Joe may be a friend of postal workers, but he needs to go
Today’s NAPUS newsletter includes a short piece on the ‘horse race’ that has developed in the Connecticut’s Democratic primary election for Joe Lieberman’s Senate seat. NAPUS argues that Joe has been a friend of postal workers, and is in a position to help us, even as though his party is still in the minority. It goes on to suggest that his opponent, Ned Lamont, ‘appears to be solely an anti-war candidate’.
Fair enough- but accusing Lamont of being a ‘one issue’ candidate is a little ironic coming from NAPUS. Don’t get me wrong- I don’t think NAPUS, or the NALC for that matter, are doing anything wrong in endorsing Joe Lieberman. They’re just doing what their members pay them to do- support the politicians who will do the most good for the membership. But NALC and NAPUS are by definition, ‘one issue’ organizations. We don’t expect them to have a position on flag burning or gay marriage, thank god.
In the case of the Connecticut election, however, the issue that Ned Lamont is running on is far more important than any fears about his position (or lack thereof) on postal affairs. Lieberman’s enthusiastic support for George Bush’s disastrous war against Iraq is a disgrace. Lieberman may continue to claim that he is still a ‘real Democrat’ on domestic social issues. By supporting Bush’s war, however, he’s helped Bush to chip away at Americans’ rights, and he’s contributed to the increased hatred of America in the rest of the world. He’s also an accomplice in the staggering budget deficits the war has created, deficits made worse by Bush’s handouts to the wealthy. Doesn’t sound very ‘Democratic’ to me.
So NAPUS and the NALC are really asking their members to support Lieberman based on ‘one issue’- his record of support on postal matters. Fine- but knowing the damage he’s helped Bush do to this country, I think I’d rather take my chances with Ned Lamont!
July 24th, 2006 07:52
outstanding information. I didn’t know much about this race, but I do know that Lieberman’s support of how we’re totally screwing up the middle east is taking our country down a terrible path we will be sorry for for generations.
July 25th, 2006 08:18
I would venture to guess that former president Bill Clinton knows more about whether a senator should support efforts in Iraq than you, me or Ned Lamont. That being said, Clinton fully supports Leiberman and not Lamont!!
August 2nd, 2006 20:57
Hey- maybe you’re right- after all, Clinton says he disagrees with Lieberman on Iraq. Which means he thinks a senator shouldn’t support Bush’s “efforts” in Iraq. (”Efforts”? now there’s a politically correct euphemism for “fiasco”!)
Bill Clinton, despite his personal flaws, was light years ahead of the current idiot-in-chief. But Bill’s a politician, doing the math and acting accordingly, hoping to put Hillary in the White House. How supporting Lieberman fits in with that strategy is beyond me, but Bill apparently thinks its worth the risk. Both Clintons have made clear, however, that they will support the winner of the primary, whether it’s Lieberman or Lamont. Lieberman has made it equally clear that he will run as the Lieberman Party candidate if he loses the Democratic nomination. That pretty much sums up Joe’s credentials as a real Democrat!
So I’ll agree with you- Bill Clinton’s right about Iraq- senators shouldn’t support Bush’s war. But Bill’s dead wrong about Joe Lieberman. He’s gotta go!