you can refer to them as that, also.

I'll see your Lieberman, raise you 50 Blue Dogs and one Arlen Specter...

Is there room for progressive candidates and progressive voters in the Democratic Party?

Fournier is a right wing/Tea Party apologist.

Once you understand that fact his articles become less surprising.

Will someone get back to me when Progessives and the goals of Progressives become acceptable to both 1600 and the DNC.

Two years ago during the run up to the election you were basically calling this calling this Ron Fournier guy a Republican stooge in your own understated way. So pretty much nothing has changed with him.

Fournier/Tillman

http://mediamatters.org/columns/200807220006

---
the former NFL player whose story was promoted by the White House before it was revealed that he had been killed by friendly fire, they discovered that top political aide Karl Rove had exchanged emails with the Associated Press' Ron Fournier on the day the news of Tillman's death broke.

In one email, Rove asked, "How does our country continue to produce men and women like this?" Fournier responded: "The Lord creates men and women like this all over the world. But only the great and free countries allow them to flourish. Keep up the fight."
---

"In the House, there are more than 50 "Blue Dogs" in the House Democratic caucus."

That's more than 50 "Blue Dogs" too many.

That said, progressives are, in fact, moderate. We're not the socialist/big government ideologues that Ron Fournier and the rest of the media allows the right to portray us (to the contrary, I'd argue that we're more pro-capitalism than any so-called conservative). Unfortunately, Fournier can't see it since he's looking at it from the perspective of tea baggers and Fox News.

As I read somewhere recently, there are still moderate Republicans among us. They are all in the Democratic party, labeled as Blue Dogs or Conservadems or whatever. Today's squabbles within the Democratic party mirror what used to be inter-party debate.

Ron Fournier is a long time Republican operative. Journalism is just his cover story. We can't expect him to say that his Republican party has gone nuts without creating a false equivalence.

Could somebody tell me why any normal person would vote for a Republican. What the hell have they ever done for us?

Grumpy@12:34:

Lieberman wasn't shunned by his party. the voters simply rejected him in the primary. The party continued to embrace him as much as they could and certainly more than that DFH Lamont. Because the party couldn't find a way to overturn the primary outcome, Lieberman has now spent the last four years trying to ruin the Dem majority.

Not the same thing at all.

"As I read somewhere recently, there are still moderate Republicans among us. They are all in the Democratic party, labeled as Blue Dogs or Conservadems..."

Bingo.

Does he have Lincoln vs. Halter in mind too? Halter of course is plenty moderate in his own right, IMHO; Lincoln's offense is not "moderation" but an overly cordial relationship to Big Biz and a penchant for lefty-baiting.

Following the defeat of Lieberman in the primary, did not the powers to be in the DNC start whispering about Lamont being a "One Note Charlie" for only speaking about Iraq? It was implied that he had no substance outside of his criticism of our policy in Iraq. The DNC and the top Democratic politicos let him down, so, why should they whine about Lieberman, now?

A point to remember: The reason the "both sides do it" meme is false is because progressives can't get what they want. Because you people DO want Blue Dogs purged from the party. You ARE upset that we have conservative senators who aren't being properly challenged from the left. And you're mad at the Dems for not doing more to get rid of them. So the only difference is that the Republicans are actually doing it, while you're not able to do so.

And that's the way it is with most of today's issues. For as wrong as Republicans are regarding Obama's plans, it's just because Obama's not doing what you're wanting him to do. And if Obama listened to you guys, then Republican attacks would be far more accurate. And that's the reason those attacks have been so ineffective, because they're not true.

And overall, it's like you're trying to have it both ways: You're angry that the media smears Democrats unfairly, while still angry that Democrats won't do the things that would make those smears fair.

"What does Crist's decision say, if anything, about state of the political middle in US?"

So what is middle and what is radical? Here are four of the five programs which constituted the Fabian Socialism program. (I have included the means of achieving the last point because it's more abstract than the others...)

These were radical in 1889... now they are pretty much universally accepted... And Middle of the road.

The reactionary Republicans are out of step.

From "Fabian Essays in Socialism" by GB Shaw.

"Object.—To raise, universally, the standard of comfort by obtaining the general recognition of a minimum wage and a maximum working day.

Object.—To enable all, even the poorest, children to obtain not merely some, but the best education they are capable of.

Object.—To provide generously, and without stigma, for the aged, the sick, and those destitute through temporary want of employment, without relaxing the "tests" against the endowment of able-bodied idleness.

[This sounds radical but if you read the means we have all this already] Object.—The gradual public organization of labor for all public purposes, and the elimination of the private capitalist and middleman.

Means.—1. The provision of increased facilities for the acquisition of land, the destruction without compensation of all dwellings found unfit for habitation, and the provision of artisan dwellings by the municipality. 2. The facilitation of every extension of municipal administration, in London and all other towns, of gas, water, markets, tramways, hospitals, cemeteries, parks, museums, art galleries, libraries, reading-rooms, schools, docks, harbors, rivers, etc. 3. The provision of abundant facilities for the acquisition of land by local rural authorities, for allotments, common pastures, public halls, reading-rooms, etc.

