Wednesday, May 2, 2007

Honesty On Iraq: Liberals To Love

Love these liberals for their fidelity to their consciences. In fact, Joe Lieberman and Mike Gravel take opposite stands on our involvement in Iraq. I usually disagree with both of their perceptions. But, they are honest and sober instead of calculating and political. You can discern their true perceptions in what is an uncommon way in a politician: You don’t take the measure of the polls and speculate about their political interests. You do a strange thing. You listen to what they say!

Joe Lieberman of course, supports American efforts to counter radical Islam and facilitate democracy in Iraq. He does this despite the fact that it defies the wishes, indeed demands, of the vocal and active base of the Democratic Party. Joe Lieberman has served as a US Senator from Connecticut since 1988. In 2006, his fidelity to his conviction about Iraq, cost him a second re-nomination as his party’s candidate for The US Senate. His longtime party fellows abandoned him, lest they suffer a similar fate of the scorn of their party’s active base. Happily for integrity, Lieberman ran and won as an Independent who still identifies himself as “an Independent Democrat”. There are Republicans unlike Lieberman, who will put their true beliefs on the block in order to lure him to switch parties and bring Republicans to a majority, even if it means a vote in their caucus against what was once Republican principle on economic and social policy. I am more confident that Joe won’t do it, than I am in the agenda of those Republicans. Lieberman has an article posted on the web: One Choice in Iraq

Mike Gravel is a Democratic presidential candidate (Mike Gravel for President 2008) who was a Democratic US Senator from Alaska, first elected to The Senate in 1968 and serving two terms before losing to a Republican in 1980 in an Alaska turning Republican. Gravel takes the opposite posture on American involvement in Iraq: that it was a mistake and we should withdraw immediately. Congress should cut off the money. No timetables. No deadlines. No political posturing about what he sees as the pointless cost of American lives and treasure. Gravel scorns other Democrats who advocate such a line. Reading comments on the web, you hear people say exactly the same things that Republicans do about candidates that the media hasn’t branded as “a contender”: “Too bas he doesn’t have a chance,” “It would be nice, but…”, etc…

I saw Gravel on Glen Beck’s program, last night. A head-shaking Beck disagreed with Gravel’s perception of an effort in Iraq that was “fraudulently” perpetrated by President Bush’s administration. But, Beck fairly gushed at Gravel’s agreement that there are only two ways to fight, and his moral commitment to one or the other rather than political tight-roping over a costly issue of war : You either fight as hard as you can or not at all. (Gravel served in the Army and as a counter-intelligence officer, by the way) Just as it was in Vietnam, sacrificing lives and treasure on a gradual de-escalation of war that you don’t intend to win is as despicable as a fraudulent justification would be. Lieberman wants to win. Gravel wants to get out. In both cases, the integrity is admirable.

If Ron Paul and Mike Gravel were nominated by their parties, there would be no debate on Iraq. Ron Paul does Joe Lieberman in reverse: he opposes action in Iraq on principle, even though most Republicans tend to support it. If Mike Huckabee and Mike Gravel were nominated, we’d have the Lieberman-Gravel debate. None of the other Democrats have Gravel’s character, especially Hillary Clinton: she’s a weather-vane Clinton. The primary reason I support Huckabee is that he has integrity about what he believes and does. If Hillary and Mitt Romney are nominared: same ol’ same ol’.



Lee said...

Of course, in standard election operating proceedure, which is generally he (or she) who accumulates the most money wins, neither Mike Gravel nor Ron Paul stand a snowball's chance on a hot stove of earning their party nomination.

I like Huckabee. I've got a friend in Arkansas who tells me that he likely won't be able to win his own party primary in his home state, mainly because of his position on prisoner release. The powers that be in the GOP, however, are banking on Giuliani and McCain, and with the early primary season being mainly conducted in the West and the Northeast, favoring both of them, I'd say Huckabee should probably set his sights on '12. He might make some news in places like Mississippi and South Carolina, but I don't think the GOP establishment will ever get behind him.

Personally, I'm sort of hoping the reluctant Michael Peroutka runs for the Constitution Party again.

Larry Perrault said...

First, I voted for Michael Peroutka in 2004.

Second, you're right about the SOP and the GOP establishment. My dream is always that the people who actually do the voting will buck both the SOP and the GOP establishment. I do. That's why I'm on a TINY island in the ocean. :-)