|
Comments? Editing suggestions? Input? Thanks
>>>>
In recent weeks, Senator Joe Lieberman has started to make noises that if he does not get his way on Iraq, he will switch parties and start caucusing with Republicans. Because of how closely divided the senate is right now, this flip-flop would give the Republican Party control of the Senate.
Before the primary, Lieberman told CNN, “I will caucus with the Democrats.” He did not qualify that support at all.
When he spoke with the NY Times on October 3, 2006, he was asked about aligning with Democrats who opposed him after losing the primary, and Lieberman said, “"I’ve given my word that’s what I intend to do. I am going to caucus with the Democrats."
Lieberman’s spokespeople supported that message. Dan Gerstein said, “Senator Lieberman is a Democrat, will continue to be a Democrat and is committed to caucusing with the Democrats should he be reelected.” And, just before the election Tammy Sun, repeated the promise that he will “absolutely caucus with the Democrats.”
After losing the primary, Lieberman’s message was that nobody wanted to end the war more than he did. He continued with this theme until he won election.
Soon after the election, however, Lieberman jumped on board President Bush’s radical plan to escalate the war in Iraq, despite the fact that previous troop “surges” had failed miserably the previous four times they were tried.
But now that Democrats have come out and actually proposed some toothless measures opposing the war escalation in Iraq, a position supported by the vast majority of Americans, as well as the Joint Chiefs, a majority of our military and former commanders in Iraq and several key personnel in former White Houses, Lieberman quickly threatened to switch parties.
If Connecticut residents knew that all Lieberman’s pre-election unqualified anti-war promises of wanting to end the debacle in Iraq would have so quickly been thrown under the bus so he could embrace the fringe idea of prolonging and escalating the war in Iraq, would they have voted differently? If they knew all of his promises to stick with the Democrats would, in two months, become the meager, “I hope not to,” when asked about switching parties, would Lieberman still have garnered one-third of the Democratic votes and half of the independents?
Unfortunately, it seems that many are likely stuck with buyer’s remorse over Lieberman's quickly forgotten promises. Those of us who saw through Lieberman before the election can only hope that the terrific Democratic prospects in the 2008 Senate races will keep Lieberman in line until that time.
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
