Tuesday, August 01, 2006

Lamont for Change

On August 8th, all eyes will be on Connecticut, to see if political neophyte Ned Lamont can knock off a three-term incumbent senator, who in 2000 was his party’s nominee for vice president.

Some are calling this a battle for the soul of the Democratic Party. Others liken it to a purge by liberals against a good and decent man. In the end, though, this fight is over which man Connecticut voters believe deserves the post more. In short—should Connecticut stick with a loyal, if flawed, servant, or take a chance on someone new?

We need to take the chance.

The list of Democratic complaints against Sen. Lieberman is a long one, but this campaign has from the start been propelled by one major issue: the war in Iraq. I disagree with Mr. Lamont’s recommendation that we bring troops home right away, but I also believe that doing nothing, and allowing the current state of affairs to continue, is by far the worst thing we could do. A new perspective is needed.

Much has been made of Sen. Lieberman’s vaunted bipartisanship, and his willingness to compromise with and support Republicans even at the expense of his own party. This can be a virtue, as many have pointed out. But moderation and bipartisanship can very easily slip into the appeasement of extremism and the stubborn endorsement of dysfunction. On issues like the handling of the Iraq War, the troubling expansion of executive authority and the even more troubling failures of the Republican majority to govern effectively through several crises, a “bipartisanship” that undermines his own party’s attempts to keep the majority honest rather than strengthening ties between both sides is disastrous. In all things, there should be moderation—moderation itself included. Sen. Lieberman doesn’t seem to realize this.

Sen. Lieberman’s conduct during this campaign has also been disappointing, and speaks to a side of his character we don’t often see. From all accounts, he is a good and decent man. But he has been defensive and prickly when challenged, he has largely avoided the issue of Iraq, and his campaign has viciously attacked his opponent on the most insubstantial of grounds, while dismissing all charges made against him as those of a tiny minority. His refusal to engage the serious questions that voters have about his record on Iraq (which he turns aside by encouraging voters to look at the rest of his record, instead), and above all his decision to run as an independent should he lose the primary seems to indicate that the concerns of Connecticut Democrats interests him less than his own desire to stay in office. This is undemocratic.

Lamont is inexperienced, this is true. His inexperience has become less pronounced as he has grown as a candidate, but it is still there. It will be his biggest handicap as a senator, should he make it that far, but it will be a handicap shared by many others if the course of this election year holds true. It shouldn’t be a reason to vote against him. The idea of keeping a candidate in office just because he or she is experienced, despite glaring flaws, leads us into the trap of serial, unwarranted incumbency. This is also undemocratic.

Ned Lamont has been a welcome change from Sen. Lieberman. On many issues, he is certainly more liberal than Lieberman, but he speaks to the concerns that Democrats from all walks of life have: health care, taxes, the economy and, above all, the Iraq War. He is personable, likable, and surprisingly unpretentious.

Sen. Lieberman has failed to realize that, if he wants to win the support of voters, he needs to do more than shake their hands in a diner. He needs to listen to them—and to understand them. Lamont listens, and understands.

Voters desperately want change, this year. We can’t keep doing things the same way in Washington. Lieberman, who seems insulated and out-of-touch, doesn’t realize that. Lamont, on the other hand, embraces it. This, above all other reasons, is why we endorse Ned Lamont for the U.S. Senate nomination.

26 comments:

Anonymous said...

Well-First it was the Willington DTC and now CT Local Politics. Game over for Joe.

Anonymous said...

The last two days have confirmed why I enjoy this site so much. Great analysis on both primaries.

I'm voting for Lamont and Malloy on Tuesday, for all the reasons you've listed.

BRubenstein said...

Lamont has favorably plead his case for change...

TrueBlueCT said...

CHANGE!

justavoter said...

you hit it right on the money with your Lamont Endorsement.

A smile and talking about who you were in the past does not get the vote but what you and who you are now to voters does.
Lamont gets the vote because for me meeting him I see someone almost like a Robert Kennedy in the best way possible.

There is something about Lamont that Leiberman does not have.

Its the heart and soul of the Connecticut voters .

Don Pesci said...

The major change envisioned by Lamont is, according to his press statements, the withdrawal of troops within a specified time span -- a year, Lamont has said -- without regard to military changes on the ground. Perhaps Brubenstein can tell us what he thinks the likely consequences of such a change will be. Has he run the numbers on the change yet? Lamont has said he wishes to bring the troops home “to the hero’s welcome they deserve.” Well, you know, heroes are victors. In the absence of victory, troops coming home from other wars were not given a hero’s welcome.

bluecoat said...

