Principle and Consistency: Why do Lieberman's views anger Democrats?

Dallas Morning News | Editorials:

“Democratic leaders could ask, 'What does Joe Lieberman have to gain by supporting the president now?' The answer is not much. Presidential ambitions died long ago, and he denies rumors that he's angling for an administration job. About all he's done is anger enough of his party to draw threats of a primary challenge in 2006. So that leaves us with principle and consistency. And perhaps that's what so annoys his critics.”

This editorial is wrong in so many ways, it's hard to know where to start.

First, the DMN creates a straw man of a Democratic Party position on the war. It's true the war has divided the party. The lack of a unified party position and party discipline in presenting that position is a valid cause for criticism. But the DMN creates a composite of statements made by various Democrats with differing views on the war and presents that as somehow the Democratic position on the war: jumbled, contradictory, confused. It's simply a false representation. It's dishonest.

Second, Senator Lieberman (D-CT) is irrelevant. The Republicans ridiculed him off the national stage in 2000 (remember Sore-Loserman?). The Democrats ignored him in their 2004 Presidential primaries. The fact that his recent essay supporting the President's war strategy is news at all is an indication of how low the President's approval ratings have sunk, how desperate the President is to find some political cover for the debacle in Iraq. It's not an indication that Sen. Lieberman's opinion carries any real weight in Washington, among either Democrats or Republicans.

So, why are some Democrats irritated by Sen. Lieberman? It's certainly not because of his supposed principle and consistency. In 2003, Sen. Lieberman had these things to say about how President Bush was conducting the war in Iraq:

The President’s conduct of our foreign policy is giving the country too many reasons to question his leadership. It’s not just about 16 words in a speech, it is about distorting intelligence and diminishing credibility.
...
There has been one value repeatedly missing from this Presidency, and that value is integrity. By deception and disarray, this White House has betrayed the just cause of fighting terrorism and tyranny around the world.

Perhaps the recent irritation is rooted in Sen. Lieberman's inconsistency in holding President Bush accountable to the high principles of office that Americans expect and deserve from their President.

It's ironic that Sen. Lieberman is now the darling of Republicans. Perhaps if more of them had voted for him in 2000, the country would not be in the mess it's in now. Perhaps, if they had at least shown respect for him then, they could point proudly to his support now without looking hypocritical and desperate. Perhaps the DMN should send this editorial back to rewrite.