Jeff A. Taylor needles Ned Lamont, jabs at Joe Lieberman, and pities the fools who have to vote for one of them.
New at Reason
Comments to "New at Reason":
citizengnat | August 3, 2006, 1:56am | #
um, might want to give a linkHow courageous /sarcasm A pox on both your houses. But, in all seriousness, what does one expect from an Ernst Rhoemite rag that appeases and covers up for Islamic terrorists at every turn."There's no need to fear; UnderZog is here!"
The Real Bill | August 3, 2006, 7:00am | #
Methinks UnderZog (aka Steven and steve) has a serious Ernst Roehm fetish. Dude, get your dirty mind out of his long-dead asshole!Ashish George | August 3, 2006, 7:02am | #
Let's review Taylor's criticisms of Lamont...1. "Sure, Lamont will use the phrase 'bring the troops home' to great effect in speeches, drawing a stark contrast with the incumbent's strong support for the Iraq war. But after that applause line the offers only a Kerry-like emptiness, with no real alternative to the Lieberman Iraq policy."
So Lamont wants the troops to start coming home nowish; Lieberman wants the troops to remain until some hazy date when all is well, or at least declared well. To-may-to, to-mah-to, right?
2. The rest of Lamont's platform seems like it's just calculated to be the exact opposite of whatever Leiberman believes.
Yeah, what's up with that? Alternatives on issues across the baord? Nonsense on stilts! Sure, we might chide the two parties for never offering us real alternatives, but when it looks like they might do just that, we should realize they're probably involved in some sinister plot to actually heed our grumbling.
3. People I don't like--and who might genuinely not deserve liking--support Lamont.
That's right. We should only support candidates without connections to blowhards, frauds, and opportunists of every stripe. Some people say Jesus is coming back soon. Maybe he'll fit the bill...
4. The GOP establishment supports Lamont.
Except for the many, many establishment Republicans (David Brooks, The Weekly Standard, Sean Hannity, etc.) who don't.
Meanwhile, Lieberman is a schoolmarmish superhawk member of the opposition party who fails to provide opposition where it counts the most.
No genuine choice to see here, folks, move along.
I paid this Kos character a lot good hard earned money to make a complete ass of himself and the entire Democratic Party in the process. If his candidates don't start actually winning elections, I have two words for Kos "Vince Foster".
Brian24 | August 3, 2006, 9:32am | #
So being against earmarks is "to the right" now?Yeah, I noticed how hard conservatives have been campaigning against them. Sheesh.
I agree with Ashish, it seems like a weird complaint. "Lamont says he's against wasteful spending, but that's just the opposite of what Lieberman says." Gee, what a problem. Guess I won't vote for him.
joe | August 3, 2006, 9:49am | #
That's really neat how you link to somebody named "Rich Galen" to demonstrate that the GOP supports Lamont.Tom Delay, Ann Coulter, Sean Hannity, David Brooks, and David Horowitz have all publically endorsed Lierberman, and the President of the United States singled him out for an on camera kiss during the State of the Union address.
But hey. Rich Galen.
Jennifer | August 3, 2006, 10:03am | #
At one point I was tempted to go down to the registrar of voters and change my affiliation from "independent" to "Democrat" for the sole purpose of voting against Lieberman in next week's Democratic primary. I didn't do it, but I came mighty close.PLEASE get him the hell out of his Senate seat. The guy combines the worst aspects of the Republican and Democratic parties into one sanctimonious God-bothering package.
