Joe Lieberman For Senate In Connecticut; John Bolton For The UN,Editorial Board

This page has regularly lamented the gross partisanship that has infected American politics in recent years. It was not too long ago that once a candidate of one particular party was elected, he became the president of us all. To be sure, party loyalty was always a given, as was partisan criticism. But there was a sense of unity and identification with the occupant of the White House, particularly in a time of crisis. Sadly, these days the situation is radically different. The Loyal Opposition will seize any opportunity to try and derail a president from the other party.

U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton continues to be demonized in Democratic circles. He was initially denied Senate approval because of fear that he would not "play well" with others - i.e., that he was not interested in forging coalitions on issues with other members of the United Nations. President Bush nonetheless made him UN Ambassador through a recess appointment and, after a year in the post, his regular nomination is now once more before the Senate.

Despite evidence of Bolton's obvious competence during his service at the UN, the Democratic opposition to him remains strong and is still based on his supposed Lone Ranger style. But the UN ambassadorship is not a policymaking position. If anything, Bolton's failure to engage his colleagues was because his boss's policies did not permit it. So opposition to him continues as an indirect attack on President Bush who, after all, is empowered under our system to make foreign policy.

Even more dramatic is the opposition to the renomination of Connecticut Democratic Senator Joseph Lieberman. Joining the charge this week against Senator Lieberman, a three-term incumbent, was The New York Times in an editorial endorsement of his opponent. The Times concedes that Senator Lieberman has voted with the Democratic Party on most issues and even that "he has been one of the Senate's most creative thinkers about the environment and energy conservation."

"But," the Times says,

this is not about resumes. The United States is at a critical point in its history, and Mr. Lieberman has chosen a controversial role to play... As Mr. Lieberman sees it, this is a fight for the soul of the Democratic Party - his moderate fair-mindedness against a partisan radicalism that alienates most Americans. "What kind of Democratic Party are we going to have"? he asked in an interview with New York magazine. "You've got to agree 100 percent, or you're no a good Democrat?"

Given all of these positives, why then does the Times disapprove of Senator Lieberman? Here is what the paper had to say:

At this moment, with a Republican president intent on drastically expanding his powers with the support of the Republican House and Senate, it is critical that the minority party serve as a responsible, but vigorous, watchdog. That does nor require shrillness or absolutism. But this is no time for a man with Mr. Lieberman's ability to command Republicans' attention to become their enabler, and embrace a role as the president's defender.

Incredibly, according to the Times, Senator Lieberman is not allowed to agree with some of the policies of the person the voters of the United States chose as their president. And, say the Democrats and the Times - which also is opposed to Bolton's reappointment - President Bush's emissary to the United Nations is not permitted to articulate his policies.

This is an extraordinary turn of events.

As Americans, we think it urgent that the message go out that this sort of mindset has no place in American public life. And as Jewish Americans we note that Senator Lieberman has been a stalwart supporter of Israel's efforts to defend itself against Islamic fundamentalism and of America's war against terror. He has surely earned a return to office.

And Ambassador Bolton's eloquence and effectiveness in the United Nations in defending Israel against the mindless, maniacal tirades of Islamic fundamentalism certainly merit his nomination to a full term as U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations.

Read Comments (2)

Joe Lieberman For Senate In Connecticut; John Bolton For The UN , Editorial Board

Lieberman for Senate?
Date 02:08, 08-3, 06

As I understand it, the late Rabbi Mosheh Feinstein (zt"l), while ruling that Jews have a responsibility to vote in those countries where they have the right, also ruled that it is forbidden to vote for any candidate who doesn't support the Seven Noachide Laws, which are the absolute prerequisites for civilized life.

Whatever his position might be on Israel (and so far as I know he has not been a leader there), the Torah is an all-embracing law. To support Israel while opposing morality at home is merely the flip side of the coin from Pat Buchanan (y'mach shemo!), who supports morality at home while opposing Israel abroad. The Torah cannot be split in two.

Senator Lieberman's domestic positions are contrary to the Torah and he does not deserve the support of Torah Jews OR observant Noachides.

eureka!
Date 10:08, 08-10, 06

When I first read this headline - Joe Lieberman for Senate In Connecticut; John Bolton for The UN - I thought surely it was a joke. Has The Jewish Press really developed a taste for political satire? Then I read further and discovered, no, you're dead serious! But come to think of it, there's indeed a hidden point here that I find quite illuminating. Lieberman is proving with each delusional post-election day that he's the same bull-headed egotist that Bolton always was. Both hide treacherous personalities behind sanctimonious, self-serving rhetoric. Thank you for helping me make the connection.