I’ve been hearing/reading a lot about Joe Lieberman lately. Someone in my office mentioned that his opponent in the democratic primary had a lead in the polls. At lunch the next day I read half an
article in Rolling Stone about how his opponent, Ned Lamont, was gaining support through the blogosphere. A few days later Lamont won the primary, despite being attacked in editorials written by democrats and republicans alike. The day after, I finished the Rolling Stone article. It ends saying that if Lieberman loses his primary (which he did) then he will run as an independent (which he is). Since then I’ve read numerous articles (
here and
here) and
editorials about what Lamont’s victory means to the party and the future of the democrats.
Here’s how I feel about this. First, congratulations to Lamont for winning his primary. The Democratic Party is desperately in need of new blood. They need new candidates with the hubris to go up against staples of the Democratic Party, like Lieberman. Plus, the DP’s tactics aren’t working anymore and hopefully an influx of new blood might create some new ideas about how to win an election, such as the internet marketing campaigns done by Howard Dean
three years ago and Lamont now. Secondly, I have to say that I can really appreciate what Lieberman is doing, if he’s doing it for the right reasons. Lieberman won’t stay down, and if this is because he’s doing what he thinks is right, if it’s because he feels like he has something to say, if it’s because he’s got things he thinks he can accomplish, then more power to him. Unfortunately, it seems as though he’s still running strictly out of self-preservation.
This article talks about how Lieberman might stay alive by using the fear tactics to defend his position on the war on terror. It then goes on to say how the Republican National Congressional Committee issued a memo outlining a strategy, strikingly similar to Lieberman’s, to capitalize on the recent London terror plot by denouncing opponents of the war on terror. The numbers that have Lieberman with the lead in the general election, running as an independent, only go to show how far to the right Lieberman has moved and how democrats can't win an election.
I read an
editorial in the
St. Louis Post Dispatch by Kathleen Parker. She blasts liberals and leftist Democrats saying they’re out of touch with reality for getting behind the likes of Lamont and Michael Moore. After Lamont won his primary against Lieberman, Michael Moore wrote to old-school Dems that their days were numbered if they didn’t stand up and speak out against the War in Iraq. Whatever his tactics, I like Michael Moore. Most of the time. I like where his head is at but he’s going about it the wrong way. Voters need to vote for the issues they believe are most important. Notice the “s” at the end of issues in the last sentence. Voting on a single issue won’t get this country anywhere and Michael Moore’s only encouraging this kind of thinking. Conservatives need to stop voting solely on a candidate’s stance on abortion and Liberals need to stop voting on what a candidate says about the War in Iraq. I think both of these issues are important, but there is more to being an effective leader than having an uncompromising position on one issue. You have to be a stubborn old codger on at least three or four issues.
-Hogan
Political Online Reputation
