|
Those supporting Joe Lieberman say that his opposition has been fueled by angry anti-war activists and bloggers, the fringe of the party. As a Connecticut resident, my opposition to Joe Lieberman has grown out of my disappointment in him, and not any anger or influence of activists, bloggers or "the fringe". I'm generally not an angry person, I'm not a blogger and my activism rarely extends beyond letters to the editor and offering some sarcasm and the occasional bit of constructive criticism here on DU.
My disappointment really first started with Joe's piece in last year's Wall St. Journal that said Democrats should suck it up and accept Bush as president for the next three years, and that any criticism of Team Bush is tantamount to treason because it undermines the war effort. Strange that Joe singled out Democrats, as some members of Bush's own party have been among his strongest critics on Iraq. For example, around the time that Lieberman wrote his piece, ultra-conservative Republican Chuck Hagel, the Senator from Nebraska, said that Republicans should accept the idea that it is okay to criticize Bush over Iraq. And, Hagel has been a vocal critic of the Iraq debacle all along. Does Joe think it is okay for Hagel, or Colin Powell, to criticize the war because they have the (R) after their names?
My dissatisfaction grew when asked about his support of the war, he kept spinning out long-debunked Republican Talking Points that were seemingly straight from Karl Rove's desk. With the reality being that Iraq is a disaster and is rapidly deteriorating, Joe's comments on how rosy things are in Iraq call into question either his integrity or whether he is completely divorced from reality. Even earlier this month, he praised the great progress being made there while death squads and militias roam the streets killing scores of Iraqi citizens every week.
Third, and to show that it is not just about the war, it was Lieberman's insensitive comment about a rape victim driving to another hospital to get the "morning-after" pill, his support of the Bush-Cheney-Exxon energy bill, his lack of support for Feingold's censure movement over illegal wiretapping of American citizens when he had previously called on Bill Clinton to be censured over Monica Lewinsky, his lack of support for universal health care and his support of federal intervention in the Terri Schiavo case that had me shaking my head time and again.
Fourth, and the final straw with me, was Lieberman refusing to rule out a run as an independent if the voters in the Democratic Party decided to nominate Ned Lamont. If Lieberman is truly the Democrat he claims to be, he should have the courage to endorse the will of Connecticut Democrats in the August 8 primary and support Ned Lamont should Joe lose the primary. No wonder I see far more "Ned Lamont" yard signs than I do Joe Lieberman ones on my long commute to work each day. I would be embarrassed to show my support of such a lukewarm Democrat. Heck, on DailyKos they are now reporting he would not rule out running on the Republican line!
I like to think of myself as a tolerant person who believes the Democratic Party should be the "Big Tent" party. Previously, I had thought Joe was an okay senator who, while a neocon on foreign policy, was somewhat progressive on social issues. Before Lamont entered the race, I would have voted for Joe in November because I knew he would be one more vote for Harry Reid as Senate Majority Leader should we ever wrest control of the Senate from the Forces of Darkness. I would have tolerated his views on Iraq in hopes that he would some day come back to reality on the issue.
However, when you add Iraq on top of his refusal to endorse the will of Democrats in the primary, Terri Schiavo and everything else, I cannot vote for Lieberman in good conscience, on August 8th or in November. I was leaning Lamont before, but since Lieberman's refusal to rule out an independent run was confirmed, I am now 100% completely behind Lamont and become more sure every day.
|