Other than the war in Iraq, Lieberman is a very reliable liberal. He scores very high on nearly every metric of liberal voting and very low on every metric of conservative voting. Lieberman has been around a long time. I suspect he has a lot friends in high places in the Democratic Party who are not going to be happy with Kos and his rent a millionaire candidate knocking off an otherwise respected and reliably liberal Democratic Senator. If Lamont wins the primary and Lieberman runs as a third party, there is a good chance a conservative Republican will represent a very liberal state in the Senate for next six years. I can't think of much downside for the Republicans if Lamont wins. If Lieberman wins the three way, he goes to the Senate as an independent. Granted he is still liberal but who knows what kind of mischief he would cause for the Dems as an independent. If Lamont wins and goes to the Senate, KOS becomes the face of the Democratic party in 2007. I didn't think Republicans were living well enough to get that kind of good fortune. If Republican wins, the KOS brigade will never forgive Lieberman and his supporters for killing their candidate. More importantly, regardless of what happens in November, if Lamont wins, opposition to the war becomes a first level discriminator for membership in the Democratic Party. It doesn't matter how liberal you are on other things, if you don't support an immediate withdrawal of the troops, you are not welcome in the party. Considering that few Democrats have actually come out in support of the cut and run and admit defeat strategy, there will be at least a substantial minority of Democrats who are not going to be happy with that idea. The last war that tore apart the Democratic Party was Vietnam. At least the Democrats started that war. Now, Iraq may do the same thing and the Democrats didn't even start it. Any Republican, who is hoping for a Lieberman win, is either lying or not much of a partisan.
Ex-Libertarians for Reality | August 3, 2006, 10:17am | #
Mr. Cavanaugh,Earmarks are not supported by the Right? May I assume you now reside in Sri Lanka and do not have access to the internet nor papers?
Opposition to Herr Bush's New and Improved Chinese Centralized Style Planning for Amerika seems like a dandy platform to me, but unlike you, I acutally value liberty. (the writer you most seem to resemble to me, is Derbyshire talking about why Hong Kong proves democracy is overrated)
I suggest a refresher course on the history of Politics in the western world, I would suggest starting with Aristotle's Politics and his Rhetoric. Your present level of naivety reminds of nothing if not a right side Cindy Sheehan.
And, really, have you ever voted democrat to begin with?
Personally I've always been aware that my choices are worse and worster at the ballot box, I refuse to even register for the primaries because I wouldn't want anyone to accuse me of being so dumb as to support either party, but that's better than the soviet style one-party government that you folks here seem "accidentally" support.
---
Brought to you by Ex-Libertarians for Reality.
Glad to see Ex-Libertarian retained that charmingly assholish Libertarian trait of confusing homework assignments for actual debate. "Your support for centralized planning clearly demonstrates why you need to read Hayek and the collected works of Ayn Rand, and until you do this there's just no point in talking to you."
highnumber | August 3, 2006, 10:26am | #
Somebody help me out here.I'm no historian, so I can't quite understand this Ernst Roehm thing.
Here's what I know: He was a gay nazi who was killed himself by the nazis on the night of the long knives.
So is it that alone that makes him a zinger against Reason if you are an Arab-hating deeply closeted homosexual, or is there another layer to it?
Like all that plus Roehm supported free markets and decriminalizing the reefer?
Simon Bolivar | August 3, 2006, 10:26am | #
Congratulations to John on showing the world that his understanding of the Connecticut Democratic primary is about as sophisticated and correct as his take on Israel's war with Hizbullah.What's funny, Highnumber, is that white supremacists these days use "Zog" as shorthand for the "Zionist occupied government" that secretly controls the whole world, so the first time I saw his name I thought Underzog was one of those racists accusing us all of being part of the worldwide Jewish conspiracy.
Yes Simon, you seem to have so much understanding of it, that you don't even bother to enlighten anyone about it.
Jennifer | August 3, 2006, 10:37am | #
you seem to have so much understanding of it, that you don't even bother to enlighten anyone about it.John, it's been discussed in other threads including the recent one where Mona did a brilliant job of bitch-slapping you down. But is this to be your new debating technique: one huge unbroken paragraph of ignorant gibberish in the hopes of getting everybody off-topic deconstructing why you're wrong?
You have really turned into a nasty sort Jennifer. I don't see a downside to Lamont winning. I really don't. I see it as a good thing for Republicans. If you don't think that is true and it will somehow be bad for Republicans, you and Mona feel free to put your heads together and tell me why. I don't understand why that seems so difficult for you to do.
