Lee Whitnum of Greenwich, running for the U.S. Senate seat
that soon will be vacated by Joe Lieberman, is not likely ever to be mistaken
for Mr. Lieberman.
In the course of a Democratic debate with other candidates
vying for the seat, Ms. Whitnum told moderator Gerry Brooks of NBC Connecticut that
she would have to amend her prepared closing statement just a bit,
after which she tailspinned into language the normally quiescent Democratic
Party Chairwoman Nancy DiNardo later would call inappropriate: “I believe she
crossed the line of inappropriateness.”
Gesturing toward U.S. Representative Chris Murphy on her
left, Ms. Whitnum said, “I'm dealing with [a] whore here, who sells his soul to
AIPAC [American Israeli Public Affairs Committee],
who will say anything for the job," and then turning to her right and
indicating State Rep. William Tong, she fired yet another bazooka,
slamming Mr. Tong as “ignorant.”
It does not take much to bait Ms. Whitnum on all things
Israel. About mid-way through their debate, Ms. Whitnum argued that the costs of
conflict [in the Middle East] had dramatically weakened the U.S. economy. The
connection between America’s failing economy and the country’s traditional
support of Israel was clear to anyone who had studied the issue, said Ms.
Whitnum. And then, tiptoeing toward the shear precipice, she added that such was
obvious unless “you stick your head in the sand like Congressman Murphy ...
because he drinks the AIPAC Kool-Aid."
Mr. Murphy replied, “Israel needs friends today now more
than ever. Should we stand for this kind of outlandish language about Jewish
Americans who stand up for their homeland?"
Thus baited, Ms. Whitnum hastily redrafted her concluding statement.
Cornered by the media at the end of the debate, Ms. Whitnum
acknowledged that she had gone a bit too far but shrank from offering an
apology to Mr. Murphy, a prisoner, one would suppose from Ms. Whitnum’s
description, of both AIPAC and
neo-conservative propaganda. Mr. Murphy is featured in some pro-Murphy campaign literature
as a progressive, and progressives are, almost by definition, not
neo-conservative fellow travelers.
AIPAC describes itself as “a 100,000-member grassroots
movement of activists committed to ensuring Israel’s security and protecting
American interests in the Middle East and around the world.” AIPAC, to be sure,
is not everyone’s cup of tea, but lobbying groups have not yet been outlawed in
the United States. The American Friends of the Middle East and the
American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee, both of which are perfectly
capable of plying their wares in the U.S. Congress, are considered by some as
anti-Israeli lobbying groups. And, of course, Democratic politicians in the
United States opposed to President George Bush’s intervention in Iraq are too
numerous to mention. Ms. Whitum is little more than one head in the crowd.
Ms. Whitum’s threadbare debate manners did not advance her
arguments a whit, and Mr. Murphy emerged from the verbal fisticuffs with his
pro-Israeli halo undented. Not a bad showing, on the whole, for Israel, Mr. Murphy, AIPAC and neo-conservatives,
all of whom should remember Ms. Whitum in their prayers.
Lost amidst all the noise was Susan Bysiewicz progressive
effect on Mr. Murphy, who has decided that American troops should be withdrawn
from Afghanistan post haste, a shift in position characterized by Ms.
Bysiewicz, according to a report in the Journal Inquirer as a move made by Mr. Murphy to bring himself more in line with progressive
voters. The repositioning, said a Bysiewicz spokesman, also brings Mr. Murphy
closer to Ms. Bysiewicz, who apparently did not mind the cuddling.
Borrowing a page from the playbook of President Barack
Obama, Ms. Bysiewicz has focused on hedge fund managers as the latest threat to
the Republic. Fairfield Connecticut’s Gold Coast is paved with golden heggie
bricks, and Ms. Bysiewicz intends to mine some of these untapped riches as soon
as she alights in Washington D.C. Like Connecticut, the national pocket book is
tapped out. Someone has to man-up and pay for the nation’s spending spree,
which unsurprisingly has resulted in liabilities. By 2015, the national debt
will hit $24.5 trillion; unfunded liabilities are estimated at $144 trillion,
roughly $1.2 million per taxpayer.
One of the questions not generally asked of Democratic
contenders in Connecticut who hope to replace Mr. Lieberman in Washington is:
By how much do you plan to reduce spending once your ambitions are crowned with
success? Soliciting from opposing camps questions that might be put to primary
debaters certainly would make for a more interesting multi-lateral
conversation.
Comments