Comments on: The Times’ Endorsement Of Lamont Is Up…

By: megapotamus

megapotamus — Tue, 01 Aug 2006 21:25:23 +0000

AnonaLib grasps the nettle: elections, like wars, offer a binary choice. In this instance it is really Lose/Lose for the Dems and that makes me smile but at least there is some rationality at play here. If Lamont can creep past 50%, good for him. Lieberman has been a marginal asset in the GWOT and that is as much as any Democrat outside of the armed forces has, or can be, given the realities of their coalition; but that ain’t much. I’ll little miss Joe on ANY vote (he hasn’t been a reliable hawk on funding etc, has he?) and if he is removed it will give the Dems a bit less purchase on the inevitable, desperate struggle to steel the credit for the ultimate victory in Iraq. Kerry, however, will provide his usual spectacle.

By: Ryan Bonneville

Ryan Bonneville — Mon, 31 Jul 2006 16:12:27 +0000

I think “sometimes there for them” is a little disingenuous, given Lieberman’s voting record. That said, I don’t know what the right is so worked up about. I happen to like Lieberman and I think he’s an asset to his country, but I’ll survive without him. On top of that, Ned Lamont is clearly a pin-headed idiot. Did you watch the debate? He has the intellectual subtlety of a sledgehammer and the political qualifications to match. A Lamont win is so unbelieveably good for the GOP that I can’t imagine why a Republican would want to oppose it.

By: mikebdot

mikebdot — Mon, 31 Jul 2006 13:29:47 +0000

Sean P: What exactly does it tell you? That they might lose a vote that was sometimes there for them but one that is in no way interested in holding the administration to task no matter what it does?

By: Sean P

Sean P — Mon, 31 Jul 2006 00:25:31 +0000

“Lamont’s stated positions on these issues are much closer to mine, and much closer to most people in Connecticut.”

Much closer to the views of other DEMOCRATS in Connecticut, true. Closer to the views of all Connecticut voters? Well, you won’t find out the answer to that question until November, and the fact that Democrats are willing to risk an otherwise perfectly safe Senate seat to find out is telling.

By: jpe

jpe — Sun, 30 Jul 2006 17:46:39 +0000

Will you now denounce [Clinton] as “undermining the party?”

If Clinton had said that criticism of Bush undermines the country, then yes, Clinton would be denounced.

By: jpe

jpe — Sun, 30 Jul 2006 16:51:29 +0000

somehow when those views are aired publicly you don’t hear caterwauling from their supporters about “undermining the party.”

You’re either lying or you’re not paying attention. (see, eg: the shrieking over Specter when he said an anti-Roe judge may not make it past committee; the gang of 14; and Graham’s objectively pro-terrorist stance on refusing to support the military tribunals)

By: dmac

dmac — Sun, 30 Jul 2006 16:25:34 +0000

“When he writes an op-ed in the WSJ suggesting that it’s bad for the country to be critical of the president, that undermines the Democrat party.”

Oh, please – such Chicken Little behavior only exists if said party has folk such as Pelosi, Reid and Dean to represent it. A stong party with the innate self – confidence of it’s core values and mission should be able to tolerate dissent from within it’s own ranks. The GOP has their own members who espouse extremist views, yet somehow when those views are aired publicly you don’t hear caterwauling from their supporters about “undermining the party.”

Your hero from the recent past, Bill Clinton, evidently does not agree at all with your sentiment. In fact, he’s directly repudiating it. Will you now denounce him as “undermining the party?” How about the Times? Why all the silence from the leading lights of the Left on Clinton? Should the Three Stooges who run your party denounce him now? Can’t have it both ways here – either Lieberman’s a traitor and Clinton’s his enabler, or neither.

By: dmac

dmac — Sun, 30 Jul 2006 16:14:45 +0000

Wait a minute, we know full well what Lamont’s entire reason for being is at this point – he’s not Lieberman. Now you’ve gotta admit, that’s a pretty compelling reason for the Times to support their cipher, yes? After all, how can you go against Punch’s wisdom and greatness?

By: Mark

Mark — Sun, 30 Jul 2006 16:05:58 +0000

But Anonymous, I’m not talking about your support, I’m talking about the Times‘ endorsement. Going by that piece, and that is, after all, the whole point of this post, you wouldn’t even know what Lamont’s position is – on ANYTHING!

By: Anonymous Liberal

Anonymous Liberal — Sun, 30 Jul 2006 15:49:19 +0000

Really? Do you actually mean to suggest that one Senator has all of that power and influence? That’s not only fatuous, but hyperbolic in the extreme.

Oh please. Lieberman is one of the most most well-known figures in the Democratic party, a party that is currently totally out of power. When he writes an op-ed in the WSJ suggesting that it’s bad for the country to be critical of the president, that undermines the Democrat party. When he goes on the Sean Hannity show and yucks it up with that dispicable mouth-breather, that undermines the Democratic party. That’s not hyperbolic. I’m not saying he’s single-handedly wrecking the country or anything. Just that he often engages in behavior that is gratuitously unhelpful to his parties interests.