Lieberman doesn't deserve the boot (?)

[riona]

The author of this piece expresses the following sentiments, yet at the end of his article, he says that Lieberman doesn't deserve the boot. What do you think?

Lieberman Deserves Boot - But He Shouldn't Get It
May 11, 2006
Jonathan Chait

http://www.courant.com/news/opinion/op_ed/hc-chait0511.artmay11,0,4800465.story?coll=hc-headlines-oped

(snip)
But lots of Democrats supported the Iraq war initially and believe now that we can and must win. Moderates such as Sens. Joe Biden and Hillary Clinton say this all the time. But you don't see anybody trying to oust them.

The difference is that Lieberman, unlike other Democratic hawks, musters little passion for exposing and correcting the massive blunders the Bush administration has committed. When the Abu Ghraib scandal broke, Lieberman noted, in Bush's defense, "Those who were responsible for killing 3,000 Americans on Sept. 11, 2001, never apologized." (As if anybody was suggesting we were as bad as the terrorists.)

Last fall he said, "In matters of war, we undermine presidential credibility at our nation's peril." The clear implication is that it's counterproductive - traitorous, even - to call the administration on its foreign policy dishonesties. This is not how the loyal opposition in a democracy ought to behave.

Foreign policy is hardly the only smudge on Lieberman's record.

He is a longtime supporter of taxing capital gains at a lower rate than other income - a stance gratifying to owners of stock but lacking in economic sense or basic fairness. He has long opposed sensible financial regulations. Even after his pro-business stance came under fire in the wake of the Enron scandal, Lieberman opposed sensible reforms. (As one of Lieberman's friends told The New Republic's Michael Crowley in 2002, "It'll be remembered that he didn't go off the deep end" - meaning, after the populist furor dies down, Lieberman could resume raking in contributions from grateful executives.) He supported the disgraceful energy bill and federal intervention in the Terri Schiavo case.

Lieberman obviously relishes his role as every conservative's favorite Democrat. It's a mutually beneficial relationship. He's lavished with praise for his statesmanship, vision and bipartisanship. And, in the process, Republicans implicitly get to show what's wrong with the rest of his party. Bush and Dick Cheney applaud Lieberman regularly for believing we must win in Iraq, as if to suggest no other Democrat thinks the same.

There is a sound political rationale for picking off Lieberman. Republicans only tolerate political moderates if they hail from states or districts that won't elect staunch conservatives. It's a pure strategic calculation. The GOP supports Republican moderates such as Arlen Specter and Lincoln Chafee because they represent "blue states." Those who come from "red states" are expected to toe the line.

You don't see a moderate Republican in a safely red state - the GOP equivalent of Lieberman. That's one of the reasons the Republicans have been able to maintain tighter discipline than the Democrats and jerk the political center of gravity rightward.

In the end, though, I can't quite root for Lieberman to lose his primary. What's holding me back is that the anti-Lieberman campaign has come to stand for much more than Lieberman's sins. It's a test of strength for the new breed of left-wing activists who are flexing their muscles within the party. These are exactly the sorts of fanatics who tore the party apart in the late 1960s and early 1970s. They think in simple slogans and refuse to tolerate any ideological dissent. (snip)

[fearthem]

1. Lieberman is an opportunist, plays both sides, a fair-weathered friend.

[saltpoint]

2. I rely on Connecticut DUers to provide us updates on

that primary, and would say only that if I were a registered voter in Connecticut, I'd prefer Lamont to Lieberman.

In a very rare exception, I even preferred then-incumbent Lowell Weicker to Lieberman, way back in Connecticut Senate history. I would still prefer Weicker to Lieberman today.

Lieberman thought he would do well in the 04 New Hampshire primary, but he didn't. Not long afterward, the tank on Joementum was on empty, and he had to pull over and get out.

If he defeats Lamont, and retains the seat in November, he will have to work with (I believe) a more unified and (perhaps) majority Democratic Senate, one that may be a lot less tolerant of Joe's Bush-kissing ways. There may be a new Majority Leader -- Dodd? Durbin? Someone to the left of Lieberman, though, and the makeup of committees will also favor a more progressive Democratic vision. Lieberman won't have Bush to play up to if Bush's numbers keep tanking.

