Posted by: McQ on Friday, July 07, 2006 I didn't see their debate, naturally (since it was only aired locally in CT), but the transcript is available. There's alot to read and comment on, but I want to touch on one particular aspect. Lieberman makes a point that he's made in the past. He supported the war in Iraq not for partisan reasons but because he thought it was the right thing to do and was right for the country to do. That, you would think, is his job ... to make those sorts of determinations, vote his conscience and to stand by his decision: My position on Iraq has been clear. And I believe it was the right thing for us to overthrow Saddam Hussein. I have been critical of the things that the administration did after that. But the fact is, we're there now. And we have a choice. And that choice is between helping the Iraqis achieve a free and independent Iraq or abandoning them and letting the terrorists take over.Unlike other Democrats, Lieberman has maintained a consistent position. And of course, as you can read, Lamont attacks that position. And Lamont makes the point that Lieberman is outside the "heart of the Democratic party" with his stand: Like Chris Dodd, like the heart of the Democratic Party in Washington, D.C., I supported both of those amendments. Those amendments in Washington, D.C. were clear. It's time for us to change course. Time for us to start getting our frontline troops out of harm's way.The reference to "the heart of the Democratic Party" is an appeal to partisanship. Yet further on in the debate, Lamont is asked a question about whether he would support a policy President Bush put forward if it meant doing so would alienate members of his party nationally and in his state: What you do in the U.S. Senate is you act on behalf of your conscience, you do what you think is right, and you act on behalf of your state. It's not a question of partisan advantage one way or the other.That is precisely Joe Lieberman's stance. And Joe Lieberman is being asked to do exactly the opposite of what Lamont is claiming and being trashed for not doing so. Lamont and Democrats are demanding he adopt the partisan position over what he considers the principled position or they intend to try to take his job. So it is hard to invest a lot in believing Lamont's rhetoric here. And, of course, after the obligatory and unconvincing disclaimer, Lamont follows with the big "but": But I do believe that George Bush's administration has been bad for the state of Connecticut, bad for this country, and bad for our foreign policy positions around the world. Iraq is just a symptom of that.See the weasel words? "But when it comes to an awful lot of the issues, I think Senator Lieberman is finding too much common ground with the president." That means that you can blow off his principled stand with mere innuendo. Consistency, standing up for what you believe in and non partisanship when necessary should be strengths for an elected official. If you're convinced Lamont would actually do what he says in the quote about "conscience", you've obviously found much more in terms of character in his words than I've managed to find. The CT Democratic primary is certainly interesting for two things. It is all about Iraq (and thereby President Bush) and it is all about partisanship. The new orthodoxy, the 'litmus test', is going to be applied there for the first time. If Lamont wins it will be an indication that at least to a good portion of CT Dems their standard for elected officials requires they put partisanship first and the country second. While I still feel Joe Lieberman is as liberal as they come and probably disagree with about 90% of his policy beliefs, he at least has demonstrated some character in all of this. That's more than I can say for those who've trashed his stand because they disagree with his position on Iraq. UPDATE: Ezra Klein has a very interesting analysis of the Lieberman/Lamont debate. Essentially he thinks Lieberman won but he's not sure that matters (see his update). I loved his opening paragraph: Lieberman won. No other way to put it. He pummeled Lamont. Even his body language had transformed — I always assumed him a relatively gaunt, small-framed guy. Tonight he looked one shot of jack away from ripping off Lamont's head and eating his brains. Lamont, for his part, appears to have never had media training. Staring at the camera is the first thing you're taught, yet his eyes were darting about like a pup transfixed by a fly. He looked small, nervous, and unsenatorial. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| TrackBacks | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Return to Main Blog Page | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Comments For This Post | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Previous Comments to this Post |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Add Your Comment | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
| Vicious Capitalism |
Buy Dale's Book!
|
