Why the Left Is Furious at Lieberman; Iraq is only a part

Vice presidents are notorious for serving as an administration's chief attack dog, and time and again Dick Cheney has been unleashed to accuse anyone who is opposed to the Bush administration of aiding the terrorists. But this time he has gone too far.

The comments he made on the result of the Connecticut Democratic primary - that it might encourage "the al-Qaida types" who want to "break the will of the American people in terms of our ability to stay in the fight and complete the task" - are an attack not just on Democrats, but on democracy itself.

What happened in Connecticut is in fact a model for democracies everywhere. The people of the state heard a vigorous debate between two competing visions of how to protect this country. Young citizens became deeply involved, and turnout was high. The primary reminded us of the miracle of our democracy, in which the nation is ruled by its people - not by any entrenched set of leaders. There are few better messages we could send the world in these troubled times.

Cheney's comments about the election were ugly and frightening. They show once again that he and his party will stop at nothing to wrap Republicans in the flag and to insinuate that anyone who votes against them is giving aid and comfort to the terrorists. It's obvious that this administration lacks basic respect for our fundamental freedoms....

Taliban Democrats? They will spare no slur in the bid to scare the public into voting their way.

The Taliban Democrats, he added, "are willing to 'kill' one of their own, if he does not conform to the narrow and rigid agenda of the party's kook fringe.... "

Isn't it a contradiction to call the majority a fringe?

squinney wrote:

Isn't it a contradiction to call the majority a fringe?

Here you go again with your far-left rationality.

We obviously see these things very differently. (Maybe there are difference expectations of individual politicians within political parties in your country & mine, I don't really know ...). But too me this is rather like an elected Greens member of parliament suddenly choosing to advocate the destruction of rain forests. To me, their perhaps sincerely held position would suggest that they should never joined the Greens in the first place, as they knew the party's clearly stated position on environment issues. Furthermore the Greens voters who elected them would be extremely annoyed, because that politician's stance clearly contradicted the party platform (& what they believed they were voting for). It would therefore be perfectly reasonable to expect that the politician leave that party, rather than work against it from within.

Finn d'Abuzz wrote:

kelticwizard's argument is so inherently anti-democratic that it must be confronted again and again.

So must your thinly veiled attempt to support the only way a Republican can sneak into the Senate this year.

Nonsense. I prefer Lieberman to the Republican candidate. I would vote for Lieberman if I were a citizen of CT.

Finn d'Abuzz wrote:

The Party is not the final arbiter of elections.

Never said it was.

Not specifically, no, but you certainly have implied it is.

There is good reason to believe that Lieberman will win as an independent, which would mean that the majority of CT voters want him to represent them. You have argued, in effect, that this majority should be deprived of the ability to manifest their will, because the Democratic Party in CT does not wish to support Joe Lieberman.

If a candidate who the people wish to elect cannot run because a party will not support him, then the parties become the final arbiter of elections.

Finn d'Abuzz wrote:

It is dangerously perverse to suggest that a politician owes more to The Party than to the electorate.

You keep harping on this "more to the party than the electorate" baloney. I'm not saying it should be made illegal for anybody to leave a party and run as an independent.

What I am sayijng is that it speaks badly for a man's character when he joins a party as a nobody, wins primary after primary for the offices he seeks, sees those people he defeated in the primary congratualte him and then work for his election, uses the resources of that party to win his elections, but when it becomes HIS turn to possibly lose a primary he runs as an independent.

Lieberman's attitude is: "It's the expected thing for you to support me when I defeat you in a primary, but I'm not going to support the guy who beats me in a primary".

Your claim that you would not make it illegal for Lieberman to run as an independent is a dodge. You are very definitely suggesting that a candidate owes some extra-ordinary loyalty to his party, and that it is the will of the Party and not the electorate which should prevail. That you are not calling for Lieberman to be jailed does not mean your way of thinking is not dangerous.