I was once a member of the DLC. I supported, as I'm sure most here did, the Gore-Lieberman ticket in 2000. I have respected Joe Lieberman's views on a number of issues, particularly environmental matters, and I have even agreed with him, for the most part, on national security matters. But I think that Lieberman's "independent" Senate bid is far more an indication of the man's disrespect for the citizens of his home state than a sincere expression of concern about the direction of his party. And I think that the comments by some in the MSM and blogosphere to the effect that Lamont's nomination means that the Democrats are courting disaster this fall are way off base.
Let me start by saying that I do believe that the War on Terror is a war that has to be fought. I do believe that al Qaeda poses a very serious threat to the security of this nation. And I do believe that the old principle that says "partisan politics stops at the water's edge" is worth honoring.
But the War in Iraq, as many here have pointed out, has little to do with the War on Terror. We all know the facts: the nation was misled as to Hussein's WMD capacity; misled as to Iraq's ties to al Qaeda; and misled as to the likely outcome of the invasion.
We are enmeshed in a war that has killed nearly 3,000 good and decent Americans, wounded many thousands more, and killed or wounded a huge number of Iraqis. This war has also destabilized Iraq, as I knew (and, btw, GHWB knew after Gulf War I) it would. We have over-extended our army, created sympathy for al-Qaeda that wasn't there before, destroyed the goodwill for the nation created by the barbarous 9/11 attacks, and strengthened Iran by eliminating a regime that was, if not an enemy, an obstacle to its desire for regional hegemony.
It is not a violation of the time-honored tradition not to attack a President's foreign policy on partisan grounds to point out that this war is FUBAR. It is not dishonorable to criticize the inaccuracies that were used to sell the United Nations and the people of the United States on it. It is not "partisan" to point out that we did not commit enough troops to the battle, did not think through the consequences of the ouster of the Hussein government, and did not plan for the peace. Instead, such criticism is a responsible exercise of a policymaker's obligation to make policy.
Joe Lieberman, I think, failed to see this. It is entirely proper that the voters of Connecticut prefer someone in the Senate who will represent their view on this war and other matters. Ned Lamont is not some sort of hippie liberal. He will, if elected, take a stand somewhat more critical of the Administration than did Lieberman. Good. If more Senators did so then this unnecessary, bloody, and tragic war would end and soon.
Lieberman, though, has been in D.C. for so long that he apparently simply can't believe that anyone would seriously question him. I think that is the significance of the whole website fiasco. The man was so cocky, so out of touch with his constituents, that he didn't think he NEEDED a reliable website. After all, who needs to reach out when you've got the "Joementum"?
As for those who think the Democrats are about to drive over an electoral cliff, I say think again. Rep. McKinney was tossed overboard, as she should have been, and not one other Senator who voted for the Iraq War faces the kind of challenge that took out Lieberman. Why? Because those Senators don't have the same confusion as to whether appropriate criticism of the Administration is allowable.
Besides, there are many people in this country who aren't too happy about the War in Iraq. I don't have any idea what the polls say about that, but I'm guessing that the percentage of the public who thinks the war should continue indefinitely, as Lieberman apparently does, is pretty small. Most people, I think, want a plan to end this war. More importantly, they want to know WHY we fight. I certainly don't have any idea what we hope to gain by keeping 120,000 men and women under arms in Iraq. But I do know what is happening to our Army, to our national security as North Korea and Iran capitalize, and to our focus on the war that really should matter - the one against al-Qaeda.
No, Lieberman's fall is not a Democratic disaster. In the end, he may win the seat as an independent by courting Republican and indepedent votes. But I wouldn't count on it if I were him. I doubt most independents will be impressed by his Johnny-come-lately, insincere attempts to revise his prior remarks in support of Bush or his patronizing attempt to argue that our party can be saved only in that way.
So go quietly into the night, Senator Lieberman, and take Rumsfeld's job or work on K Street or do whatever else you are going to do. But prove you really are a loyal Democrat and get behind this party's nominee. Mr. Lamont worked hard, he won fair and square, and he will bring a decent, intelligent, and honorable voice to the Capitol even if I and others don't always agree with what he says.