Two whole years have passed since Senator Lieberman's fellow Democrats ran a trust fund WASP against him in his Primary, having first failed to accomplish their psychological operations mission to muscle him into dropping out of the race altogether. Is this a living example of the proverbial "elite-effete-liberal-eastern establishment" politics which is simply beyond my native western comprehension? Might simple geography better explain why I am still scratching my head in utter bewilderment over the fact that Senator Lieberman's own national and state Democrat Party tried to jerk him out of his Senate job when he faced re-election in 2006 by putting up a quintessential trust fund WASP who was willing and able to clip enough coupons to self-finance such a daring challenge without guaranteeing the outcome?Many Democrats have since privately conceded their mistake, which resulted in Senator Lieberman's re-election. More significantly, his new and improved Independent Democrat label with which he returned to the Senate, (only caucusing with the Democrats for organizational purposes) might well have emboldened the liberated Senator from Connecticut to endorse and campaign for his old friend and colleague REPUBLICAN NOMINEE for President, Senator John McCain! Potomac River rumors abound about potential party pay-back Senator Lieberman might expect when the new Congress convenes. Options range from hanging at high noon on January 21st in the well of the Senate Chamber, to taking away his committee chairmanship. Capitol chatter abounds. If the Democrats obtain a veto-proof majority in November, inquiring minds and inside the beltway junkies are dying to know, how they will handle Senator Lieberman? Will their decision weaken Lieberman or hold the beatific potential of placing him square in the middle of cat-bird's seat with enough swing stroke potential to determine final outcomes in close Senate votes?

                Do Americans continue to hold Congress in lower esteem even than President Bush because they see situations like Senator Lieberman and Chris Buckley, who articulate as the Constitution provides, last time I checked, a different point of view on even a singular issue or candidacy than their Party/Partisan Pit Bosses proscribe? How is it possible that Christopher Buckley, son of the late, gloriously great William F. Buckley, founder of The National Review, first conservative television host in America, gets canned by neuvo neo-National Review management for exercising his first amendment right to freedom of speech, freedom of expression, freedom of dissension from the party line? Were William F. Buckley alive now, he would clean house and kick some serious cans at his old magazine. If you will pardon the grade school vernacular, the National Review's PC hit squad should "take it back" and bring Christopher Buckley, his fine mind, great wit, and guile-free soul back to National Review ASAP. Find me a survey in which Americans think Washington is capable of crossing party lines and working together and I will voluntarily eat a certain 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue tenant's tallest Texas stetson. And they wonder why?

Michelle Laxalt is a Republican consultant; the daughter of former Republican Senator Paul Laxalt.

Filed under: