Wednesday, August 16, 2006

Lamont in the WSJ

Ned Lamont, winner of the Connecticut Democratic primary last week over Joe Lieberman, has written a piece for the Wall Street Journal Editorial page. What he wants to explain:

how the experience I will bring to the U.S. Senate will help Connecticut and the Democratic Party during this time of testing for our country.

The short answer:

It was my career in business that shaped my outlook, and helped prepare me to run the race I did.

Ok, so Ned is going to try to convince us that it's his business career, and not his anti-Iraq war posturing, that won over the hearts and minds of the Connecticutians. By the way, he keeps referring to the "Connecticut voters" whom he wooed and was able to win over using this strategy. This, right out of the gate, is misleading. It was only "registered democrats" in Connecticut whom he convinced, and only by a very small margin....the tally from the entire state has the independent Lieberman up 46-41, don't be so quick on the draw Ned, you ain't convinced the "Connecticut voters" of nothing just yet.

Mr. Lamont begins by informing us that he got a loan and started a successful cable business which was, as he aptly states, a "quintessentially American experience". I would agree that taking out a loan in order to start your own business is, indeed, quite a bit of genuine Americana....if only Ned could have been a little more specific about his actual, "quintessential American experience". This via "The Waterbury Connecticut Republican American Newspaper", hat tip to Ace:

His great-grandfather, Thomas W. Lamont, was chairman of J.P. Morgan. A wealthy progressive pacifist, he was the sugar daddy for the American Communist Party and other extreme left-wing organizations. His wife, Florence, belonged to such subversive groups as the National Council of American-Soviet Friendship and American Committee for Friendship with the Soviet Union.

Their son, Corliss Lamont, was an unapologetic Stalinist and atheist. Congress once declared him "probably the most persistent propagandist for the Soviet Union to be found anywhere in the United States." As national chairman of The Friends of Soviet Russia, he refused to condemn Josef Stalin's show trials in the 1930s. For 22 years, he was director of the American Civil Liberties Union, which has been financed by communists and dedicated to advancing Marxism since its inception and to this day seeks to impose socialism and atheism on America. He also chaired the National Emergency Civil Liberties Committee for 30 years, during which time he fought efforts to root out Soviet spies and sympathizers in the U.S. government and military. He ran unsuccessfully for the U.S. Senate from New York in 1952 with the American Labor Party and in 1958 with the Independent Socialist Party; both parties fronted communist causes. Near the end of his life, he befriended Cuba's Stalinist tyrant, Fidel Castro.

Doesn't that just make you want to curl up and listen to Paul Harvey with a nice warm piece of "quintessentially American" apple pie? Would it make it any more so if I told you that Mr. Lamont is also worth hundreds of millions of dollars, all of which is, ahem, quintessentially, blue-blood, old-money, inherited? I have no problem with people inheriting money, but I have a problem with people who want to misrepresent who they are.

Next, Mr. Lamont lists four bullet-points about how his views on running a business will apply to his ability to be an effective senator. I have to say, I think that more people in the Senate should treat their performance and results like a business...that's one thing that is wrong with the political cluster-crap that goes on in DC nowadays. Politics is not market-driven, results don't really matter. It seems like all that really matters is what you say and how you say it. Anyway, simply talking the talk, Mr. Lamont, means nothing. Especially when you are so vague about it. He gets into not a single specific point during the course of his list. He pretty much says what I just said in two sentences, except I suppose that the appearance of bullet points within a policial document gives the appearance of "getting to the point" and "giving real examples" and things like that. So Mr. Lamont, again, misrepresents himself, which, I sense, is becoming the theme of this post.

Finally, we come to Mr. Lamont's grand theory on the war in Iraq. According to pretty much everyone, that is why he beat Lieberman. So what does he say about it?

But here's how we'll get stronger by changing course. We must work closely with our allies and treat the rest of the world with respect. We must implement the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission and put in place real protections for ports, airports, nuclear facilities and public transit.

That sounds familiar, doesn't it? Isn't that just about what every single democrat says about national security? Wasn't Lamont supposed to be some fired-up anti-war guy who made the netroots swoon with his scathing critiques of Bush and Lieberman and his staunch "bring 'em home now" stance? What's up?

Well, this piece from the New York Times is informative. Lamont is trying to become a "moderate".

I have to go, but want to publish this now...I still have a little more to say, so stay tuned for chapter 2...and what the NYTimes thinks of as "moderate".


Anonymous Anonymous said...

L’appareil justement. Il ressemble comme deux gouttes d’eau au S4.
Impression personnelle ou non, mais le design que nous n’avions pas apprécié sur le S4 semble mieux adapté
au petit format. Le S4 Mini est plus compact. S’il est moins haut et moins massive, il est un peu plus épais
(1 mm de plus). Il rend, en revanche, 23 grammes
au S4 sur la steadiness. Les matériaux utilisés et les finitions sont les
mêmes. Plastique et bordure en simili-aluminium
brossé. Les bords de l’écran sont un peu raides, mais l’appareil tient
bien en important et même les petites pourront parcourir l’ensemble de l’écran avec
le pouce.

12:13 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home