Radiofree West Hartford - THE DEVIL YOU KNOW by Tim Siggia

THE DEVIL YOU KNOW

By Tim Siggia

August 19, 2006

Q. When does a conservative vote for a liberal?

A. When he has no other choice.

Well, if you're not exactly slapping your knees and rolling in the aisles over that one, let me reassure you now that this is not a joke, nor was it intended to be. It deals with a question that has been dogging me since long before it was announced that there would even be a Democratic or Republican primary on August 8 of this year. You will note my use of the first person in this piece, something I normally try to stay away from because I consider it egotistical, and, in most cases, unnecessary. But because this time the issue at hand is deeply personal, I saw no way to avoid it. So my apologies to those of you who might be offended by what you see as so much I, I, I, me, me, me. It's not my usual style.

First of all, let's take a look at our governor, M. Jodi Rell. Am I happy with her as governor? No. Do I want her to continue as governor? No. Will I vote for her in November? Yes. Surprised? So, frankly, am I. No one has been a harsher critic of our current governor than I have been, and I have plenty of reasons to dislike her style. You know the list: gay civil unions, embryonic stem cell research, campaign finance "reform", and yes, increased state taxes. She did pledge to cut taxes and spending, but how much of either have been cut since she took over from John Rowland? Little to none in each case, I would say. I'm not forgetting, of course, that Mrs. Rell has been saddled with both a Democratic legislature and a Democratic lieutenant governor, and these two things must of course be considered. But I cannot help believing that a stronger, more committed, more resolutely conservative governor could have done so more effectively. I know such things can be done because Ronald Reagan did them, both as governor of California and as President of the United States.

So, as you can see, I have more than a few reasons to be dissatisfied with the performance of Governor Rell. So why, then, would I commit to vote for her in the general election? One reason, really: John DeStefano, mayor of New Haven and Democratic candidate for governor, whose headline issue is a program of socialized medicine he calls Universal Health Care, which he intends to put into place as governor. For a party that likes to call itself "progressive" on the issues, this is hardly a new idea. In those places where it has been tried, most notably Canada and the United Kingdom, it has been a failure. Ted Kennedy wanted it for the United States back in the Seventies. "Co-president" Hillary Rodham Clinton, then armed with Democratic majorities in both House and Senate, and a president who just happened to be her husband, tried to railroad it through via secret meetings with co-conspirator Ira Magaziner, and, in 1994, the American people responded with a resounding, "No!!!", As a result, the House and Senate were both turned over to Republicans, with Bill Clinton himself being saved only by the fact that he was not up for re-election that year. DeStefano, obviously, is one who does not learn from history.

DeStefano is trying a different tack this time in his attempt to once again sell a product the overwhelming majority of Americans clearly do not want. Using WalMart as his foil (Democrats hate WalMart, even though that company contributed strongly to both of Bill Clinton's campaigns, first of all because they do not use union labor, but mainly because they have been successful and stand as living proof that capitalism works.), DeStefano says that since WalMart will not provide its employees with health care, his administration will, and send WalMart the bill! So, the taxpayers won't have to pay; WalMart, and with it, presumably, all other private-sector businesses, will provide our health care for us! Want to bet? What do you think will happen should DeStefano be elected? We'll see the biggest mass exodus of businesses from Connecticut since the end of the George H. W. Bush administration. Anybody want to take a wild guess at who will end up paying for "Universal Health Care" then? Especially since, according to DeStefano, everybody will be covered, whether or not they already have existing health plans or, for that matter, are wealthy enough to pay out-of-pocket for their health care? Hang onto your wallets, people, and watch those deductions from your paycheck skyrocket!

That isn't all, though. Falling back on the tired old Democratic theme of class warfare, DeStefano would impose a "millionaire's tax" that would punish the success of the entrepeneurs who contribute the most to our economy, provide steady, good-paying jobs, and yes, already pay the lion's share of taxes at all levels as it is. Just how many of these people do you think will want to stick around once DeStefano enacts a tax directed specifically at them? And, as if Roe v. Wade weren't already (unfortunately) the law of the land, DeStefano says he will "always support a woman's right to choose." Wow, that's brave stuff, considering the state of which he wants to be governor! Kind of like saying you support the right of a hungry man to eat! Well, if I may digress for a moment, let me say at this point that I also support a woman's right to choose: She may choose to either have sex or to abstain, but if she chooses the former she should be prepared to deal with the consequences. And, lest I be accused of sexism, I support that same right for men.

