A blog site populated with progressives asks: “He (Sen. Joe Lieberman) has four years. Can he win those Democrats and independents back? If he can’t, he’ll definitely not be able to win re-election.”
The answer is “yes,” for a number of reasons.
The parting of the ways with Lieberman and the progressive community came as a result of the senator’s position, pro-Bush, on the war in Iraq. Lieberman also laid waste their plans to vacate his seat and replace him with a senator that courted their support during a hard fought primary and general election, which Lieberman won, much to the dismay of the progressive community. Ned Lamont, the heartthrob of the progressive movement, having disappeared in a puff of smoke, Lieberman proceeded on his merry way, spurning the opposition from his left. In politics, the left does not like to be so loftily ignored; it makes them feel small and negligible and wounds their dignity.
Socialist Sen. Bernie Sanders and Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy, both of Vermont, did not believe Lieberman deserved to keep his Homeland Security chairmanship after having campaigned against President-elect Barack Obama in the general election.
Lieberman himself has not spared their tattered dignity. Recently, he said he thought the effort to deprive him of his chairmanship was “the kind of thing that only happened in the former Soviet Union.” Lieberman figured that in this country he shouldn’t “get punished” for doing “something that I really believe.”
Lieberman himself has not spared their tattered dignity. Recently, he said he thought the effort to deprive him of his chairmanship was “the kind of thing that only happened in the former Soviet Union.” Lieberman figured that in this country he shouldn’t “get punished” for doing “something that I really believe.”
When Lieberman leapt the fence during the presidential primaries and threw in his lot with Republican primary nominee Sen. John McCain, opposition ranks swelled. Every blue state Democrat, seemingly, was outraged at the betrayal – but not Barack Obama, who dished feminist heartthrob Sen. Hillary Clinton in the primary and went on to clean McCain’s clock in the general election.
A victorious President-elect Obama, who might well have divested Lieberman of his blue chip chairmanship of the Homeland Security committee, instead magnanimously spared his status. After a secret ballot, Lieberman was permitted to keep his chairmanship and the progressive community was once again marginalized.
Here in Connecticut, purple faced bloggers still rant and rave, but everyone else seems prepared to accept the verdict of Harry Reid, “It’s all over with. Joe Lieberman is a Democrat; he’s part of this caucus... I feel good about what we've done here today."
The dogs have been called off.
Why?
Different politicians, different positions. The war in Iraq, though some progressives refuse to believe it, is winding down. And we have a new president – Barack “Lets unilaterally invade Pakistan so we can rout possibly dead terrorists from the badlands in Pakistan, where they are holed up” – Obama.
During the past few weeks, Obama has been assembling – though few seemed to have noticed it – a WAR cabinet.
With a new president, one may expect – even in progressive Connecticut – what is called a shift in opinion. Liberal to a fault, political opinion in Connecticut follows in the rut of political strategy. In the new circumstances, Lieberman will not only be tolerated; he will be necessary. Most of the newspapers that had been cackling against Bush’s war in Iraq will slowly approve Obama’s war in Pakistan and Afghanistan, possibly even Iran and Syria.
Why is Lieberman necessary?
Chiefly to acquire Republican support for Obama’s war in North Pakistan and Afghanistan. That war – primarily because of the strategies implemented by General David Petraeus in the Iraq war – might be winnable, though some realists, who soon may be tagged by New Democrats as anti-patriotic, have their doubts.
A massive amount of people, clinging like drowning men to their anti-war positions, instantly abandon them once they are hauled aboard a new war ship captained by a new leader who is able to command their attention and support.
Funny how these things happen, isn’t it?
Comments
Use of words like "cravenly" above add nothing to your column, and only detract.
And Ned Lamont was nobody's "heartthrob." I can't imagine he was even his wife's heartthrob. He was a guy with pockets deep enough to go after a solidly positioned stalwart and crafty, crafty campaigner like Lieberman.
The cheap political writers have to resort to taunting verbiage to make their points. Don't you go that way too.