Comments on: Ned Lamont: A Wise Netroots Gamble?

By: Daniel DiRito

Daniel DiRito — Fri, 02 Jun 2006 03:32:13 +0000

Justin,

Thanks for confirming that and I will follow your suggestion with the link to the rest of the posting if they happen to be lengthy.

By: Justin Gardner

Justin Gardner — Fri, 02 Jun 2006 00:11:20 +0000

Daniel, as I know of, we don’t have the ability. However, if you want to post three or four paragraphs and then have a link to your site, I don’t see any problem with that. The interested parties will follow the link over.

By: Daniel DiRito

Daniel DiRito — Thu, 01 Jun 2006 22:06:03 +0000

Tom & Rob,

I may be wrong and Justin can instruct me otherwise if I am, but I believe the site publishing platform isn’t capable of “below the fold” posting.

Daniel

By: Tom Strong

Tom Strong — Thu, 01 Jun 2006 21:52:37 +0000

Posts this long should be kept below a fold.

By: Dyre42

Dyre42 — Thu, 01 Jun 2006 21:42:28 +0000

I think the Netroots are tired of hearing,”The Netroots have yet to get anyone elected.” and since he and Lieberman have opposite views on numerous issues along with the fact that Lieberman has very high name recognition the Netroots has opted to prove their “strength” by taking him out. If successful the Netroots would gain more status and influence within the Democratic party than they currently have therefore enabling themto further pull the party to the left.

Frankly I think its bad idea as all of that time and effort would be better spent trying to unseat a Republican in a close race. There is no guarantee that Lamont could win the election even if he won the primary. The DNC needs Lieberman in power alot more than they need him sitting at home writing “Its My Party Two” while a moderate republican takes his place.

By: rob

rob — Thu, 01 Jun 2006 20:37:02 +0000

First: That was too damn long of a post.

Second: I don’t think Lieberman represents his state very well. His state is to the left of him.

Third: The real reason he needs to go, is that he gives cover to the GOP. The Republicans never do this. Think of Terry Shivo (can’t remember how it’s spelled) and imagine pulling the lever for Lieberman.

By: wj

wj — Thu, 01 Jun 2006 16:11:00 +0000

The extremes, of both left and right, have _certainty_ as their defining characteristic. They are certain because it is more comfortable that way; otherwise they would have to look at real data and actually think. Not that all of them are inherently incapable of thinking, they just dislike the sensation. (Consider George W. Bush as an example an inherent ability to think, else he would not have gotten thru Harvard Business School, combined with an intense like of doing so). In related fashion, they are loud because that helps keep at bay facts from the outside which might conflict with their comfortable certainty.

In many ways, moderates of similar inclination are a much greater threat than those of the other extreme: The moderates may more slip inside the defenses and undermine the all-important certainties. Which is why to extreme left is more focused on defeating Sen. Lieberman than on attacking someone like Sen. Santorum, even though they probably agree (as you do) with vastly more of Lieberman’s positions. Santorum doesn’t threaten their comfortable certainties.

Thru it all, certainty is what it is all about. Which explains, in large part, the occasional phenomena of individuals who go from extreme right to extreme left or vis versa: after being mugged by reality which doesn’t fit their initial certainty, they rush to the only acceptable alternative . . . another certainty. Minor details, like what the certainty is or whether it is left or right, are almost totally irrelevant.