Thursday, August 03, 2006


From the DK:


"It's clear that this is a race with national significance. People are watching the outcome," Durbin said. "Can a Democrat who disagrees with his party's position - by and large - on the war prevail in a closely fought primary?

"I hope that Joe does prevail," he added. "I hope he is our nominee. If he is not, the question will be asked for other races down the road, what impact does your position on the war have?"

Let me answer that question for Dick, since I thought it was pretty frickin' obvious. But in the DC bubble, apparently clarity of thought is in short supply --

What impact does your position on the war have? Well, if you are in sync with your constituents and are responsive to them, then it doesn't hurt you. If you are not in sync with your constituents and are unresponsive, then it hurts you.

Is this really that difficult to comprehend?

What my esteemed colleague is missing here, is that representatives and senators are not elected to do what the people think they should do. They are elected to *represent* the people who elected them, using their judgement as to what legislation serves the best interests of their constituency and America as a whole. Sometimes this happens to coincide with the will of the constituency, but sometimes is does not.

What Lieberman has done is exercised his judgement, which is exactly what he was elected to do. Calling that some sort of malfeasance or deriliction of his constituency is inappropriate.

Perhaps a Connecticut democrat doesn't like Lieberman's stance on the war, but does that democrat like him as a person? Does that democrat appreciate his judgement on the issues as a whole? These are the important questions to ask, not single-issue litmus tests.


Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home