Jesus is just all right with Joe Lieberman

Guest Post by Morbo

If he loses the Democratic primary election, Sen. Joseph Lieberman has vowed to run as an independent. While making this promise, he had the gall to invoke the name of a Democratic Party saint: President John F. Kennedy.

“I have been a proud, loyal and progressive Democrat since John F. Kennedy inspired my generation of Americans into public service,” Lieberman said on the steps of the state Capitol in Hartford this week. “And I will stay a Democrat.”

Just in case anyone has forgotten, I’d like to remind readers how Lieberman got his job: He defeated Lowell Weicker, perhaps the last truly independent Republican in the Senate.

Weicker was progressive on many issues and loathed the takeover of his party by the religious right. Lieberman ran to the right of Weicker.

In the summer and fall of 1988, during a time when Democratic presidential candidate Michael Dukakis was being bashed by Republicans because he dared to point out that public school students could not be forced to recite the Pledge of Allegiance, Lieberman attacked Weicker over the issue of prayer in public schools. Weicker had opposed President Ronald Reagan’s school prayer amendment in 1984 and was a strong supporter of church-state separation generally. Lieberman saw this as a weakness and went for it.

For weeks Lieberman carped on the issue. In speeches he constantly called for a moment of silence, to, as he put it, “allow for meditation and prayer within a school setting.” He even went so far as to call prayer in schools “a friendly little puppy that wouldn’t hurt anyone.”

Weicker fired back with a good line: “The ‘puppy’ comes directly from the kennels of Jesse Helms, Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell.”

Lieberman also accepted money from a political action committee formed by William F. Buckley specifically to defeat Weicker. Buckley hated Weicker so much he ran a cover story, headlined, “Does Lowell Weicker Make You Sick?” in the National Review two months before the election.

You know the result. Lieberman eked out a victory by about 11,000 votes. Weicker was later elected governor of Connecticut as an independent.

Lieberman claims to have been inspired by JFK? Let’s compare the two. Lieberman exploited the school prayer issue for political gain. Kennedy had a chance to do the same — but turned it down. Kennedy was in office when the Supreme Court in June of 1962 struck down state-sponsored, mandatory forms of school prayer. Kennedy was asked about the ruling during a press conference. Here is what he said:

“I think that it is important that we support the Supreme Court’s decisions even when we may not agree with them. In addition, we have in this case a very easy remedy and that is to pray ourselves…. We can pray a good deal more at home, we can attend our churches with a good deal more fidelity, and we can make the true meaning of prayer much more important in the lives of all of our children. That power is very much open to us.”

Compare the two responses. Which one really inspires you as a progressive?

One thing is clear, and I’d like to say it to Lieberman: Senator, you’re no Jack Kennedy.

A few hours of meditation wouldn’t do any harm.

  • Lieberman is a Democrat as long as he gets his way. It’s amazing that he is the best the Democrats in Connecticut could come up with all these years. Shows the power of incumbency.

  • “a friendly little puppy that wouldn’t hurt anyone.”

    Hahaha, that’s the craziest f*cking thing I’ve heard!! (Borrowed from the Colbert Report)

    Some 20 years later. Here we watching a theocracy of the stupid being born. Someone tell Droopy the Dog that the friendly little puppy has become a dense rabid pitbull.

  • Question for those who follow Connecticut politics…
    Why has it taken so long for somebody to challenge Joe from the left?

  • The notion that Joe Lieberman is some kind of closet Republican is just absurd. Lieberman has the AFL-CIO endorsement and a 75 percent rating from the liberal Americans for Democratic Action. If Leberman is driven out of the party, it will send a signal that Democrats want to have a narrowly based party that excludes moderates. Parties win elections by appealing to the center. Democrats are not going to become a governing majority party by appealing only to urban intellectuals and secularists.

  • “A few hours of meditation wouldn’t do any harm.”
    Comment by Goldilocks

    Yes, provided that the “text” upon which we meditate is the Constitution, not the Bible. At least during the school hours.

    “Parties win elections by appealing to the center.”
    Comment by Right Democrat

    Could have fooled me; I look at the ruling party and see very few centrists; clearly, your vision of “center” is different from mine.

  • Hmmm. Since when does it follow that a person who does not succeed in garnering his/ her party’s nomination (via a primary) for elected office is being “driven” from the party? Joe Lieberman maintains that he will remain a “Big D” Democrat even if he is “forced” to campaign for his Senate seat as something “other” than the nominee of voting Connecticut Dems. What is clear is that Joe – in addition to being no Jack Kennedy (and sadly, who the hell is these days) – is no “small d” democrat. He prefers whining about being “railroaded” out his entitlement by secularists and urban intellectuals to actually trying to inspire voters to choose him over Ned Lamont. The more Joe Lieberman’s record of “reaching across the aisle” is examined by those who care about liberal principles, the more it appears that Joe cares more about some kooky notion that salvation is always in the muddy middle than in fighting for progressive values. I personally think he is simply a corporatist, and if that is your cup of tea, by all means support and defend the guy. I find that Joe is proof that familiarity breeds contempt. I once admired him for moderation, but that was media buzz. The guy is loyal to himself and his “position” as a broker of moderation and morals. Nothing seems to please him more than to seize an opportunity to curry favor with the right by bashing his Democratic colleagues. I don’t care for him (obviously), and I can honestly say it has nothing to do with his religiosity, secularist that I am.

  • Not only did JFK not exploit the issue of religion, when he ran for president he virtually had to pledge publicly not to let his religion interfere with his policies if elected. This was because there had never been a Catholic president (Al Smith having lost to FDR), and many of Kennedy’s critics — particularly from the Protestant Right — were scaring voters with scenerios of JFK taking orders straight from the Vatican (those papists!). Funny how things have changed. Catholicism is much more accepted by the voters; Protestants embrace Catholics as political allies; and the Right now condemns Democrats who warn — as they themselves did 46 years ago — against church influence on government. When John Ashcroft was up for Senate approval as Attorney General, Fox News Channel’s John Moody — the V.P. in charge of political spin — used his daily memo (okay, John: “Editorial Note”) repeatedly to frame Democrats as hypocrites for warning against Ashcroft’s Catholicism when they (presumably, 40 years earlier) would have accepted Kennedy’s. Typically, John hid the salient facts: Kennedy promised NOT to let his religion guide his public policies, while Ashcroft touted his religion as a (if not THE) key factor in shaping his political convictions.

  • Comments are closed.