Connecticut United States Senate election, 2006 / Lieberman should be elected
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Position: Lieberman should be elected
This position addresses the topic Connecticut United States Senate election, 2006.
For this position
|
"The voucher opposition is more tawdry, because the Democrats are so willing to sacrifice American lives in a different way - for a purpose much less compelling than trying to win back the White House. To make nice to labor unions is a long and proud Democratic tradition, but to do so at the expense of a generation of black and Hispanic children is awful - and Joe Lieberman knows that." | 
|
From Lieberman's Right About Another War: Vouchers, by Laurence Cohen (The Hartford Courant, September 1, 2006) (view)
|
|
"For the most part, bitter partisanship rules. It will take more members of Mr. Lieberman's ilk to restrain a free-spending, scandal-plagued Congress and an increasingly powerful president, or to turn attention to other urgent matters such as the environment and energy independence." |
|
From U.S. Senate: Mr. Lieberman, by The Hartford Courant editorial board (The Hartford Courant, October 29, 2006) (view)
|
|
"Clearly, Lieberman's position on the war is out of sync with many voters in the increasingly blue Nutmeg State. But his refusal to join in the shrill national campaign of Democratic vituperation against the president is an example of the principle that has animated his Senate career for the past 18 years." |
|
From Lieberman for Senate, by New York Post editorial board (New York Post, October 20, 2006) (view)
|
|
"In this case, if they choose Lamont over Lieberman, Democrats in Connecticut will be losing a leader. And they'll be gaining a man who is at best a cipher and at worst a shameless panderer on matters of central importance to American security." |
|
From Clueless in Connecticut, by New York Daily News editorial board (New York Daily News, August 8, 2006) (view)
|
|
"Mr. Lamont's view is that there are very few antagonists whom we cannot mollify or conciliate. Let's call this process by its correct name: appeasement. The Greenwich entrepreneur might call it "incentivization." Mr. Lieberman's view is that there are actually enemies who, intoxicated by millennial delusions, are not open to rational and reciprocal arbitration." |
|
|
|
"As someone who has supported the war, I feel a heavy personal responsibility to end our mission in Iraq as quickly as possible. But I believe that Ned Lamont's strategy of pulling all our troops out by an arbitrary, politically determined date will lead to the collapse of Iraq, Iran surging in, and Iraq becoming a safe haven for al-Qaida and a launching pad for terrorist strikes against other countries in the region and the United States." |
|
|
|
"Mr. Lieberman, who disagrees with President Bush on virtually every domestic issue, understands the stakes in Iraq, even if his party members fail to." |
|
|
|
"So it comes down to this: As the world got more dangerous, the Democrats got more pacifist and more left-wing. At the least, they have become less committed (or not committed at all) to a strong national security policy and less eager to defend America's interests around the world or to promote democracy." |
|
|
|
"Sadly, these days the situation is radically different. The Loyal Opposition will seize any opportunity to try and derail a president from the other party." |
|
From Joe Lieberman For Senate In Connecticut; John Bolton For The UN, by The Jewish Press editorial board (The Jewish Press, August 2, 2006) (view)
|
|
"In a better world, the U.S. war on terror, at its core, would be bipartisan. That world was what Joe Lieberman's politics represented. That world is dead. Democratic support for the Republican administration's plans to fight these terrorists is down to about zero." |
|
|
|
"Lamont, a multimillionaire limousine liberal, represents the modern McGovernite rank-and-file of the Democratic Party. His most ardent supporters are more likely to carry a laptop than a lunch bucket, and they are still inclined to blame America first." |
|
From The Last Hawkish Democrat Leaves the Building, by Jonah Goldberg (Los Angeles Times, August 10, 2006) (view)
|
|
"Most of all, Mr. Lieberman knows the consequences for U.S. security if the Lamont Democrats prevail. A Senator Lieberman would prod the Bush Administration for a strategy to win in Iraq; a Senator Lamont would cut and run and hope for the best." |
|
