Lieberman shows lack of party loyalty
"J'accuse...!"
Bradley Hart |
THERE’S LIKELY LITTLE doubt within the Democratic Party that a new star has been born in the Nutmeg State.
Political newcomer Ned Lamont’s primary victory over 18-year Senator Joe Lieberman earlier this month seemed to not only shock the Washington political establishment of both parties but appears to have launched one of the most destructive general election battles of the year.
Vowing not to give up his seat despite being rejected by his own party’s voters, Lieberman has filed the paperwork to appear on the ballot as the candidate of the “Connecticut for Lieberman” party. In case it’s not evident, the Connecticut for Lieberman party has a rather limited list of candidates this year.
It’s difficult to know exactly what to make of Joe Lieberman’s fall from Democratic grace.
It was only six years ago that he was Al Gore’s running mate and just two years ago that he sought the party’s Presidential nomination.
What’s striking now is that Lieberman appears to have abandoned any party loyalty he might have once had.
Virtually every senior member of the party has called on him to abandon his independent bid.
The fear among Democratic strategists is not that Lieberman will win the election (he’s promised to caucus with the Senate Democrats and vote for Harry Reid for leader) but that a long, bitter and fratricidal campaign with Lamont will give the GOP the gift of distraction from the ruling party’s ethical lapses and other liabilities.
I have nothing against Joe Lieberman’s independent bid for the Senate. What I do have a problem with is his technique of attacking Democrats as his first strategy.
On August 10, following the announcement that British authorities had foiled what appeared to be a plot to destroy American airliners over the Atlantic Ocean, Lieberman said, “If we just pick up like Ned Lamont wants us to do, get out [of Iraq] by a date certain, it will be taken as a tremendous victory by the same people who wanted to blow up these planes in this plot hatched in England. It will strengthen them and they will strike again.”
Karl Rove couldn’t ask for a better mouthpiece.
Ignoring the absurdity of Lieberman’s suggestion that setting a timetable for withdrawal from Iraq will somehow strengthen terrorist organizations when the opposite is just as likely if not more probable, it is this rhetoric of “withdrawal equals defeat” that is troubling.
Republicans (and Lieberman, apparently) will be using this language to tar Democrats and members of their own party who favor a plan to end the occupation of Iraq in the next several months — and it’s highly irresponsible of Lieberman to attack those who should be his ideological allies with this same charge.
For a man who claims to have voted with Democrats 90 percent of his time in the Senate, Lieberman has taken a turn to the far right that should not, and does not, sit well with his colleagues.
Even if he were to be reelected to the Senate it’s difficult to imagine that he would have any seniority or respect in the Democratic party — which could be a serious problem not only for him personally but also for the voters of Connecticut he represents.
Therefore I’d suggest that if Joe Lieberman wants to continue his bid for the Senate he should do so, but not under the banner of his fake third-party.
I’m sure the GOP will be happy to welcome him into their ranks. He is, after all, a de facto member already.
If the Republicans hold onto their Senate majority this November they can appoint their favorite formerly-Democratic senator to all the committee positions they want.
That’s what party loyalty will get you.
Comment on this story in the Opinion forum >>
|
