Why Lamont? Here's Why:

Many observers have had trouble understanding why Senator Lieberman’s full throat support of Iraq War II has led many Democrats to perceive that he has an unholy closeness to Generalissimo Bush. “Hillary Clinton also voted for the war and hasn’t turned Dove,” they protest. “And hasn’t he been a good Democrat otherwise?”

The symbol of Lieberman’s turn to the Dark Side is the notorious smooch. The substance is this statement from December 2005:

“It’s time for Democrats who distrust President Bush to acknowledge that he will be the commander in chief for three more critical years and that in matters of war we undermine presidential credibility at our nation’s peril.”

From a Civics Textbook standpoint Mr. Lieberman is correct. In the reality that we live in his statement is Goof City distilled.

The American Presidency is an odd creature; the President is at once the partisan head of a political party and the symbolic leader of an entire nation. All Presidents use their ceremonial duties to bolster their political might, but Generalissimo Bush is unique, in my opinion, for having never truly acted as President. He has never used the stature of his position to lead the country. An overwhelming majority may have been behind him after 9/11, but from the first he used that horrible day to drive narrow partisan interests and to divide the nation against itself. This may have been a winning political strategy, but it merits the opposite of the gravitas that Lieberman assigns to Bush’s position in the government.

There is a place Hawks for in the Democratic Party. There is no room for those who do not acknowledge that Bush lied his way into Iraq War II and fundamentally mismanaged the war from the first and do not realize that criticizing him for this is the purpose of an opposition party. Moreover, it is this intelligent, justified criticism that formulates an argument for switching leadership to the American people.

Mr. Lamont has shown intelligence and conviction in taking the fight to Mr. Lieberman when others wouldn’t. Pundits may decry his supposed lack of policy seasoning, but if the Senate has room for nimrods like James Inhoffe, Bill Frist, Jim Bunning, and Ted Stevens it certainly has plenty of space for a rich man that still made how own mark in the world like Mr. Lamont. Besides, a Senator’s staffers are the ones who know all the nitty-gritty anyway. Given his stature, Mr. Lamont will be able to pick the best staff that earnest belief can buy.

Joe Liebermans are perpetual enabling helpmates to the Conservatrons. Ned Lamonts are the pugnacious star stuff of an emboldened Democratic Party.

Ned Lamont for Connecticut Senate!

One thought on “Why Lamont? Here's Why:”

  1. The Establishment press doesn’t get what’s going on in the Democratic party, and you put it well:It’s not a move to the left.It’s not about being against the war.It’s about OPPOSITION. Democrats want to OPPOSE the agenda of the Right, an agenda that most people simply don’t accept. Lamont gets that.


Comments are closed.