Letters to the Editor
-
Why Lamont Isn't Winning
The reason Lieberman is comfortably ahead of Ned Lamont is obvious: While Lamont’s great at criticizing Lieberman's obsequious fealty to Bush's incompetent anti-terrorism policies he hasn't offered a compelling alternative of his own. Without that, Lieberman, bad as he’s been, continues to own national security as an issue. Lamont’s campaign has essentially consisted of preaching to the choir, which is mind-blowingly dumb because he already has them.
What Lamont needs to do is promise to do all of the obvious things that Lieberman and the Republicans have dangerously left undone because they’re too busy recruiting terrorists while wasting lives and national treasure in the otherwise irrelevant Iraq debacle: Our port security is a joke. There’s no reason why 100% of containers coming into this country can’t be inspected, especially when that’s the easiest way to sneak in a crude nuclear device. The government should restore funding to buy loose nuclear materials in places that used to belong to the old Soviet Union. Chemical plants need to have higher, enforceable security standards. Blowing up a tank of vinyl acetate located near Boston would unleash a 5-mile long cloud of the deadly gas killing tens of thousands. Bush and the Republicans, with Lieberman’s approval have not only done very little, they’ve actually blocked obvious steps to improve public safety. Lamont needs to scare everyone with the fact and then promise to fix the problem. That would buttress Lamont's security bona fides while legitimately undermining Lieberman's.
Unfortunately, this strategy is likely to remain mere fantasy. Liberals are manifestly superior at running the country but, when it comes to winning elections, they usually have tin ears. In that way, they're exactly the opposite of Republicans.