Commentaries, Global Warming, Opinions   Cover   •   Commentary   •   Books & Reviews   •   Climate Change   •   Site Links   •   Feedback
"And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free." - John 8:32
WEBCommentary Editor
Author:  Bob Webster
Bio: Bob Webster
Date:  November 8, 2006
Print article - Printer friendly version

Email article link to friend(s) - Email a link to this article to friends

Facebook - Facebook

Topic category:  Other/General

Lieberman - Soros Reject or Republican?

Sen. Joe Lieberman, D-CT (soon to be I-CT), who was rejected by George Soros' hard-Left Democrats in this year's primary, has retained his Senate seat thanks to significant Republican voter help. The time is ripe for the Republican Party to offer Lieberman an opportunity to keep his party seniority if he will switch party labels to enable Republicans to retain their Senate majority.

With the Senate now evenly divided between Republicans and Democrats (with two Independents), the reorganization of the Senate will determine whether the Soros-lead Leftists who, using Soros' billionaire status, will seize control of the Senate. The key to controlling the Senate will be the role played by the two Independent Senators in the reorganization.

When the Soros-lead Leftist faction of the Democrat Party rejected Joe Lieberman in this year's primary elections in favor of Soros' anti-war candidate Ned Lamont simply because Lieberman had the nerve to support the War on Terror (or War of Liberation) in Iraq, the party of sanity (that would be the Republican Party) helped Lieberman retain his Senate seat in the general election. Without Republican support, Lieberman would be looking forward to his retirement in a few months.

While Lieberman retains a seat in the Senate, he will lose all his seniority because seniority exists only within the confines of political parties. Thus, despite his long service in the Senate, Lieberman will become as junior a Senator as any other first term elected official. Consequently, Lieberman's hopes to chair or even serve on certain committees are not likely to be realized if he must depend upon the support of the Soros crowd. It is unlikely that the Leftist Soros crowd, whose anti-war candidate was trounced by Republican-backed Lieberman, will respect Liebermanís seniority.

The time is ripe for the Republican leadership to make the obvious deal with Lieberman. Republicans must now make a concerted effort to court Sen. Lieberman by offering him the opportunity to retain his seniority in exchange for helping the Republican's retain control of the Senate.

Whether by voting with the Republicans to organize the new Senate or by switching party labels and becoming a force within the Republican Party, Senator Lieberman controls both his own destiny (and seniority) and the organization and temperament of the Senate. However, unless Republicans make the obvious offer to Lieberman, his incentive to help the Republican Party will be far less than that of the Republicans who helped him soundly beat the Soros-backed Ned Lamont.

Failure of the Republican leadership to approach Sen. Lieberman without delay and make him a strong offer he can't refuse will amount to yet another example of why the Republican Party seems destined to self-destruct its chances to retain control of the Senate.

As a footnote to the Lieberman story, I must congratulate my Libertarian friends in Missouri and Montana. By not voting to support the Republican senatorial candidates in your states, you managed to help the extreme Left faction of the Democrat Party take a big step toward controlling the U.S. Senate. To those 2% of Missouri voters and 3% of Montana voters who supported the Libertarian candidates, Frank Gilmour and Sam Jones, respectively, and thus provided the Democrat candidates with a victory, do you seriously believe your newly-elected Democrat Senator will better serve your Libertarian values?

At what point does it become obvious that a vote for a candidate who has no chance to win is a wasted vote? Why make the effort to vote if you simply throw that vote out? If you thought you were sending a message, you did ... but it's not the principled message you intended. What voters really learned from your vote is that you don't have the common sense to cast your vote intelligently. Helping the liars and propagandists who comprise the modern Democrat Party seize control of the U.S. Senate is hardly conducive to Libertarian objectives.

Bob Webster
WEBCommentary (Editor, Publisher)

Send email feedback to Bob Webster


Biography - Bob Webster

Bob Webster, a descendant of Daniel Webster's father and early American patriot, Ebenezer Webster, has always had a strong interest in early American history, our Constitution, U.S. politics, and law. Politically he is a constitutional republican with objectivist and libertarian roots. He has faith in the ultimate triumph of truth and reason over deception and emotion. He is a strong believer in our Constitution as written and views the abandonment of constitutional restraint by the regressive Progressive movement as a great danger to our Republic. His favorite novel is Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand and believes it should be required reading for every high school student so they can understand the dangers of tolerating the growth of unconstitutional crushingly powerful central government. He strongly believes, as our Constitution enshrines, that the interests of the individual should be held superior to the interests of the state.

A lifelong interest in meteorology and climatology spurred his strong interest in science. Bob earned his degree in Mathematics at Virginia Tech, graduating in 1964.


Read other commentaries by Bob Webster.

Visit Bob Webster's website at WEBCommentary

Copyright © 2006 by Bob Webster
All Rights Reserved.

[ Back ]


© 2004-2017 by WEBCommentary(tm), All Rights Reserved