But seriously, Lieberman has voted against the ban on partial-birth abortion six times. Why are conservatives supporting him? This year I’ll be voting for the Republican candidate who has already admitted to using an alias to gamble at casinos. Because he’s still better than Joe. Joe’s record is consistently liberal. I am completely perplexed by this outpouring of conservative love for Lieberman based on one issue. Does anyone remember the liberal VP candidate from 2000? That was Lieberman.This is Connecticut. To say that Lamont is to the left of Lieberman is to say that Lenin was to the left of Trotsky. OK, but does that make Trotsky a disciple of Adam Smith? Let’s refocus here and talk about the opportunity to get a better Republican candidate and let Lamont and Lieberman split the Democratic vote. ~Posted at The Corner

The gentleman (I assume it is a man) writing the letter is perplexed, but perhaps this is because he has been operating under the mistaken impression that the Lieberman enthusiasts are interested in conservative issues more than they are in promoting first, general mayhem, and second, hegemony in the Near East.  You can see them really struggling with the implications of Lieberman’s voting record on everything else…what’s that, they’ve barely mentioned it? 

The gentleman’s perplexity is the result of an honest enough mistake, and it’s what comes from reading National Review for too long, which at least occasionally pays lip service to protecting the unborn.  Never was there more self-righteous indignation on that issue at NR than when Jeffrey Hart made some impolitic cracks about dangerous Wilsonian nonsense guiding our foreign policy.  But, in the final analysis, more of the big-wigs there would rather see someone in the Senate who supports both infanticide of American children and aggressive war overseas rather than someone who only supports the former.  It sounds like some folks are in line to be enrolled in a certain “party of death,” wouldn’t you say?