For instance, did you know that Lieberman, whom the media considers a strong supporter of Israel, used money from his PAC to support the failed re-election bid last spring of Earl Hilliard, an outspoken opponent of Israel and the war on terror?
Last spring, as he waited for Al Gore to decide whether to make another bid for the White House, Lieberman telephoned Eddie Bernice Johnson, then head of the Congressional Black Caucus, to ask which caucus members he might support with his PAC. She gave him a list of the CBC members thought to be most vulnerable, and Lieberman contributed to almost 20 of them. Among his contributions was a $1,000 check to the reelection effort of Rep. Earl Hilliard of Alabama.
Hilliard had a long record of hostility to Israel. He refused to sign a resolution in support of Israel's war on terrorism, and sponsored a bill, after September 11, that would have lifted sanctions on states that sponsor terrorism. Columnist Cynthia Tucker called Hilliard "a loose cannon, a dimwit, and perhaps a crook" who "gained a reputation for trying to persuade his colleagues to vote against pro-Israeli initiatives." Hilliard lost in a nasty June primary in which his opponent solicited and received large sums from Jewish Democrats. After the race, he warned of a "future with a great deal of conflict between African Americans and Jews in this country" and suggested African Americans would seek "retribution" for his loss.
Lieberman's advisers point out that the money was given in late March, several weeks before the primary turned into a bitter referendum on the Middle East. But the senator's critics say the Hilliard contribution is one example of just how far Lieberman is willing to go to win support among black politicians and voters.
And, did you notice how Joe is a big proponent of affirmative action? He wasn't always:
Lieberman blasted the Bush administration for filing a brief with the Supreme Court opposing the University of Michigan's affirmative action program. "I am deeply disappointed by the president's decision today," Lieberman said. "This was an opportunity for the president to demonstrate his commitment to achieving real equality in education. Instead, he sided with the right wing of his party, and sent a signal that equal opportunity in higher education is a low priority for his administration."
It's a shot that might be expected from any of the other Democrats running for president. But Lieberman's own views on racial preferences in the mid-1990s put him arguably to the right of where President Bush is today. And the admissions programs at Michigan, particularly at the undergraduate level, could hardly provide a clearer example of a racial preference. In an admissions process in which applicants generally need 100 out of a possible 150 points to be accepted, some students are awarded 20 bonus points purely for their membership in a racial group. Others, because they're the wrong color, are not.
In 1995, Lieberman had strong words for such a system: "Affirmative action is dividing us in ways its creators could never have intended, because most Americans who do support equal opportunity and are not biased don't think it is fair to discriminate against some Americans as a way to make up for historic discrimination against other Americans. For after all, if you discriminate in favor of one group on the basis of race, you thereby discriminate against another group on the basis of race."
Lieberman went further. He infuriated many in his own party when he said he would support California's Proposition 209--a 1996 statewide ballot initiative that banned racial preferences--taking a step then Governor George W. Bush would not.
... Those comments, and countless others like them, led the Hartford Courant to report that Lieberman had become "the Democrats' national symbol for this white frustration" caused by affirmative action. Representative Maxine Waters said Lieberman must be "vigorously opposed" because "what he's doing is dangerous." A local Connecticut Democratic party chapter circulated a petition to oppose Lieberman's efforts, and Jesse Jackson teamed with the National Organization for Women to sponsor an anti-Lieberman rally at Yale University, Lieberman's alma mater. Jackson also fired off a four-page letter to Lieberman calling the senator's remarks "particularly irresponsible," later adding that on affirmative action "Lieberman and Jesse Helms are indistinguishable."
Helms or not, Lieberman had to explain himself to some skeptical Democrats when Al Gore picked him as his running mate. Maxine Waters, the liberal California Democrat, and others pitched something of a fit about Lieberman at the Democratic Convention. Lieberman sought to put their concerns to rest, declaring: "I have supported affirmative action. I do support affirmative action. And I will support affirmative action." These assurances, although they settled the issue for Democrats politically, were never entirely convincing because Lieberman had always tended to speak about racial issues in terms of deep beliefs about what it means to be American.
"The fact is that some programs grant benefits based on group membership instead of individual ability," he argued in 1995, "and that runs against the grain of a basic principle of American life."
Those powerful words were the reason many conservatives paid close attention last week to Lieberman's thoughts on the Michigan case. Michigan's program, after all, is quite clearly one that "grants benefits based on group membership," the kind of program Lieberman once couldn't square with basic American principles. Would he now, absent any obligation to mimic Al Gore, return to the Old Joe?
No. Lieberman argued that the University of Michigan's admissions process, with its 20 bonus points for preferred pigmentation, is necessary to "realize the promise the Constitution makes to every American."
Gone is the Lieberman who could say in 1995, "You can't defend policies that are based on group preferences as opposed to individual opportunities." His successor does precisely that.
And here are some more of the pundits' reactions to Joe's presidential run.
Jackie Mason: "By parading with the mantle of Orthodox Judaism, Lieberman had a much easier job of masking his true character than any other politician. He knew that this was the perfect time for a Jew to run for office. This is because the same gentile who would run as if he were on fire if a Jew were to move into his neighborhood or try to join his country club, would nevertheless vote for a Jew for high office to absolve himself of any guilt he might feel because of his instinctive distaste for Jewish people."
Robert Borosage: "Lieberman won’t put forth an agenda that blocks the dangerous road the current administration is on. Against Bush, he’ll offer more of an echo than an alernative."
Marc Kermisch: "As a Jew, I feel obligated to support Lieberman. He is a fellow Jew, breaking down barriers in America for Jews here and around the world. Here is a man who is willing to subject himself to public scrutiny, to put his country before himself, all the while testing his commitment to his faith. I also question my obligation to support Lieberman. As a responsible citizen, I must put aside Lieberman's religion and evaluate him on his politics."
Howard Kurtz: Lieberman is a decent guy, but sometimes too decent to take the necessary partisan shots. Remember his yawn-inducing performance in the debate against Dick Cheney? You don't get to be president without throwing some punches. Yet he ducked yesterday when asked how he differs from his Democratic rivals. And will normally liberal Democratic primary voters go for someone who strongly backs Bush on invading Iraq, who's flirted with school vouchers, who's teamed up with Bill Bennett in scolding the entertainment industry? Unless Kerry, Gephardt etc. split the liberal vote, Lieberman could have a tough time getting what the pros call "traction." In fact, Lieberman's more moderate appeal might make him a stronger general election candidate – if he could make it to the November finals."
Ben Shapiro:
I did hope that Lieberman's exposure could help change the media-created perception of Orthodox Jews as closed-off-to-the-world, ghetto Jews who could not function in the secular world. I hoped that Lieberman would provide an example of Orthodox Jewry at work. Thousands of Orthodox Jews like me hoped for the same thing. Lieberman let us down.
Ariel Natan Pasko: "What concerns me is an American Jewish President willing (as have been Israeli Prime Ministers), to give up parts of the ancient Jewish homeland to foreigners (the Arabs). An American Jewish President willing to create a 'Palestinian State.' This President, unlike Bill Clinton or George Bush, will probably tell us that as 'a religious Jew' he 'knows' that Judaism holds PEACE as the highest value, and that its acceptable to give up claims to parts of our 'Holy Land' for the promise of PEACE. We've all seen where the 'peace process' has taken us (almost 700 killed and almost 5,000 injured in just the last 2 years alone)."
<< Home