Lieberman: Making Us Proud

An article today from the Associated Press (hat tip: James Taranto) addressed the idea of Senator Lieberman switching parties.

Lieberman on Sunday repeated his pledge to caucus with Senate Democrats when the 110th Congress convenes in January, but refused to slam the door on possibly moving to the Republican side of the aisle.

Asked on NBC's "Meet the Press" if he might follow the example of Sen. Jim Jeffords of Vermont, who left the Republicans in 2001 and became an independent, ending Republican control of the U.S. Senate, Lieberman refused to discount the possibility.

"I'm not ruling it out but I hope I don't get to that point," he said. "And I must say--and with all respect to the Republicans who supported me in Connecticut--nobody ever said, 'We're doing this because we want you to switch over. We want you to do what you think is right and good for our state and country,' and I appreciate that." (emphasis added)

Senator Lieberman recognizes, as this blog has pointed out numerous times (here, here, here, and here), that he was elected over Lamont because of his ongoing support for the war in Iraq. People in Connecticut were given a choice between two candidates who are about equally liberal with the only discerning disagreement between the two being the war. Connecticut is a liberal state that was won by John Kerry. And they voted for a Senator who supports the war. We repeat again because some of you aren't listening: last week's election was not a call to bring the troops home. It was a justified reaction to corruption and perhaps mismanagement in Iraq. But it was not a call for immediate withdrawal.

If, as voters left their local polling places in Connecticut, they told interviewers that the most important issue driving their vote was Iraq and they voted for Lamont, we would be discouraged. This would have signaled that voters were electing people they thought would bring our troops home immediately.

But that wasn't what happened. They left their polling places, and told exit poll workers that the most important issue was corruption. Iraq was a close second. So, Republicans lose because of corruption and mismanagement. Liberal, pro-war Democrats like Lieberman beat liberal anti-war Democrats like Lamont and signal to us and everyone else that Americans want a change in Congress, but they recognize the importance of winning in Iraq.

And we hope that now Democrats will engage the war in a constructive way rather than the critical posture they adopted once things started looking bad. With any luck, dems follow the example of Joe Lieberman, rather than opportunists like John Murtha.

It's unfortunate that good men like Senators Santorum (a particularly outspoken leader in the War on Terror) and Talent and Senate hopeful Michael Steele lost, but we are relieved that it wasn't because Americans want to leave Iraq ASAP.

Even then, the numbers weren't that much of a landslide, as Time magazine blogger Mike Allen pointed out on the 10th of November (hat tip: Taranto, again):

The Republican National Committee has been pointing out that a small shift in votes would have made a big difference. A shift of 77,611 votes would have given Republicans control of the House, according to Bush's political team. And a shift of 2,847 votes in Montana, or 7,217 votes in Virginia, or 41,537 votes in Missouri would have given a Republicans control of the Senate.

But you wont find us shrieking for a recount a la Angry Left circa 2000, 2004, et al.

It's enough to know that the election wasn't the tsunamitidalwavemassiveshift of a vote as sold by the spinmeisters in the MSM.


If you have questions, comments, or requests for subscription only articles, email us at lybberty@gmail.com.

After Action Report--don't pronounce the t

It's a busy day today but we didn't want to miss the chance to post a few links.

Leading off is a new website devoted to exploring the special relationship between Britain and America. BritainandAmerica.com seeks to explain each country's politics to the other. Because of the recent elections, the focus of the website has been on American politics. We occasionally attend a seminar on the history of Anglo-American relations. Watch for us to revisit this topic.

Yesterday while pouring over our website information at statcounter.com we came across the blog of an American clinical psychologist who opines and theorizes on American politics. From the conclusion of one of his recent posts:

One of the geniuses of the American system is that it accounts for both our civilized and our primitive natures. In holding national elections every two years, it provides an outlet for primitive anxieties that historically toppled regimes. In other words, it institutionalizes the logic of human sacrifice, which is stage four of the group fantasy cycle. Thus it is no coincidence that President Bush performed a human sacrifice and held up the head of Donald Rumsfeld to the baying MSM fantasists on the morning after the election. If you keep up with the ranting of the infantile left at dailykos or huffingtonpost, nothing less than some form of human sacrifice would have answered their homicidal rage. But one thing we can know with certainty: it won’t work, for magic is a symtom of that which it purports to cure.

