From Peter Gadiel
[Recently by Peter Gadiel: "I've Had Enough"—An Open Letter To President George W. Bush]
In Connecticut, there's a three way race for the US Senate seat now held by Democrat Joe Lieberman. But the way many Republicans are talking you'd think that there are only two people running for the seat: Democrat Ned Lamont and Almostrepublican sore loser Joe Lieberman, whom he defeated in the Democratic primary.
In a way, it's understandable. (I write here as a long-suffering Connecticut Republican.) For decades the state's Republican Party has failed to provide a clear philosophical alternative to the McGovernite-dominated Democratic machine. Presenting itself as nothing but me-too Democrat lite, the Connecticut GOP has succeeded in making itself an ever smaller, irrelevant minority.
With that long history of failure and ineffectiveness, it's no surprise that national Republicans might decide to bail out on a Connecticut Republican whom they perceive as a no-hoper.
It's one thing, however, for national Republicans to abandon one of their own. It's quite another for them to pretend that a liberal Democrat in the race is really not so bad because he's "almost a Republican."
Well, I guess it depends on the kind of Republican you are. If you're a George W. Bush/US Chamber of Commerce Republican, then yeah, Lieberman is your guy.
That's because Joe Lieberman shares two beliefs with the Bushies:
Lieberman (recent Americans For Better Immigration grade: D-minus) stands at the furthest edge of the opposition to secure borders. His votes in the Senate permit no doubt that he favors giving all illegal aliens, and the unknown violent felons and terrorists among them, absolute freedom to enter the United States and remain here unmolested while they carry out their crimes. His record is so clear no one should be fooled.
In 2004, Lieberman was one of the main obstacles in the Senate to passage of a 9/11 Commission Recommendations Act that would have included meaningful border security and document security provisions.
This is particularly ironic given Lieberman is a prominent supporter of Israel, which is intensely security-conscious and has actually built a border fence that many of us regard as a model for the U.S.
The 9/11 Commission emphasized that the terrorists were able to carry out their mass murders because they'd had no difficulty entering our country—no problem remaining here for up to two years while they planned, rehearsed, financed and carried out their mass murders; no difficulty obtaining at least thirty-five authentic, US-issued drivers' licenses and state IDs. (They used these licenses to obtain all the goods and services they needed to hide in plain sight among millions of other illegals.)
Consequently, the 9/11 Commission recommended "targeting terrorist travel" through implementation of biometric identity requirements for all those crossing our borders—that is to say, actually verifying the true identity of travelers—and passing legislation to require that all applicants for US driving licenses prove that they actually are the person whom they claim to be.
The House of Representatives passed HR 10, a bill that included these requirements. But Lieberman would not permit that bill to go anywhere in the Senate. He and Senators John McCain (R-AZ) and Susan Collins (R-Maine) introduced and won passage of S.2845, a bill that contained impressive language about the need for secure drivers' licenses but which made participation by the States in the program strictly voluntary.
Lieberman's bill specifically allowed any state that wished to do so to continue issuing licenses to "undocumented," unknown aliens—possibly including the terrorists among them. And, as if this language was not sufficiently meaningless, Lieberman added wording to the bill that allowed for groups such as the American Immigration Lawyers Association and other "interested parties" to negotiate even the voluntary standards into utter worthlessness.
Lieberman misrepresented to his fellow Senators and the American public the true purpose of his legislation. He claimed his bill would "require minimum security standards for these documents." (Congressional Record, October 1, 2004, page S 10215) This statement was a flat out lie.
Lieberman engaged in similar misrepresentation about the border security measures of his "9/11 Implementation Bill." All the provisions of his bill that dealt with border security affected only those travelers who legally crossed our borders and bothered to submit to examination by a Customs officer. There was absolutely nothing in his bill that would have restricted the ability of illegal aliens to cross our borders—nothing that would have prevented the next Mohammed Attas from crossing our borders any time they chose.
Not content with this achievement, Lieberman led the unsuccessful attempt in 2005 to defeat the REAL ID Act, a secure driver's license bill with teeth.
Lieberman has also been among the most aggressive of those demanding many other benefits besides drivers' licenses for illegals—benefits that are the magnets that encourage aliens around the globe to ignore our law and join the gravy train. He has, for example, championed the DREAM Act that would give in-state tuition to illegals at taxpayer supported colleges.
As recently as September 29 he proved himself among the most radical open borders fanatic in the Senate by being one of only 19 Senators voting against construction of a fence along the Mexican border.
George W. Bush and his compadres in the national Republican Party have established an interesting pattern in 2006 of destroying selected Republican candidates. In addition to Alan Schlesinger, other Republicans marked for defeat by their own party include Stephen Laffey in the Rhode Island Republican Senatorial primary and Randy Graf, candidate in Arizona's 8th Congressional District.
What these three Republicans have in common is that they took strong positions in support of border security.
Laffey's primary opponent, Lincoln Chafee, was given the Bush/national party endorsement despite being against nearly everything Bush is for, including Bush himself. (Chafee says he wrote in the name of George H.W. Bush.) There is almost nothing on which Bush and Chafee agree.
"Ah," the Bush compadres say, "Laffey is too conservative and can't win the general election and we were forced to support Chafee." Trouble with this logic is that Chafee is as wooden in public appearances as a marionette. He is as patrician as FDR but has the warmth of Thomas Dewey. This is the Bushies' anointed candidate. However, he's a committed Open Borders guy, so he gets the national Republican seal of approval.
In Arizona, the Bush party has heaved Randy Graf over the side even though he is the Republican Party's candidate. If he loses, the seat goes Democrat. But hey, that's okay with George and the US Chamber because his opponent is an Open Borders clone of Bush and McCain.
Back in Connecticut, poor Alan Schlesinger, like Graf and Laffey made the mistake of bucking Bush on border security, so he too gets the heave-ho.
So all this talk about Lieberman being "Almostrepublican," don't you buy it. What he is is an Open Borders extremist.
And that, plus the Iraq War, is what makes him acceptable to the Powers That Be in the national Bush Party.