A Primary in Connecticut
I've been putting this off for the last few weeks, trying to calm my annoyance on the issue and just let the day come and go and see how it goes. I've also been trying to figure out exactly what annoyed me so much about this race. And while my posting on the issue probably won't sway even one Democratic voter in Connecticut (how many people from Connecticut actually read my blog?), I will go on anyhow.
I was never a proponent of the Iraq war. From the very beginning, I told my father (with whom I have many debates when I go home to visit) that it was going to be a huge mistake, that the United States will be stuck there for a long time with no way out, and that despite the menace that he was and the threat he posed years back, Sadaam did not pose an "imminent threat" to the United States. Instead, I argued, we should be focusing on rebuilding Afghanistan and figuring out what to do with North Korea. (If I remember correctly, North Korea was accused by the US in late 2002 that it had started a uranium enrichment program. And this we knew was true, as opposed to the "intelligence" provided by the US to justify invading Iraq.)
But, the fact that Joe Lieberman supported the war doesn't bother me so much. He supported the first Iraq war in 1990, and he supported ground troops in Kosovo, and he supported air strikes against Milosevic, all before it became popular to do so. So I applaud him for taking an unpopular stand (turns out, at least those previous decisions were the correct ones). I don't support partisanship to the point where one is for or against an issue solely based on blind loyalty to party. That's not the way government ought to work; that's not the way our politicians ought to behave.
Yes, I would have liked to see a strong opposition to Bush's plans, but it seems like everyone was duped. And once we got into Iraq, there really was no way out. And c'mon, even the most liberal amongst us has to admit that pulling out of Iraq 100% now would do no one any good. Maybe there should be a timetable. Maybe we should be more aggresive about handing security over to the Iraqi army. But these are all questions that must be answered realistically and pragmatically based on what's going on now, on the ground; not simply ignored because we're still so angry at Bush for pulling a fast one on us.
Ned Lamont is a one-issue guy. All he's talked about is his opposition to the war as opposed to Lieberman and that's why you should vote for him. But the truth is, Lieberman's been a centrist Democrat for years and has stood up for the values that the Democratic party represents.
I think it's becoming clear to many that the Democrats have a real chance of taking back at least one chamber of Congress this November. And I think it's clear to many that extreme liberalism or extreme conservatism don't win in the long run. Yes, they might win primary elections, but when it comes to general elections, the majority of the electorate votes moderate. Most Democrats want the party to focus on the fundamental, bread-and-butter issues: health care, the environment, welfare and social programs, education, and a healthy balance between security for themselves and their families and their individual rights. And, most believe in some sort of higher being and simply want their politicans to be respectful of that.
Do some of Lieberman's opinions not sit well with me? Definitely. But, the guy has a natural talent at working to get things done by way of bipartisan agreements. That's a skill that is immeasurable at a time when the Democrats are in the minority and have a good chance at taking back Congress.
There is a time for partisanship and speaking with one voice, and there is a time for compromise and getting things done. This is a time for both. And it's possible to do both. Once the Democrats do gain control, they may even have the opportunity to be productive, if the ideals of bipartisanship remain somewhat visible and active on the Hill. So I'm not willing to give up on that prospect simply because the liberal blogosphere says that it's immoral for a guy to split with his party on the war issue. The politicians we elect in November will have a lot more to do than just worry about Iraq. There's real work to be done here at home as well. And Lieberman has proven that he can get it done while staying true to his Democratic roots.
I was never a proponent of the Iraq war. From the very beginning, I told my father (with whom I have many debates when I go home to visit) that it was going to be a huge mistake, that the United States will be stuck there for a long time with no way out, and that despite the menace that he was and the threat he posed years back, Sadaam did not pose an "imminent threat" to the United States. Instead, I argued, we should be focusing on rebuilding Afghanistan and figuring out what to do with North Korea. (If I remember correctly, North Korea was accused by the US in late 2002 that it had started a uranium enrichment program. And this we knew was true, as opposed to the "intelligence" provided by the US to justify invading Iraq.)
But, the fact that Joe Lieberman supported the war doesn't bother me so much. He supported the first Iraq war in 1990, and he supported ground troops in Kosovo, and he supported air strikes against Milosevic, all before it became popular to do so. So I applaud him for taking an unpopular stand (turns out, at least those previous decisions were the correct ones). I don't support partisanship to the point where one is for or against an issue solely based on blind loyalty to party. That's not the way government ought to work; that's not the way our politicians ought to behave.
Yes, I would have liked to see a strong opposition to Bush's plans, but it seems like everyone was duped. And once we got into Iraq, there really was no way out. And c'mon, even the most liberal amongst us has to admit that pulling out of Iraq 100% now would do no one any good. Maybe there should be a timetable. Maybe we should be more aggresive about handing security over to the Iraqi army. But these are all questions that must be answered realistically and pragmatically based on what's going on now, on the ground; not simply ignored because we're still so angry at Bush for pulling a fast one on us.
Ned Lamont is a one-issue guy. All he's talked about is his opposition to the war as opposed to Lieberman and that's why you should vote for him. But the truth is, Lieberman's been a centrist Democrat for years and has stood up for the values that the Democratic party represents.
I think it's becoming clear to many that the Democrats have a real chance of taking back at least one chamber of Congress this November. And I think it's clear to many that extreme liberalism or extreme conservatism don't win in the long run. Yes, they might win primary elections, but when it comes to general elections, the majority of the electorate votes moderate. Most Democrats want the party to focus on the fundamental, bread-and-butter issues: health care, the environment, welfare and social programs, education, and a healthy balance between security for themselves and their families and their individual rights. And, most believe in some sort of higher being and simply want their politicans to be respectful of that.
Do some of Lieberman's opinions not sit well with me? Definitely. But, the guy has a natural talent at working to get things done by way of bipartisan agreements. That's a skill that is immeasurable at a time when the Democrats are in the minority and have a good chance at taking back Congress.
There is a time for partisanship and speaking with one voice, and there is a time for compromise and getting things done. This is a time for both. And it's possible to do both. Once the Democrats do gain control, they may even have the opportunity to be productive, if the ideals of bipartisanship remain somewhat visible and active on the Hill. So I'm not willing to give up on that prospect simply because the liberal blogosphere says that it's immoral for a guy to split with his party on the war issue. The politicians we elect in November will have a lot more to do than just worry about Iraq. There's real work to be done here at home as well. And Lieberman has proven that he can get it done while staying true to his Democratic roots.
posted by elanit | 8:44 AM
5 Comments:
Sensible opinion.
If the Democrats capture either the Senate or the House, it'd be by a sliver (even by the most optimistic assumptions), so rabid partisans will have a really, really hard time getting anything done.
I saw a flyer the other day with the exact problem - it said "summer jobs! Defeat the Bush agenda!" and then had contact info. What it should have said was "Enact the progressive agenda and make the USA better!" or something like that. The emphasis on reacting, and on negativity doesn't help.
I hope Lieberman wins too - he's my kind of Democrat (if he had been at the top of the ticket in 2000, I would have voted for him).
Right on! very nicely presented. unfortunately, you scream loud enough and people will think you make sense. plus, showing a pic of cool papa joe making out with the president helped big ned.
Have you been noticing lots of random stuff getting posted in your comments section lately?
When are we going to finally give up and realize the two-party system doesn't benefit anyone but politicians? Anarchy in the USA!
Living in a flawed multi-party parliamentary system, I can identify the advantages of two-party systems more easily... Not to say they are without disadvantages...
Given how large the US is, two parties is probably best, while multi-parties serves smaller countries better...
Post a Comment
<< Home