"The AFL-CIO wouldn't have supported me if they didn't think I would fight for jobs in this state." (Was he saying the unions preferred jobs for Connecticut as against jobs for New York?) "Planned Parenthood wouldn't have supported me if they weren't confident that I was for women's reproductive rights." (In Connecticut, all Democrats are on the side of abortion.) "The League of Conservation Voters wouldn't have supported me if they didn't appreciate my strong, strong record on environmental protection." (Nobody in Connecticut opposes environmental protection. Senator Lieberman might as well have said, No motorist would have backed me if I hadn't supported a speed limit.) And, "The Human Rights Campaign political action committee wouldn't have supported me if I had been fighting (other than to) protect people from discrimination based on sexual orientation." Does that do it? The big tent, model 2006, for the Democratic Party?
Mr. Lieberman resents the high price of oil. So does Mr. Lamont. Who resents it more? Waal, they can fight over that one. Mr. Lieberman can say that there were parts of the energy bill he didn't approve of, and he's trying to pull them back up for a revised vote. Oh yes, he is "co-sponsoring (that) legislation with John Kerry." Apropos of the high cost of oil, he has introduced "excess profits legislation, which would tax the oil companies and give it back to consumers for their outrageous rip-off of consumers." Has it been established that there is U.S. extortion or monopoly pricing in oil? Did the Republicans invent OPEC?
The Republicans have tactical and strategic interests in the Lieberman race. If Lamont wins the primary and a Democratic seat is forfeited, that's a tactical victory: one more Republican vote in the Senate. But if the correlation is a dramatic shrinkage in the Democratic vote nationwide -- a million Democrats unable to squeeze into the narrower tent -- then that would be a strategic result that would imperil the two-party system.
COPYRIGHT 2006 UNIVERSAL PRESS SYNDICATE