so good, I even blogged about it instead of writing a full reaction of my own, because they said everything I wanted to.
Here's my blog entry:
In my last blog entry, I called Ned Lamont to beat Joe Lieberman in the Connecticut Democratic primary by 6-10 points. He only did it by 4.7 percent, according to the official results from the Connecticut Secretary of State (plus a few quick calculations by yours truly). In any case, there's not a whole lot left to say about it that hasn't already been said, but this editorial from the New York Times has perhaps the best take on it.
To sum it up: The Lamont victory was not a reaction by an angry, antiwar left. Instead, it was a reaction by angry moderates over how far to the right the country has turned. It's only because the country has gone so far to the right that moderate voices seem left-wing.
Here's a few paragraphs, but do read more at the link:
"The rebellion against Mr. Lieberman was actually an uprising by that rare phenomenon, irate moderates. They are the voters who have been unnerved over the last few years as the country has seemed to be galloping in a deeply unmoderate direction. A war that began at the president’s choosing has degenerated into a desperate, bloody mess that has turned much of the world against the United States. The administration’s contempt for international agreements, Congressional prerogatives and the authority of the courts has undermined the rule of law abroad and at home.
Yet while all this has been happening, the political discussion in Washington has become a captive of the Bush agenda. Traditional beliefs like every person’s right to a day in court, or the conviction that America should not start wars it does not know how to win, wind up being portrayed as extreme. The middle becomes a place where senators struggle to get the president to volunteer to obey the law when the mood strikes him. Attempting to regain the real center becomes a radical alternative.
When Mr. Lieberman told The Washington Post, “I haven’t changed. Events around me have changed,” he actually put his finger on his political problem. His constituents felt that when the White House led the country into a disastrous international crisis and started subverting the nation’s basic traditions, Joe Lieberman should have changed enough to take a lead in fighting back."
All in all, I couldn't have said it better myself.
http://blogs.southflorida.com/citylink_dansweeney/
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
