Strengthening Constitutional Self-Government

No Left Turns

The Battle for Connecticut

This Washington Post article details the all-out struggle that the Democratic Party’s left wing has been making to unseat Joe Lieberman. Some longtime Lieberman supporters have abandoned the incumbent in favor of his challenger, Ned Lamont, and just yesterday the New York Times threw its support to Lamont as well.

The stakes here are critical, not just for 2006 but 2008, too. If Lamont can pull it off, an emboldened left might well have the clout to have one of its own (in other words, not Hillary Clinton) win the party’s presidential nomination. This would, of course, be good news for the GOP--but is it good enough to offset the loss of a genuinely good man in the Senate?

Discussions - 4 Comments

Lieberman’s defeat would not mean the “loss of a genuinely good man” in the Senate unless “good man” is now defined as anyone who supports President Bush’s policy of military struggle against terrorism. Lieberman has never helped conservatives on any other issue. A Connecticut friend of mine says “Joe wrestles with his conscience and wins every time.”

If Democrats and Republicans split the Senate 50/50 in 2006, a Senator Lieberman will vote to put those other liberal Democratic “bad men” who oppose President Bush’s war against terrorism in control of the leadership and every committee. Mr. Lamont would too, but his victory would simply make the real disloyalty and extremism of his party much clearer. Lieberman’s “good man” image veils the fanaticism that has overcome the Democrats. Better for Americans to see it for what it is, without Lieberman’s disingenuous “moderation.”

Well . . . he’s sort of done a little more for the Republicans (and, to be fair, arguably Americans) than just support the war in Iraq.



- He was instrumental in creating the Department of Homeland Security.


- He was all about Senate Resolution 247 (aka = the pro-Israel no-matter-what resolution)


- He loves NAFTA and CAFTA


- He voted in favor of Bush’s 2004 tax cuts


- He doesn’t like violent video games (the bastard) or music that could incite violent behavior (again . . . the bastard . . .) :-D


- He was part of the "Gang of 14" and helped to keep Democrats from filibustering all of Bush’s appellate court nominees


- He also was against pulling the tube on Terri Schiavo



But, I see where you’re coming from. He supports stem cell research, gay rights, abortion rights, affirmative action, serious gun control, and more money for public education. He criticizes Bush’s policies on the environment, taxes (generally), private Social Security, and an anti-flag burning amendement.



I still like him.

Okay Matt, let’s look at your list.

DHS passed with a 90 vote majority. Nothing special about Lieberman there.
NAFTA was Bill Clinton’s. The only people talking about video games are Lieberman, Hillary Clinton, and the Dem governor of Illinois. The Gang of 14 stopped the Republicans from taking away the filibuster. Now Bush still can’t get judges through. As for Schiavo, I assume you are referring to the bill that the Senate passed unanimously. Is Ted Kennedy a friend of the Republicans too?

The fact is, Lieberman is quite liberal and is the same man today that he was when he saved Al Gore’s campaign in 2000. He has not changed. The Democratic Party has become more intolerant toward dissent.

Lieberfan,



Well, I think I conceded at the end of my post that he was still, most assuredly, liberal.



I think you’re right about the Democrats, though. As a party, they do look as though they are moving to a more radically liberal, near-pacifist tone.

Leave a Comment

* denotes a required field
 

No TrackBacks
TrackBack URL: http://nlt.ashbrook.org/movabletype/mt-tb.cgi/8770