Will Wisdom Be Ignored?
David Broder has an interesting column in yesterday's Washington Post, that I missed while out sight seeing. Luckily, Dan at Riehl World View pointed it out. In it, Broder goes over the problem of Connecticut politics right now, and the possibility of a run by Joe Lieberman as an independent if he loses the Democratic Primary.
For those who don't know, Ned Lamont, a fairly popular, farther left democrat has challenged Lieberman for the nomination for his Senate seat because Joe wouldn't back down on his Iraq War vote.
Many think the vote is a referendum on the war itself, but it really is as much a referendum on the idea of a honest politics and politicians, regardless of party. If Lamont wins in August and Lieberman does run as an independent the real question becomes 'who do you want to represent you, someone who does everything lockstep with the party, or someone who stands behind their votes?'
As I've pointed out many times, Lieberman isn't popular with the vocal left of the party simply because he refuses to toe the line they've drawn. In the Broder piece Joe has a couple of quotes that many politicians, not just Connecticut Democrats should probably heed.
On the subject of his stance on the War in Iraq being a good thing, and the country being safer because of it:
Unfortunately, the position being pushed my a good portion of his party is unity above all else, even when unity might not be the right thing. It was pointed out at Lone Pony yesterday that Hillary Clinton was booed at a recent appearance for not changing her position on her vote for the war. Her, and Lieberman's criticism of how the war is conducted, and many of the Bush policies regarding it are completely ignored over the fact they won't say they were wrong to vote for it in the first place.
And on the idea of toeing the line for the party:
There are some folks in the GOP would could take a hint from that last line when the names Olympia Snow, Lincoln Chafee and John McCain are mentioned.
If the November election comes down to Lamont and and Independent Lieberman the referendum won't be on the war, it will be on the Democratic Party itself, at least in Connecticut, and my guess is the answer won't be one that the left end of the party wants to hear.
While the far left of the party over at Daily Kos and Atrios will cheer if Joe loses the primary, they'll forget that if he wins the general election the Democrats are farther from, not closer to their goal of regaining control of the Senate.
For those who don't know, Ned Lamont, a fairly popular, farther left democrat has challenged Lieberman for the nomination for his Senate seat because Joe wouldn't back down on his Iraq War vote.
Many think the vote is a referendum on the war itself, but it really is as much a referendum on the idea of a honest politics and politicians, regardless of party. If Lamont wins in August and Lieberman does run as an independent the real question becomes 'who do you want to represent you, someone who does everything lockstep with the party, or someone who stands behind their votes?'
As I've pointed out many times, Lieberman isn't popular with the vocal left of the party simply because he refuses to toe the line they've drawn. In the Broder piece Joe has a couple of quotes that many politicians, not just Connecticut Democrats should probably heed.
On the subject of his stance on the War in Iraq being a good thing, and the country being safer because of it:
"My opponent says it broke Democratic unity," Lieberman said. "Well, dammit, I wasn't thinking about Democratic unity. It was a moment to put the national interest above partisan interest."
Unfortunately, the position being pushed my a good portion of his party is unity above all else, even when unity might not be the right thing. It was pointed out at Lone Pony yesterday that Hillary Clinton was booed at a recent appearance for not changing her position on her vote for the war. Her, and Lieberman's criticism of how the war is conducted, and many of the Bush policies regarding it are completely ignored over the fact they won't say they were wrong to vote for it in the first place.
And on the idea of toeing the line for the party:
"I know I'm taking a position that is not popular within the party," Lieberman said, "but that is a challenge for the party -- whether it will accept diversity of opinion or is on a kind of crusade or jihad of its own to have everybody toe the line. No successful political party has ever done that."
There are some folks in the GOP would could take a hint from that last line when the names Olympia Snow, Lincoln Chafee and John McCain are mentioned.
If the November election comes down to Lamont and and Independent Lieberman the referendum won't be on the war, it will be on the Democratic Party itself, at least in Connecticut, and my guess is the answer won't be one that the left end of the party wants to hear.
While the far left of the party over at Daily Kos and Atrios will cheer if Joe loses the primary, they'll forget that if he wins the general election the Democrats are farther from, not closer to their goal of regaining control of the Senate.
posted by Crazy Politico at 5:46 AM
4Comments:
Unity is like sex. The less you have the more you talk about it.
I disagree with him on many issues but he still has my respect. He is usually a man of principles and we need more of those.
Repack, I have no problem with the voters turning out Joe Lieberman if they wish. What I stated was that if he runs as an Independent the democrats will find that their agenda is a failure with the mass of voters, not just those registerd with the party.
There's nothing wrong with asking about the intel pre-war. In fact, the Senate Select Intel committee did just that, and voted 14-0 that there was no administration doctoring of the intelligence.
As for Kos and Atrois, they are far left activists, Kos said so on on CNN's Reliable Sources today when asked by Howard Kurtz. So I tarred him by using his own term for himself?
There's nothing far left about patriotism, or asking for accountability. I just think that the vocal left of the Democratic party is in for a big shock in November when they find out their schtick doesn't sell.
Oops, forgot, as far as biggest "tactical error" in US history, study history.
Stopping MacArthur in North Korea when he could have overrun them before China got involved cost over 35,000 lives over the 28 months that followed.
The Johnson decisions on conduct in Viet Nam probably has at least 3 of the top 10 in history.
The Bay of Pigs nearly lead to nuclear war with the new relationship it helped cement between Russia and Cuba.
The failure to listen to the radar operator at Pearl Harbor on December 7th 1941 would have to be way up on the list.
The failure of the last administration to allow the CIA and FBI to share information, and take custody of Bin Laden from Sudan would have to be way up on the list.
I won't even get into pre-WWI and II intelligence and diplomatic failures that lead to the deaths of millions.
Post a Comment
<< Home