Okay. Let's see how it goes. I mean, really, did these really enter the minds of the Dem-nominators (those that voted)? I think not, except maybe as a very mild supporting factor. I don't live in that state so I don't have the feel that you do.
First off, I have no more insight into the minds of Conn Dems than you do, Rob. I was merely reacting to your assertion that, "Leiberman lost on one issue, and one issue
alone, the war." (my emphasis) I provided some evidence that this assertion
might be false. I cannot assert anything more than that "might".
No, I maintain that if Leiberman had held, or switched to (which he is not prone to do) an anti-war stance, he'd have won the nod very, very easily against Lamont. Just my opinion.
Actually, I agree with you.
The fact that he did not, would not, even in the face of loss within his party, raised his standing among republicans...and conservatives in general (such as myself), very greatly.
I understand what you are saying...that steadfastness in the service of one's position is an admirable quality. That said, I would challenge you (as a representative of conservatives) with these two points:
During the Clinton years, the Rep mantra was "character counts". For example, Michael Reagan (the talk show host) would go on day after day about how you "cannot separate the man from the job" and he was just one of the chorus of those on the right. This was not only in reference to his Lewinski fling, but also (sometimes vehemently) in reference to his supposed drug use.
But then along came Shrub and Cheney...having four DUIs between them and Shrub having four citations for insider trading. Where, Rob, was the "character counts" mantra? Can you justify this sliding scale of "character counts" that seems to depend on whether the person being judged is a friend or foe?
Secondly, sure steadfastness is an admirable quality...but it can also be viewed as stubborn denial of a changing reality. Let's take it as given that Joe's original support for the war was a principled stand. No problem.
But the premises for the war have proven to be false. The execution of the war has proven to be a disaster. The conduct of the war (torture, civilian deaths, etc.) has also proven to be a disaster. At some point, one would hope that your admiration for Joe's steadfastness would morph into a disdain for his refusal to recognize the changed reality. Clearly the Bush administration has also been unwilling to recognize this changed reality. At what point, Rob, does steadfastness become denial?
But...alas...I find he has no charactor...or at least less than that of Leiberman (no politician has any real charactor, else they would not be politician.)
Aw c'mon Rob. "No" politician has any real character? Not the conservative's hero Reagan? That is an awful condemnation of lots of people who are politicians at the local, state and federal levels who are in it on both sides of the aisle because they truly want to improve the lot of us all and who want a better country. That is waaay to broad a brush.
But with respect to Lamont/Lieberman, why would you think Lamont has less character than Lieberman. After all, Lamont should be the absolute darling of the conservatives. He is a successful businessman who created a profitable company and provided jobs for Americans. He innovated at the technoligical edge. He has (I presume) operated within the confines of the law while creating the great American, capitalistic dream career.
So, Rob, on what basis do you assess Lamont's character to be found wanting with respect to that of Lieberman's?
My crystal ball says Leiberman by 3% in the final outcome.
My crystal ball ... is filled with 2% non-fat milk.