Next question: Am I happy with "Sleepy Joe" Lieberman as my United States Senator? No. Do I want to see him continue as senator from Connecticut? Again, no. Will I vote for him in November? Yes. I say this with full knowledge that I disagree with the good senator on far more issues than I agree on him with. I say this knowing that he voted against confirmation of John Roberts and Samuel Alito as Supreme Court justices, that he voted against the partial birth abortion ban, that he supports affirmative action and gun control, that he recently not only accepted the endorsement of Bill Clinton, but allowed himself to be photographed schmoozing with the impeached former president -- and that his supposed condemnation of Clinton back in 1998 for the Monica Lewinsky scandal was in fact an attempt to spare his old Yale buddy the disgrace of impeachment, substituting for that the milder, constitutionally unprecedented alternative of a censure, which would have amounted to a slap on the wrist. I say this knowing that Lieberman has the stench of Clinton all over him, and, should I say, a 2000 rating of zero by the American Conservative Union (which I refuse to refer to as the "ACU", lest it be confused with another organization whose initials are almost the same). I say this knowing that he ran in 2000 for Vice President with ultra-liberal Al Gore, who thinks he invented the Internet, discovered Love Canal, and was the inspiration for Love Story, and is currently attempting to prove he's a better movie maker than his buddy, Michael Moore. So naturally, the question arises:

Why Lieberman?

The answer to that question may be found in the results of the recent Democratic Party primary in Connecticut, in which Connecticut Democrats turned out Sleepy Joe in favor of heretofore unknown Ned Lamont, a multimillionaire Greenwich businessman in the cable TV industry, primarily on the issue of the war in Iraq, which, unlike the majority of his Democratic colleages, Lieberman has supported. Using his own resources to finance a slick campaign reminiscent of Bill Clinton's in 1992, Lamont used every opportunity to tie Sleepy Joe to George W. Bush, who is almost universally hated in the state of his birth. Never mind that Lieberman has opposed almost every Bush initiative and filibustered nearly all of his Supreme Court nominees, and has a track record that makes him one of the most liberal members of the U. S. Senate. Lamont, with his clever rhetoric, managed to turn Sleepy Joe into Bush's number one cheerleader in the Democratic Party -- at least in the minds of Connecticut Democrats who, on August 8, voted with their emotions and, as they proudly proclaim today, "sent a message" not only to Sleepy Joe but to all other Democrats would deviate to even the slightest degree from the party line -- a theme that was quickly picked up by radical film maker Michael Moore, whose message to other potential dissenters in the Democratic Party was, in essence, "Get in line, or else!"

Lamont is very clearly "in line". He would pull our troops out of Iraq, and leave the newly-installed democratic Iraqi government to twist in the wind. He would send the message to our allies that we do not keep our commitments, and, to our enemies, that we have no resolve and will readily accept defeat. And, taking a cue from his buddy DeStefano, he would support "Universal Health Care" for the rest of America, as well as Connecticut.

It is perhaps one characteristic of Lieberman, so uncharacteristic of the rest of his party, that convinces me that he deserve my vote regardless of my political differences with him: his cool-headedness. Lieberman voted for the war because he saw a threat not to Democrats or Republicans, but to America. Then, after other Democrats began back-stepping and recanting their previous positions, Lieberman stuck with his -- and it cost him his party's nomination. Anticipating such a result, he began petitioning even before the primary, and will be a candidate under the banner of the Lieberman For Connecticut Party, which is ironically reminiscent of his old nemesis, Lowell Weicker, who became governor in 1991 under A Connecticut Party. (Weicker, ever the confirmed leftist, threw his support to Lamont in the Democratic primary, though Weicker himself is not a Democrat.) However liberal his biases may be, Lieberman projects an aura of responsibility that is not shared by his opponents.

Why not Schlesinger?

