Note (12/2/06): PLEASE read through the entry featured below, begun before Election Day, which postulates the theory that a Democrat takeover of Congress could yield higher support for war than if we (the Republicans) had maintained control.
The following is an additional comment on this topic, covering the issues addressed in
that entry. It was posted at another weblog over Thanksgiving Break. But please look through
the actual entry, which is still being amended, and may be republished later in article form.
Actually, Ned Lamont is no more liberal than Senator Joe Lieberman.
Conservative and liberal organizations are pretty much unanimous in ranking Senator Lieberman as having one of the most left-wing voting records in the U.S. Senate. The most prevalent ranking system, the ACU Ratings, has Lieberman at 8% for 2005, 0% for 2004, and just 7% for 2003 as well. This puts him about on par with Barack Obama, Dick Durbin, and Barbara Boxer.
As I explained here, Senator Lieberman was one of many liberals who supported the Iraq war, in accordance with the philosophy of liberal internationalism... I also dealt with this issue more in-depth back in 2004.
Democrats and liberals support warfare more often than conservatives and Republicans do... This is part of the "Clinton doctrine," which forms the basis of Senator Lieberman's foreign policy, and is the reason why he [along with people such as Hillary Clinton, Dick Gephardt, Ed Koch, Paul Berman, Keith Thompson, Michael Totten, Dan Savage, the Social Democrats USA, the Progressive Policy Institute, The New Republic magazine, and other leftists and Democrats] supported the Iraq war.
Even with all the problems that have transpired since the war commenced, a 2004 online symposium of liberal hawks revealed that a pro-war consensus still remained, based on humanitarian factors supporting the "liberation" of Iraq.
With the Democrats in control of Congress, the somewhat anti-war Chairman of the House International Relations Committee - U.S. Rep. Henry Hyde (R-IL) - will be replaced by U.S. Rep. Tom Lantos (D-CA), a San Francisco liberal who is perhaps the most pro-war member of Congress.
And the Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee - U.S. Sen. Dick Lugar (R-IN) - also somewhat anti-war, could be replaced by a liberal hawk as well, such as the pro-war U.S. Senator Joe Biden (D-DE).
So, a Democrat-controlled Congress could actually be be MORE pro-war than if we had mainted control.
Oh, how I wish we had maintained control.
posted by Aakash at 7:50 PM
A Fortnight LateI finally got my
'pre-election' weblog entry published (though too late to help us keep
control)... It is "
An Antiwar Case for a Republican Congress." (
It's two posts below, right under my last entry on the Cardinals' World Series victory.)
http://uis.blogspot.com/#116168060368646519It is still unfinished, with notes regarding aspects of this issue that I've considered, but have yet to verbalize.
This is what happens when you've stayed on, as Chairman of the capital-city College Republicans
organization, for the third year in a row. I don't know how much longer I'll be able to keep this up.
I am out of state right now, for Thanksgiving 'Break,' and while things have slowed down somewhat (though we're always busy, no matter what time of year it is), I have about six weeks of coursework this semester to catch up on (as alluded to at the start of
that entry), not to mention previous 'incompletes'... I might turn this blog over to
James and others now, or I might post a few more items first.
Please check out that
working entry, two below.
http://uis.blogspot.com/#116168060368646519
posted by Aakash at 11:45 PM
