Whaddaya think about Lieberman's race? Me, I like Lieberman okay, and believe he's a thoroughly decent man. This Lamont sounds like a rich-guy airhead. But I have to admit I can't get all worked up over the prospect that Connecticut Democrats would prefer a Senator who was on the right side of the most important foreign policy issue since the end of the Cold War. If Lamont does win, though, I don't think it's remotely a bellwether for this fall, despite what we'll hear. Primaries always bring out the most partisan voters. Besides, that a majority of Democrats in a blue Northeastern state are willing to throw out their Iraq-War-loving centrist Democratic senator tells me jack squat about what voters in most of America are likely to do. Anyway, polls show Lieberman is likely to win the general election in Connecticut if he runs as an independent.
Besides, if Lieberman does lose his spot on the ballot as a Democrat, I will at least be glad that somebody is holding an American politician accountable for the Iraq War fiasco.
Lieberman agonistes
Tuesday August 8, 2006
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Advertisement
Advertisement
Search This Blog
Recent Posts
About Crunchy Con
Rod Dreher is an editorial columnist for the Dallas Morning News, and author of "Crunchy Cons" (Crown Forum), a nonfiction book about conservatives, most of them religious, whose faith and political convictions sometimes put them at odds with mainstream conservatives. The views expressed in this blog are his own.
Subscribe
Archives
Blogs Worth Reading
- Front Porch Republic
- The American Conservative
- Patrick Deneen
- Conventional Folly
- The American Scene
- First Things
- Andrew Sullivan
- The Plank
- Eunomia
- Get Religion
- Postmodern Conservative
- Alex Massie
- The Corner
- Contentions
- Sharon Astyk
- Barry Ritholtz
- The Oil Drum
- Mere Comments
- First Principles (ISI)
- Brian Kaller
It's hard to collect evidence when the subject of the investigation can unilaterally make any particular piece of information off limits for "security reasons", which the Bush Administration has a well established record of doing.
Here at Baylor there is keen interest in the future George W. Bush presidential library, because Baylor is one of the finalists for its location.
But it occurred to me awhile ago, why should Bush bother to build a library? I mean, it's not as if he's going to declassify anything or any real significance, so there won't be any point for researchers to go there -- they won't be allowed to examine anything worth seeing.>
Brent wrote that President Bush is "intentionally guiding this country to destruction".
I disagree. President Bush is a dilletante of average intellect and below average curiosity, way out of his depth in his current position. Only a couple months before invading Iraq, he was still unaware of who Shias and Sunnis were. This does not suggest intentional planning of anything.>
Joel, I agree. Except that I think Bush is himself dumber than the average American, but maybe I've got too high an opinion of the average American.
When I say "Bush did X", what I usually mean is "Bush's handlers arranged for Bush to do X". I'm perfectly willing to believe that Bush is personally sincere and well meaning, and has been used extensively by the likes of Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rove and Wolfowitz.
I'd rather see the members of his cabinet impeached, but that's not how the system works, alas.>
Is there no constitutional mechanism for stripping a cabinet member of his or her post?
I mean, their hold on office is presumably a more precarious than that of the president and vice-president, who are elected officials. Cabinet members are just nominated and then confirmed by Congress. Isn't there any way for Congress to "unconfirm" someone?>
Here's a good observation by Michael Barone from yesterday's WSJ article. Sorry I can't link to it -- subscriber only.
"....The Connecticut primary reveals that the center of gravity in the Democratic Party has moved, from the lunch-bucket working class that was the dominant constituency up through the 1960s to the secular transnational professional class that was the dominant constituency in the 2004 presidential cycle. You can see the results on the map. Joe Lieberman carried by and large the same cities and towns that John F. Kennedy carried in the 1960 presidential general election.
Ned Lamont carried most of the cities and towns that were carried by Richard Nixon. In Stamford, where Joe Lieberman grew up the son of a liquor-store owner, and where there are still sizeable blue-collar and black communities, Mr. Lieberman won with 55% of the vote. In next-door Greenwich, where Ned Lamont (like former President George H.W. Bush) grew up as the scion of an investment banker family, and where the housing values are now among the highest in the nation, Mr. Lamont won with 68% of the vote. If Mr. Lamont wins in November, he will be just one of several members of a Democratic caucus who have made, inherited or married big money.">
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.