Lieberman - Question for Democrats
I read a couple of articles today that outline the battle lines being drawn within the Democratic party.
The ABC article states that Connecticut Democrats ignored the long-term progressive record of Lieberman, and ousted him on one very narrow issue. The writer hopes that Lieberman is successful in his independent bid in order to demonstrate that you do not have to polarize to be elected today. http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=2291284&page=1
The other article, from a liberal blog in San Francisco said that Lieberman was punished for being out of step with the majority of his party, and that his loss is a good thing, and that his running as an independent is a mistake. http://www.beyondchron.org/articles/Sore_Loserman_Why_Lieberman_Must_Drop_His_Independent_Bid_3561.html
Now, by this point, you all know that I consider myself in the center of the political spectrum. If I were in Connecticut, Lieberman is precisely the kind of guy I would want as a Senator. However, I would like to see some of the folks who are more hard core Democrats on this blog weigh in on the issue.
posted by Carl Spackler @ 3:37 PM
2 Comments
2 Comments:
Not considering myself a Democrat, but certainly a Liberal, I would have to say that Lieberman signed his own warrant when he decided to not only support the Bush administrations foreign policy, but to echo their talking points hours after they had been uttered from the white house. By doing so, I believe he did damage to his party and facilitated the furthered politicazation of national security. The later being a shameful infraction given that this very issue has at least partially decided the past two elections...even though gay marriage seemed to strike a more paniced cord with the majority of pro-Bushers during the last go around. Not to say that the man isn't entitled to his opinion, but many voters, like myself, cannot overlook the continued support of a failed policy that serves not only to kill hundreds of our men, but recruit thousands of the terrorists that we seek to irradicate.
If anything, the Dem's biggest issue from my perspective, is that they can't seem to be dissimilar enough from the current administration on foreign policy. The US has been actively mucking around in the middle east since Teddy Roosevelt with the idea that if we don't completely control the region, we will risk no longer being king of the hill. Ironically, I think that it will be this very policy that escalates and inflames the forces that are most likely to kick us off the hill (China-Russia).
Personally, I'm happy it happened as well for different reasons.
I think results such as these combined with re-elections of Marion Berry in the past and the Cynthia McKinneys of the world show that the Dems are not the 'Big Tent Party' of the past and are becoming a one trick pony themselves.
If you get out of line we vote you out. I love it and hope it continues to the point where the real backing moves across the aisle to the side who truly supports Israel. (If Bush ran in Israel he'd probably get about a 70% vote).
A party with one idea (which isn't really an idea) of Anything But Bush simply cannot win national elections. A party with no money behind it cannot fund them either.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home