Why not who? Well, it's a fair question, even if I have already given part of the answer. Alan Schesinger of Derby is, after all, the Republican candidate for the U. S. Senate, and I am a Republican. So why am I not supporting my own party's candidate? Probably for the same reasons so many other Republicans aren't supporting him. (In a recent Quinnipiac University poll of likely voters, Lieberman got 53 percent of the vote and Lamont got 42 percent. Only four percent said they would vote for Schlesinger.) First of all, his name isn't exactly a household word here in Connecticut. Most people here don't know, and probably don't care, that he was the mayor of Derby who, having defeated an incumbent Democratic mayor, took Derby's budget out of the red and put it back in the black -- using the principles of Ronald Reagan, as he likes to tell people. (It's amazing how Republicans who bear about as much resemblance to Ronald Reagan as does Woody Allen to Arnold Schwarzenegger love to invoke Reagan's name. John McCain, we will remember, also refers to himself as a "Reagan conservative".) Schlesinger also calls himself a "fiscal conservative". Does anyone besides me recognize a code phrase here? The guts of the phrase is not in what it says, but rather, what it does not say: namely, that the "fiscal conservative" is not at all conservative in matters not dealing specifically with finances. Schlesinger says he is a "mainstream Republican" -- mainstream, that is, in the tradition of Nelson Rockefeller, Jacob Javits, Arlen Specter, and Lincoln Chafee. In other words, he is a typical "Connecticut Republican", which, by the way, should never be confused with the genuine article.

If Schlesinger's adventures at Atlantic City and Foxwoods Casino are examples of his fiscal conservatism, it's a type of fiscal conservatism I personally can do without. For my own part, whether a man likes to drink, smoke, chew or gamble is his own personal business, and normally does not influence my assesment of him. What I cannot abide is sneakiness and dishonesty. These are traits that immediately turned me against Bill Clinton, for example. And if the man who exhibits such traits is a member of my own party, it turns me doubly against him. What I am specifically referring to here is Schlesinger's use of an alias to get himself a Wampum Rewards Card at Foxwoods. This is a common practice, Schlesinger's campaign manager says, something Schlesinger did to avoid getting solicitations from Foxwoods and other casinos. Schlesinger maintains that he did nothing wrong. Note what he is really saying here: he is saying that, according to him, there is nothing wrong with lying. A man who will lie about who he is will lie about other things as well, especially if he sees nothing wrong with it. When he was sued by casinos in Atlantic City at which he had incurred substantial gambling debts, Schlesinger, to his credit, settled those debts out of court. But then later, in an interview, he maintained that he didn't even remember being sued! Sound incredible? Well, it shouldn't, especially coming from a man who sees nothing wrong with lying! This we do not need. We already have one senator like representing New York. We certainly don't need another representing Connecticut.

Well, my die is cast and my decisions are made, and I guess it finally comes down to the old saw, "Better the devil you know than the one you don't." I know many who read this will not agree with me, and I certainly respect their opinions. These will not be happy votes for me, I can assure you, and once I have cast them I will more than likely feel the need for a long, hot shower afterward. I will cast them knowing that I had vowed back on February 12, 1999, when Senate Democrats closed ranks to acquit Bill Clinton of the crimes of which they knew he was guilty (and Joe Lieberman was one of those Democrats) never to vote for a Democrat ever again. I will cast them knowing that for the next six years I will be represented in the Senate by one who, in fact, does not represent me or my way of thinking. I will cast them knowing that in both cases I have voted for people who strongly support an act which I consider to be murder of the unborn.

Prior to the Connecticut primary, I had made up my mind to vote for "none of the above." My intention was to vote for write-in candidates for both governor and U. S. Senator: candidates who not only stood no chance whatsoever of winning, but who, in fact, were not even running for those offices and would have no idea that anyone had voted for them. If the upcoming election were the typical Connecticut kind, that of liberal vs. liberal resulting in a match-up of Rosencrantz and Gildenstern, I would have done so out of protest. But there is more than that at stake this year. The candidates being run by the Democratic Party in Connecticut this year are dangerous radicals who threaten to inflict serious harm on both our state and our country, and, as the primary here has glaringly demonstrated, there are plenty of people in this state crazy enough to vote for them.

They must be stopped. Now. Period.