[...]Lamont has at least two stances that are attractive to most libertarians: He thought the intervention by congressional Republicans into the Terri Schiavo case was objectionable and he's openly opposed to the Iraq War. Beyond that, though, is a litany of proposals that hardly sing to the "Free Minds and Free Markets" crowd: universal health care, increased federal spending on schools, and rolling back tax cuts "on the richest 1 percent."I hesitate to offer up a completely bitter narrative on Lamont specifically, but to simply point out that as a Democrat, Lamont offered more of the same party-line positions, but had the fortune of being able to ride the anti-war, anti-Bush sentiment. All well and good. But this president, and this war will not always be with us. Well, ok, the war looks like it's going to be with us for a very long time, which is why it's so important to vote for the right candidates. Because even as an anti-war candidate, you have to have a reasonable solution to the crisis in Iraq. At this point, I have little idea what that reasonable solution is, and no, I don't accept Lieberman's 'stay the course' solution, either.
Tuesday, November 07, 2006
Kos Democrats breathe a collective "oh shit"
CNN projects Lieberman keeps his seat. I'll not link to any stories on CNN, because they're apt to change. I have mixed feelings about this because I felt that the Lieberman/Lamont battle was a battle of losing ideologies, with Lamont carrying the slight moral high ground with his anti-Iraq war stance. Unfortunately, as noted elsewhere, Lamont offered little else.