09 August 2006

Joe Lieberman - Sanctimonious Opportunist

So, Lamont beat Lieberman in Connecticut's Democratic primary. And Lieberman, quite characteristically, is refusing to accept defeat and vowing to run as an "independent." There is a lot of hand-wringing among the Democrats, who simply ought to cut Lieberman off from all sources of financial and political support.

I am not from Connecticut. I do not know much about Ned Lamont. I only wish someone plausible would challenge Hilary Clinton from the left in New York. Having said all that, I loath Lieberman; he is an especially objectionable type - a sanctimonious opportunist. He regularly lectures others on principle and morality. Interestingly, though, he combines that habit that with an almost unlimited capacity for political opportunism. If you want more or less definitive reasons to dislike Joe and to anticipate that he will do his utmost to insure that - if he cannot win the Connecticut Senate seat in the general election - that Republicans will have a better chance, read this from Hendrik Hertzberg over at The New Yorker. Lieberman wants others to act in a principled way but recognizes no motivation for his own behavior beyond pure political ambition and self-promotion.

Labels:

4 Comments:

Blogger JoeCollins said...

The New Yorker piece is the first time I've seen the case against Lieberman laid out in full. People on the right (including me) were scratching our heads as the Lamont folks said it was more than the war, yet continued to pound the war issue pretty much exclusively.

10 August, 2006 13:57  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I suspect Lieberman is planning to run as an independent in order to get a republican elected a la Ralph Nader.

The contemporary democratic party is essentially neocon in its foreign policy; I don't really get why this article is beating on Lieberman's war support. The old cleavage between peaceniks and hawks has been laid to rest long ago. Almost everyone supported the Iraq war, and those who didn't support the Iraq war, did not support it because of moral reasons and not because they thought it was a strategic error. Those kind of politicians frighten me more than those who are willing to wage war.

11 August, 2006 13:29  
Blogger David Watkins said...

Anonymous--that theory is clearly incorrect. The Republican in the race is a very weak candidate and I haven't seen a poll that places him above 15%. I have no idea whether Lamont or Lieberman will win, but it seems quite clear they'll finish first and second, and Lieberman knows this.

13 August, 2006 18:38  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

You're probably correct, DJW. I haven't looked at this race too carefully. Actually, I'm pretty surprised this race has gotten so much publicity. How significant is this really?

13 August, 2006 22:58  

Post a Comment

<< Home