Well, speaking as a Liberal, I think I would prefer someone who supports Liberal programs and opposes Conservative ones. Lieberman's convictions might be very deeply felt and he might be noble for following them. But if his convictions lead him to supporting President Bush and his neo-conservative agenda again and again, than I'd just as soon not have him in power.
Duh.
But apparently this is a cause of moral decay in the Democratic party, as pointed out by Nathan Tabor.
There was a time when statesmen spoke of ending partisan bickering in Washington . . . of working past party differences in order to govern the nation in a spirit of unity and teamwork. But Democracy for America wants no part of that. The organization's leaders want all discord-all the time. If the President says "yes," they want Democratic members of Congress to say "no"-apparently, no matter what the issue.Sounds all fine and noble doesn't it? Poor Lieberman - just trying to get along in a statesmanlike way. Why don't we appreciate all of his hard work? I mean bending over backwards so regularly is hard on your back.
And the irony here is that Democracy for America is adopting policy stands which, if put up for a democratic vote of the people, would probably lose hands-down.
This organization is clearly misnamed. It should be referred to as Liberals for America. Or make that Liberals against the American President. Democrats who veer from the radical liberal line and dare to say a kind word for a Republican President need not apply for any political post-even if they do have a winning record.
But there's the rub. Compromise with Republicans means doing what the Republicans want. Bush isn't interested in compromising with Democrats but he's pretty happy when sell out Democrats want to compromise with him.
I also don't think Mr. Tabor understand the whole point to a primary. Or I don't know which people he is talking about whom he claims that Democracy for America is offending. The people of Connecticut? The Democratic Party members? Or Americans in general? And how does Mr. Tabor know what these people want?
It strikes me we might find out by letting them all vote in, say, a primary election. And then we might know what they want, instead of going on this conjecture.
No comments:
Post a Comment