Some Real Leadership
Nancy Pelosi, House minority leader, was among the 359 Representatives who apparently think that "economic benefits for the American nuclear industry" should outweigh both the rule of law and the safety of the people of this dear planet. The House, then, yesterday voted to approve the deal Bush made with India, making it legal to trade nuclear fuel and technology with India despite India's refusal to sign the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty.
Brava, Rep. Pelosi: what better use your position and influence than to work to make the world less safe and laws less enforceable? Brava.
posted by Unknown @ 8:44 AM
8 comments
8 Comments:
Agreed, but before we lecture other countries about nonproliferation, we might want to think about suspending our useless, costly, and illegal missile defense program. Signing treaties is one thing; abiding by them is another.
Also, since we've been talking of late about overly hawkish Democrats and Middle East policy, and since we are a left-leaning blog, it would seem incumbent on us to discuss the CT Senate primary, which is just over a week away (Aug. 8).
The party is split down the middle on this one: liberals vs. centrists, bloggers vs. pundits, establishment vs. grassroots, even Clinton vs. Clinton.
Just today, the Washington Post endorsed Lieberman while the NYT begged to differ. Jonathan Alter makes the case that while Lieberman may deserve to go down, the attempt to unseat him reflects misplaced priorities on the left.
Alterman may be right, but if Ned Lamont wins next week, I say more power to him. It's not a "purge," it's an election. Colbert was quite right when he mockingly "agreed" with David Brooks's argument that there was "only one word" for what was happening to Lieberman--"Inquisition"--while on the "Word" graphic to Colbert's left it read "Democracy." Once again, the satirists are showing more thoughtfulness and maturity than the "serious" pundits.
But is Lamont, who has little political experience, really a better candidate than Lieberman, who despite his arrogance and unrelenting hawkishness, does vote for progressive causes most of the time?
I'm kind of up in the air on this one, but I will say this: if I were a CT Democrat I'd be tempted to vote against Lieberman solely based on his plan to run as an independent if he loses next week. I could understand if he had simply changed from (D) to (I) in the wake of the sometimes nasty criticism he has taken from the left, but his cynical decision to keep all options open, as a sort of situational Democrat, shows that he has more regard for himself than for his constituents.
Lamont appeared on Colbert last night and was none too impressive. When Colbert asked him what differences he had with Lieberman other than the war, he had nothing. He gives the impression on TV of being rather an empty suit--which as we all know does not disqualify him from serving in the Senate.
Sorry to hijack your thread, YHD.
I just noticed that I confused "Alter" with "Alterman" in my first comment, two more or less left-leaning commentators. For the record, it was the former I was referencing, not the latter.
Kudos to Kansas Republican voters for unseating the "intelligent design" majority on the School Board while re-electing Janet Waugh, who has been just about the lone voice of reason in all this madness. Still, the NYT opines that this isn't good enough, and I'd have to agree.
Also, a stunning new poll has Lamont opening up a serious lead on Lieberman. Only a few months ago, Lieberman was up by something like 20 points and no one knew who Lamont was. For better or worse, we could be looking at a major coup for the left-wing blogosphere.
And the good news just keeps on a' comin'...
Sorry for the absence (and the spam comments--I put the word verification thing on, which should help).
In reverse order, then:
I, as I've said, agree that the DeLay decision is good for democracy; and I guess I don't mind that it will probably also be good for the Democrats.
My only complaint about the Kansas primary was the low turn-out; if crazy science standards and the future of the state's education system don't get you to the polls, what will (and 'gay marriage' is not an acceptable answer, not today, not anymore . . .)?
Don't know if you saw it, DGL, but Hendrik Hertzberg criticized Lieberman along lines similar to your own. First, he mentioned Lieberman's decision to run for VP and the Senate in 2000, despite CT's having a Rep. Governor (meaning that if Gore-Lieberman had won, CT would've had a Rep. Sen.); then he ended the comment as follows:
A couple of weeks ago, in a reprise of his 2000 maneuver, he suddenly announced that if he loses the primary he will seek a place on the November ballot as the candidate of a new “Connecticut for Lieberman” party. “I’m a loyal Democrat,” he told reporters, “but I have loyalties that are greater than those to my party.” No kidding.
I agree with you and Hertzberg on this, DGL: such self-serving moves make voting Lieberman out the right move. So there you have it: my last-minute, election-day endorsement of Ned Lamont. (Who's Ned Lamont? Well, he's not Lieberman.)
As expected, Lamont wins 52%-48%.
Rumor had it that Lieberman might withdraw his independent bid if he lost the primary by a significant margin, but this margin looks narrow enough to encourage him.
It's nice to see someone finally pay an electoral price for Iraq. Too bad that person is a Democrat. The question is, will that same sentiment prevail in the general election? The qualities in Lieberman that enrage the left wing are the same ones that appeal to centrists and moderate Republicans, even in a blue state like CT.
As for the red states: Dem primary voters in Georgia last night also fired cop-punching Rep. Cynthia McKinney, who has been one of the party's most embarrassing figures in the last several years. As with the CT result, I don't think any tears will be shed here.
Sure would like to read CR's take on this ...
Post a Comment
<< Home