|
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
I'm Still 'Voting' for Lieberman Christopher Ruddy
Today I am "voting" for Sen. Joe Lieberman. I am not a Connecticut resident, but I will do so by making a donation to his independent campaign. He is up for re-election for a fourth term in the U.S. Senate. If Joe Lieberman continues in his independent bid for the Senate (there will be terrific pressure from Democrats for him to drop out), I believe Americans of all parties should support this man. For a long time I have admired Joe Lieberman. Long before the controversy over Iraq brewed, I wrote in my "Upfront" column about Lieberman and praised him for taking "bold policy positions completely at odds with the Democratic Party."
Story Continues Below
Soon thereafter I received a note via e-mail from Lieberman thanking me for my comments. He did not have to send that note, but that is the type of man he is. For sure, Lieberman is a solid Democrat. Last year he voted with Democrats 90 percent of the time on key votes. But on certain issues - ones he believes transcend his party - he is willing to stand up and vote against his party. That is a sign of a true statesman. On some of these issues, I do not agree with Lieberman. For example, I have been fairly critical of the Iraq war. While I deeply admire President Bush for his courageous stand to take on Saddam Hussein, and congratulate him on this tyrant's removal, Iraq today is in chaos, and there is no clear exit plan.
The Bush administration's post-Saddam plan was not well thought out or well implemented. And the bar has been set too high. Creating a stable democracy in a country with little history of such institutions, in a nation also deeply divided by ethnic and religious rivalries, is proving to be beyond our means. Former New York City Mayor Ed Koch has suggested that the United States should simply "declare victory" and let the Iraqis clean house themselves. It's not a bad idea. Add to the mix, U.S. forces are now stretched to thinness, weakening our position in dealing with more serious threats: Iran, Syria, North Korea, and Venezuela. While I disagree with how Iraq has been handled post-Saddam, I can understand why many Americans - including Lieberman - have stood with the president and our troops in Iraq. Apparently, far-left Democrats are not so respectful. In fact, they are downright enraged by Joe Lieberman's gutsy stand. Despite his solid Democratic voting record, despite his position as Al Gore's running mate in 2000, despite his support for Democratic candidates across the nation - they'd prefer Lieberman to be out of the Senate and out of their increasingly radicalized party. There are reasons for this radicalism. Among them is that the rise of the Internet has empowered the far left – and dethroned the wise men of the Democratic Party. Today the party is in the hands of Howard Dean (Dick Cheney "cannot remain in office"), Ted Kennedy (Bush is a "liar"), Al Gore (global warming could be "the worst catastrophe in the history of human civilization"), and John Kerry ("Bush and his cohorts are criminals"). The irony of the rise of the angry left is that Lieberman may not be their only victim. Already, the angry left is targeting Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton. Like Lieberman, Hillary has been fairly tough on the war on terror. But there's no room for moderation among the angry left, and there is a belief that if Hillary is elected president, she will follow her husband's path and govern from the center on most fiscal and defense issues. To the angry left, that is a frightening thought. And when they remember that they came within 60,000 votes in Ohio of electing Massachusetts liberal John Kerry president, they no doubt think they should go for broke and put one of their own into the White House.
Editor's note:
Read more on this subject in related Hot Topics:
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
Print Page 
Forward Page 
|
| All Rights Reserved © 2009 NewsMax.Com |