Self-Examination is Just Too Hard—Let’s Whack the Dems Instead!

On Sunday morning, readers of the DDN were treated (?) to the latest serving of ‘librul bashing’, served up by none other than Jonah Goldberg (the five of diamonds from internetweekly.org’s “GOP Most Wanted” deck of cards). In his latest syndicated column, (titled “Big Ideas? Feh”), Jonah decides to weigh in on the current ideological ‘angst’ inside the Democratic Party and he specifically highlights the August 8^th Connecticut primary that pits three-term senator Joe Lieberman against media millionaire Ned Lamont (this came out right on the heels of a NYT op/ed piece written by fellow conservative David Brooks, titled “The Liberal Inquisition”).

Within this invective-laced dissertation (the word ‘liberal’ is used 12 times in this 834-word piece), Mr. Goldberg provides his customary ‘spot-on’ analysis where he identifies everything he believes to be wrong with the issue or constituency he chooses to assail but then fails to mention the failings of those he personally advocates. In Sunday’s column, he homes in on the Democratic Party’s current philosophical schisms with hardly a mention of any similar Republican woes (historic low Congressional job approval, focus on ‘wedge issue’ legislation, etc.) in the run-up to the November general election.

Here are a few paragraphs to give you a ‘taste’ of his unique brand of conservative ‘wisdom’:

Exhibit A is the liberal fight over Sen. Joe Lieberman’s reelection battle in Connecticut. Lieberman, America’s favorite Jewish uncle, is in the fight of his political life because limousine liberal Ned Lamont is challenging him in the Democratic primary. Oceans of ink and pixels have been devoted to explaining the factions behind this “civil war” on the left. Some paint it as the “netroots,” or left-wing bloggers, versus the Washington establishment. Others talk of hawks versus doves, or populists against elitists, the “party line” versus independents, cats versus dogs.

Alas, Chait has it right: “Feh.” For good or ill, there are no grand “big ideas” behind the anti-Lieberman cause. It’s driven by a riot of passions, chiefly against President Bush and “his” war. Any ideas are mere afterthoughts and rationalizations used to gussy up animus as principle. Several Lamont supporters, also known as “Nedheads,” have faulted Lieberman for such obscure transgressions as criticizing President Clinton’s behavior in the Monica Lewinsky scandal. Please. There was no lack of enthusiasm for Lieberman when the sainted Al Gore picked Joe as his running mate.

Wow…where should I start? After I stripped away all of the haughtiness from his assessment, I can plainly see an ‘outsider’ (GOP conservative elitist) attempting to convey an intimate understanding of a complex issue facing Democratic voters. He quickly postulates that Lamont’s supporters can only be classified as rabid ‘Bush Haters’ instead of ordinary voters voicing their increasing opposition to decisions Senator Lieberman has made while representing the citizens of Connecticut. While it is true that Iraq is at the epicenter of their discontent and it does receive the most attention in the media and ‘blogosphere’, there are other issues (healthcare, education, jobs) that have tainted that state’s Democratic voters’ faith in him during his most recent term in Washington.

In this current primary, Lieberman is having a hard time effectively rebutting the claims that he is too close to the White House (a current Democratic ‘no-no’). Time and time again, he has refused to revise his staunch support for the war or move towards a more centric position (like fellow Senators Clinton, Biden and Bayh). He currently is in the minority of Democratic lawmakers that backs the administration’s ‘stay the course’ strategy. In infamous video footage (referred to as 'The Kiss'--shown above), Lieberman can be seen in a most-compromising embrace with President Bush at the January 2005 State of the Union Address. There was press speculation last December that he would replace Donald Rumsfeld as Secretary of Defense. Although such a move is not unprecedented (Clinton chose a Republican—William Cohen—to run the Pentagon from 1997-2001), making such an appointment would have doomed any political future he might have with the Democratic party faithful who celebrated his ascendancy to Vice President of the United States-elect less than six years ago—only to have that taken away by a 5-4 Supreme Court vote.

I could go on and on with picking apart Mr. Goldberg’s points, but then I would be as guilty as he is (and Mr. Brooks) by interjecting myself into a matter that really concerns only the Democratic voters of the ‘Constitution State’. They must make their own choice in a few weeks’ time about who they want to represent them in the United States Senate and I believe both candidates must agree to abide by their wishes—meaning no independent candidacy for Mr. Lieberman. If the political handwriting’s on the wall, it takes a big man to accept his fate and step aside—and stay aside!