We found several of his posts rather insightful but we understand that his writing wont appeal to everyone--for those of you who fancy yourselves intellectuals, enjoy!

Over at townhall.com Michael Medved (one of Raisin's favs) believes that popular assumptions about Red and Blue states are just flat wrong. He writes:

The media emphasis on regional differences always distorted reality but this election should force the permanent abandonment of the meaningless red/blue distinction. Montana, supposedly the reddest-of-red states, may well end up with a Democratic governor and two Democratic Senators. California, theoretically the bluest-of-blue states, not only re-elected its Republican governor in a landslide, but also appears poised to elevate GOP candidates (including some outspoken and cantankerous conservatives) to three or four other statewide offices. In Kansas, which gave Bush 64% in 2004, Democrats enjoyed sweeping victories, and so on. The definitive designation of an entire state as either “red” or “blue,” Republican or Democrat, ignores the impact of circumstances, personalities, and issues.

We're not ready to completely write off Red and Blue state designations, but as Mr. Medved points out, this last election does provide strong evidence supporting the erosion of these traditional political markers.

Lastly, a little humor from a man calling himself Jim Treacher. Those of you who read James Taranto's Best of the Web on a regular basis will have read this in yesterday's edition. Apologies to fans of Nancy Pelosi who take themselves too seriously; you probably wont find this funny.

Questions from a political dilettante

* Does this mean Bush is still Hitler? I'm pretty sure Hitler never let his opponents win an election, did he? Unless... this is all part of Rove's plan.

* A major concern of the last few elections has been that Republicans need to cheat to win, and the problem was going to be even worse with the new Diebold machines. What happened? Did Cheney forget his password again? That darn Cheney, always forgetting his password.

* What happened to Ned? I thought Lieberman was Public Enemy #1. Now Kos must feel like the kid on Christmas morning who's surrounded by toys... except for the one he really wanted.

* Does Nancy Pelosi ever wear a fake flower on her lapel that shoots acid? Because that would really be a surprise for Batman when he's hauling her to Commissioner Gordon's office.

* So the world likes us again, right? No more terrorism? YAY!!!

Hey wait a minute, this last question looks familiar. Didn't we end a recent post in much the same way...?

Let the Freak Show Begin!

As we begin to take stock of the recent election, our native optimism and cheery disposition is beginning to return.

And we can't help but point out the difference in response between the losing conservatives of this election and the losing Angy Left of the 2000 and 2004 elections. Where the leftists filled blogs with expletives and run on screams about election stealing, conservatives and conservative candidates recognize close elections notwithstanding, the election was lost fair and square. After all, that's democracy, right?

Conservatives must just be more optimistic than liberals.

We're especially pleased to note that, well, Bush is still President. Some headlines seem to think that Democratic control of the House and Senate meant the President would roll over and play dead, allowing liberals to completely reverse course on everything from Iraq, to lower taxes and conservative Supreme Court nominees.

As we pointed out yesterday, this election was not a rejection of the war in Iraq. More voters listed corruption and scandal as affecting their vote than Iraq. And that's fair. In many cases we supported Republican candidates despite the corruption and scandal but because of their support for the war in Iraq. That preference doesn't mean we weren't frustrated and disgusted with the Abramoff and Foley scandals.

The Lieberman win over Lamont is proof positive that the Angry Left's opposition to the war in Iraq is not a majority position. If they couldn't win with a liberal anti-war candidate in one of the most liberal states in the Union, it wont win anywhere. The win of moderate Democrats like Heath Shuler (hat tip: Morgan) further evinces this position. Hopefully Democratic control of the House and the Senate will invest Democrats in the war in a way that has not yet happened; hopefully they will take some ownership of it.

In fact, this election gives us hope that perhaps the Democratic party isn't trending as far left as Lamont's primary win over Lieberman seemed to indicate. We hope that the influx of good, moderate Democrats like Mr. Shuler helps to keep Democrats more centrist.

Again, the key will be how the large number of moderate Democratic freshmen interact with their stridently liberal committee chairmen. Speaker Pelosi may have been elected by the angryleftwingnuts in her San Francisco district, but she's Speaker because of independent voters in places like Iowa and North Carolina.

And finally, a high priority for liberals--maybe now the world will like us better!--that's what we're all shooting for, right?


If you have questions, comments, or requests for subscription only articles, email us at lybberty@gmail.com.