August 6, 2006
-- by Dave Johnson
At far, far-right-wing Townhall.com, wingnut Mark Alexander explains what's wrong with Leiberman better than I could. Remember that this is a core-conservative movement perspective:
Lieberman had proved his mettle two years earlier, when he scolded then-prevaricator-in-chief Bill Clinton for having debauched a 21-year-old intern -- and for having perjured himself during the cover-up.In other words, Leiberman supported the far-right positions on school vouchers, getting rid of affirmative action, getting rid of Social Security, and called other Democrats traitors. If DEMOCRATS vote him out this week I say Good Riddance.
... Lieberman dealt his integrity a fatal blow by lending his name to Gore. Indeed, shortly after hopping aboard the ill-fated Gore ticket, he flip-flopped on key issues such as school choice, social-security reform and affirmative action.
... From the onset of hostilities in Afghanistan and Iraq, many of Joe Lieberman's Senate colleagues have been vociferously anti-American -- in fact, their actions have been nothing short of traitorous. However, Lieberman refused to trade his integrity for party loyalty, which separated him from the pack of Northeastern liberals like uber-Leftist Jean-Francois Kerry. Said Lieberman earlier this year: "It's time for Democrats who distrust President Bush to acknowledge [that he is our] commander-in-chief. We undermine the President's credibility at our nation's peril."
TrackBack URL for this entry:
Thanks for pointing out all those other issues on which Leiberman has been siding with the extreme right. It's not just the war.
The media continues to portray this contest as a one issue referendum on the war. While certainly the dominant issue, I think this view masks the widespread dissatisfaction with congress in general, not just the administration, and is reflected in a "zero tolerance" attitude toward incumbents. People are looking for any excuse to "vote the bums" out. Watching the debate, I was struck by several differences between the candidates - most notably on the topic of "earmarks". I went into the debate with an open mind, expecting to retain my mild preference for Lieberman. Lieberman's brazen support for the corrupt earmark process, and craven appeal to Connecticut voters based on his ability to bring home the earmark "pork", completely changed my thinking. Lamont took a principled stand on earmarks, which resonated with me and I suspect resonates with Connecticut voters (which - full disclosure - I am not), even if he is more left of center than I would like. I posted a short video and transcript about this telling exchange in my blog post: "To earmark or not to earmark, that is the question"
Posted by: mw at August 6, 2006 9:43 AM
Post a comment
Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)