WP,pg1: Lieberman's Troubles Go Beyond War

[DeepModem Mom]

Lieberman's Troubles Go Beyond War
Some Voters Felt a Disconnect Long Before Today's Primary
By Dan Balz
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, August 8, 2006; Page A01


Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman sought to rebut what he called his rival's "lies." (Bob Falcetti - Getty Images)

....Lieberman's plight, according to Democrats here and in Washington, is two stories in one. The first is a metaphor for politics in the era of President Bush and how an unpopular war in Iraq has divided the electorate, inflamed the public debate and intensified an already partisan political climate....

***

The other part of the story here is a familiar tale in politics, that of an incumbent who, as he gained national prominence, gradually lost touch with the voters and politicians who first sent him to Washington. Long before Iraq, there were signs of erosion in Lieberman's standing in Connecticut. "There was a personal sense among Connecticut Democrats that his national agenda is what matters to him and not Connecticut," said George Jepsen, a former state party chairman and supporter of antiwar challenger Ned Lamont....

***

A Lamont victory Tuesday would be the most significant primary defeat for an incumbent Democratic senator since Arkansas Sen. J. William Fulbright, one of the leading opponents of the Vietnam War, fell to then-Gov. Dale Bumpers in 1974....The Connecticut race has drawn national attention because of what it may say about the president and the politics of Iraq heading into a critical midterm election and the 2008 presidential campaign, as well as what it may reveal about a Democratic Party that often has been at war with itself over foreign policy since the Vietnam era.

Long one of the Democrats' most prominent hawks, Lieberman has found himself at odds with the rank and file in his party, not only for supporting the war so vigorously but also for refusing to engage in the rhetorical combat of a politically charged moment in history. He has warned fellow Democrats that hyper-partisanship on foreign policy issues damages American interests...."The stance that, for a senator, politics ought to stop at the water's edge makes sense if and only if the president isn't playing politics with foreign policy," said William A. Galston of the Brookings Institution, who has often sided with Lieberman on intraparty battles but disagrees with him on the war.

"But this president and this administration manifestly have played politics with foreign policy, and their chief political adviser has been totally frank about that," he added. "I think it would have been permissible and even advisable for Joe Lieberman to conclude at some point that a bipartisan foreign policy has got to be a two-way street. He really didn't."...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/07/AR2006080700250.html?sub=AR

[Totally Committed]

1. Indeed, they do!

Joe needs to go!



GO, NED!

TC