Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Connecticut Paper Apologizes for '06 Endorsement of Joe Lieberman

Posted by Jane Hamsher, Firedoglake at 12:08 PM on March 24, 2008.


Hey NARAL, Planned Parenthood...the water's warm, come on down!
liebermanmccainmd.thumbnail

Share and save this post:
Digg iconDelicious iconReddit iconFark iconYahoo! iconNewsvine! iconFacebook iconNewsTrust icon

Got a tip for a post?:
Email us | Anonymous form

Get PEEK in your
mailbox!

 

The Day has a change of heart:

When The Day endorsed Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman for re-election in November 2006 it was supporting a candidate who demonstrated a history of pragmatic leadership and a willingness to seek bipartisan solutions.
We wonder what happened to that senator.
Sen. Lieberman's open-ended commitment to military involvement in Iraq comes as no surprise. The senator made it clear when running for re-election that was his position. Sen. Lieberman wants the United States military to remain in Iraq until the war is won, whatever that means. It conflicts with this newspaper's position that the time has come for a gradual withdrawal of U.S. forces.
Despite that difference of opinion, The Day editorially backed the senator because of his experience, his willingness to put principle above politics, as demonstrated by his condemnation of former President Clinton following the Monica Lewinsky scandal, and his even-handed political approach.
But while Sen. Lieberman remains experienced, he is no longer even-handedly principled.
He seems to be taking delight in poking the leadership of the Democratic Party in the eye. After losing the Democratic primary for Senate in 2006, he had every right to petition his way on the ballot for an independent run. And his decision, after being re-elected, to continue breaking bread with the Democratic Party was a politically expedient decision for both the senator and the party.
With his vote the Democrats took control of the Senate and Sen. Lieberman became chairman of the influential Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee. But this has proved a marriage of convenience with the couple sleeping in different rooms.
Sen. Lieberman was quick, and correct to criticize the left-wing group Moveon.org when it ran an attack newspaper advertisement aimed at Gen. David Petraeus, the commanding general in Iraq. Yet he refused to end his association as an adviser to the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies, or even utter a word of criticism, when a spin-off group it created ran a series of misleading TV attack ads aimed at Democratic congressmen, including Connecticut's own representatives, Joe Courtney and Chris Murphy.

Last August when some Democrats in Congress criticized the slow progress of the Iraq government on issues of reform and military readiness, Sen. Lieberman criticized them for "retreating from the real enemies who threaten our vital national interests." Like the attack advertisements aimed at the congressmen, the criticism unfairly labeled legitimate policy questions raised by Democrats as evidence of weakness on national security.
Meanwhile, the junior Connecticut senator is not only backing the Republican nominee for the presidency, Sen. John McCain of Arizona, but appears to be making a contest of trying to get into every photo and TV news video with him. Perhaps Sen. Lieberman is taking delight in needling the chairman of the Democratic Party, Howard Dean, his 2004 opponent for the presidency, whose leadership he once dismissed as a "ticket to nowhere."
Rather than building the bridges The Day expected when it endorsed Sen. Lieberman, he appears busy burning bridges with the party of which he is allegedly still a member. Perhaps the senator is positioning himself for a top cabinet post in a McCain presidency. But if the Democrats prevail, and enlarge their control of the Senate, it is hard to imagine this Connecticut senator being welcomed back with open arms.

Hey NARAL, Planned Parenthood...the water's warm, come on down!

Digg!

Tagged as: lieberman

Jane Hamsher is the founder of FireDogLake. Her work has also appeared on the Huffington Post, Alternet and The American Prospect.


Broken Glass
This is no doubt one of the ugliest periods in American political history.
Post by DCap. October 11, 2008.
Bipartisan Concern About the Dangers of McPalin’s Hate-Mongering
"I accuse you of deliberately feeding the most unhinged elements of our society the red meat of hate ..."
Post by Emptywheel. October 10, 2008.
Stock Market Drops 107 Points During Bush's Speech on the Economy
That's the kind of confidence Bush inspires these days.
Post by Amanda Terkel. October 10, 2008.

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Oh, sure...
Posted by: hurricane hugo on Mar 24, 2008 11:10 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Now you're sorry.

jdfu!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Oh, sure... Posted by: Xynyx
» RE: Oh, sure... Posted by: Doubtom
Ol' Joe Deceivermann
Posted by: OldRedleg on Mar 24, 2008 1:17 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
isn't positioning himself for a nice Cabinet job. He appears to be aiming for the Vice Presidency. Perhaps he will do to McCain what he did to Gore.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Ol' Joe Deceivermann Posted by: Lauren
glad you mentioned NARAL & Planned Parenthood
Posted by: LeftyLaura on Mar 24, 2008 1:40 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
When will liberal issue organizations learn that you cannot make a candidate endorsement based on one issue (especially when someone didn't really take much leadership on it anyway). I was soooo pissed at NARAL I told them I'd NEVER support them up-- THEY really owe us all an apology--thanks for the reminder--I'll pass it along to them!

Keep up the great journalism!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

What about Obama?
Posted by: hotdog on Mar 24, 2008 1:43 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
When will Barack Obama apologize for his support for Lieberman? Probably doesn't want to bring it up lest it show his true stripes.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: What about Obama? Posted by: Lauren
» RE: What about Obama? Posted by: Intellect
» RE: What about Obama? Posted by: bbfmail
Idiots!
Posted by: divetrader on Mar 24, 2008 2:50 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Anybody who is willing to back a war monger deserves what they get. They had a chance to replace him with a good candidate, but failed to do so. Unfortunately, he affects votes in the Senate. It is time to make him unemployed as far as taxpayers are concerned.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Idiots! Posted by: Lauren
» RE: Idiots! Posted by: Intellect
Lieberman is a squirmy little weasel and even looks like one.
Posted by: paula.c on Mar 25, 2008 5:02 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I think a McCain/Lieberman ticket would be a joy to beat. And hopefully a done deal.

Move to a better place with Barrack Obama! He is the only one with a brain.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

endorsements by newspapers
Posted by: Doubtom on Mar 25, 2008 8:53 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Who decided that newspapers should have the benefit of endorsing candidates? What makes the owners of newspapers so special that they should get to use their paper as a forum to pressure for a particular candidate? That is not the function of a newspaper and should be discontinued immediately unless we like the idea of "super citizens" as well as "super delegates".
We talk endlessly about democracy and even claim a mandate to spread it to the world at large, yet we continue to find different ways to make some of our citizens "special"; some of our voices louder than others; some of our elite more worthy of being listened to than others.
There is no justification for endorsements by newspapers any more than there is for accepting that money is free speech, something which never had the benefit of a complete legal review.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]