The Lonely Libertarian for ... Lamont?
Via Andrew Sullivan: Lieberman v. Lamont
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.
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.
LIEBERMAN: The earmarks are great for Connecticut.(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.
LIEBERMAN: The earmarks are great for Connecticut.
So Ned Lamont is against earmarks, and might be the bigger anti-pork senator? Nominally, the lonely libertarian has been supportive of Joe Lieberman, mainly because of his support of the war on terror and the war in Iraq in the face of stiff opposition. Lamont seemed like the inevitable and unattractive blue state anti-war response, whose campaign adds loved to point out the fact that unlike Senator Lieberman, Ned Lamont didn't need to take money from corporate interests groups. Probably because Lamont is already a billionaire.
A promise to restore integrity to the system is quite tempting. Not to say Joe Lieberman is dishonest- it's a whole self-perpetuating system of earmarks and campaign contributions. But the real question is whether Ned Lamont really means any of this, or whether it's more campaign rhetoric. We shall see, but for now, it provides for a fascinating debate.
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.
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.
LIEBERMAN: The earmarks are great for Connecticut.(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.
LIEBERMAN: The earmarks are great for Connecticut.
So Ned Lamont is against earmarks, and might be the bigger anti-pork senator? Nominally, the lonely libertarian has been supportive of Joe Lieberman, mainly because of his support of the war on terror and the war in Iraq in the face of stiff opposition. Lamont seemed like the inevitable and unattractive blue state anti-war response, whose campaign adds loved to point out the fact that unlike Senator Lieberman, Ned Lamont didn't need to take money from corporate interests groups. Probably because Lamont is already a billionaire.
A promise to restore integrity to the system is quite tempting. Not to say Joe Lieberman is dishonest- it's a whole self-perpetuating system of earmarks and campaign contributions. But the real question is whether Ned Lamont really means any of this, or whether it's more campaign rhetoric. We shall see, but for now, it provides for a fascinating debate.
posted by lonely libertarian at 3:01 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home