With the hard work and big push we need to capture Congress in 06, the landscape would change for Joe, and he would have to adapt more, or he would find himself marooned by his own stubbornness.

Bush may eventually have to replace Rumsfeld and/or Cheney, and Joe Lieberman could find himself in the high rigging of a sinking ship.

[killerbush]

5. Lamont is the real opportunist, Weicker was no better.

Joe Lieberman, faults and all, is still 1000% better than Ned Lamont. Lamont is the opportunist who is only running because the far lefties on this and other blogs goaded him into running. The hatred for Lieberman is acute, and some people prefer him to just go away. Well, he's not, and will be in the Senate once again. Deservedly so. As for Lowell Weicker, he lost me when he stupidly got himself egged walking through the crowd when he was governor.

[saltpoint]

6. We part company on Lieberman, killerbush. In a primary, voters

choose based on their best notions of who might best represent them. In Connecticut, Lieberman may hold on, or Lamont may upset him. It's gonna be one or the other, but the primary's not been held yet. Russ Feingold was given little chance in his first primary and he whupped both the frontrunners.

Had Weicker been the one throwing the eggs, I'd go with your view. It was others who threw the eggs at him, not the other way around. I admire the way he stood up to Charles Colson during the Watergate hearings and for any number of other things. I vote straight Democratic ticket almost all the time, but I'd make an exception for Weicker over Lieberman if I were a CT Dem.

[xchrom]

10. ''far lefties''

:eyes:

[Clark2008]

11. Really.

What's a "far leftie?"

Is that someone who believes that we use force as a last resort? Someone who believes in long-term democracy and a move away from the military industrial complex? Someone who believes we should uphold the Constitution, paricularly, now, the First and Fourth Amendments? Someone who believes in preserving the middle class by aiding in tax cuts for them - and not the super-wealthy? Someone who's allegiance is to the United States over another sovereign nation?

I mean, because, if that's a "far leftie," then I am one.

[riona]

12. That "far leftie" comment of his

was quite odd. After making what I thought to be pretty valid reasons not to vote for Lieberman, he starts the liberal bashing routine. Makes you wonder where he's coming from.

[monarch]

14. Please tell us why you

think Lieberman is so much better. Is it just because he gives cover to the Republicans at every opportunity? Or is it about his support of Cheney's energy policies, his vote against cloture on the Alito nomination, his endorsement of the rights of hospitals to refuse to tell rape victims about the morning after pill, his belief that the federal government was right to intervene in the Schiavo case, his vote for the Defense of Marriage Act, his holier than thou speech about Clinton, his sterling performance in his debate with Cheney etc, etc. Please enlighten me.

I'd also like to know what your definition of an opportunist is.

[riona]

7. Connecticut politics will always interest me.

I've lived , worked, and have family there - even worked on a Dem campaign. Many of us follow states where we are from or have lived.

[saltpoint]

8. It makes sense, flblu2. I don't blame you one bit.

[Warpy]

3. Lieberman is good on civil rights, horrible on labor rights,

a corporatist and who would seem to owe more allegiance to Israel than he does to the US. He may represent the wealthier people of Connecticut quite well. He's better than the worst pubbie, at any rate.

He's just an annoyling little jerk who needs to get his mitts of Obama.

[monarch]

4. Good on civil rights?

Sure, if you don't consider the rights of gays and women.

[Jack Rabbit]

9. An interestng point:

(S)ince (the) anti-Lieberman jihad is seen as stemming from his pro-war stance, the practical effect of toppling Lieberman would be to intimidate other hawkish Democrats and encourage more primary challengers against them.

Mr. Chait gets it. Go Lamont!!

[mmonk]

13. !

[MsMagnificent]

15. Is he *'s Pimp or 'Ho?

...as with John McCain, I just can't tell which from minute to minute...

[David Ippolito]

16. Disgrace...

Lieberman is a disgrace. He showed his lack of integrity while Howard Dean was still in the primary, and has never failed to illustrate the difference between a politician and a statesman.... a statesman places country and principle first. A politician places agenda and career ambition first.

Joe Lieberman is the defintion of a politician.

The Bush administration is dangerous. This is the time for "American statesmen".

Where are they?