This is more a critique of their editorial than talking points for Lamont. But all the same, for whatever it's worth:
Seniority often matters, however. Mr. Lieberman has gained considerable influence in his 18 years in the Senate. His specialty is working with Republican moderates -- and sometimes conservatives -- to craft bills that can pass the most divided, least civil Congress in memory.
point 1: The first half of this basically says "always vote for the incumbant." That's a sentiment I've seen in various forms throughout the race - sometimes expressed as guilt for not being loyal to our incumbants, or anger because we're eating our own, or the person who's been serving has more experience. At the end of the day, it's an argument based on the idea that once a person is voted in, they have a basic entitlement to keep their seat forever. It's an argument against the concept of primaries, against being held accountable to the voters once you gain office.
point 2: It's a fine line between "working with Republican moderates" and "supporting the Republicans." Passing bills that pass a Republican majority Congress is only an accomplishment if the bills are something that benefits the public.
As head of the Governmental Affairs Committee in 2002, he wrote the Senate's version of the homeland security bill. With Republican Sen. John McCain and the 9/11 families, he forced President Bush to accept a bipartisan commission to investigate the intelligence failures leading to the World Trade Center and Pentagon attacks. The commission's riveting report sold more than a million copies, and some of its most important recommendations were embraced. The list goes on.
First off, the fact that the commission report sold a million copies doesn't belong in a political endorsement. If he wrote substantial parts of it and is applying for a job as a writer, I'll keep that in mind, though.
Second, isn't the 2002 bill the one that put FEMA under homeland security? If so, it's a good thing he's not running for reelection in New Orleans. I'd like to know what part of DHS he's claiming credit for - The part where they aren't inspecting our ports? The part where money is disproportionately going to protect nontargets in red states? Or the part where they are protecting prom-goers in the midwest from riding uncertified mechanical bulls?
Mr. Lieberman's rectitude, though it strikes some as self-righteous, is principled. He led the charge to tone down sex and violence in video games for more than a decade.
We're bankrupting our country to pay for a war we're clearly losing which he continues to support, and we're entering a global energy crisis which he is on the wrong side of. Why are we having a discussion about video game content?
He is now called a renegade by many in his party for standing with President Bush on the invasion and occupation of Iraq. We have not often agreed with Mr. Lieberman on the conduct of the war but admire his sticking to his beliefs in the face of withering criticism. Not enough members of Congress have such character.
I'm tired of the claim that strength of character means refusing to admit when you're wrong.
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
