There are times to work together and times to take a stand
For Democrats concerned with bipartisanship in US foreign policy, the Senate race in Connecticut presents many issues that allow for introspection. Although I haven’t lived in Connecticut for years, I’ve been following this race closely because it presents a possible contradiction for me as both a progressive Democrat, but also a supporter of bipartisanship.
Today’s New York Times indicates that Lieberman seems to be falling behind Lamont in the most recent polls. What I also found interesting in recent coverage is that the Times and Post had very different views on Lieberman. The Times in their endorsement Sunday of Ned Lamont describe the election as a “referendum on [Lieberman’s] warped version of bipartisanship, in which the never-ending war on terror becomes an excuse for silence and inaction.”
The Washington Post, on the other hand, took the contrary position. It praised Lieberman’s ability to work with those of the other party: “the Democratic Party, if it hopes to accomplish anything, will need people such as Mr. Lieberman who bring some civility to an increasingly uncivil capital — who can accept the idea that opponents may disagree in good faith and who can then work to find areas of agreement and assemble working majorities of 60 senators.”
I personally have been quite conflicted on this race. I have friends that have worked for Lieberman and are currently working for him. I also strongly opposed our decision to go to war in Iraq and recoil at the praise and support Lieberman doles out to our President regarding the situation in Iraq. However, I also recognize that the fact of the matter is that we do need those who are willing to work across party lines in order to get things done in this country. Nevertheless, the country is sharply divided along partisan lines, particularly about the war.
One thing I am certain about is my disappointment in the personal attacks that have become commonplace in this primary campaign. In my opinion there is no place for such vitriolic hatred in the Democratic primary. There is much blame to go around. The anti Lieberman bloggers have been unrelenting in their demonizing of a politician who in most cases has stood up for Democratic ideals. This is no way to treat a fellow Democrat. Lieberman, however, seems to invite such attacks by his willingness to run as an independent in the general election, therefore calling into question his loyalties to the party of which he claims to be a member.
In the end, for me, the deciding factor regarding Lieberman is his unwavering support for the President on this war, and his dismissal of criticism. In December Lieberman stated, “It is time for Democrats who distrust President Bush to acknowledge that he will be Commander-in-Chief for three more critical years, and that in matters of war we undermine Presidential credibility at our nation’s peril.” I believe that is precisely due to the importance of this conflict that those in opposition must make their voices heard.
I support Lieberman’s efforts to work across the aisle and feel that we need more of such efforts in Congress and in the administration. However, for me, the colossal mistake that is the war in Iraq trumps my devotion to bipartisanship. It is so unfortunate that the war has become such a partisan issue, but that’s the way it is.
Although I respect Senator Lieberman for his principled belief that we are following the right path in Iraq, I most strongly disagree. There are times for bipartisanship and there are times for standing up in opposition for the sake of our country and for the men and women who are serving this country so bravely. While I continue to believe that many of Lieberman’s bipartisan efforts must be supported, on this one issue, Lieberman tragically made the wrong decision. And for that, I can not support him in his reelection campaign.
Related posts: