[Peace-discuss] NYT endorses Lamont

[Robert Naiman]

I guess liberalism isn't dead after all. "I'm getting better...I feel fine!"
Who knew?
Apparently it was JL's cheerleading for the assault on civil liberties
that pushed the NYT over the edge. Yesh Gvul -- There Is A Limit.

The New York Times
July 30, 2006
Editorial
A Senate Race in Connecticut

Earlier this year, Senator Joseph Lieberman's seat seemed so secure
that — legend has it — some people at the Republican nominating
convention in Connecticut started making bleating noises when the
party picked a presumed sacrificial lamb to run against the three-term
senator, who has been a fixture in Connecticut politics for more than
35 years.

But Mr. Lieberman is now in a tough Democratic primary against a
little-known challenger, Ned Lamont. The race has taken on a national
character. Mr. Lieberman's friends see it as an attempt by hysterical
antiwar bloggers to oust a giant of the Senate for the crime of
bipartisanship. Lamont backers — most of whom seem more passionate
about being Lieberman opponents — say that as one of the staunchest
supporters of the Iraq war, Mr. Lieberman has betrayed his party by
cozying up to President Bush.

This primary would never have happened absent Iraq. It's true that Mr.
Lieberman has fallen in love with his image as the nation's moral
compass. But if pomposity were a disqualification, the Senate would
never be able to call a quorum. He has voted with his party in
opposing the destructive Bush tax cuts, and despite some unappealing
rhetoric in the Terri Schiavo case, he has strongly supported a
woman's right to choose. He has been one of the Senate's most creative
thinkers about the environment and energy conservation.

•

But this race is not about résumés. The United States is at a critical
point in its history, and Mr. Lieberman has chosen a controversial
role to play. The voters in Connecticut will have to judge whether it
is the right one.

As Mr. Lieberman sees it, this is a fight for the soul of the
Democratic Party — his moderate fair-mindedness against a partisan
radicalism that alienates most Americans. "What kind of Democratic
Party are we going to have?" he asked in an interview with New York
magazine. "You've got to agree 100 percent, or you're not a good
Democrat?"

That's far from the issue. 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.

•

On the Armed Services Committee, Mr. Lieberman has left it to
Republicans like Lindsey Graham of South Carolina to investigate the
administration's actions. In 2004, Mr. Lieberman praised Defense
Secretary Donald Rumsfeld for expressing regret about Abu Ghraib, then
added: "I cannot help but say, however, that those who were
responsible for killing 3,000 Americans on September 11th, 2001, never
apologized." To suggest even rhetorically that the American military
could be held to the same standard of behavior as terrorists is
outrageous, and a good example of how avidly the senator has adopted
the Bush spin and helped the administration avoid accounting for Abu
Ghraib.

Mr. Lieberman prides himself on being a legal thinker and a champion
of civil liberties. But he appointed himself defender of Attorney
General Alberto Gonzales and the administration's policy of holding
hundreds of foreign citizens in prison without any due process. He
seconded Mr. Gonzales's sneering reference to the "quaint" provisions
of the Geneva Conventions. He has shown no interest in prodding his
Republican friends into investigating how the administration misled
the nation about Iraq's weapons. There is no use having a senator
famous for getting along with Republicans if he never challenges them
on issues of profound importance.

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.

Mr. Lamont, a wealthy businessman from Greenwich, seems smart and
moderate, and he showed spine in challenging the senator while other
Democrats groused privately. He does not have his opponent's grasp of
policy yet. But this primary is not about Mr. Lieberman's legislative
record. Instead it has become a referendum on his warped version of
bipartisanship, in which the never-ending war on terror becomes an
excuse for silence and inaction. We endorse Ned Lamont in the
Democratic primary for Senate in Connecticut.


--
Robert Naiman
Just Foreign Policy
www.justforeignpolicy.org