Lieberman (D-CT) is hedging his bets because he’s seen the polling and thinks there’s a distinct possibility he will lose the August Democratic primary. And apparently the anti-war left in the Democratic Party sees an opportunity to replace a hawkish member of the Senate with an anti-war member. Ah, how far the Democratic Party has come to driving itself off a cliff. Fourteen years ago the Democratic Leadership Council (DLC), which Lieberman helped found, created a center-left coalition of Democrats that held the center of power in the Democratic Party for 8 years, during the presidency of Bill Clinton, who was also a member of the DLC. Not that I particularly liked Clinton’s presidency, but at least it was better than what the anti-war left has to offer. There are some on the left who are charging that Lieberman is really a Republican. If that’s the case then perhaps Bill Clinton was too. He limited welfare benefits, right? What a laugh! If these guys are Republicans, what the hell are Democrats really like?? Are you cringing yet?
The problem is not that Lieberman has moved to the right (I don’t believe he has). The problem is the Democratic Party is moving farther to the left than it used to be. Personally I don’t see this as a good thing. Competition between the parties keeps government functioning as it should–for the people. I am dumbfounded why some Democrats insist on refashioning the party into a bunch of peacenicks, essentially committing suicide, in the midst of a war that really is about our survival as a nation. This isn’t the same as Vietnam. Unfortunately the parallels are more like a war that was fought before many of the people living today were born. There’s little memory left of what WW II was like.
I see this development with Salazar as positive. I consider myself as someone on the center-right of things. I haven’t agreed with Salazar on all things, but Lieberman needs allies right now.
I’ve been pleasantly surprised that Sen. Lieberman has been a stalwart supporter of the effort in Iraq, and the War on Terror. The anti-war left within the Democratic Party has apparently hated him for it. His Democratic opponent, Ned Lamont, a millionaire financing his own campaign, is for pulling the troops out this year. I suppose wanting the troops out is fine, however it needs to be contingent on meeting our goals in Iraq, not merely because we’re tired of the war, or didn’t think it was a good idea in the first place. I’ve read some of the comments online in support of Lamont. They sound strangely like the position that the Boulder City Council has taken: End the war so the federal government can send us more money. I feel like giving them a variation on what Ben Franklin once famously said: “Those who are willing to give up fundamental national security for a little extra money deserve neither!”
As far as I’m concerned the anti-war left’s position on this is irresponsible to this nation, and to the people of Iraq. The anti-war activists desire the realization of a fantasy: that the world will become a more peaceful place if we renounce interventionism, give up our role as a leader in the world, retreat into economic isolationism, but ironically continue multilateral diplomacy. Is it just me, or does this sound like the EU model? In any case, we can see what a resounding success that is. With the screwed up politics going on in this country, President Bush needs every ally he can get as well, and Lieberman has been on this issue.
I tend to vote Republican, and while I can’t vote for Sen. Lieberman, I’m voicing my support for his re-election, no matter how the primary turns out. While I’m not a fan of liberalism as an ideology, I support those who are for a strong defense against the Islamofascists and those who aid them.