Partisanship first, practicality never

I'm not a fan of John McCain OR Joe Lieberman, but the reactions to the latter's support of the former shows just how out of whack our politicians' priorities are:

Lieberman, a Democrat-turned-independent who was the blue side's candidate for vice president in 2000, said that while Sen. Barack Obama was voting to cut off funding for troops in Iraq, McCain took the unpopular position to support a surge in troops.

"Because of that, today, our troops are at last beginning to come home, not in failure, but in honor," Lieberman said. ((really? When did we vacate Iraq? I must've missed that headline... -- Jemison))

Lieberman said that in times like these, country matters more than political parties.
((in "times like these?" How about always! And the country'd be better off without political parties, truth be told! -- Jemison))

Charles Schumer, the senior Senator from New York, begs to differ. In fact, most Democrats are furious with Lieberman.

"I like Joe Lieberman, but that's a big mistake for him," Schumer said. "To be pro-war and to have his views on the issues, everyone respects that. But you don't go over to the other side."

Lieberman could lose his Homeland Security Committee chairmanship. Right now the Democrats need him to hold the majority, but if they pick up seats in the fall all bets are off.

I think both McCain AND Lieberman are too hawkish for the country's good. But that's not what has his fellow Democrats upset. They "respect" his position... so long as it isn't inconvenient to their majority and their agenda. What happened to the "big tent parties?"

In truth, I think what aggravates the insiders most is that seeing McCain and Lieberman together is a potential reminder to America there isn't a bit of significant difference between the parties. Both are in favor of big, intrusive government; it's just different groups of parasites that get first place at the trough, depending on who's at bat the next four years. Democrats give you armies of social workers tinkering with society (and making it worse); Republicans give you armies of, well, armies, tinkering with the world's balances of powers (and making it worse). In both cases, neither accepts responsibility for their unintended consequences... no, they ask the nation to double down and accept just a little bit more intervention to get to the promised Utopia.

I consider myself a minarchist. I don't see any of THOSE in Washington. Now that would be "change" to bring "hope."