The video below contains one of the parts of the Lamont/Lieberman debate that left me conflicted. On one hand, I completely agree with Lamont. Earmarks are the worst way to bring money home to Connecticut. They represent the least transparent way to add money into contracts and the least efficient way of bringing jobs to the state. On the other hand, the cynic in me knows that any effort on the part of Lamont to deal with this will hurt CT in the short run because Lamont will be alone... Earmarks aren't going to be outlawed.
A group out there chose their position and produced this video:
More on this video at MyLeftNutmeg.
Update: I forgot to post that the Courant talked to the Republicans that worked with Lamont when he was a Selectman. Just in case people were wondering about those statements by Lieberman, there's your answer.
July 10th, 2006 at 10:19 AM
Sujal,
Just as a point of clarification, the “group” that produced the video is ummm – me. And “produce” is a bit of a reach, as I cranked it out in a couple of hours the day after the debate using Windows Movie Maker. That said:
I think your question is apt. I am conflicted myself about the Lamont primary run in Connecticut. My view is that single party control of both the executive and legislative branch (either party) is always bad and always results in bad governance. The cure in ’06 is for the Dems to take at least one house of Congress. This will be tough enough without losing the Connecticut Senate seat, and the only wayt hat can happen is if Lieberman and Lamont split the Dem vote in November.
In the debate I thought Lamont took a strong principled stand, while Lieberman could only say 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 further in my 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.
http://westanddivided.blogspot.com/2006/07/to-earmark-or-not-to-earmark-that-is.html
July 10th, 2006 at 10:30 AM
Thanks for the clarification. I didn’t have time to do any research on who produced it, so I just left it generic.
I agree with the general principle about divided control. Either by party or at least a willingness to disagree publicly. Senate Democrats like Lieberman had no problem criticizing Clinton when circumstances warranted it (and even when circumstances didn’t).