This defense of Lieberman against the Ned Lamont challenge, from Lieberman Weekly writer Jonathan Chait, is more novel than the usual.
The lefties say the Democratic senator from Connecticut is a self-righteous suck-up who lends President Bush undeserved credibility [...]
Lieberman, unlike other Democratic hawks, musters little passion for exposing and correcting the massive blunders the Bush administration has committed. When the Abu Ghraib scandal broke, Lieberman noted, in Bush's defense, "Those who were responsible for killing 3,000 Americans on Sept. 11, 2001, never apologized." (As if anybody was suggesting we were as bad as the terrorists.) Last fall he said, "In matters of war, we undermine presidential credibility at our nation's peril." The clear implication is that it's counterproductive -- traitorous, even -- to call the administration on its foreign policy dishonesties. This is not how the loyal opposition in a democracy ought to behave [...]
In the end, though, I can't quite root for Lieberman to lose his primary. What's holding me back is that the anti-Lieberman campaign has come to stand for much more than Lieberman's sins. It's a test of strength for the new breed of left-wing activists who are flexing their muscles within the party. These are exactly the sorts of fanatics who tore the party apart in the late 1960s and early 1970s. They think in simple slogans and refuse to tolerate any ideological dissent. Moreover, since their anti-Lieberman jihad is seen as stemming from his pro-war stance, the practical effect of toppling Lieberman would be to intimidate other hawkish Democrats and encourage more primary challengers against them.
Okay, the part about us being "extremists" blah blah blah is obvious crap. Chait knows better. Or should. So either he's a moron, or he's being intellectually dishonest. Probably a little of both.
Here's a challenge to Chait -- I will debate him on the ideology of the netroots, any format, any location. I'd love to see him defend this paragraph above in a forum where someone can call "bullshit" on his bullshit.
But the rest of the argument is hilarious, to say the least. Chait acknowledges the war is a disaster, as is Lieberman's defense of the Abu Ghraib torture, as is his insistence that we don't criticize Bush for his shitty handling of the war. What's more, Chait throws in, for good measure, much of Lieberman's failures on domestic policy.
But after he lays out the case against Lieberman as good as any of us might have, he says he cannot support Lamont because it would "intimidate" other hawkish Democrats and encourage further primary challenges?
If all those things Lieberman did and continues to do are wrong, why would intimidating them into doing the right thing be wrong?
