Liberal Inquisition, or Democracy in Action?

NY Times Conservative Columnist David Brooks, who sometimes makes a lot of sense, wrote a real head scratcher the other day. He called the insurgent campaign of Ned Lamont to unseat Joe Lieberman a "liberal inquisition." Huh?

He whines that liberals in the Democratic party are pillorying Lieberman for one issue alone-the Iraq war-and abandoning an otherwise good democrat. Hmmm. Folks in an opposition party are upset with a member of that party because said member abandoned opposition to the President on THE most important of issues, waging war, and that seems odd to anyone with a brain?

George Will has said the same thing but I've been scratching my head about him for sometime and didn't feel compelled to write. But enough voices have joined this curious chorus, Brooks' straw being the one breaking the camel's back, and I couldn't hold my tongue (or fingers!) any longer. I know they don't get this, but many of us saw this war as trumped up and adventurous. Many felt lied to and manipulated. Many see it as a tragic and stupid blunder. Many expected the leaders of the opposition party to OPPOSE it. Democrats don't have the right to hold a guy in the Democratic party responsible for abandoning them and instead joining and then steadfastly defending the madness?

I think they do, and I think it's called democracy. The people of his party in Connecticut are fed up with him and are saying, "you don't represent me anymore." That is their right. Hell, it's their duty. He may run as a independent when he loses, and he may well win the general election. (That's what the poll gods say.) But he will never represent Democrats again. Democrats are deciding that. It's the democratic way. And there is nothing wrong with that.