New York Times condemns Lieberman, endorses Lamont
Today’s New York Times editorial page endorsed Ned Lamont in his primary challenge against Connecticut’s struggling Democratic Senator Joe Lieberman, and condemned the senator in stunningly harsh tones.
Mr. Lieberman is not just a senator who works well with members of the other party. And there is a reason that while other Democrats supported the war, he has become the only target. In his effort to appear above the partisan fray, he has become one of the Bush administration’s most useful allies as the president tries to turn the war on terror into an excuse for radical changes in how this country operates.
Citing national security, Mr. Bush continually tries to undermine restraints on the executive branch: the system of checks and balances, international accords on the treatment of prisoners, the nation’s longtime principles of justice. His administration has depicted any questions or criticism of his policies as giving aid and comfort to the terrorists. And Mr. Lieberman has helped that effort. He once denounced Democrats who were “more focused on how President Bush took America into the war in Iraq” than on supporting the war’s progress.
At this moment, with a Republican president intent on drastically expanding his powers with the support of the Republican House and Senate, it is critical that the minority party serve as a responsible, but vigorous, watchdog. That does not require shrillness or absolutism. But this is no time for a man with Mr. Lieberman’s ability to command Republicans’ attention to become their enabler, and embrace a role as the president’s defender.
…
If Mr. Lieberman had once stood up and taken the lead in saying that there were some places a president had no right to take his country even during a time of war, neither he nor this page would be where we are today. But by suggesting that there is no principled space for that kind of opposition, he has forfeited his role as a conscience of his party, and has forfeited our support.
Wow. I have to agree. Bi-partisanship is a good thing…but if Lieberman had his way he would allow Bush to trample the Constitution unimpeded. At a time when America is finally waking up to the severity and causes of its problems, we just no longer need someone like Joe Lieberman.
Sphere: Related ContentTags: 2006-election, bush, democrats, lamont, lieberman, US-senate
I wrote a guest post today at The Reaction as to why Joe should go, if you are interested.
http://the-reaction.blogspot.com/2006/07/why-joe-needs-to-go.html
Excellent write-up…thanks for the link!
Lieberman and other conservative Democrats are having a corrosive effect on Democratic Party turnout. Being the somewhat lesser of two evils doesn’t exactly make people excited about showing up at the polls.
Fears are not enough to GOTV. People needs genuine reasons for hope.
True enough…but we can’t forget that the country has trended center-to-right in recent years, and the Dems need to attract enough moderate voters to be able to win.
I think having a range of viewpoints in the Dem. party is a good thing, up to a point. Look at the GOP, which has spoken with one misguided DeLay-whipped voice on religion and war in recent years, bringing itself close to ruin. Some dissension in their party (such as what we’re seeing from Chuck Hagel these days) would have done them a world of good.
The problem with Lieberman is not just that he’s conservative (so are quite a few other Dems, especially governors). The problem is that he has had no spine to resist what has obviously been a very wrong path for the country. He has instead facilitated that path, and has hindered the Dems from mounting an effective resistance to Bush’s power grabs and warmongering. That’s why he has to go.