"Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman (Conn.) has once again inserted himself into the middle of an inflamed partisan debate, raising questions about his motives, his ego and his fickle allegiance to the Democratic Party, which forgave him after he supported Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) for president."
Back in California, the tax-hiking Republican was not the aggressor "inserting himself" into the debate and "inflaming" partisan debate. The Post didn't question "his motives, his ego, and his fickle allegiance" to the party. But Lieberman has dared to oppose the so-called "public option," where government "competes" -- or more accurately, takes over -- the private health-insurance market. So he is savaged.
The headline contrast is interesting. The California story is headlined "The Republicans' war within." The Connecticut story is headlined "Lieberman riles many with role in health debate."
Romano and MacGillis insisted that Lieberman clearly enjoyed his egotistical act as skunk at the Democrat garden party: "'There is no question he's taken pleasure in this role,' said Jacob S. Hacker, a Yale political scientist who helped craft the initial proposal for the public option." The Post accused Lieberman of being a liar: "Lieberman has assumed such a central role despite what health-policy experts say have been serial misstatements about reform proposals." Hacker lamented, "No one's called him on anything."
Readers are told there are 30-second TV spots running in his home state attacking him: "Joe never forgets who he ran to represent: Himself. It's not about you. It's all about Joe." The allegedly nonpartisan League of Women Voters is also launching radio spots to pressure him. Hundreds of protesters representing an interfaith organization showed up at Lieberman's home in Stamford and at his office in Hartford, to "plead (and pray) for him to support the bill."
Nowhere in this account were the liberals attacked for being excessively nasty and personal, or for conducting a "circular firing squad." The Post never hinted for a second that extreme ideological fervor from the Left might ruin the Democrats' chances to maintain power.
It's a simple formula, really. Anything that moves the GOP away from the Ronald Reagan vision is a good thing; any GOP "leader" who has the "courage" of his liberal convictions is a "maverick" to be saluted.
And any Democrat or independent who dares question Obama's socialist agenda is a traitor.