Disclosure: I worked for the Lamont campaign doing web design and production and some writing for the official blog (from 9/5/06 to 11/07/06).

Thursday, August 10, 2006



Josh Marshall picks apart the faux Republican cheers over Ned Lamont's victory on Tuesday, as well the media's shameful stenography in reporting them as truth:

What's really sad is that the nexus of national press and political operative bigwigs really needs to get over itself a bit here. Because once they do, they may actually be able to get over Joe Lieberman.

Joe Lieberman is not a world-historical figure.

He's not fighting some long twilight struggle.

He thinks he's both. But he's not....

The heart of the matter here is that everyone knows Joe in DC. They like him. They think he's a nice guy, which he is. His staff likes him, which also makes him seem like a nice guy. He's schmoozed the city for two decades.

But really he's just a pol who ignored his constituents, went into serious denial about a major foreign policy disaster, was more lockstep with the president's non-policy than many Republicans, and got bounced by his constituents.

That's politics. And that's accountability. And, really? It's not that big a deal.

And Joe wasn't the only incumbent in Congress to be held accountable on Tuesday, as Chuck Todd notes:

Hotline researchers are already on the case, but we can't find evidence of any primary night (in a non-redistricting year) producing three incumbent losses. And these losses were across the ideological and geographic spectrum. Each one individually can be explained away (moderate Joe Schwarz only won his first race because the conservative vote was split, not so this year; Cynthia McKinney is, well, Cynthia McKinney; and Joe Lieberman found himself on the wrong end of a divisive issue in the wrong year).

And yet, they all lost to candidates promising to do the same thing: change Washington. Change the spending habits, or change the foreign policy, or simply change personal behavior.

What's so laughable about all the know-it-alls is that they start off so sophisticated then return to their roots when they talk about "serious foreign policy disaster." We are 5 years into a struggle that started without us in 1993 (or 1981 depending on how you look at it) and promises to last at least a generation. Now you can run against or away from the war, but it will go on without you--only then they shoot you in your back or fly planes into your buildings, or try to blow your planes up mid flight.

On a separate point, have you ever noticed that everyone you dont agree with is a _____ (you fill in the appropriate derogatory adjective). I disagree with Joe Lieberman on almost everything. I worked for his opponent when he was elected to Congress in 1982, but he is a decent guy period. No one can doubt his loyalty to his state and his country. When an issue comes up, we pay our representatives to do what they believe is right given the information available to them (and maybe the that same information is not available to me). Dont like the decision, then vote them out. But why the leap that something untoward was at the heart of the decision.
Go Republicans!
Post a Comment

<< Home