Or so the rumor goes, that the Premium content on Rasmussen reports shows Lamont has opened a 10-point lead on Lieberman for the August democrat primary.
I certainly support Lieberman over Lamont, but dispite Joe's being right about the war in Iraq, that single issue doesn't negate his strong liberal record, so I would be happy to see him replaced with even a liberal republican. Even Linc Chafee votes better for conservatives than Lieberman.
Plus, Lieberman is well-respected amongst independents and republicans. A fall campaign that emphasizes how the democrats threw a good liberal senator out just for speaking his mind, for having principles, should help dissuade independents and liberal republicans who might otherwise be confused enough to think that the democrats offer some principled, well-meaning contrast to the current republicans.
We may complaing about John McCain's maverick ways, but we don't call him names and kick him out of the party. The intolerance the democrats show to the man who was their vice-presidential candidate just 6 years ago should be a warning to those who are looking to the Democrat party for inclusion and open debate and opinions.
4 comments:
Once again, the adjectival form is "Democratic". The name of the party is the Democratic Party. What is so difficult about that?
I appreciate that conservatives like Lieberman more than a more moderate Democrat.
I wonder, though, why you have forgotten about Pat Toomey's primary challenge to Arlen Specter just two years ago. Joe Lieberman is MUCH farther out of the Democratic mainstream on critical issues (such as the war and Bush's judicial nominees) than Arlen Specter was out of the mainstream of the Republican party. Were you calling the Democratic party more inclusive back then when Toomey was challenging Specter from the right?
Primaries are good for the system. Both parties should be challenging incumbents a LOT more than they do right now.
From a partisan perspective, I hope Lieberman loses. It will prove beyond doubt that the inmates are running the Democrat asylum.
And Maura, I'll be happy to spot you your comments about Lieberman's status vis-a-vis "the Democratic mainstream." Kindly extend to Republicans the same courtesy.
Lieberman's rankings by the two major organizations who examine voting patterns show that Leiberman is much firmly to the left of the spectrum of senate democrats, while Specter is close to the outlying rankings of the republicans. Specter is easily within the top 10 most "moderate" republicans in the senate, while Lieberman is I believe 21 out of 45 on the liberal scale.
On judicial nominees, Lieberman is continuing a tradition practiced by most republicans during Clinton's term of giving the president's nominees an up-or-down vote, AND rejecting nominees only for real concerns, not simply for ideological purity.
On every other issue except the war, Lieberman is right with his colleagues. And as far as VOTES go, his VOTES on war issues match those of most of his fellow democrats.
I support primary challenges, but it amazes me that Lieberman is being judged outside the mainstream of democrat thought less than 6 years after being the democrat's choice for Vice President of the United States -- a period where his voting record has become more liberal.
As to the "democrat/democratic" thing, I'm trying, I really am, but in some cases "democrat" just sounds right to me linguistically, and it's hard to fight a good-sounding phrase just because some think I'm missing a couple of letters.
Also, Charles, there is little democratic about the Democrat Party. I would take seriously Demcrat complaints about this usage if they would extend the same courtesy to those they call the "anti-choice" crowd.
Post a Comment