Ned Lamont: False Hopes, Bad Terms, and Ticking Clocks

Revolution #57, August 20, 2006

Many people see Ned Lamont’s victory in the Connecticut Democratic Senate primary as a statement of massive disgust at Bush, and at the Democrats for kissing his ass. It is. But Lamont’s victory over Joe Lieberman in the primary is not something that will impact the current intolerable direction things are heading. Instead, there is a whole other way to go that has the potential to really put a halt to the crimes of the Bush regime. And the system— the media and the people who really run things—are telling you this themselves if you listen to them.

MSNBC put out the following analysis and spin right after the election result was announced: “Though polls show U.S. opinion has turned against the Iraq war, Ned Lamont’s victory will heighten Democrats’ vulnerability to charges of unreliability in the war on terror.”

Stop and think about that: polls show opinion has turned against the war, but being against the war heightens the Democrats’ vulnerability! How can this be? Wouldn’t the “logic of democracy” dictate that adopting a popular position would be a plus instead of a “vulnerability”?

No. It has already been decided that the terms of things are going to be over who can most aggressively prosecute the so-called “war on terror.” Of course, nobody asked you if those should be the terms – you just got told that. But if you don’t like those terms, self-delusion won’t help. You need to put your energies and resources into something else!

In line with what MSNBC told you was going to happen, the right-wing noise machine flooded the airwaves with messages from the most powerful people in the country practically accusing Lamont of aiding al-Qaeda. Am I exaggerating? Vice President Cheney said that the election of Lamont could encourage “the al-Qaeda types” who want to “break the will of the American people in terms of our ability to stay in the fight and complete the task.”

keep reading...click here