A blog dedicated to the researchers who dyed a captured chimp's fur pink, then released it. The other chimps promptly tore it to pieces.

Sunday, August 20, 2006

Lieberman vs. Lamont - how is this bad for Dems?

The way I see it, there are two possible outcomes here: either Lieberman wins or Lamont wins. (not even the loopiest right-wing whackjobs on the 'net think Schlesinger stands a snowball's chance in Hell, so don't even go there)

A Lieberman win means the status quo is maintained. Lieberman may be a bloodthirsty little fuck, but he's pro-choice and reliably Democrat in many other areas as well. It was undeniably galling watching him perform as Dubya's pet Jew, but let's face it: we could do worse. And at the least, he'd have gotten a strong warning from the electorate on the perils of kissing up to the opposition.

A Lamont win would send a strong warning to every DLC Democrat that we the people are still ultimately their goddamn bosses and they'd do well to keep that fact in mind when making decisions. It would effect MAJOR change in the system, shaking it to the very foundations. The potential benefits are so overwhelming as to make this a gamble worth taking even if the potential losses were magnitudes greater.

So. Status quo vs. changes that will go down in the history books. Shit, if I could get odds like that in a casino, I'd be able to retire.


Post a Comment

<< Home