From The Lamont Democrats, by The Wall Street Journal editorial board (The Wall Street Journal, August 10, 2006) (view)
|
|
"But the critical question facing voters in November, as opposed to party leaders now, is who would make the better senator -- which is why we welcome Mr. Lieberman's decision to remain in the race. He would be, by far, the better choice for the people of Connecticut." |
|
From Mr. Lieberman's Choice, by The Washington Post editorial board (The Washington Post, August 10, 2006) (view)
Against this position
|
|
"President Bush did not need Mr. Lieberman's persistent support on Iraq when he had the deference of his own party members in Congress. What the country needed -- and what Connecticut had the right to expect -- was for Mr. Lieberman to risk some of his bipartisan clout to call attention to the way Iraq was spiraling out of control." |
|
From The Senate Race in Connecticut, by The New York Times editorial board (The New York Times, October 29, 2006) (view)
|
|
"But this primary is not about Mr. Lieberman’s legislative record. Instead it has become a referendum on his warped version of bipartisanship, in which the never-ending war on terror becomes an excuse for silence and inaction." |
|
From A Senate Race in Connecticut, by The New York Times editorial board (The New York Times, July 30, 2006) (view)
|
|
"When Mr. Lieberman told The Washington Post, “I haven’t changed. Events around me have changed,” he actually put his finger on his political problem. His constituents felt that when the White House led the country into a disastrous international crisis and started subverting the nation’s basic traditions, Joe Lieberman should have changed enough to take a lead in fighting back." |
|
From Revenge of the Irate Moderates, by The New York Times editorial board (The New York Times, August 9, 2006) (view)
|
|
"Plus, of course, Lieberman doesn't "tiptoe" around the war issue - he actually supports the war in Iraq - still! -- and thinks it was the right thing to do, and he's in lock step with Bush on all of it. Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11, but either Lieberman thinks he did, or he's a secret neo-con who thinks we should invade countries and bring them democracy by a gun. And so far that's working out real well in Iraq, isn't it?" |
|
From Lieberman's Mistaken Idea of Who's Polarizing, by Christopher Durang (The Huffington Post, August 8, 2006) (view)
|
|
"Lieberman, of course, wants us to forget about his aggressive support for corporate-written trade deals like NAFTA and China PNTR that have destroyed Connecticut's economy by driving wages, job security and benefits into the ground. He wants us to forget that he co-wrote the legislation authorizing the President to invade Iraq, and that he has used his Senate platform to attack those in Congress who are pushing for an exit strategy from Iraq." |
|
From How Out of Touch Can A Washington Politician Be?, by David Sirota (The Huffington Post, August 30, 2006) (view)
|
|
"Unfortunately for all concerned, Tuesday's contest is saddled with two such thoroughly unsavory and tiresome candidates that they're about as welcome as, respectively, heat and humidity." |
|
|
|
"Finally and most urgently, we need to change Washington to replace a national security policy of weakness with one of strength. Our costly and counterproductive decision to go to war in Iraq has weakened America - by taking our eye off the ball in Afghanistan, by overstretching our military, by failing to invest in homeland security, by putting Israel's security at risk and by alienating our allies and further angering our adversaries." |
|
From What Voters Want From Their Senator, by Ned Lamont (The Hartford Courant, August 27, 2006) (view)
|
|
"Lieberman is an anti-Democrat Democrat — a fifth columnist who has chosen to flout the will of Connecticut's primary voters by filing papers to compete as an independent in the general election." |
|
From Lieberman's 'mainstream' isn't Democratic at all, by DeWayne Wickham (USA Today, August 15, 2006) (view)
|
|
"[Lieberman] has been wrong at every step of the march into the Iraq quagmire -- all the while accusing anyone who disagreed with him of endangering national security. Again, on what planet would Mr. Lieberman be considered "sensible"? But I know the answer: on Planet Beltway." |
|
Mixed on this position
|
|
"Irrespective of one's position on the Iraq campaign, do we want to endorse a neo-isolationist removal from the world scene? Such a movement as would satisfy MoveOn.org?" |
|