Jennifer | August 3, 2006, 10:41am | #
Whoops, my bad: it was Shannon Love whom Mona slapped back. But the same argument: Lieberman the flaming hippie liberal, blah blah blah. 'Tis here:http://www.reason.com/hitandrun/2006/07/lieberman_on_li.shtml#comments
Jennifer | August 3, 2006, 10:44am | #
You have really turned into a nasty sort Jennifer.Said the guy who just yesterday called Murtha a liar and a "bottom feeding scumbag" for his criticism of the Marines' cover-up of the Haditha massacre.
John | August 3, 2006, 10:51am | #
"Said the guy who just yesterday called Murtha a liar and a "bottom feeding scumbag" for his criticism of the Marines' cover-up of the Haditha massacre."Being a truth teller doesn't make you a nasty sort. Also, I didn't call you a scumbag for defending him. Moreover, if you think I am wrong, tell me why. Lamont winning is a good thing for republicans. The fact all you can say is blah blah and get emotional and point to threads that happened God knows how long ago, kind of tells me you don't have much of an answer.
Jennifer | August 3, 2006, 10:57am | #
point to threads that happened God knows how long agoIt's not just God but also Jennifer who knows how long ago it was: four days.
Being a truth teller doesn't make you a nasty sort
Being an opinionated partisan doesn't make you a truth teller.
if you think I am wrong, tell me why
It's already been done, and I don't feel like playing your game of "let's go off-topic in a futile attempt to work through John's preconceived red-blue notions."
Hey, watch this: George Bush is a neo-Nazi baby-rapist who fertilizes the Rose Garden with the bodies of the Georgetown whores he disembowels purely for the hell of it. If you think I am wrong, tell me why.
Admirable debating technique, no?
Tim Cavanaugh | August 3, 2006, 11:14am | #
Earmarks are not supported by the Right? May I assume you now reside in Sri Lanka and do not have access to the internet nor papers?No, but you may assume that I didn't write the article, since the byline reads "Jeff A. Taylor" big as life.
ChicagoTom | August 3, 2006, 11:27am | #
Conservatives and the GOP establishment are rooting for Lamont for two reasons.Uh Huh -- Sure
Mo | August 3, 2006, 11:30am | #
Lamont losing is deep doo-doo dor the Republicans because it is the proverbial canary in the coal mine. Yes CT is a liberal state, but until recently Lieberman didn't need to do shit to keep his seat. I'm not sure if you've noticed, but national polling has shown that Iraq is a losing issue for the Republicans and that the handling of the war by Bush and friends is seen as less than stellar.You can't honestly tell me that you think that running on the Iraq War is a winning issue for the Republicans. Liberals aren't souring on Lieberman solely because of the war, they're souring on him because his lips are pressed so tightly to the president's ass that you need a crowbar to separate them.
Considering that some Republicans are using the strategy of distancing themselves from the president (some has gone as far as avoiding party affiliation), this may be a winning strategy.
Mo | August 3, 2006, 11:33am | #
Ooops, that should read, Lamont winning the state* is deep doo-doo. How I managed to put the opposite is beyond me.* Not just the primary.
Jennifer | August 3, 2006, 11:37am | #
Liberals aren't souring on Lieberman solely because of the war, they're souring on him because his lips are pressed so tightly to the president's ass that you need a crowbar to separate them.Heh heh heh. There's a series of radio ads here in Connecticut featuring a George Bush soundalike talking about the need to support the war, avoid criticizing the President during this crucial point in history, get behind the whole idea of warrantless wiretaps and other civil-liberty violations . . . the first time I heard one I thought "that's funny, I thought Bush used slightly different words the first time he said that." But of course, the denouement is that it was Lieberman, not Bush, who said such things.
Typical left-wing stuff: Bush can do no wrong, hooray for the war, hooray for expanding the powers of a right-wing government. You know.
