the L.A. Times calls out the moral crusaders of the left

I’ve written a lot about the crusade for ideological purity (specifically with regard to the Iraq war) in certain circles on the left (see here and here, for example, or search “Jane Smiley” and “Kos”). I also noted when the Washington Post took on the “angry left” and when Arianna chastised her readers for their excessive fervor.

Now, the Los Angeles Times joins the bandwagon over the Joe Lieberman uproar:

There were principled people on both sides of the debate to go to war in Iraq. This page did not support the war, but it cannot cheer on liberal activists who run the risk of being guilty of the same sort of insistence on ideological purity that they deplore in Republicans.

The Democratic Party — the party of Woodrow Wilson, Harry Truman and John F. Kennedy — is a big enough tent to include voices on the conservative end of national security policy. Lieberman’s views shouldn’t trigger a nationwide jihad against him. To their credit, most party leaders are backing Lieberman.

Bravo.

I’m no Lieberman fan—I can’t think of anything I like about his manner. He’s particularly oleaginous, even for a politician. But he’s being demonized for his unapologetic pro-war stance by those who are absolutely certain that Iraq was a mistake and who claim that it’s the only stance a Democrat can have—otherwise s/he isn’t Democrat.

I am sick to death of it:

Ill tell ya
You can put me out
On the street
Put me out
With no shoes on my feet
But, put me out, put me out
Put me out of misery

Yeah, all your sickness
I can suck it up
Throw it all at me
I can shrug it off
There’s one thing baby
That I dont understand
You keep on telling me
I ain’t your kind of man

—Rolling Stones, “Beast of Burden“