Frum actually makes one decent point in his otherwise typpically slanted conservative piece (it's always about the bigger war in Frum's world, the topic of the day of secondary importance).

He writes:

The Lieberman-Lamont race is often described as one between a "moderate" or "centrist" against a "leftist" or "liberal." But that's not quite right. On the bread-and-butter issues that have traditionally defined liberalism, Lieberman and Lamont take indistinguishable positions, just very slightly to the left of centre.

Bingo!

Some have said that Lamont is the kind of Democrat others wished Joe Lieberman had been, standing up for the Constitution and civil liberties while still cognizant of the role national security issues.

Frum, being Frum, makes some errors. Lamont has called for an exit strategy from Iraq, and is a supporter of Jack Murtha's plan.

Also, while going into Ned's family history and their wealth he omits to mention they were Republicans, northeastern moderate Republicans a rare if not extinct breed now. Ned's father worked in the Nixon administration. Somewhere after Vietnam/Watergate Ned became the first in his family to register as a Democrat.

It's also doubtful Ned Lamont would be the fourth richest man or woman in the U.S. Senate. It's an office where it's highly doubtful anyone there is not a millionaire, including Joe Lieberman. But as Tom Swan so rudely put it, do you vote for the guy who came in rich or the guy who got rich while there?