Stinky The Clown
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Sep-06-06 10:19 AM
Original message |
Is it fair to have Ned Lamont cast as 'an antiwar candidate'? |
|
Obviously, I know he's against the war. My question is, is it fair to always hear his name prefaced with that term? My concern is that it makes him sound like some one-note Johnny. Further, to cast him that way is, in some ways, pretty dismissive of him as a serious candidate.
What do you think?
|
Kagemusha
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Sep-06-06 10:20 AM
Response to Original message |
1. He was quite pro-Lebanon conflict. So anti-Iraq war (only). |
|
But expecting the other party's media hounds to be fair is expecting something unprecedented in American political history.
|
onenote
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Sep-06-06 10:23 AM
Response to Original message |
2. fair? maybe not. inevitable. of course |
|
Edited on Wed Sep-06-06 10:25 AM by onenote
Lamont isn't a one-note Johnny, but face it, the reason he got the nomination was because of his position on the war, more than any other issue and indeed more than all the other issues combined. So its going to stick with him as a label, even though it is not the only issue he cares about.
on edit: since he defeated Lieberman based in the primary largely on their different views of the war, and since Lieberman still appears to be Lamont's only credible opposition (credible in the sense of having any chance of winning), its not surprising that the general election campaign is viewed in the media as just a continuation of the primary.
|
NewJeffCT
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Sep-06-06 10:24 AM
Response to Original message |
3. He's not just the anti-war candidate |
|
Every article here in Connecticut seems to also call him the "millionaire businessman" - thereby framing him as a rich elitist.
Never is it mentioned that Lieberman is also a millionaire, or that his wife is a high powered lobbyist.
|
onenote
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Sep-06-06 10:28 AM
Response to Reply #3 |
4. Mark Warner was always labelled "telecommunications millionaire" |
|
when he ran for governor of Virginia. Didn't seem to hurt him. And for its worth, its been reported that Connecticut has both the highest per capita income in the country and the highest wealth, as measured by the number of millionaires per capita.
|
NewJeffCT
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Sep-06-06 10:53 AM
Response to Reply #4 |
|
Warner supposedly has the charisma to overcome that label.
Back in 2004, it was John Edwards the “millionaire trial lawyer” and John Kerry was the multi-millionaire with 5 homes, while Bush & Cheney were almost never referred to as multi-millionaires, despite their wealth.
|
madfloridian
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Sep-06-06 10:41 AM
Response to Original message |
5. No more fair than saying Dean was the anti-war candidate. |
|
The media is not fair to our side. They are showing more Lieberman scenes than ever, seldom showing Lamont.
Of course they are dismissing him as a serious candidate. That is what they do.
|
savemefromdumbya
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Sep-06-06 10:42 AM
Response to Original message |
6. Lamont is the Democratic Party's candidate period |
|
Joe is not the Democraticx Party candidate - he is the GOP II candidate
|
Stinky The Clown
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Sep-06-06 10:47 AM
Response to Reply #6 |
7. How is that fact relevent to the question? |
|
Are you suggesting, perhaps, that this was a backhanded slap at Lamont? If you are, then you're way off base.
In fact, if you still think that, do a search for my name as 'author' and 'self-selected 3rd party candidate' to see where I stand.
|
savemefromdumbya
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Sep-06-06 10:54 AM
Response to Reply #7 |
9. no the fact that the candidate shouldn't be labelled |
DU
AdBot (1000+ posts) |
Sun May 05th 2024, 08:42 PM
Response to Original message |