The Meaning Of Lieberman

I have never had the good fortune to meet Hugh Hewitt, but I consider Hugh my "blogfather."  More than anything else, Hugh's enthusiastic promotion of the blog medium was the impetus behind the launch of Scottish Right.  He continues to serve as an inspiration through his well-written, sometimes humorous and tightly-reasoned posts.

His latest post is typical Hugh.  He takes a singular event -- in this case the Lamont victory over Joe Lieberman in Connecticut -- and adroitly places it within a wider context.  In so doing, he extrapolates a greater meaning to that being offered up as "conventional wisdom" by the MSM and forces readers to view and interpret something in a different way.  

Prior to reading Hugh's latest post, I wanted Lieberman to retain his Senate seat as an independent because he was an ally in the Global War On Terror (GWOT) and because his victory would really stick it to the nutty Left.  After reading Hugh's post, it occurred to me that Lieberman is actually doing the American public a profound service by refusing to be intimidated by his party's extremist base.  A Lieberman victory would be a significant defeat for the left-wing of the Democratic Party at the hands of the Party's center.  Anything that helps awaken the more mainstream elements of the Democratic Party  to focus on suppressing the shrillness and kookiness of the left-wing, particularly on national security, can only help restore reasonable and serious debate and discussion over what needs to be done to win the GWOT.  The entire country is well-served by a serious debate.

As a Republican, I certainly enjoy taking advantage of the Left's insanity to win elections.  As an American, I wish that the Democratic Party would take national security issues seriously and contribute to offering up real, substantive solutions.  Maybe a Lieberman victory would empower the more serious thinkers within the Democratic Party to join the debate.