Editorial beatdown for Lieberman

So far, Lieberman hasn't done himself any favors with his campaign style. He's threatened to quit the party, distorted his own record, attacked his opponent for being wealthy (never bothered him with BushCo, but whatever), and suggested that the seat is rightfully his. But this editorial takes a look at Lieberman's record in the senate. That's what it's all about, right? And it finds a disturbing record of votes that are anathema to the Democratic party.

Both candidates are trying to define the race - and each other - early. Lamont seeks to cast incumbent Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman as an out-of-touch apologist and crucial helper of President Bush's Iraq war and environmental, economic and health-care policies. Lieberman seeks to identify his opponent as an out-of-touch plutocrat. (Lamont, a tech entrepreneur, is worth between $90 million and $300 million.)

Meanwhile, in ads and public statements, Lieberman portrays himself as Regular Joe, a fighter for the little guy, in touch with blue-state Connecticut and mainstream Democrats on all issues except Iraq.

And somehow we - not just Lieberman - keep a straight face, as if he hadn't just spent 18 years helping Republicans hijack the Constitution and pick on little guy after little guy.

In case you hadn't caught it, that's the "Oh, this is gonna be good" moment. Some lowlights:

I had forgotten how he played the leading role in 1993 to thwart Democrats who tried to close loopholes allowing companies to cook the books on millions of dollars of stock options. Thus began the regulatory abandonment that spawned Enron and its sibling rip-offs. (. . .)

How many Connecticut Democrats remember that their senator was one of only two Democrats who voted with Republicans in 1995 to kill a lobbyist-gift ban? Or that he called affirmative action "un-American?" Or that in August 1994 he voted in favor of a proposal by Republican Jesse Helms to cut off all federal money from schools that offer counseling to suicidal gay teens by referring them to gay support groups or in any way suggesting it's OK to be gay? (. . .)

Now it's true that Lieberman earns high marks on Democratic interest group "report cards." That's because he plays a shell game in which liberal interest groups are complicit. He gets the "right" mark for voting against Samuel Alito's Supreme Court nomination, for instance. But he gives the Bush administration the vote it needs to make Alito a judge, by voting to stop a filibuster.

Similarly, he held back on voting for Clarence Thomas's nomination until the first Bush administration saw it had the votes. Then Lieberman could safely vote against Thomas and earn the "right" grade.

It's the portrayal of Lieberman as a much more calculating politician than his breezy, ALF's -Dad manner lets on that really makes my flesh crawl. His opponent, Ned Lamont, has made no secret of his progressive leanings, and his campaign seems to be gaining some serious ground. I'm all for the guy.