CT paper reconsiders its 2006 endorsement of Lieberman - "We wonder what happened to the senator"

[housewolf]

We Don't Know This Sen. Joe
Sen. Lieberman has been too busy burning bridges to build any.
Published on 3/23/2008

When The Day endorsed Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman for re-election in November 2006 it was supporting a candidate who demonstrated a history of pragmatic leadership and a willingness to seek bipartisan solutions.

We wonder what happened to that senator.

Sen. Lieberman's open-ended commitment to military involvement in Iraq comes as no surprise. The senator made it clear when running for re-election that was his position. Sen. Lieberman wants the United States military to remain in Iraq until the war is won, whatever that means. It conflicts with this newspaper's position that the time has come for a gradual withdrawal of U.S. forces.

Despite that difference of opinion, The Day editorially backed the senator because of his experience, his willingness to put principle above politics, as demonstrated by his condemnation of former President Clinton following the Monica Lewinsky scandal, and his even-handed political approach.

But while Sen. Lieberman remains experienced, he is no longer even-handedly principled.

He seems to be taking delight in poking the leadership of the Democratic Party in the eye. After losing the Democratic primary for Senate in 2006, he had every right to petition his way on the ballot for an independent run. And his decision, after being re-elected, to continue breaking bread with the Democratic Party was a politically expedient decision for both the senator and the party.

With his vote the Democrats took control of the Senate and Sen. Lieberman became chairman of the influential Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee. But this has proved a marriage of convenience with the couple sleeping in different rooms.

Sen. Lieberman was quick, and correct to criticize the left-wing group Moveon.org when it ran an attack newspaper advertisement aimed at Gen. David Petraeus, the commanding general in Iraq. Yet he refused to end his association as an adviser to the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies, or even utter a word of criticism, when a spin-off group it created ran a series of misleading TV attack ads aimed at Democratic congressmen, including Connecticut's own representatives, Joe Courtney and Chris Murphy.

Last August when some Democrats in Congress criticized the slow progress of the Iraq government on issues of reform and military readiness, Sen. Lieberman criticized them for “retreating from the real enemies who threaten our vital national interests.” Like the attack advertisements aimed at the congressmen, the criticism unfairly labeled legitimate policy questions raised by Democrats as evidence of weakness on national security.

Meanwhile, the junior Connecticut senator is not only backing the Republican nominee for the presidency, Sen. John McCain of Arizona, but appears to be making a contest of trying to get into every photo and TV news video with him. Perhaps Sen. Lieberman is taking delight in needling the chairman of the Democratic Party, Howard Dean, his 2004 opponent for the presidency, whose leadership he once dismissed as a “ticket to nowhere.”

Rather than building the bridges The Day expected when it endorsed Sen. Lieberman, he appears busy burning bridges with the party of which he is allegedly still a member. Perhaps the senator is positioning himself for a top cabinet post in a McCain presidency. But if the Democrats prevail, and enlarge their control of the Senate, it is hard to imagine this Connecticut senator being welcomed back with open arms.

http://www.theday.com/re.aspx?re=ebf24507-9e00-405c-96ed-a82fb2f5373b

[Buzz Clik]

1. Another case of the media developing clear vision 18 months too late.

As if his current behavior is a real big surprise.

[Liberal Veteran]

2. I pray that we gain more seats in the Senate and we can tell LIEberman to go caucus with himself.

I dislike him.

[JerseygirlCT]

14. Amen to that.

I'd love to see him stripped of his chairmanship and parked way in the back somewhere - thoroughly inconsequential - as he ought to be!

[CatWoman]

3. did you check out some of the reader comments?

Posted - 3/23/2008 12:46:21 PM
Joe fits the description of an honest politician. "An honest politician is one who stays bought." He received more PAC money in his last re-election than any other Democrat - 9th most of every senator running. His special interests are well-documented, and there is no need for him to notice regular people in Connecticut, because they are not the folks he was elected to represent. His office doesn't even reply to constituent mail (mine at least). He is self-righteous while self-aggrandizing ... a really repulsive mix.

Posted - 3/23/2008 12:41:15 PM
The answer is that liberman intention was and is primarily to represent Israel not Connecticut. As far as local politics he has always been a weasel - in the beginning writing a flattering biography of the infamous political boss Bailey to running at the same time for Vice President And senator. Principal? - Just to stay in power.


Posted - 3/23/2008 12:06:40 PM
He's a sell out who uses terror and fear to stay in office. The very worst kind of coward.

Posted - 3/23/2008 11:06:24 AM
Voters sure didn't want to vote a Republican in as Senator so they voted for Lieberman, a Democrat. HA! What a political turncoat! I agree with the person who suggested that he change his affiliation.


Posted - 3/23/2008 10:18:08 AM
Joe is for Joe. He always has been and I am surprised that it is now just being recognized.Congratulations to the Day for starting to become the paper you once were.

http://www.theday.com/re.aspx?re=db05be8c-03fc-4323-9a5c-3c4fe0b05d4f

[housewolf]

6. Ouch!

Some stinging comments there!

[edhopper]

4. What happened?

He succumbed to the Dark Side of the Force.

[femmedem]

5. I know many of the reporters and some of the editors at that paper.

During the primary they endorsed Lieberman, but acknowledged that their editorial board was split and that Lamont was also a good candidate. But in their GE editorial, they were scathing towards Lamont. I couldn't figure it out until an editor said that they were constrained by the owner, and that the editorials did not always, ahem, line up with what the editors themselves believed.

Mr. Femmedem says he saw one of the political reporters, a bit tipsy at a local tavern, flip the bird at the TV when Lieberman came on. :rofl:

My state senator publicly supported Lamont because he was the Dem candidate but more privately supported Lieberman because she was worried about Lamont's inexperience. She regrets it now.

[housewolf]

12. Wow - an editor said that they were constrained by the owner

Such candor is pretty rare these days.

Thanks for your post.

[Jacobin]

7. Jeeze. They just weren't paying attention

His positions and votes are public record, even though he lied like a rug about his intentions while he was campaigning

[FARAFIELD]

8. They are bat shit crazt

What did they think was going to happen. Of course I still blame Lamont who didnt run like the DEM nominee seemed like a stuck up richie who thought the job was his after he won the primary

[fascisthunter]

9. You Lost Credibility and Now Want us to Believe You "Had no Idea"

lol

[Rageneau]

10. They've got him coming! They endorsed MoJo because he dissed Big Dog

Ain't that a hell of a reason to endorse a candidate for U.S. Senate -- that he is willing to criticize a friend and colleague in public; throw him to the proverbial lions.

I hope Lieberman does all he can to make every person who ever voted for him regret it to their last breath.

And I bet I'll get my wish, too.

[DeeDeeNY]

11. The damage has been done

They gave less weight to Lieberman's position on Iraq than to his condemnation of Bill for Monica?
Pathetic.

[JerseygirlCT]

13. I suppose better late than never. Don't expect we'll see something of the same

from the Courant, huh?

Why anyone would be surprised at this is beyond me. The man is a tool, and a slave to political expediency (see that condenmnation of Clinton, which had NOTHING to do with integrity and everything to do with political calculation and furthering his own ambitions). He and integrity would only have lunch if he thought it would help him get ahead. Otherwise, they've never been on speaking terms, as far as I can see.