Reply #14: Great essay. I like this part, [View All]

[Eric J in MN]

http://www.courant.com/news/opinion/commentary/hc-commentaryjepsen0806.artaug06,0,2574586.story

"Incumbency is not by itself a qualification for re-election."

And this part, "Joe portrays himself as a Democrat of the John F. Kennedy "muscular" foreign policy tradition. This distorts history. JFK learned early, the hard way (through the Bay of Pigs), the limits of military force. In the Cuban missile crisis, he spurned advocates of a military invasion, opting instead for a less confrontational blockade. Most historians agree he was looking for a way to avoid military build-up in Vietnam at the time of his death. Through the Peace Corps and Alliance for Progress, he looked to build bridges to potential adversaries.

Bush's go-it-alone militarism, so consistently supported and enabled by Joe Lieberman, plus all of its spillover into the issues of torture, domestic spying and civil liberties, is the antithesis of JFK's approach to foreign policy. Ned Lamont, with his understanding of history and advocacy of humanitarian aid and infrastructure investment over brute force, is far closer to the intellectual legacy of the late president."