Object.—To obtain the most accurate representation and expression of the desires of the majority of the people at every moment.
Means.—1. Reform of registration so as to give a vote, both Parliamentary and municipal, to every adult. 2 Abolition of any period of residence as a qualification for registration. 3. Bi-annual registration by special public officer. 4. Annual Parliaments. 5. Payment of election expenses, including postage of election addresses and polling cards. 6. Payment of all public representatives, parliamentary, county, or municipal. 7. Second ballot. 8. Abolition or painless extinction of the House of Lords.*36

What passes for political moderation by the media is wishy-washy, mealy-mouthed timidity that's afraid to confront hard-right politicos and politically fearful of aligning with any position that could be identified as anything other than "conservative."

The political "middle", in Broderian terms, is simply a group of dead-weight enablers that allow hard right wingers in the minority to control the levers of government.

In Lincoln's case, replacing her with Halter is the Democrats' best hope for holding that seat. There's no way that Lincoln can win in November. Halter can run as a populist/reformist, she can't.

neither of the Maine moderates have been willing to break party ranks on major issues lately

...a fact the Democrats really should hang around their necks come their next elections.

What use is being a so-called "Maine moderate" if you vote in lockstep with Jeff Sessions?

berttheclock - Ned Lamont only WAS about Iraq. Beyond that, he was a multi-millionaire with a sketchy track record. He became famous because he was anti-Bush, not because he was some progressive torchbearer. And the Dems didn't let HIM down, he let US down. He went on a vacation immediately after the primary, for god's sake, and when he got back, Lieberman had screwed him over.

Beyond that, the reason Lieberman won was because the Republicans supported him, with 70% of Republicans going to Lieberman and 65% of Dems going to Lamont. I fail to see how the Dem leadership was responsible for that. They'll take anyone, as long as they can win.

Crist's problem wasn't that he was too moderate, its that he was willing to work in a bipartisan manner. The lesson here is loyalty before ideology--this is why Washington no longer works.

ANYTHING Ron Fournier sez is blatant right wing, Republican propaganda, the Google won't lie to you -- you can research it yourself.

As a journalist, Ron Fournier is a lackey, a quisling, and a piker. I also think he sucks as a writer...

Not much to add. I just wanted to chime in to say "thanks" to KurtRex and to note that the comments on this thread (so far) are generally excellent.

@Doctor Biobrain, I suggest you peruse the article written by David Sirota, who was a Lamont campaign worker, of November 10,2006 @www.inthesetimes.com/2917/

In Sirota's article, he suggests only Kerry, Wes Clark, John Edwards and one other NE high Democratic figure came to his aid. Obama, Bill Clinton and the DNC did not. In fact, even Lieberman bragged on FOX, the day of the election, that the DNC had not supported Lamont. Of course, the RepuGs ran a very weak candidate, so, it was easy for the RepuGs to switch to Joe L. Wes Clark was one of the few to go after some of Lieberman's lies. You may have felt Lamont left you, but, I have followed the writings of David Sirota for some time and I have never found them to be lacking.

howie: "Lieberman wasn't shunned by his party. the voters simply rejected him in the primary.
...
Not the same thing at all."

I agree. But the fact that Lieberman is, technically, no longer in the Democratic party means that he can't be enumerated among the "Democratic moderates." The caucus, sure, but not the party.

But Bert, what was Lamont BESIDES the anti-Lieberman? He was supported because progressives hated Lieberman, not because Lamont was so progressive. And that's why Republicans supported Lieberman so much, to thumb their noses at us.

Beyond that, Sirota's complaint was that Dems didn't do more to ATTACK Lieberman. There was no hint that they supported Lieberman. The link below shows that Lamont got far more endorsements from Dems than Lieberman did; including both Clintons and Obama.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Connecticut_United_States_Senate_election,_2006

And why didn't Sirota mention the vacation Lamont took after the primary? That was when Lieberman laid the groundwork for his comeback. And as the link below shows, I think far more of the blame lies with Lamont's campaign.
http://www.myleftnutmeg.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=3299

Funny how that blogger shows a completely different side of the excellent campaign Sirota says he was part of. Sirota may be a great writer, but he might have been a little too close to the story that time. It should be remembered that Lamont didn't lose a squeaker. He got trounced and was losing to Lieberman the whole time. A few attacks on Lieberman by Senator Obama would hardly have sufficed at saving Lamont's chances.

David Sirota thought the reason why some political figure didn't end up well was that refused to do things the David Sirota Way, the One Path To Righteousness that only some far-reaching Spite Conspiracy could prevent a right-thinking person from adopting? I'm shocked!

I'm sorry, that was incoherent. That's what Sirota does to me. :P What I meant was that he always finds Big Power stabbing him in the back, which is a fine way to go about ensuring that your strategic thinking never needs fine-tuning.

Hey Ron, I've been a moderate democrat my whole life.

So, according to the AP, when another moderate Republican gets pushed out of the GOP it's just further proof that Democrats are socialists!

Grumpy, Lieberman didn't lose the primary because he was "too liberal", he lost because he had spent the previous 5 years attacking his own party over the Iraq war and national security issues and endorsed George W. Bush for President in 2004! And even with all that, not one national Democratic leader endorsed or campaigned for Ned Lamont during the primary.

Compare that to Crist where Fox News and the rest of the right-wing media and several national Republican officeholders had turned against him before he even considered running as an indepedent. Or to NY-23 where Sarah Palin and a number of other Republican Party "leaders" endorsed a third-party nominee over their own party's candidate.

Even if there was some real comparison between Lieberman and what is happening in the Republican Party now, he only makes one example. The Republicans seem pretty determined to purge their entire party.