Joementum
I’m not a fan of Lieberman. He’s a statist and only seems to appeal to the conservatives lately entirely due to the war. But his opponent, Lamont, is saying the right things:
LAMONT: Look, you want to boast about how many earmarks you bring to the state of Connecticut? Alaska gets 10 times what we do. We’re not doing very well on that front. But more importantly, I think we should outlaw these earmarks.
(CROSSTALK)
LAMONT: Hear me out, sir. I think we should outlaw these earmarks. I think they corrupt the political process. I think they are written by lobbyists and they’re wrong.
LIEBERMAN: Try to explain that to the (inaudible).
LAMONT: I think these things should go through the congressional process. Sir, you have been there for 18 years. You support the earmarks, you work with the lobbyists, and that’s what needs to be changed.
And that’s from a Democrat. Here’s hoping he actually means it.
July 11th, 2006 at 12:11 am
He’s a candidate who is self-funded and getting lots of money from the blogs..he isn’t owned by any lobbyists.
July 11th, 2006 at 10:46 am
It is clear that Lamont is not a one issue candidate. As important as the war, was the exchange on “earmarks”. I thought Lamont took a strong principled stand, while Lieberman said that he would make sure that Connecticut got their full share of slop at the public trough. This is a bigger issue than just Connecticut, and is key to whether incumbents nationally will continue to have a free hand to run roughshod over the US taxpayers in the interest of getting reelected. I comment in a linked video of the exchange, along with the transcript in the most recent post in my blog: To earmark or not to earmark, that is the question.
July 11th, 2006 at 3:05 pm
So what is Lamon’ts complaint? That Joe doesn’t get enough earmarks (“Alaska gets 10 times what we do. We’re not doing very well on that front.”) or that he gets too many (“I think we should outlaw these earmarks”)?
July 12th, 2006 at 12:37 am
Stormy:
It’s not really all that confusing. Lieberman boasts about the earmarks he brings to CT. Lamont points out that those are dwarfed by the earmarks received by a far less populous state, and points out that there shouldn’t be any such earmarks anyway. He’s attacking one of Lieberman’s self-proclaimed strengths on two fronts. And there’s really nothing ambiguous about “I think we should outlaw these earmarks.” It means that not only should CT not get so many earmarks, but that they shouldn’t get any — and neither should anyone else. It’s called “fiscal responsibility,” and you’d think a self-proclaimed libertarian would be behind such an idea.
July 12th, 2006 at 11:43 am
If one actually believe that earmarks are wrong, how many earmarks CT gets relative to other states isn’t really important. The fact he’s bringing that up makes me wonder whether he’s actually sincere in his opposition to earmarks, or he just sees it as a useful way of criticizing Lieberman.
August 9th, 2006 at 9:03 am
[…] First, I never cared for Lieberman. As I said before, he’s a statist and only seems to appeal to the conservatives lately entirely due to the war. The significance of Lieberman’s loss is that the people, for good or bad, can be motivated to buck the status quo. That’s a good thing, overall. Also, it’s that rare occasion where the ideals take precedence over the party line and the status quo. […]