August 1, 2006

NYT explains why Joe must go

The New York Times endorses Lamont.
As Mr. Lieberman sees it, this is a fight for the soul of the Democratic Party — his moderate fair-mindedness against a partisan radicalism that alienates most Americans. “What kind of Democratic Party are we going to have?” he asked in an interview with New York magazine. “You’ve got to agree 100 percent, or you’re not a good Democrat?”

That’s far from the issue. Mr. Lieberman is not just a senator who works well with members of the other party. And there is a reason that while other Democrats supported the war, he has become the only target. In his effort to appear above the partisan fray, he has become one of the Bush administration’s most useful allies as the president tries to turn the war on terror into an excuse for radical changes in how this country operates.
...
At this moment, with a Republican president intent on drastically expanding his powers with the support of the Republican House and Senate, it is critical that the minority party serve as a responsible, but vigorous, watchdog. That does not require shrillness or absolutism. But this is no time for a man with Mr. Lieberman’s ability to command Republicans’ attention to become their enabler, and embrace a role as the president’s defender.

Mr. Lieberman prides himself on being a legal thinker and a champion of civil liberties. But he appointed himself defender of Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and the administration’s policy of holding hundreds of foreign citizens in prison without any due process. He seconded Mr. Gonzales’s sneering reference to the “quaint” provisions of the Geneva Conventions. He has shown no interest in prodding his Republican friends into investigating how the administration misled the nation about Iraq’s weapons. There is no use having a senator famous for getting along with Republicans if he never challenges them on issues of profound importance.
...
If Mr. Lieberman had once stood up and taken the lead in saying that there were some places a president had no right to take his country even during a time of war, neither he nor this page would be where we are today. But by suggesting that there is no principled space for that kind of opposition, he has forfeited his role as a conscience of his party, and has forfeited our support.

Mr. Lamont, a wealthy businessman from Greenwich, seems smart and moderate, and he showed spine in challenging the senator while other Democrats groused privately. He does not have his opponent’s grasp of policy yet. But this primary is not about Mr. Lieberman’s legislative record. Instead it has become a referendum on his warped version of bipartisanship, in which the never-ending war on terror becomes an excuse for silence and inaction. We endorse Ned Lamont in the Democratic primary for Senate in Connecticut.

3 Comments:

At 8/02/2006 2:31 AM, Blogger Craig said...

I don't know dope...

I don't see what is so great about Ned Lamont, I mean don't get me wrong if Lieberman is a coward for collecting petitons, but all Lamont talks about is the war.

Lieberman says he is a one issue candidate, I tend to agree

 
At 8/02/2006 2:35 PM, Blogger The Inside Dope said...

Lamont is not a well known figure, but rest assured he has well thought out positions on the issues facing us.

If you've bought the spin put out by Joe, I'd only point out that the issue of the war is obviously the most important facing the country, and when Joe is dead wrong on it, then I think that's a legitimate thing on which to focus.

The news emerging recently is that if Joe loses and runs as an independent, nearly all Dems won't support him and will instead support Lamont.

Lamont is no slouch and is "for real". I personally think that the Democratic party and this country can't afford folks like Joe who, while likely a very nice guy, has a warped view of "bi-partisanship" which involves largely parroting and supporting administration policies which fly directly in the face of the beliefs and wishes of Democratic voters.

If someone is wrong on an issue, it's hard to imagine being wrong on a more critical one than the so-called "war on terror".

 
At 8/09/2006 7:07 AM, Blogger maybesomeday said...

Lieberman has a problem - an identity crisis. What does he want to be when he grows up? A Republican or a Democrat??

Now we hear he has decided he is really an Independant. We will see if the voters buy that in November.

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home