My LTE to Hartford Courant: Ned-vote is vote FOR party unity, not against.

[Mugsy]

I'm still hearing the MSM portray Lamont's victory as "a victory for The Far Left", which inspired this letter to the editor of the Hartford Courant newspaper:

"The old politics of Partisan Polarization won today," - Senator Lieberman in his concession speech. One wonders how there can be "partisan polarization" in a single-party race... unless one of the candidates isn't really a Democrat.
----------------------------

Despite not living in Connecticut myself, I, like millions of others across the country, have followed the Democratic Primary there this past week closely. I am still hearing the ridiculous meme being perpetuated that Lamont's win is somehow the result of "Left Wing extremists that seek to push the Party to the far Left." Nothing could be farther from the truth.

Senator Lieberman has earned a reputation as THE LEAST Democratic senator in the Democratic Party, constantly siding with the Republican Neo-Conservatives in Congress over his own Party, often going as far as to chastise his own Party for not acting more like Republicans. He simultaneously bashes Democrats that bash him and his campaign... just a small taste of the Neo-Conservative hypocrisy that Connecticut voters have grown to loath in their Senator.

The Democratic vote for Ned Lamont was a vote for a RETURN to more Democratic principles. A vote FOR party unity and a REJECTION of the Bush Doctrine... which is the REAL extremist position in our country (war mongering, Constitutional violations, extreme fiscal irresponsibility, and just an overall nasty demeanor that has permiated the public at large - "That racist, sexist, homophobic xenophobia you smell... you're soaking in it!")

"Anti War" is NOT "the extreme Left position". 60% of all Americans now want an exit strategy for the imminent withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq, so the media needs to please stop referring to "the anti-war movement" as "the far Left" because it's patently false.

A key reason for the selection of Senator Lieberman as the 2000 Vice Presidential nominee was his party-splitting vote to impeach President Clinton in 1999, even chastising him on the Senate floor. Selecting Lieberman was mostly a maneuver to attract both Conservative voters and Democrats dismayed over President Clinton's behavior.

But to now listen to Senator Lieberman repeatedly defend President Bush for committing crimes and defending atrocities resulting from his policies, only serve to heighten Senator Lieberman's detachment from the core principles of the Democratic Party... regulation of government and industry for the betterment of society; whereas the Conservative agenda is the exact opposite: regulating people for the benefit of government and industry).

It comes as no surprise that Senator Lieberman hasn't yet questioned WHY he received so many ringing Conservative endorsements, including several by some of the most radical extremists hate-mongers in the Republican Party:

o Sean Hannity, of "Hannity & Colmes" on Fox - Publicly endorsed Lieberman on his show and organized a fund-raiser in CT. (link)
o Ann Coulter - "He needs to just come on over (to our side)." (link)
o Michelle Malkin - "The Left can't stand that there's one Democrat that stands by his vote (to invade Iraq)." (link)
o Bill Kristol, Editor of "The Weekly Standard" - "Is it too soon to consider him for the Republican Vice Presidential nomination in 2008?" (link)
o Karl Rove - "Whatever we can do, we will do (for Lieberman)." (link)
o Tony Snow - "A vote for Lamont is a vote for another 9/11." (link)
o Tom Delay gave his support for Lieberman "over Lamont" (link)
o NYC Mayor Bloomberg says he would campaign for Lieberman if asked. (link)
o James Guckert (aka Neo-Conservative male prostitute reporter Jeff Gannon) - "(JFK would) more than likely be sickened by its treatment of Sen. Joe Lieberman, one of the few in his party who takes the threat of Islamofacism seriously." (link)
o David Horowitz - "(Lieberman is) the one statesman in the Democratic Party who might re-unite this country in the face of its enemies." (link)

VP Dick Cheney, GOP Ringmaster Ken Mehlman and former WH Press Secretary McClellan also all praised Senator Lieberman. And Joe didn't earn that kiss from President Bush because he was an impartial Independent. Speaking of which, Senator Lieberman's decision not to support the Democratic nominee in Connecticut, but instead run as an Independent, should only further illustrate the same disloyalty to the Democratic Party that Connecticut voters recognized in Joe long ago and voted out Tuesday night.

Joe Lieberman was forced to withdrawl his Presidential aspirations in 2004 after polling a paltry 2.5% NATION WIDE in the Democratic Primary, further illustrating that Senator Lieberman has been out of touch with the Democratic mainstream for a very long time. And no one was blaming "bloggers" for his unpopularity back then, now were they?

And still Senator Lieberman can't understand why he is so vilified by voters in "his own Party". The Party didn't reject Joe... Joe rejected his Party... long ago. Please stop perpetuating the falsehood that Democrats are "split", "in disarray" or otherwise being usurped by a "radical minority". You are only doing the Republican's dirty work for them by perpetuating the myth that Democrats "are in disarray". They claim, "Democrats can't agree on anything". Of course, half of that "disagreement" was frequently The Good Senator from Connecticut. Now with Joe now gone, I think you're going to see a lot less of that.

[Mugsy]

1. Thanks for the vote... whoever you were. :)

but w/o a "kick", this post quickly scrolls off into the bit-bucket and no one else sees it. :(

[Cassandra]

2. Great line!

"Senator Lieberman's detachment from the core principles of the Democratic Party...regulation of government and industry for the betterment of society; whereas the Conservative agenda is the exact opposite: regulating people for the benefit of government and industry)"