Mark VIII | August 3, 2006, 11:44am | #
Ok, nothing to do with this thread but I heard a great line yesterday.I suprised my girlfriend with a trip to Paris for our anniversary (yes, I'm a putz) and in the evening we found a nice little restaurant to get stuck into some steak and cheap red table wine. So, we were sat next to a nice old American couple but, understandably, they weren't so hot on their French. Still, to give them their credit, they attempted to order food in French, but the obnoxious tight pansed waiter wasn't having any of it. He had all the irritating French habits that make you just want to kick them in the nuts and simply spoke to them in French, too fast, just to make the point that he disliked them because they were 'ignorant Americans'. So they manage to order their food and the waiter goes off and laughs with the other euro weenies about the 'doopid Americans' but the food takes ages......The Americans must have been waiting about forty five minutes when the old guy, as polite as anything, enquires where his food is. The exchange went like this:
Old nice yank: Excuse me, any idea how long the food will be?
Euro weenie: (with look of utter contempt) It Iz Coming.
Five second pause while they look at each other.
Old nice Yank: So's Christmas you asshole. Go cook my steak.
I nearly gagged on my French Onion Soup. It took me about twenty seconds to stop laughing.
America 1 - France 0
I am afraid John has gone insane. Anyone who really buys the line that "KOS" is behind the dump Lieberman movement is either in deep denial or prone to conspiracy theories. The reality is that the influence of the "netroots" is actually marginal in the real world. I, for one, never read Kos and find it one of the most annoying of all the mainstream liberal websites. Yet I decided on my own, years ago, that Lieberman is a sanctimonious prig. On top of that, while Lamont may be fairly boring, he is certainly not an extreme leftist. I would certainly consider him to the right of most of the Massachusett's congressional delegation. In what universe is tossing out a Senator who has lost touch with his constituents a bad thing? Every Republican knows that Lieberman losing is bad for Republicans, hence the unprecedented hue and cry about a Democratic primary from people who theoretically have no stake in the game.
Haha, great story Mark. I could picture the whole thing going down, very funny. Enjoy Paris, putz
highnumber | August 3, 2006, 12:32pm | #
Hey, MUTT,Now that you're here, can you sic underzog for us? I believe you are the perfect man for the job. Go up to read his post.
With much respect...
joe | August 3, 2006, 12:51pm | #
John,Lieberman rates highly on liberal vote ratings because he has mastered the art of voting with the conservatives on low-profile but important votes, like cloture, then casting highly visible liberal-line votes when it doesn't matter.
If Lieberman returns to the Senate as an independent, the Republicans have lost their most reliable "beard" for the times they want to appear "bipartisan." No more Fox's favorite Democrat would be very unfortunate for the Republicans.
manOman | August 3, 2006, 1:02pm | #
You guys are a little harsh on John, don't you think? I, for one, am glad different viewpoints are expressed here. That way I don't have to read the views of just 6 or so whacked out libertarians, snarking about how god damned smart they are, and continuously patting each other on the back like this is some sort of sick circle jerk libertarian cum fest.Stick around, John.
Jennifer | August 3, 2006, 1:23pm | #
You guys are a little harsh on John, don't you think? I, for one, am glad different viewpoints are expressed here.I too am glad to see opposing viewpoints here; I just wish the viewpoints were more substantial than "people who disagree with my politics are a bunch of scumbag liars and let me pull some meaningless shit out of my ass to prove this contention."
Assuming Lieberman doesn't lose the primary so badly he quits, his Connecticut For Lieberman party will, like Weicker's A Connecticut Party, make for easy ballot access for a few who take advantage.
I am glad to see John's viewpoints as well, in general. It's just that the idea that dislike of Lieberman is driven entirely, or even primarily, by far-left anti-war wackos is so patently absurd that it needs to be smacked down.
kevrob | August 3, 2006, 2:35pm | #
What's with dissing Sri Lanka? I kinda think Arthur C. Clarke wouldn't have hung out there so long if he couldn't get on the net.Kevin
The latest poll has Lieberman behind Lamont by 13% -- fyi. And Lamont winning would be a good thing. At least -- goodish.