Joe Lieberman No Centrist

Now that Lieberman is using scare tactics we can drop any pretense that he's a centrist. Remember Bush when he said there was no difference between himself and Al Gore except character? In 2000, Bush kept selling himself as a moderate or centrist. Well, we've learned the hard way that Bush is about as right wing as they come (and no, he doesn't have much character).

It would be useful if the media would stop painting sort of likeable people like Lieberman and McCain as 'centrists' when they throw their hats in with Bush. McCain, remember, was famous for his campaign reform initiatives but he's thrown his modest reform credentials to the wind now that he's raising money for his presidential race.

Paul Krugman of The New York Times had this to say in his column today:

After Ned Lamont's victory in Connecticut, I saw a number of commentaries describing Joe Lieberman not just as a "centrist"—a word that has come to mean "someone who makes excuses for the Bush administration"—but as "sensible." But on what planet would Mr. Lieberman be considered sensible?

Take a look at Thomas Ricks's "Fiasco," the best account yet of how the U.S. occupation of Iraq was mismanaged. The prime villain in that book is Donald Rumsfeld, whose delusional thinking and penchant for power games undermined whatever chances for success the United States might have had. Then read Mr. Lieberman's May 2004 op-ed article in The Wall Street Journal, "Let Us Have Faith," in which he urged Mr. Rumsfeld not to resign over the Abu Ghraib scandal, because his removal "would delight foreign and domestic opponents of America's presence in Iraq."

It's a good article and I wish I could link to it. Krugman notices that Lincoln Chafee, who really is a centrist, is in danger of losing his primary to a right winger but the media is weirdly silent on that race. These are indeed strange times. Donald Rumsfeld is incompetent and dishonest. George W. Bush is incompetent and dishonest. And yet, we're asked to continue to have faith in them despite a long series of blunders that may yet drag us into a wider war that none of us need.

By all means, let us deal with terrorists without creating more of them and without destroying our country and our values. During the Cold War, the Soviet Union was a far more dangerous adversary but we handled the Cold War in a way that largely kept the peace and kept our values reasonably intact. Let's not pretend that Bush is doing what's best for America. He's doing what's best for his campaign contributors and wealthy friends, even if that means fear-mongering to cover up his blunders.