“The media continues to portray this contest as a one issue referendum on the war. While certainly the dominant issue, I think this view masks the widespread dissatisfaction with congress, not just the administration, and is reflected in a ‘zero tolerance’ attitude toward incumbents. People are looking for an excuse to ‘vote the bums’ out. Watching the debate, I was struck by several differences between the candidates – most notably on the topic of ‘earmarks’. I went into the debate with an open mind, expecting to retain my mild preference for Lieberman. Lieberman’s brazen support for the corrupt earmark process, and craven appeal to Connecticut voters based on his ability to bring home the earmark ‘pork’, completely changed my thinking. Lamont took a principled stand on earmarks, which resonated with me and I suspect resonates with Connecticut voters (which – full disclosure – I am not), even if he is more left of center than I would like. I posted a short video and transcript about this telling exchange in my blog post: ‘To earmark or not to earmark, that is the question’
mw | Homepage | 08.06.06 – 12:42 pm | #

Gravatar LV: Sorry. I hadn’t rea”