Faux Support of a "Friend"

Wednesday, August 09, 2006

The conservative National Review has endorsed Joe Lieberman's independent Senate run on the heels of his defeat in the Democratic primary. The reason isn't explained too well in an editorial titled A Friend in Need:

Joe Lieberman may go on to win his Senate seat as an independent, and we hope he does. But the Connecticut primary race was about the future of the Democratic party as much as it was about the future of his seat. And while the margin may have been small, Lieberman's loss was big.

He is an 18-year incumbent. He was his party's candidate for vice president six years ago. He is squarely in the mainstream of his party on most issues. He had the backing of most of the party's establishment. Yet he lost. The election was close enough that it is possible to think that Lieberman could have won if he had started campaigning earlier, or had kept in closer touch with his constituents. But the question posed to Democrats was whether they could tolerate a man who, while toeing the liberal line on abortion and taxes, supported the Iraq War and was willing to work with a Republican president. The answer is no.

Since the race now pits Lieberman against Democratic nominee Ned Lamont, a creature of fevered liberal bloggers, and a Republican candidate who is a non-conservative nonentity, we're backing Lieberman.

National Review is backing Lieberman for one of two reasons; A Lieberman victory would mean one less "D" in the tabulation for Senate control. The fact that he could be a hard-left liberal and vote liberal all the time is irrelevant, just as long as Republicans control the Senate and lead the committees. The goal of the game is 51. If you subtract one "D" for an "I" you make it that much harder for the Democratic Party to become the majority.

The other reason to support Lieberman is for his position on the Iraq War and willingness to work with the President. Because NR just loves this freakin' cowboy and is blood-thirsty for more combat they are willing to ignore their pro-life, anti-tax principles to support a true liberal who happens to be too far to the right for the Democratic Party.