Mr. Coburn wants to create a public database, searchable over the Internet, that would list most government contracts and grants - exposing hundreds of billions in annual spending to instant desktop view. ... When told of Mr. Coburn's statement [database is to be all exclusive, not lacking info on contracts], Mr. Davis said, "As usual, I think he's headline grabbing." While Mr. Davis supports more openness in contracting, he said including contracts would "gum up the works" legislatively since more Congressional committees would be involved.
-- Push for Government Openness on Right and Left
Sen. Coburn is a true believer conservative, whose stance on any number of issues are ... not mine. But, one some level you respect someone who is true to his beliefs and cause. Well, unless the cause is simply "get the other side" -- thus, it is okay for the Wall St. Journal to print something, but not the New York Times. Coburn appears to be serious about cutting government spending ... not deciding to except contracts, which might hurt various friends of top Republicans.
Generally speaking, however, Republicans as a whole do not support policies that actually lead to cuts in spending. But, signs of principle do please me. I guess one can call Sen. Lieberman principled. I just don't like his principles (the war, mixing religion with government, pro-business policies, and not recognizing the need not to help promote the other party's malign policies), which seems to be in some large part self-promotion. Since I think necessary change and counterweight to the current messed up leadership requires more than that, Lieberman is a problem.
This is underlined by his announcement that he would try to collect enough signatures to run as an independent, if the "terrorists" (his manager's word) aka Lamont supporters win the Democratic Primary. But, though no such term officially exists, he would do so as a "petitioning Democrat." There is a difference between being a critic of some aspects of your party, and putting your own interests above it. This, not just the war and even things like the bankruptcy bill (though they surely help), is at the core of why so many are fed up with the man.
The press and even some members of Congress (even Sen. Boxer at the YearlyKos convention) focus on "his strong support for the war in Iraq" as if this is just about that one issue. Again, it surely is enough. But, it belittles the depth of the opposition (the article also did not toss in the whole "petitioning Democrat" thing). Though the NYT article announcing his indie bid did at least raise other issues, the war was the blurb on the home page* and main focus of the lede:
Senator Joseph I. Lieberman of Connecticut said today that he will run independently if he loses in the statewide Democratic primary next month, a move that further underscored his increasing vulnerability for his support for the war in Iraq and effectively means that he is willing to run two campaigns within three months to keep the seat he has held for three terms.
Under increasing pressure from Ned Lamont, a businessman and political newcomer who has criticized the senator for supporting President Bush on the war and other issues, Senator Lieberman said today, the eve of Independence Day, that he would begin gathering the 7,500 signatures on petitions necessary to run on his own should he lose to Mr. Lamont in the state Democratic primary, which is Aug. 8.
Actually, btw, Lamont spent eight years in local government ... so was not really a complete "political newcomer." The suggestion he was a candidate from "the left" depends on how you define that term, but various blog supporters have noted he is fairly moderate overall. I guess these days, especially if you are firmly for progressive principles, that makes you pretty left-leaning. OTOH, Lieberman has an attack ad (the now infamous bear ad) that suggests Lamont voted with Republicans a lot. Anyway, the article notes the independence of Sen. Lieberman:
Mr. Lieberman has never been a lock-step politician, and not only because of his strong support for the war in Iraq. An Orthodox Jew, he did not attend the convention that nominated him for the Senate in 1988 because it was held on a Saturday. Describing his beliefs, he said, "We in government should look to religion as a partner, as I think the Founders of our country did," according to The Almanac of American Politics.
The piece thus is basically a he/she sort of effort, basically supplying talking points for Joe Lieberman, while Ned Lamont (and his supporters/Lieberman opponents) come off as cardboard caricatures. Darn, how impressive -- he is independent, religiously faithful, and appears to have an honest disagreement on the war. Hmm. Only "the left" could forcibly run against that. Perhaps, the "secular left."
I believe, snark!, Sen. Obama has voiced support for him.
---
* "Senator Joseph I. Lieberman's moves today underscores how vulnerable the three-term incumbent has become due to his strong support for the war in Iraq."