More specifically, the question was Lieberman vs. Lamont in an admittedly unscientific strawpoll. According to TNR, over 2/3 of the responses were anti-Lieberman vs. pro-Lamont, a telling statistic.
But, hey, let's not forget that this isn't just about Joe. It's also about Ned. Well, sort of. "I have not read one positive comment on Ned Lamont in this forum," complains bnair after 90 posts from fellow TNR readers, "just negative on Lieberman."Generally, I don't believe that running a "anti" campaign is very productive, from some of the ads, it looks like Lamont is at least paying lip service to other issues. Lamont may win the primary--we will see.
But here is a comment for broaders consumption:
Many think the Democratic Party will suffer as a result of a Lieberman loss. "Lieberman is a national figure and a symbol of sensible Democrat moderation," says Robert Powell. "Lamont is a political and foreign policy nobody whose choice would indicate Democrats have a terminal identity crisis." Some go even further. "I would view his defeat as a defeat of the Democratic party," declares jacksondyer. And dcwood10 goes on a major tear: "Allowing our anger at Bush to cause the entire Democratic Party to be subverted by an intellectually mono-dimensional and ideologically vacuous sect that deserves a home on the fringe in the Green Party can lead only to either harming American interests or helping the GOP."In general, moderation is a lost position among both parties, neither does a particularly good job embracing the moderate of wing of their party, although it is the moderate wing that wins votes because of the moderation.
Moderates--the cement that held the Congress together--a dying breed.
No comments:
Post a Comment