Congratulations Ned Lamont
First, my congratulations to Ned Lamont. The early stories of the Connecticut Senatorial primary all seem to read, "Lieberman loses announces that he will run as an independent" with a big picture of the loser and barely any mention of Ned Lamont. After appealing to “party” in the waning stages of the primary campaign, somehow the soon to be former senator’s loyalty to his party appears to be very suspect. To think that six years ago, Joe Lieberman came within a few chads of being Al Gore’s vice president.
Now, he’d rather keep alive his hope of keeping his senate seat than to help the party that nominated him for national office win back the senate.
While the anti-war blog world is celebrating Lamont’s victory as their victory as well, I need to caution that winning a Democratic primary 52-48 when opposition to the war among voters in general is running close to two to one is a very small step indeed. Say what you want about a political neophyte defeating an incumbent senator in his own party’s primary, but to borrow a phrase from the administration, “Please don’t let any blog try to convince you that the anti-war movement has turned a political “corner.” “
There’s a lot of work to be done, but one of the first steps will be to now get Ned Lamont that senate seat especially if that paragon of sportsmanship and party solidarity Joe Lieberman insists on running as an independent.
History suggests that in any war, atrocities on both sides are almost inevitable. The most recent-more-detailed reports about the rape and murder of an Iraqi girl and the murder of her family by U.S. soldiers in Mahmudiya should serve as a reminder that the moral high ground is an elusive thing in wartime. We need a congress that remembers that and does its job of protecting this country by restoring the notion of accountability through the balance of powers to our system.
chancelucky
Labels: ned lamont joe lieberman
posted by Chancelucky @ 11:16 PM
6 Comments:
I'm also amazed at Lieberman's audacity to suddenly ditch his party in a moment's notice. But I suspect that most career politicians are like that. They will say anything that they think will keep them in office, regardless of whether they believe it or not. Long gone are the days of Roosevelt, JFK or Eisenhower when politicians would sometimes take unpopular paths because they believed it was good for the nation, polls be damned.
On a side note, the other big supporter of the war has been Hillary Clinton. I have to wonder what the Lieberman loss will mean to her aspirations for the White House.
To me it's simple. You run in the primary, you accept the verdict. You want to be an independent, do it from the beginning so what was once your party can plan accordingly.
Well, in terms of politicians ignoring polls, it can be said that W is doing exactly that in the Middle East. At least arguably, they're still willing to do that :}.
As a senator, Hillary Clinton has struck me as remarkably timid. Either that, or I just disagree with her on a number of issues. I really don't get a sense that her candidacy's going to happen, but I'm almost always wrong about these things. She's basically been betting that the war won't be the major issue of 2008. At the same time, I don't know what issue she is betting on. I'm a little unclear as to where and on what she's staked out a leadership position.
I was honestly a little surprised that Peter Daou took a job with Hillary to build her net support-presence.
I heard Lamont talk today the day after and he actually listened to the interviewer. He was smart and sensible. A centrist. I think he'll do very well with the increased exposure.
If Lieberman doesn't endorse Lamont and drop out by the middle of October, I'll be apoplectic. If Lieberman pulls a nader nadir, I will never not ever forgive him.
Hillary has been very mischaracterized as being some big supporter of the Iraq war. She never was. She thought certain things were grimly necessary, but what she voted for originally was to give Mr. Bush some leverage on getting inspectors back into Iraq, not going to war willynilly. Watch her on CSpan sometime when you can see more than a soundbite of her.
My dream ticket is John Edwards and Barack Obama.
I've seen Hillary speak on the war for more than a sound byte. I guess I would call it a nuanced position. John Kerry had a "nuanced" position in 2004 and I felt I understood it, but that it was hard to communicate.
I'm not sure that such a position is as tenable in 2006 nor did I think it worked that well in 2004.
Bill Clinton has a very fond section about working with Joe Lieberman in a campaign in New Haven when Clinton first got involved in party politics as a law student. I'm not sure who this other guy with the same name in 2006 is.
cl, I left this info also on gsmso because I found it so shocking.
As thrilled as I am that Lamont won, I am violently vexed (only in my mind, George -- I don't bomb people) that out of 699502 registered Dems in CT, only 283039 bestirred themselves to vote -- and that was considered a record turnout. Groan.
What in our dear world were the missing 416463 people doing?
Are all your voting age children registered?
both the kids who are old enough vote.
I think anything close to 50% for a primary is considered a pretty good turnout. I meet lots of adults who don't vote. Usually, they say they don't follow the elections. (not sure that's a good reason, it's like going to your own wedding without knowing who you're marrying (which some cultures do).
Post a Comment
<< Home