"I don't mind the church converting a whore," three-term Indiana Senator James Watson told former Democrat and soon-to-be Republican nominee Wendell Willkie, "but I don't like her leading the choir the first night." The blunt quip evokes thoughts of William Kristol's printed daydream of Joe Lieberman, eight years after serving as the Democratic vice presidential nominee, playing the same role for the Republicans. At least Willkie became a Republican before the Republicans nominated him in 1940.

A conservative can defend supporting Joe Lieberman in a race between him, Ned Lamont, and a Republican with little chance of winning. But what would provoke a conservative to suggest that Joe Lieberman should be next in line for the presidency?

Human Events takes exception to Kristol's article, noting that Lieberman voted against the ban on partial-birth abortions, President Bush's tax cuts, and Judge Alito's nomination to the Supreme Court, and for the assault-weapons ban and U.S. compliance with the Kyoto accords. "In short," Pat Buchanan writes in his column, "the Weekly Standard wishes to see, on a Republican ticket and a heartbeat away from the presidency, a proud liberal Democrat who supports partial-birth abortion, embryonic stem-cell research, gay rights, affirmative action, reparations for slavery, gun control, higher taxes on the top 2%, distribution of condoms in public schools and driver's licenses for illegal aliens.... But as long as you support war in Lebanon, war in Iraq and a 'war-fighting Republican Party,' in the Weekly Standard's phrase, you get a pass on everything else." Perhaps Buchanan holds a grudge. Kristol, after all, told the New York Times he would cast a ballot for John Kerry before casting one for Pat Buchanan.

This Lieberman fetish is a symptom of a disease among Republicans of lionizing anyone who inflames the Left rather than promoting those who effectively advance conservative ideas and policies. Within a fractured party, the position of being against the other side is always the safest and most unifying. Joe Lieberman, however, fails even this weak benchmark. Connecticut's junior senator is not even against the Democrats. The Democrats, at least most of them, are just against him.

The primary ousting of Joe Lieberman tells us a lot about the Democratic party's move to the Left. It tells us a bit about the conservative movement's swing leftward as well. The former may prove beneficial to Republicans seeking office. Both will prove disastrous to conservatives.

Dan why do you think that a conservative can support Lieberman over Lamont?

Also, the Buchanan quote is pointed and accurate and your suggestion of his possibly holding a grudge is facile, both b/c he seems unlikely to and b/c his depiction of Kristol was accurate . . . as your quote of him to the effect that he would choose Kerry over someone like Buchanan reflects.

Remember Kristol spelled his views out years ago in "Towards a Neo-Reaganite Foreign Policy" (find it here: http://www.ceip.org/people/kagfaff.htm ) and w/ his work for PNAC. The guy has been utterly consistent. He has never been more than a tepid conservative on social matters, just as his pro-choice father before him. Why do you write as if he is a conservative?

Also, how does Lieberman's ousting show a shift to the Left of the Democratic Party? That is, why is being anti-Iraq War leftist? You were against it? Finally, he was ousted by democratic primary voters in Connecticut, not by "Democrats" as a whole. The Democrat Party is still more pro-war than anti, they are simply opportunists as far as placating the base.

Seriously, their is only one significant party in town and it is the War Party, that is what Kristol is loyal to and why he wants to see a Lieberman/Guiliani ticket or McCain/Lieberman. That is our political mainstream, it matter little what "party" these guys affiliate themselves with. That is why after adoring Condi for years Kristol now wants her head, ditto Rumsfeld.

Finally, Kristol's lionizing of Lieberman has nothing to do w/ his "inflaming the Left" and you know that. It is b/c of his being a war hawk. Period. Kristol only hates the left as a possible force to mobilize and coalesce as an antiwar movement.

After NR's endorsement of Lieberman last week, this stuff from Kristol shows quite a bit about the priorities of those big name leaders of conservative thought today: they aren't conservatives.

I do think Lieberman is probably preferable to Lamont, but he is definitely no conservative, and neither is Kristol.

A lot of the support comes from the fact that he is Jewish and supports Israel. Evangelicals in the GOP have a certain reverence for Jews that in my mind comes out to be the opposite of anti-semitism. Whereas anti-semitism is undeserved prejudice against Jews, the Evangelicals display undeserved support toward Jews. Isn't that some of the reason he was chosen to run as VP, to snag some of that particular vote?

The term "Judeo-Christian" with reference to certain values speaks to that. The emergence of Christianity from Judaism linking the two closely.

It may speak to it, but as I look at how the Evangelicals define Jewishness it seems to be very superficial and have nothing to do with Judeo-Christian values. Essentially a Jew is someone who is Jewish and supports Israel. All else is gravy.

That may be true and maybe they are really indifferent. But there are certainly some shared religious and even social constructs between Jews and Christians where they are not that far separated. If support for Israel is paramount for the Evangelicals (Christians?) then, yes, they have that but I can also see how many Christians would find it easy to support Jewish candidates based on similarities in life values.

Life values is where I see the most striking disconnect. Normally Evangelicals are rabidly prolife, but the issue either doesn't come up or is brushed aside when it comes to those supportive of Israel. David Horowitz has to my knowlege never spoken about it at all. John Podhertz is if I remember correctly personally prochoice but in favor of states deciding the issue. As Dan quoted from Buchanan, Lieberman favored partial-birth abortion.

The quote about Wendell Willkie was also coined by paleocon scholar Stephen Tonsor about the neocons in a 1986 National Review article.

I believe that christians support Isreal
because they want to be on the winning team.
Read the back of the book.Jesus is the King Of the Jews. Rooting against Isreal
is like rooting against the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.You won't find Muslims ruling anything
in that dusty Bible of yours.

I don’t know about that OB. With a few exceptions, Jews and Christians have lived harmoniously together throughout history and it has to do with both groups having strength in religion, family, education, dedication to hard work and being upwardly mobile. I think there is a stronger social and philosophical link between the two than you may want to recognize and much less of a disconnect than you think. Certainly, there will always be differences but I see the similarities as more relevant.

United States support for Israel is one of the last vestiges of a culture that was once based largely on Judeo-Christian prinicples.

Ross

Well spoken. As a Christian, this is the primary reason to support Israel. We desire to be on the winning team.