But my friend raised the point that as he saw it for some reason the liberals seem a little harsher in their actions.

Even liberals know they're just a bunch of meanies!!

It is very kind of you to invite discussion on your “observations.” It would therefore be helpful to gain some additional insight into some of your assumptions. For example:

What would you call “idiotic behavior” Some examples? Are some of us posting or commenting on TMV guilty of this?

What do you consider ” the more radical aspects just outside the mainstream.”? A little more specific than “The people who end up on CNN or Fox looking like fools.”

On what do you base your opinion that ” the liberals seem a little harsher in their actions” and that “for some reason the left (and again here we mean the hard left, not the mainstream left) seem to be a bit more willing to be fairly contemptuous of the other guy.”

“By definition a liberal tends to be something of an iconoclast, a rebel, someone who pushes against the establishment while conservatives tend to support these institutions.” By whose “definition?” I thought, au contraire, that Conservatives were traditionally against “Big Government” and institutions? “Eliminate the Education Department,” etc.

“As a result, when a conservative goes up against Obama his feelings are directed at the person while he has some level of respect (perhaps subconcious) for the the office.” We will certainly have the chance to see if you are right once Obama occupies “the office” of the President. So far, I have not seen such respect from Conservative “icons” (Limbaugh, Hannity, et al.) for “the office” of the preseident-elect, or the president-elect himself.

“The liberal on the other hand has issues with both the man and the office (indeed he has those feelings about the office even if he likes the person). Thus they are more likely to do the kind of things we saw in 2001 and 2005.”

What “things” did “liberals” do in 2001 and 2005?

Finally, whom would you call a “liberal” and whom a “Democrat”?

Today’s topic dealt with liberal attitudes towards President Bush and conservative ones towards President Obama. We both agreed that each side is equally capable of vitriol and that both sides have let loose with some pretty low blows against the guy they don’t like.

But my friend raised the point that as he saw it for some reason the liberals seem a little harsher in their actions. This is not to say that both sides are not disrespectful but for some reason the left (and again here we mean the hard left, not the mainstream left) seem to be a bit more willing to be fairly contemptuous of the other guy.

The difference between Bush & Obama is really simple, one got elected by one vote onthe Supreme Court, the other won 365 Electoral votes and 53% of popular vote, a small but notable difference.

Harsher? Liberals? You're kidding right?

Let's see, Clinton got a blow job, and Conservatives impeached him. Bush lied to start a war, as a consequences of which millions of people were turned into refugees, hundreds of thousand died and a country was destroyed, the so called Liberal did not even censure him.
Reagan and Bush Sr. ran their own foreign policy ( Iran-Contra ) in Central America in total contempt of the Congress(Boland Amendment) causing the deaths of tens of thousands and only a couple of low level flunkies were prosecuted ( a few of which showed up in the Bush administration Elliott Abrams, Otto Reich, John Poindexter ), no one was impeached.

So let's get real here, Republicans have been given free reign to do whatever they wanted to do for the last thirty years, and they did, the results are in, the wealthy are wealthier than ever, the middle and working classes are no better off than they were thirty years ago, the social contract has been shredded and the sacred constitution has been used by the Republicans to wipe their asses.

How can I put this delicately? Oh, Yeah, your friend is an idiot.

I'm not sure what “hard” left refers to, but some of the statements that were attributed to being hard left turned out not to be or came true: the Iraq War was for oil (a view shared by Comrade Greenspan), the US is torturing people, there is domestic spying, the Republican party is being coopted by religious groups, etc.

While I agree with your thoughts about the emphasis on respect for institution, part of the anger is that the perceptions were right and yet no one cares or acknowledges it. The other part is that the difference between indecency and vulgarity. I think the “hard left” tends to be more vulgar and that gets more attention and creates the perception of “harshness” while the “hard right” can be very indecent but civil. Like Ken Blackwell calmly explaining that homosexuals are exactly like arsonists, or if we let there be gay marriage then people will have sex with animals, because they are totally the same…he didn't swear but that's inherently indecent position. Same thing with using Obama's middle name in the way they did. In fact the whole Palin shtick at one point was almost directly calling Obama a terrorist, but in very mealy terms. And she was a candidate!