Archive
Lieberman’s true color red, not blue
When the mask fell off last week, U.S. voters finally got a glimpse of the real Joe Lieberman.
But after his “trumpeting” in the wake of his Democratic primary defeat by anti-war opponent Ned Lamont, most of us didn’t need to see the veteran senator’s face to understand the man is an elephant who has, for the past 18 years or so, been masquerading in a donkey suit.
And it seems some Connecticut Democrats are finally sick of the sham.
In other words, the election’s aftermath wasn’t so much a loss of office as it was an “outing.”
Connecticut Democrats were proclaiming their disgust with Lieberman’s choice of bedfellows – i.e., President George Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney, the Gollum-ish Karl Rove and the rest of the neocons who have (at least, in most Democrats’ eyes) kicked the country into a downhill slide.
If Lieberman were a “real” Democrat, he would have accepted his defeat gracefully, and walked off the political stage with as much dignity as he could muster.
He would have admitted that, yes, his staunch support of the war in Iraq and unflinching Zionism had probably cost him his seat – and that clearly, his own views weren’t in lockstep with the majority of his constituents’.
He would have then swallowed his pride and jumped on the bandwagon for Lamont.
But instead, Lieberman bolted the party, and pledged to file as an independent, revealing that his only loyalty lies with himself, and with the power he has amassed during his years on Capitol Hill.
Spurned by Democrat voters, he will now be openly courting the Republican constituency whose platform he has been upholding all along.
His “conscience” demands that he refuse to give up, he says; it would be “irresponsible and inconsistent” with his principles if he were to simply “walk off the field.”
Under the circumstances, his comment begs the question, “What principles?”
Over the past week, pundits have had a field day, speculating on just what Lieberman’s fall from grace really means for the country at-large.
It may or may not be a sign that Democrats will regain strength in the Senate, but it certainly is a good indicator that voters have grown weary of the war in Iraq, of the obscene handouts for the rich, and of ever-rising fuel costs.
And when the going gets tough, voters tend to blame the party in power, and anyone else who gets too cozy with its leaders. Lieberman fits the bill.
Lamont’s road to the general election promises to be a bumpy one, because Lieberman has taken a page from the playbook of Cheney and Rove et al, launching vicious attacks against his usurper.
After the aptly timed thwarting of the terrorist airline bombing plot in London, Lieberman warned that Lamont’s call for U.S. troop withdrawal from Iraq would be “taken as a tremendous victory” by terrorists.
In gratitude, Cheney all but came right out and endorsed Lieberman on television, saying Lamont’s victory might encourage “the al-Qaida types” who want to “break the will of the American people in terms of our ability to stay in the fight and complete the task.”
No doubt he used his tired old “cut-and-run” label in some forum or another.
Is the vice president delusional? The only polls showing the majority of Americans want to “stay in the fight and complete the task” – however the “task” is being defined this week – are cobbled together by Fox News.
Every other database indicates Americans are becoming increasingly alarmed at the loss of lives, dollars, and international reputation.
Once again, it’s worth noting that Cheney himself has been adept at avoiding military service, a man who considered himself “too busy” to go to Vietnam.
This is a man who hits the bunker at the first sign of trouble – a man who has never risked life, limb or bank account for anyone, yet has no qualms about enriching himself and his cronies on the backs of the young men and women he and buddy Donald Rumsfeld send to the front line.
As for Lieberman, if the independent gambit doesn’t work, perhaps the administration can put him on the payroll.
Then he can give it another shot in a few years as a bonafide Republican, propped up by the formidable war chest that accompanies party alignment. (It might work, but he should talk to Wes Watkins first.)
Either way, though, Lieberman has shown the world he’s a sore loser.
That can be overlooked in a couple of 8-year-olds playing Monopoly, but it’s not a very attractive trait for a 64-year-old man.
