It’s been noted ad nauseum but apparently hasn’t reached the pinnacles of the Copley News editorial room: Connecticut Senator Joseph Lieberman didn’t lose his state’s primary because his constituents are too far to the left of the senator’s “centrist” position; he lost because he has effectively become a Republican insisting he’s still a Democrat.
Rather than repeat the litany of issues and statements Mr. Lieberman was responsible for during his tenure – from his overly sunny reports on a disastrous Iraqi landscape, to advocating keeping brain-dead Terri Schiavo on life support into infinity, to admonishing members of his own party for criticizing President Bush at the country’s “peril”– I’ll point out that the views of Connecticut residents who voted for opponent Ned Lamont coincide with the politics of the majority of the nation.
That’s called the mainstream. Contrary to the editorial writer’s assertion that Mr. Lieberman represents the polite, gentlemanly middle of the political spectrum, he’s actually quite far to the right on matters of concern to the state of Connecticut. Furthermore, it’s worth mentioning that if a senator’s status as an entrenched politician is not secure, then establishment journalism may not be insulated either.
But since he knows better than the voters who defeated him, Mr. Lieberman is vowing to pave the way to a do-over in the general election. That’s called a sore loser.
Some wise guy decided to ignore the clarifications in favor of being insulting, and not in a subtle way:
Sen. Joe Lieberman's loss and sour grapes
I don't generally feel the need to answer many of ash’s daily letters; they are pretty much all the same sentiment, just reworded from time to time. Given the fact I will always disagree with that sentiment, it's just not all that interesting to respond.
However, today's installment contained a line that I cannot pass up: "Lieberman is vowing to pave the way to a do-over in the general election. That's called a sore loser."
After catching my breath from laughing so hard, I wonder who will be the first to point out that Ms. Cormulley was very likely at the front of the line cheering Al Gore, after the inconvenient truth of his humiliating loss, to take his sore loser do-over all the way to the Supreme Court! And the irony of Lieberman learning this skill at Al's side as his co-loser in that election is priceless.
Oh, I'm sure ash will find some self-serving differences in these two fine men's refusal to lose, but difference is simply that Lieberman's loss is the one she was happy about.
No matter. ash can take him on as effortlessly as she did the original offender. But while she did cite his name in the paper, she has refrained here out of a sense of consistency:
I don’t generally feel the need to name names when I rebut letters, even those referring to me by name. This case, however, is exceptional.
A Mr. [name withheld] has assumed I voted for Mr. Gore in 2000. Without elaboration, I will state that I did not, and he can choose whether to believe me or not.
If Mr. [name withheld] decides to further his faulty reasoning by conflating Mr. Lieberman’s loss in the Connecticut Democratic primary with Mr. Gore requesting that all the votes be counted in the infamous Florida fiasco, I can’t stop him. I will say that such a comparison never occurred to me, perhaps because calling it an invalid comparison would be an understatement.
Meanwhile, above Mr. [name withheld] letter, I see that Mr. [veteran liberal correspondent] has done an excellent job of pointing out the hypocrisy of the State Journal-Register’s parent company, the Copley Press.