This video mash-up explains why we cannot support Joe Lieberman's reelection bid for the Senate. We do support Ned Lamont whom we view as more than just an anti-war candidate. Though, frankly, that would be enough of a reason to vote for Lamont.
Nice mashup! You are right about the "one issue" coming out of msm. The media continues to portray this contest as a one issue referendum on the war. While certainly the dominant issue, I think this view masks the widespread dissatisfaction with congress, not just the administration, and is reflected in a "zero tolerance" attitude toward incumbents. People are looking for an excuse to "throw the bums out". Watching the debate, I was struck by several differences between the candidates - most notably on the topic of "earmarks". I went into the debate with an open mind, expecting to retain my mild preference for Lieberman. Lieberman's brazen support for the corrupt earmark process, and craven appeal to Connecticut voters based on his ability to bring home the earmark "pork", completely changed my thinking. Lamont took a principled stand on earmarks, which resonated with me and I suspect resonates with Connecticut voters (which - full disclosure - I am not), even if he is more left of center than I would like. Anyway, I also put a together a short video commentary on youtube and a transcript about this telling exchange in my blog post: To earmark or not to earmark, that is the question"
be sure to check out the NOW segment on earmarking which is rather good. though i must admit that i could be biased by the fact that the producer is a relative.
http://www.pbs.org/now/politics/earmarksetc.html#
should lamont win it will be interesting to see if he plays the earmark game. because not many can resist. on the bright side, senator colburn does not take earmarks which means we agree on something which means pigs can fly and there is hope for the country.
Nice mashup! You are right about the "one issue" coming out of msm. The media continues to portray this contest as a one issue referendum on the war. While certainly the dominant issue, I think this view masks the widespread dissatisfaction with congress, not just the administration, and is reflected in a "zero tolerance" attitude toward incumbents. People are looking for an excuse to "throw the bums out". Watching the debate, I was struck by several differences between the candidates - most notably on the topic of "earmarks". I went into the debate with an open mind, expecting to retain my mild preference for Lieberman. Lieberman's brazen support for the corrupt earmark process, and craven appeal to Connecticut voters based on his ability to bring home the earmark "pork", completely changed my thinking. Lamont took a principled stand on earmarks, which resonated with me and I suspect resonates with Connecticut voters (which - full disclosure - I am not), even if he is more left of center than I would like. Anyway, I also put a together a short video commentary on youtube and a transcript about this telling exchange in my blog post: To earmark or not to earmark, that is the question"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xmmmt7kbEsg
Posted by: mw | Monday, August 07, 2006 at 01:21 PM
be sure to check out the NOW segment on earmarking which is rather good. though i must admit that i could be biased by the fact that the producer is a relative.
http://www.pbs.org/now/politics/earmarksetc.html#
should lamont win it will be interesting to see if he plays the earmark game. because not many can resist. on the bright side, senator colburn does not take earmarks which means we agree on something which means pigs can fly and there is hope for the country.
Posted by: hotpotatomash | Monday, August 07, 2006 at 02:41 PM