Lamont or Lieberman?

[madnak]

I'm happy to see Lieberman lose. If the idea's true that Democrats believe in social freedom and economic regulation, and Republicans believe in social regulation and economic freedom, then I think Lieberman's as much a Republican as a Democrat. He's staunchly opposed to social freedoms, and was one of the most prominent figures recommending draconian laws to restrict them.

Personally a lot of how I feel about Lieberman has to do with his positions on censorship and the revocation of free speech. Joe's on good terms with folks like Jack Thompson, and I don't think it's mere diplomacy. Considering that the Republicans have historically been behind the drive for legislation of "moral correctness," illegalizing things because they're inappropriate for children, and (worst of all from my perspective) merging government with religion, it's strange to see so many Democrats start taking these positions. I think between the "wolf in sheep's clothing" types and the conciliatory types who are happy to move right in order to win, the line between Republican and Democrat is starting to blur. This is all the more shocking considering that many of the people (mainly youth) whom I interact with seem very radically left. I'm glad people are starting to take back the party and make it stand for something again.

Back to Lieberman, I consider him a very questionable human being. For one thing, the fact he's running as an independent is to me a clear indication that he's only concerned with himself. If he really had an interest in seeing the Democratic party do well, I believe he'd have taken his lumps and gotten over it. But the fact is, the man's ambitious and wants to achieve personal status, even if he has to sabotage the Democratic Party's chances in the process. This kind of action seems typical to me of Joe Lieberman, and I'm one of those idealists who thinks the president should be an honorable person. Maybe that's naive of me, as it rarely seems to happen, but Lamont seems to have some of the integrity that most candidates lack. I hardly agree with him on everything, but he's a person I might actually feel okay voting for. Something I didn't expect to see in this race.

His support for the war is just icing on the cake. When the war was first proposed I was disappointed to see how many Democrats went along with it. But now that we've seen the effects - the plan completely failed, Iraq is still falling apart, and the circumstances under which we declared war were obviously shady - I don't think it's appropriate for the Democratic Party to take a position that Bush did the right thing. Lieberman's suggestion that we should respect Bush regardless of his merits also disturbs me. And I don't like the "tough cop" approach anyhow, in spite of its clear popularity. To me the "tough cop" is an unstable and cruel person.

Many people on this thread are suggesting that the Democrats should minimize their risk. I think they have it backwards. Bush made it where he is by taking a stand, having principles, and doing some very risky things. So long as the Dems remain unwilling to do or say anything controversial, I think they're doomed to ignominy.