December 10, 2005


Drudge links to two articles about Connecticut Senator Joe Lieberman's "trouble" within the Democrat Party.

NY Times

    Much of the open criticism has been from liberal groups and House members. But his comments have also rankled Democrats in the Senate. Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the minority leader, phoned Mr. Lieberman this week to express concerns with his views, Mr. Reid's aide said.

    "Senator Reid has a lot of respect for Senator Lieberman," said Jim Manley, a Reid spokesman. "But he feels that Senator Lieberman's position on Iraq is at odds with many Americans."

    An aide to another leading Democratic senator who insisted on anonymity said the feelings toward Mr. Lieberman could be summed up as, "The American people want to hold George Bush accountable for the failed policy in Iraq, and Senator Lieberman doesn't."

    Mr. Lieberman, who remains immensely popular in his home state, is aware of the hornet's nest he has stirred.

    "Some Democrats said I was being a traitor," he said in an interview on Friday, adding that he was not surprised by the reaction, "given the depth of feeling about the war."

    Liberal political groups, including Democracy for America and, are considering ways to retaliate, including backing a challenge to Lieberman in next year's Democratic primary. Former senator and Connecticut governor Lowell P. Weicker Jr., an opponent of the war, has vowed to run as an independent, absent a strong Democratic or Republican challenge to Lieberman.

    The administration, on the other hand, can't stop gushing over Lieberman. Vice President Cheney called him "a fine U.S. senator," and Republican National Committee Chairman Ken Mehlman contrasted him with his "retreat and defeat" Democratic colleagues.

Add to this the latest meme of the Senator replacing Donald Rumsfeld at the Department of Defense, and you have an interesting story playing out.

Am I the only one who thinks that the Senator better serves the country by staying a Democrat? He's like the fox in the henhouse. Senator Lieberman, by staying true to principles, is disrupting the whole gestalt over at the DNC.

By being where he is, he serves as a great gauge for just how far left the rest of the Defeaticrat party has gone. Without him and Senator Zell Miller, the Democrats would not be much different than the Greens... hell... the Socialist Party too.

The party that once included Ronald Reagan lost him because of their leftward drift. Might this party of Dean and MoveOn repeat history this time with Joe?

Politics Posted by AlexC at December 10, 2005 1:07 AM

It never ceases to amaze how the so-called "party of free speech" is so quick to shout down speech that opposes theirs, even when it comes from their own caucus. Aren't their minds open to different ideas? Is it possible that, from each of their points of view, they are BOTH correct? Couldn't Senator Lieberman be correct from HIS perspective? The answer, to moral relativists (whose ideology has driven much of the democrat agenda since the sixties) is YES.

But the problem for the Dems in this case is that, from the perspective of "many Americans," Mr. Lieberman's position sounds MORE correct than that of the Defeaticrats. And what's more, he has the all-important qualifier (in the liberal academia and political classes) known as "standing." When Republicans say the war is good for America's future and our progress in it is impressive, they can be dismissed as "war mongering, poor hating, racists." It's a lot harder to say that about the vice-presidential nominee from your very own party.

So the DNC is transforming before our eyes from an open and self-examining political party into a rigid, centrally controlled power base. They certainly deserve the name I've recently heard attributed them - DCC: Democratic Central Committee. "Get back in line, comrade Lieberman!"

Posted by: johngalt at December 10, 2005 11:24 AM

An aside... Ever find it hard to argue with a moral relativist? Shouldn't they be agreeing with you?

Posted by: AlexC at December 10, 2005 12:57 PM

I completely agree that it serves the nation best for Senator Lieberman to remain a Democratic Senator from Connecticut. It is good for the Administration to have one quotable member of the opposition party.

It amazes me that the VP candidate from five years ago is now in a "Zell Miller" position.

The Democrats problem is McCain-Feingold. Without George Soros and they cannot raise the money they require to be competitive. They have to chase the radical fringe and must swear fealty to Labor positions and minority leaders.

All this takes them away from mainstream positions.

Posted by: jk at December 10, 2005 3:52 PM

The GOP doesn't have George Soros / MoveOn equivalent yet they are raising the money. So it's possible.

The cure for the Dems would be change their message to get regular people to actually buy in their "new" message. Then they'd get the money.

But it's a bitter pill to swallow.

Posted by: AlexC at December 10, 2005 5:44 PM

Actually, Alex, no. By definition moral relativists can't agree with anyone, including themselves.

But you're right, when you apply garden variety logic to their mindset you conclude that if they don't have the conviction of their own values then why not just agree with yours! At least for as long as they're in your presence, then they can agree with the next sap the come across after that.

Posted by: johngalt at December 13, 2005 3:01 PM

I should add this too: Rand said, "Reason is not automatic. Those who deny its existence can not be persuaded by it. They can not help you. Leave them alone."

Those who deny the existence of an objective reality that is the same for all individuals, regardless of their personal perceptions of it, and also deny the existence of objective cause and effect within that reality, are utterly powerless to understand your rational dialectic.

Posted by: johngalt at December 13, 2005 3:05 PM | What do you think? [6]