And I meant it, too.
His twattiness manifests itself in so many ways that it’s hard to know where to begin, but let’s start with his most recent foray into twatdom. As part of his enthusiastic endorsement of the obscenely unqualified Condoleezza Rice, he also (as described by Sir James):
argued that partisanship should end at the nation's shores when the country is engaged in global war on terror, which is counseling Democrats to commit self-emasculation. They did that during Bush's first term, and look at the good it did.The suggestion that any issue cannot or should not be partisan at any particular time is in itself resolutely unpatriotic. America is still meant to be a democracy, as tenuous a state of affairs as that may be, and within a democracy, where the people are to choose the direction of the country and the best people to take it there, a wide array of voices must be heard. To champion the notion that certain voices ought to be silenced for the good of the country is to undermine that which is best about the country.
That we are engaged in a global war on terror is perhaps the most preposterous reason one could conceivably conjure to advocate blind solidarity. For a start, the war on terror, as it is currently defined, is never-ending, and is unwinnable in any definitive terms. Does Lieberman actually mean to suggest that until the world has been rid of anyone who has the means or desire to terrorize America the Democrats should simply bow to the whims of the administration, whoever its leader might be? That could be one long wait, bub.
Secondly, and more importantly, the opposition party has a right and an obligation to analyze and, if necessary, criticize the way the war on terror is being managed, especially if, as any rational person might conclude from effects of the current administration’s decisions, the strategies to combat the terrorists are in fact increasing their numbers. That a man so divorced from the requirements of an elected Senator could have been the Democrats’ VP nominee just four years ago is a shame on our party. Counseling his fellow Dems to commit self-emasculation falls short of the mark; Lieberman is counseling them to dishonor their oaths to best serve their constituents. For this, he should be unseated by a Democrat willing to challenge policy that endangers our shores, rather than one who insists on complicity within them.
Lieberman can cast his sorry lot in with Bush & Co. in his pathetic attempts to garner himself a position at the Department of Homeland Security, or because he feels the Left is getting too radical, or for whatever lame-ass reasons he uses to lull himself to sleep at night. There are plenty of reasons that Dems vote against the interests of the more liberal members of the party, some of which are acceptable and some of which are not. But Joe has gone beyond casting a few politically calculated votes. He has adopted the language of the creeping fascism that permeates discourse on the Right—the accusatory tone that seeks to quell dissent by thinly (or not so thinly) veiled suggestions that partisan challenges to the policies of the party in power are nothing less than traitorous.
Seemingly stuck in an episode of “Father Knows Best,” Lieberman has excommunicated himself from the reality-based community. The rest of us know that in real life, fathers don’t always know best; in real life, fathers make mistakes, sometimes big ones. In real life, Mr. Huxtable fathered an illegitimate child and Mr. Brady died of AIDS. That’s the danger of trusting everything to Dad—sometimes you know better than he does.
