home

CT-Sen: Voting For The Iraq Debacle

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Elections 2006
Posted on Mon Oct 23, 2006 at 06:23:47 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Even Chris Matthews gets it:

OK. Just let me say this to Connecticut, if we have a war that keeps going after this election, don't sit back and say, "I did my best." Because the best thing you can do is vote against the war, right? . . . If you're against the war, vote against it. You only get one vote. Shouldn't you vote against it, if you care about it?

Will the Lamont campaign get it?

Oh BTW, the election is a referendum on the Iraq Debacle everywhere, except, it seems, Connecticut:

It's two weeks away, and the 2006 midterm elections look like a referendum on Iraq, a war in which President Bush and his party have lost not just the political center but significant chunks of their base. . . . [w]ar remains the prime issue driving congressional voter preference. And the war's critics include not just eight in 10 Democrats but 64 percent of independents, 40 percent of conservatives, 35 percent of evangelical white Protestants and a quarter of Republicans.

< 24 Years for Enron's Jeff Skilling | U.S. Soldier in Iraq: Kidnapped? >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    CT-Sen: Voting For The Iraq Debacle | 6 comments (6 topical)
    Re: CT-Sen: Voting For The Iraq Debacle (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by glanton on Mon Oct 23, 2006 at 06:35:30 PM EST
    Getting a little late for Ned.  He needs to speak very strongly over the next couple of weeks, must be unafraid to assume the role of educator--as opposed of course to panderer.  Because politicans must be more than panderers if they want to be actually decent leaders in Uhmerrikah.  

    But even if Ned is rhetorically up to the challenge, has statewide coverage on his campaign so bottomed out that it wouldn't matter what he says?  This wouldn't surprise me either.    

    Re: CT-Sen: Voting For The Iraq Debacle (none / 0) (#2)
    by JSN on Mon Oct 23, 2006 at 07:21:25 PM EST
    Referendum on the war? Referendum on the incompetence in conducting the war is more like it. Fighting a war with money borrowed from China and with oil imported from Saudi Arabia the home of the 9/11 terrorists seems like folly to me and I suspect to many independents and republicans as well.

    Re: CT-Sen: Voting For The Iraq Debacle (none / 0) (#4)
    by dutchfox on Mon Oct 23, 2006 at 08:07:53 PM EST
    Will the Democrats Blow It Again as They Did in 1986?

    Progressive politicians who protest the war in Iraq will have to do more than criticize the way it has been fought or demand to have more of a say in how it is waged. They must challenge the militarism that justified the invasion and that has made war the option of first resort for too many of our foreign-policy makers.


    Parent
    Re: CT-Sen: Voting For The Iraq Debacle (none / 0) (#3)
    by Che's Lounge on Mon Oct 23, 2006 at 07:40:23 PM EST
    Karl Rove these days reminds me of Cleavon Little in Blazing Saddles:

    "Oh baby, you are so good.

    And they are so DUMB!"

    Re: CT-Sen: Voting For The Iraq Debacle (none / 0) (#5)
    by orionATL on Mon Oct 23, 2006 at 08:39:43 PM EST
    for some weeks now i have been getting more and more curious about what has happened in connecticut.

    i simply cannot understand how lamont could have  been as active as he was in the primary against  lieberman and then become so passive  after the election.

    i asked, at firedog lake (whose principals were close to the lamont primary campaign), that they post a summary story of the campaign to date, but so far i have not seen any such summary.

    what the hell happened? lieberman was dead meat.

    but then lamont meets with various democratic mucktymucks like hillary clinton and suddenly the campaign is quiet as a dead man in the water. cause and effect - not likely, but who knows.

    anyway

    what the hell happened?

    with democrats these days, it is sensible to ask, and i am happy to ask, was it Lamont's campaign advisers who screwed up? did they, for example, suggest that lamont play it cool and not make a big fuss about iraq in the general campaign.

    sound familiar?

    familiar to al gore?

    familiar to john kerry?

    did this actually happen?

    i have no idea,

    but i am getting curiouser and curiouser about the lamont campaign's extended quietude since their primary victory.

    some thing's wrong somewhere...

    i'd be happy to begin with a published list of lamont's advisers.

    XX (1.00 / 0) (#6)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Oct 23, 2006 at 09:55:46 PM EST
    Maybe he just ran out of something to say. One issue candidates do that.

    Parent
    CT-Sen: Voting For The Iraq Debacle | 6 comments (6 topical)