Only the President can change troop levels not the Congress; Congress can only cut off funds and nobody is doing that except for some symbolic votes in the minority.

BRubenstein said...

Don Pesci...you are wrong about heroes...heroes are heroes win or lose...sometimes the valient try but do not win...


BTW...under Bush's "plan" we seen increased killings and a general civil war right now..anything is better then this, dont you agree?

Put the blame for the likely Iraq Theocracy where it belongs..on Bush,Cheney,Rumsfeld..and of course the " chief cheerleader" Joe Lieberman.

Anonymous said...

The looney left that supports Lamont despise the military and are nothing more than the same vile hippy scum that spat on our soldiers returning home form Vietnam, and he wants to give them a heros welcome? No thanks Ned, keep it to yourself.

Genghis Conn said...

Vietnam is over and done, anonymous. The sooner we stop fighting that war and start worrying about the one happening currently, the better off we'll be.

Anonymous said...

justavoter said: "I see someone almost like a Robert Kennedy in the best way possible."

Apologies to the late Sen. Bentsen, but Ned Lamont is "no Bobby Kennedy."

Unless, of course, you mean that neither earned their great wealth - Kennedy got it from his old man, Ned gets it from his wife.

Man, if Ned only had an R after his name, you guys would be ripping him as a rich, sheltered, spoiled WASP.

And you know it's true!

bluecoat said...

Vietnsm combat veterans who went on to make a career out of the military and rise to the rank of four stars like Gens Tony Zinni who once commended CENTCOM, John Batiste who led the infantry in Iraq, Anthony Newbold who was COS to the Joint Chiefs at the time of the invasion and a few others have spoken out about what's been done wrong in Iraq. I guess they'll grow their hair long and stop bathing soon so that we can call them hippie scum. Ignorance sucks.

bluecoat said...

whoops, Batiste wasn't a Vietnam vet and he retired with only two stars rather than accepting his third because he wanted to be able to speak out; he wanted to be able to work to protect his men and women in his command as he had learned to do and as he did while he led the infantry in Iraq. and as far as I know double leg amputeeTammy Duckworth, Capt USANG ret. hasn't gone hippie but she is running for US Congress.

BRubenstein said...

Anonymous 4:27...you're ignorance is showing ..Lamont isnt a WASP....last i heard he was Catholic..not that the truth would matter to you.

BRubenstein said...

Anonymous 4:27...BTW..he got his wealth by starting a company that was/is very successful...i would also suspect he has inherited money too...what his wife may or maynot make is merely incidential.

You're slamming him in error here,but i suppose you have nothing better to do...too bad..maybe some day you could start a successful company as well.

bluecoat said...

WASP's are descendents of Roman Catholics....

BRubenstein said...

Bluecoat..so is every Protestant denomination...what's your point?

Anonymous said...

Pro-Gay, Pro-Abortion...

New wave blue state Catholic....

Wonder if the Bishop thinks he should be receiving the sacraments.

catholicboy said...

For the love of Christ bluecoat how did you get so far in life and still be that ignorant? Read some history. WASPs are descendants of Catholics. You sound like a high school kid from the burbs. Oh, wait...

Anonymous said...

what will bluecoat's next brilliant observation be, all christians are descended from the jews? christ was a jew? the muslims believe in the god of abraham? we all bleed red? well kumbaya!

Authentic Connecticut Republican said...

bluecoat said... "
WASP's are descendents of Roman Catholics....


While Protestantism is, there were many English & Scots that were not Christian (ie: `Romanized') prior to the Protestant Reformation.

They continued merrily along with the beliefs of their forebearers.
ie: mulitple gods, each with some specific accountablity.

Thus - many WASP's are not descendended from Roman Catholics.

justavoter said...

Ned Lamont has the same good qaulities as Robert Kennedy.

I was not referring to how much money he had.

Are you that stupid?

Anonymous are you also paided by the Lieberman Lie camp ? I am referring to the anti Ned Lamont Anonymous not the one supporting Ned.

Your man Lie is going down August 8th then what will you do?

Jim said...

I'm pretty sure no one can be "paided"...even Anonymous...

Anonymous said...

Yeah these Ned Lamont Anti War supporters look like they would give our returning troops a real heros welcome.

http://www.zombietime.com/global_day_of_action_march_18_2006/
http://www.zombietime.com/hall_of_shame/

Have the lunatic leftists no shame?

bluecoat said...

BR: i had no point; i was just trying to be a spinner.

bluecoat said...

I just reread this thread and nobody commented on what I had to say about Iraq but lot's of folks chimed in on the RC to WASP conversion thast was meant to lighten things up for BR who I alwasy find to be thoughtful; simply amazing what's important to people in this country.