Comments on: A fool and his money…

By: RandMan

RandMan — Sun, 22 Oct 2006 21:58:45 +0000

Looks like Lieberman got back his Joe-memtum....

By: Mark Poling

Mark Poling — Sun, 22 Oct 2006 04:13:48 +0000

Calling either Bush an extremist is drinking the Kool-Aid. Bush the Elder lost because Conservatives fled to Perot in enough numbers to give Clinton his plurality. Bush the Younger’s views on everything except National Security are hard to distinguish from Clinton’s.

On your main point though marcus I agree with you. The Center is poorly served by both the Democratic and Republican parties.

Lieberman may be a bellwether; good people who happen to be politicians may become less afraid to strike out on their own when their party leaves them. One can hope.

By: Terrye

Terrye — Sat, 21 Oct 2006 19:51:23 +0000

There is no way in hell Ross Perot was going to win no matter what hee did.

By: exguru

exguru — Sat, 21 Oct 2006 05:39:10 +0000

I see Lieberman as a 100 octane liberal, and Ned as some kind of whacko far leftist. Joe made a big speech about Clinton’s terrible conduct, then voted against conviction. He took the offer to run with Gore, then forgot he liked school vouchers. You don’t have to worry he is “sound” on stem cells and raising the minimum wage. He is a 100 octane liberal with a strong affection for Israel, that’s all. John Anderson was/is a very egotistical man, with little to be egotistical about. I am proud of my vote for Reagan in 1980, one of the greatest we’ve ever had.

By: valjean

valjean — Fri, 20 Oct 2006 21:57:56 +0000

Peter, Pat,

Thanks for the perspectives and of course you’re both right. You could have additionally pointed out that Lieberman has an unusual advantage Perot and Anderson lacked: running for the same seat as an independent *after* having run — several times successfully — with a major party.

But this *still* doesn’t entire shake the Cows principle for me. I’ve just never seen voters flocking to an independent of any stripe. Granted, I’m on the opposite coast (not far from Roger, actually) but it appears to me to hinge entirely on who CT voters see as “the real Democrat.” I can only suppose to this point Mr. Lieberman has made the better case — but those Lamont voters in the primary came from *somewhere*.

I still say the race will be tight. And I hope I’m wrong.

By: Ray Zacek

Ray Zacek — Fri, 20 Oct 2006 20:34:51 +0000

Don’t count your Speakers before they’re hatched. The only Pelosi House next year may be those expensive ones in California.

By: markus

markus — Fri, 20 Oct 2006 18:14:14 +0000

The big political divide in America is between moderates and extremists. Not the Lieberman-Giuliani-Hitchens axis vs. Howard Dean-Michael Moore-Daily Kos battle. That cartoon is only televised on the blogosphere.

The real moderate/extremist divide is between what Mark Halperin and John Harris call “Clinton-style” politics and “Bush-style” politics.

http://www.thewaytowin2008.com/

And methinks the American people are looking for a return to Clinton style politics (though preferably not lead by someone whose last name is Clinton).

Lieberman and Lamont both happen to follow Clinton-style politics. And the Democratic caucus has room for a member with anachronistic views on staying the course in Iraq. Particularly given how many Republicans are going to start calling for a phased withdrawal, after the upcoming election debacle and the Baker/Hamilton report give them the cover to do so.

The legitimate concerns for pragmatic liberal Democrats like myself about Lieberman are simple and few. Will he caucus with the Republicans under any circumstances? And will he support Republican filibusters on mom-and-apple pie Democratic legislation passed by the Pelosi House, such as a clean bill raising the minimum wage, or expanding stem cell funding?

With the answer to both of these questions being no, I’m not going to lose much sleep over Lamont doing poorly, and I’m certainly not going to give him a cent of my own money. Not when we have a decent chance of electing Harold Ford and James Webb to the Senate.

By: Pat Curley

Pat Curley — Fri, 20 Oct 2006 18:11:14 +0000

Perot could have won in 1992 if he hadn’t pulled out of the race briefly; it made people question his commitment. As for Anderson, he did quite well for a third party candidate and a lot of liberals (including me, back then) voted for him because they knew Carter was doomed.

By: ic

ic — Fri, 20 Oct 2006 16:59:25 +0000

“Lamont’s dough could have done for something serious like medical research or education,” or clean up the foul air, or combat Al Gore’s global warming. Imagine the possibilities!

By: Ari Tai

Ari Tai — Fri, 20 Oct 2006 16:49:42 +0000

It is great to see that money (even grandad’s money) can still (too infrequently) fail to buy a majority of voters.

Given “campaign finance reform” and its outlawing of political / free speech, perhaps only the rich will be able to run and win office.

That’s not all bad (if you’re rich it’s likely you know what it means to make payroll and sustain the “civil society” that is an enterprise, and understand all too well how government good intentions harm terribly the least of us). However we’ll have to tolerate old money buying the occassional seat and the fools that come with (JFK2, Mr. Lamont, etc).