lamont will formally throw his hat in the ring

On Monday, March 13, Ned Lamont is going to announce his candidacy for the US Senate. He will do so at 4:00 p.m. in the Court Room of the Old State House at 800 Main Street in Hartford. Good.

I’ve already written about meeting Lamont, and why I can and do support him (I volunteered to work on his campaign and I made a campaign contribution). You can read it here. I’m excited that he’s running because, for a change, I want to vote FOR a candidate rather than against one.

It’s hard for me to articulate all of the reasons I cannot and will not support Joe Lieberman. But I read some posted today on My Left Nutmeg, which was a repost that, I guess, has been floating around the CT blogs, that really sums up a lot of the reasons why Liebermouth has gotta go:

Maybe you realized Senator Joe Lieberman had to go when he voted for George Bush’s war in Iraq. Or maybe it was for the poor job he did vetting Bush’s FEMA appointee Mike Brown when he chaired FEMA’s oversight committee. Or maybe it was his vote for cloture on a bankruptcy bill that will impoverish families unlucky enough to lose a job, or lose a wage-earner to illness or death, while enriching credit card companies. Or maybe it was his flirtations with privatization of Social Security and with joining the Bush administration. Or maybe it was his opposition to universal health care in 1994. Or maybe his flip flops on school vouchers. Or maybe his support of ruinous free trade agreements in Central America. Or maybe it was his countless appearances on Fox News, undercutting opposition to the Bush regime. Or maybe it was his op-ed piece in the Wall St. Journal with wild claims of success in Iraq. Or maybe it was his vote for the Defense of Marriage Act and his unenthusiastic support for civil unions for gays and lesbians. Or maybe his reluctance to condemn George Bush for misleading us into war, even though he loudly condemned Bill Clinton about misleading us about an extramarital affair. Or maybe it was his vote on giving huge tax cuts to oil companies in last year’s energy bill. Or maybe it was kissing the President after his State of the Union speech last year.

Or maybe it was his vote yesterday to clear the path for Judge Samuel Alito to sit on the Supreme Court of the United States. Twenty five Democrats sought to have an extensive debate on the merits of a judge who would roll back Roe protection, a judge who is a proponent of giving limitless power to President Bush. Predictably, Joe Lieberman wasn’t one of them ... (read the rest here.)

Earlier today, I got a message from Aldon Hynes pointing me to Six Questions for Senator Joe Lieberman on Connecticut Local Politics blog. What I read was him citing a bunch of hot-button issues that he says have to be dealt with, but no positions on those issues, plus his continued support for the atrocity of the Iraq War, but his complete misreading of what it will take to get Dems back into the fold—which he says is assuring us that the Dems have national security covered. Hmm. Somehow I don’t think this is the answer—I have a sneaking suspicion that maybe, just maybe, Dems want the Democratic Party to field (and here’s a concept) Democrats and not a bunch of career politicians busy fleeing to the right of center lest they lose their jobs. What I did really like in Six Questions ... was a comment by posted by TrueBlueCT, listing the real questions that Liebermouth needs to answer:

Is Sean Hannity really a “wonderful American”, and how do you reconcile your friendship with Sean and the hate-filled bile he spews? Do you regret your comments in support of the Terri Schiavo intervention by Congressional Republicans? Will you die a Democrat, or is there a chance you might quit the Party? (you hinted that you would be on the November ballot, one way or the other.) Your house in New Haven is for sale. Where do you intend to live during your next term? Are we in another Vietnam? What if Iraq isn’t winnable? (the Humpty-Dumpty principle.) At what point do we admit a mistake? Hamas just won the Palestinian elections. Do you think our occupation of Iraq played a part in the extremists’ rise to power? What do you think of Saudi Arabia, and their repressive regime? Should we be pressuring them towards Democracy? Torture! Is it an American value? If not, how do you square your vote in favor of Alberto Gonzales confirmation? Are all the Gitmo detainees guilty? Shouldn’t there be some system of due process? The Bankruptcy Bill. You voted for it before you voted against it. Why didn’t you join the filibuster attempt when so many Democrats were strongly against it?
Yep, Liebermouth has gotta go. And we have a real Democrat running against him. DIANE FARRELL Diane said she supports Lieberman. Why she did this, or felt she needed to come out in support of ANYBODY at this point, has me baffled. The main plank in her platform for her run against Shays is the war. So how can she support a flaming hawk? I planned on volunteering to do campaign work at her headquarters and I planned on sending a contribution. But I’m rethinking this—especially since I have yet to receive a response from her aboout why she did this. It served no purpose: why announce in support of anyone so early in the game? Did the party big shots (you know, those geniuses who managed to lose the last two presidential elections) threaten her with a funding drought? What did she have to gain from this? I am so disappointed. If someone, preferably Diane herself, could explain why she did this, I would appreciate it. And explain how it isn’t shooting herself in the foot, and how she’s going to regain some credibility. Her campaign always bothered me because of the exceedingly expensive fundraisers (way out of my league—I can’t afford a grand to hear what Madeline Albright has to say), but now there’s this Keystone Kops element: support the hawk, then challenge your opponent to a debate on the war. Sounds like great advice—for losing.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on 03/10/06 at 04:59 AM
Commenting is not available in this weblog entry.

<< Back to main