Name: Tess
Home: St. Louis
Primary Elections
I have a confession to make: yesterday, I didn't vote. Now, most days I don't vote, but yesterday was different since there was actually an election.
To be honest, I feel a bit lost when it comes to Missouri politics. I disagree with almost everything Governor Blunt has done, and I look forward to voting against him in 2008. I know there's no way I'm going to vote for Jim Talent for Senate in November. But when it comes to the primaries, I know very little about the races and candidates, so instead of blindly following the endorsements from the Post-Dispatch, I decided to stay home (or rather, feel guilty when I drove by the middle school where I should have voted). It's unfortunate that, while I feel up-to-date on national news, in the smaller elections in which my vote would matter more, I am voluntarily abstaining from the political process. I have my voter registration card and the now-mandatory-in-Missouri ID card ready to go for November, though.
The big primary news, of course, comes from Connecticut, where Ned Lamont upset incumbent Joe Lieberman in the primary. Quite honestly, I've read a lot about that race, and I'm still not sure what to think. I can see the argument that people on the far left of the party (including bloggers) have chosen a candidate too far to the left to win in the fall--but I don't know if that's really the case. From a pragmatic point of view, I would like to see a Democratic body in that Senate seat, so now that Lamont has won the primary, I hope Lieberman reconsiders running as an independent and throws his support behind the Democrats.
To be honest, I feel a bit lost when it comes to Missouri politics. I disagree with almost everything Governor Blunt has done, and I look forward to voting against him in 2008. I know there's no way I'm going to vote for Jim Talent for Senate in November. But when it comes to the primaries, I know very little about the races and candidates, so instead of blindly following the endorsements from the Post-Dispatch, I decided to stay home (or rather, feel guilty when I drove by the middle school where I should have voted). It's unfortunate that, while I feel up-to-date on national news, in the smaller elections in which my vote would matter more, I am voluntarily abstaining from the political process. I have my voter registration card and the now-mandatory-in-Missouri ID card ready to go for November, though.
The big primary news, of course, comes from Connecticut, where Ned Lamont upset incumbent Joe Lieberman in the primary. Quite honestly, I've read a lot about that race, and I'm still not sure what to think. I can see the argument that people on the far left of the party (including bloggers) have chosen a candidate too far to the left to win in the fall--but I don't know if that's really the case. From a pragmatic point of view, I would like to see a Democratic body in that Senate seat, so now that Lamont has won the primary, I hope Lieberman reconsiders running as an independent and throws his support behind the Democrats.
posted by Tess | 11:03 AM
5 Comments:
I think it's great news that Lamont has defeated Joe Lieberman in the CT Democratic primary. Now, if only Joe will accept the loss and drop out of the race, instead of trying for a "do-over" by running again in the general election.
Connecticut is a liberal state. Lamont is hardly a flaming radical--he is a pragmatic businessman after all--but he is certainly a better Senator for Connecticut than an embarrassment like Lieberman who is so eager to support Bush-Cheney and their terrible policies.
I was just reading an opposing viewpoint here:
http://www.slate.com/id/2147395/nav/tap1/
I am very curious to see what happens in the November election. Not hopeful--I'm tired of having my hopes dashed in elections--but curious.
I agree that Lieberman should step down now. It makes him seem even more out-of-touch if he thinks he has a shot at winning the general election after losing the primary.
Tess, I'm glad that you are always on the look-out for differing points of view. Yet when I read the Slate article you mentioned, I found myself scratching my head. If this is the best that the "opposing viewpoint" (i.e. disliking Lamont's victory) has to offer, then I don't think Lamont's detractors have a leg to stand on.
The crux of the Slate author's argument is that Lamont's supporters are weak in the "war on terror." He claims: "Many of them appear not to take the wider, global battle against Islamic fanaticism seriously. They see Iraq purely as a symptom of a cynical and politicized right-wing response to Sept. 11, as opposed to a tragic misstep in a bigger conflict."
The first sentence is baseless innuendo; the second sentence is almost (but for the weasel-word "purely") a classic example of a false, either/or choice. In the reality-based world that Lamont and his supporters (including me) inhabit, invading Iraq was a tragic BLUNDER (i.e. more than a "misstep") that has created more terrorists and distracted America from taking more effective action against terrorism. If we really wanted to defuse the threat of terrorism, invading Iraq was about the stupidest thing we could have done. Of course, it would also be quite possible to say it was a symptom of a "cynical and politicized right-wing response to Sept. 11," but that doesn't make it any less a grave foreign policy mistake. I defy anyone to find a statement by Ned Lamont that we shouldn't take terrorism seriously. On the contrary, we need more people like Lamont in the Senate so that we have a foreign policy that WORKS (in fighting terrorism as well as other worthy goals) instead of one that FAILS.
I also resisted the Slate author's contention that opposition to Lieberman is based solely on his support of the Iraq war. Granted, that is the #1 biggest issue. But as mikewebkist points out in his comment above, Lieberman angered voters about far more than his position on the Iraq war. I could have listed several others.
Lieberman's supporters are really grasping at straws these days. What really irks me more each day is that Lieberman is still out there running his "do-over" campaign and creating such a poisonous atmosphere for all those Democrats who want to run against Bush. Every time he bashes the 85% of Democrats who are against the war in Iraq, he muddies the waters. Every time he opens his mouth, he is making things worse for the Democrats in November.
Please, give it up, Joe.
I should add that I'm also uncomfortable with the Slate author's usage of the term "Islamic fanaticism," implicitly linking the religion with fanaticism. Eerily similar to the Bush Administration's own favored term of late, "Islamic fascism," this term is not only unfair to the vast majority of Muslims (who are not terrorists or fanatics) but also IMPEDES the fight against terrorism by alienating moderate Muslims who can be some of our most important allies in that fight--as pointed out by SusanG on the dailykos website:
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/8/11/105828/413
For another take on why the Slate author's arguments are ridiculous, see what blogger Digby has to say:
http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2006_08_01_digbysblog_archive.html#115519089333419286
Okay, here are those same links again, broken into shorter lines ... Whenever I type a long website address into the comment box, it seems to cut get cut off when posted. (I should just learn to insert HTML tags instead, shouldn't I?)
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/
2006/8/11/105828/413
http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/
2006_08_01_digbysblog_archive.
html#115519089333419286
Post a Comment
<< Home