Here in Connecticut, we don't often get to make big political news. Oh, once in a while we see some action -- Kennedy cousin Michael Skakel got twenty-to-life from a jury of his peers, Susette Kelo got the shaft from the city of New London and the Supreme Court, and Governor Rowland got his comeuppance -- but in recent times, the Nutmeg State has been so electorally true blue, that the first week in November is usually a big yawn.
This year however, all eyes are focused on the re-election bid of Democratic Senator Joseph Lieberman, where some in his own party are supporting the candidate who won the chance to challenge him in an upcoming primary. They hope that Greenwich millionaire Ned Lamont can unseat the man who is viewed as a disloyal member of the loyal opposition. Why?
Time Magazine reporter Perry Bacon cites Lieberman's "seemingly constant willingness to compromise with the GOP on many issues," one of which was "helping President Bush get some of his conservative judicial nominees confirmed after they had been filibustered by Democrats." How joining the "Gang of 14" translates to constant compromise with Republicans is beyond me, given that Lieberman's lifetime American Conservative Union rating is a minuscule 17 percent, but such is the way of the liberal media.
Bacon however, gives away the true game, writing that Lieberman is incurring his party's wrath for "for taking positions at odds with the Democrat orthodoxy." Sadly, that orthodoxy today seems to amount to nothing more than preventing Republican presidents from pursuing military victory and securing the national defense.
Lieberman has held his seat since he beat fellow chameleon Lowell Weicker in 1988. But unlike Weicker who merely changed his party affiliation, Lieberman frequently changes his spots. Let us not forget that in 2000, the war-loving, troop-supporting Lieberman tried to have the write-in votes of our active military thrown out. Or that he became the "Conscience of the Senate" by denouncing Bill Clinton's impeachable behavior, only to subsequently vote to acquit him. He is moderate only in the sense that he seeks not to offend others with their fingers in the wind.
The odd thing is that in the not-too-distant past some Democrats in power actually courted so-called moderates like Lieberman. Remember that in 2004, John Kerry virtually begged the pro-life, pro-gun, pro-Iraqi war John McCain to serve as his running mate. And so it might seem queer that Lieberman himself, a man who only five short years ago was the number two man on their presidential ticket, is now a party pariah.
But not when you consider the playmates now sharing the Democratic sandbox. Backing the anti-war Lamont are fellow travelers from MoveOn.org, the DailyKos and other far, far left-wing groups. Underscoring this is a creepy ad that features Kos maven Markos Moulitsas peering like a stalker through Lamont's living room window and bursting through his door accompanied by a group of wild-eyed supporters.
It is their intention to remake the Democratic Party from without; to use it as a vehicle for their radical agenda. Along with Lieberman, the peaceniks have set their sights on another Northeastern "conservative," Hillary Clinton. Her Green Party opponent has eloquently stated the goal of those who would conduct our national defense: "Expecting the Democrats to end the Iraq war is like expecting crack addicts to turn in their dealers."
Yes, the desire to fight our enemies on foreign shores instead of here at home and support the mission of our troops should be an addiction: like breathing. But to those remnants of the Vietnam anti-war era and their pitiful descendants, the image of the American military in action speaks not of the quest for freedom but the tyranny of an evil, imperialistic thirst for capitalistic domination.
For all his faults, Joe Lieberman should be applauded and rewarded for opposing this repulsive notion, as will probably happen. Most articles talking up Lamont thrill that he was able to force a primary but ignore or underplay the fact that Lieberman got two-thirds of the delegate votes and needs only to produce 7,500 signatures to run as an independent.
Should he be forced to run outside of his party affiliation, it will be a sad day for Republicans and Democrats alike; for it will show that the loyal opposition, as regards the security of the country, is no more.
Share this Article
Like this Article
Print this ArticlePrint Article