New Canaan Advertizer: Time for Joe to go

[Larkspur]

http://www.acorn-online.com/news/publish/article_7044.shtml

...Why has the Democratic Party’s shining star suddenly lost much of his luster? Most newfound Lamont-likers say it’s because of his staunch support of the Bush Administration’s pre-emptive adventure in Iraq, a war widely opposed in public opinion polls, but Sen. Lieberman’s image has been tarnished by more than just that.

It’s not so much that he supports the war; lots of Democrats had done the same. What really sticks in the craw of the party faithful are the lengths to which he goes to defend the Bush Administration’s way of handling it.

Echoing the Cheney-Rumsfeld line, Sen. Lieberman has said criticisms of the Bush conduct of the war “undermine presidential credibility at our nation’s peril,” as though it is unpatriotic to notice blunders in Baghdad. No wonder the Senator has been called “Bush’s favorite Democrat.”

Being anti-war may not necessarily mean being anti-Lieberman or pro-Lamont. There has to be more.

And there is, so much more in fact that Christopher Shays, the Fourth District’s Republican Congressman, recently called for his own party to endorse the candidacy of Sen. Lieberman. Shays supporters have said that his suggestion was motivated by the commendable “centrist” positions of the Congressman and the Senator alike, but, in fact, Mr. Shays has voted on the Bush line more than 80 percent of the time and he must see a kindred soul in Sen. Lieberman.

Now, of course it’s right for Mr. Shays to back his President. It’s okay, too, for Sen. Lieberman, but not under the Democratic banner. As a member of the legislative minority in Washington, Sen. Lieberman has an essential role in government, that of the loyal opposition. He fails in that obligation when he’s a Bush apologist.

Instead, he seems to relish the celebrity spotlight, basking in the glow of his national runs, his television talk show appearances and his coziness with the President, even being kissed by him on national TV.

Sen. Lieberman supported federal intervention in the sad case of Terri Schiavo, which had been spurred by the GOP right, and he joined President Bush’s fizzled call for “reform” in the Social Security system, the controversial and complex Medicare drug prescription program, the No Child Left Behind education bill and even the budget with its provision for taxing dividends and capital gains at a lower rate.

So Sen. Lieberman not only fails to accurately reflect the position of his party, the party he now asks to return him to the Senate, but he is out of touch with people’s real concerns as identified in the polls.

All of that having been said, it would seem that Sen. Lieberman can no longer be a true representative of his party or his constituency.

SNIP

[NewJeffCT]

1. It will be an interesting 2 months coming up

esp. if Lieberman keeps blundering along like he has in recent weeks.

[monarch]

2. I see that no Lieberman apologists

have taken me up on my challenge. I think that's a good sign--or a bad sign if it means that nobody reads the CT forum. Maybe I should post it in another forum since the Lieberman defenders obviously don't know what's going on in CT.