Letter: ‘Liberal’ not the bad word it’s made out to be

Saturday, June 9, 2007 | 7:34 a.m.

Mr. Clarence Lanzrath, in his June 2 letter headlined "Moderate Democrats, beware of extremists," states: "I should get little, if any, argument on the issue that the liberal left has gained complete control of the Democratic Party."

On the contrary, Mr. Lanzrath.

Why is it that people who have nothing substantive to say always resort to name calling and absolutisms ?

What does "liberal" mean, other than a divisive word used in Republican circles to attempt to cast shadows on someone? What does "complete control" mean, other than to improperly suggest that every Democrat is a card-carrying "liberal leftist?"

Does "liberal" mean a Democrat who works to bring an end to the totally flawed prosecution of the Iraq war? Does "liberal" mean a Democrat who wants to oust a wholly incompetent attorney general who remains in his position only because of cronyism and political payback?

Does "liberal" mean a Democrat who wants to bring an end to tax breaks for the rich so that there can be shared sacrifices by all Americans and so our children and grandchildren are not left with a debt-ridden nation?

If that is what defines a liberal, then liberals are the antithesis of the Bush administration , whose approval rating is abysmal, and those who were soundly beaten in the midterm elections.

What substantive argument can Mr. Lanzrath offer to these observations?

Tom Harper, Henderson