Wednesday, July 05, 2006
Sore Loserman Redux
Senator Joe Lieberman has suggested that he would run as an independent if he loses the August 8 primary to Ned Lamont, an anti-war candidate who has received the backing of many far left, anti-war individuals. The leading moonbat blogs are agog over Lamnont, and no doubt would relish seeing the very hawkish Lieberman go down to defeat.
I've seen some commentary on the right-side blogosphere decrying this state of affairs, and this morning the Wall Street Journal ran an op-ed (paper edition only) stating that throwing over someone who just six years ago was on the national ticket is another sign that the Democratic party has been taken over by the far left. For the moment I'll put aside that point and just ask, what is so wrong with an ideological group wanting its party to nominate someone more to their liking?
Most conservatives would just love to see Stephen Laffey kick Lincoln Chaffee's ass in the Rhode Island Republican Senatorial primary. In fact, many conservatives are up in arms over the RSCC''s funding on behalf of Chaffee and the negative ads they've run attacking Laffey. So what's good for the goose is good for the gander. If the leftists want to run a more hard-core leftist who shares their preferences on the war, so be it.
Perhaps the major difference between Chaffee and Lieberman is that Chaffee is far more to his party's left than Lieberman is to his party's right. Despite his hawkish foreign policy preferences, Lieberman is a fairly reliable vote for the Democrats on most other issues. Chaffee, on the other hand, can hardly ever be counted on to vote in line with conservative preferences. Nevertheless, I find nothing wrong with the left seeking to ditch Lieberman. It's unfortunate because I personally like Lieberman more than almost any other Democrat. And if I like him, isn't that enough justification for almost any left-winger to vote against him?
I've seen some commentary on the right-side blogosphere decrying this state of affairs, and this morning the Wall Street Journal ran an op-ed (paper edition only) stating that throwing over someone who just six years ago was on the national ticket is another sign that the Democratic party has been taken over by the far left. For the moment I'll put aside that point and just ask, what is so wrong with an ideological group wanting its party to nominate someone more to their liking?
Most conservatives would just love to see Stephen Laffey kick Lincoln Chaffee's ass in the Rhode Island Republican Senatorial primary. In fact, many conservatives are up in arms over the RSCC''s funding on behalf of Chaffee and the negative ads they've run attacking Laffey. So what's good for the goose is good for the gander. If the leftists want to run a more hard-core leftist who shares their preferences on the war, so be it.
Perhaps the major difference between Chaffee and Lieberman is that Chaffee is far more to his party's left than Lieberman is to his party's right. Despite his hawkish foreign policy preferences, Lieberman is a fairly reliable vote for the Democrats on most other issues. Chaffee, on the other hand, can hardly ever be counted on to vote in line with conservative preferences. Nevertheless, I find nothing wrong with the left seeking to ditch Lieberman. It's unfortunate because I personally like Lieberman more than almost any other Democrat. And if I like him, isn't that enough justification for almost any left-winger to vote against him?
# posted by Paul Zummo : 11:17 AM
