BILL WETZEL: Changing The Concept Of The Rational Moderate

[Tace]

Bill Wetzel -- World News Trust

snip

Well, guess what? I have decided I have finally had enough of one topic in particular. The reason is because the line of thinking is both stupid and dangerous. And, too often, progressives -- and even the few honest brokers in the media -- allow the wrong-headedness of this issue to continue on, unchallenged and unabated. The perpetuation of this myth prevents rational debate, and inhibits solutions to even the simplest of problems.

I am talking about the utilization of the words "Moderate" and "Center," as well as any derivatives.

For the last month, we have been treated to a textbook example of this issue's lunacy. In the Connecticut Democratic U.S. Senate primary, political neophyte Ned Lamont has consistently been portrayed as a far-left radical candidate, while incumbent Joe Lieberman is painted as a moderate centrist. The sole rationale for this is because Ned Lamont opposes the Iraq War, while Joe Lieberman is an avid supporter of the action. Now, the Iraq War has been unpopular for some time, and according to the latest polls around 60 percent of Americans are against it. So, are we to believe that Ned Lamont, who is right at the center of opinion as most Americans on this issue, is somehow a radical fringe candidate? Is Joe Lieberman somehow more moderate because he is out of the mainstream of public opinion regarding the war?

It is as ridiculous as it sounds.

The truth is, Lamont does not sound all that much different than Lieberman on most issues. He is not even all that progressive on many issues. For example, he does not advocate universal health care. Yet we are led to believe, due to one issue, that Lamont is somehow less reasonable than Joe Lieberman. Also, take into consideration the run up to the war. We now know conclusively that every rationale for war was false. We know that the predictions by foreign policy stalwarts such as General Brent Scowcroft and Zbigniew Brzezinksi, both former National Security Advisors, of instability and civil war in Iraq are coming to fruition. We also know that this administration has privatized Iraq's economy and is building enduring bases in the country, with no intention to leave -- probably ever. It does not matter that U.S. military and civilian personnel will forever remain a target for anybody who is looking to take a shot at an American, as long as they are there. There is no plan to leave, no willingness to change strategy, simply blind faith in a notion that came from a bunch of think-tank warriors who believe in enforcing democracy on the world through preemptive, unprovoked warfare. What is moderate about supporting all of that?

Nothing.

more

http://worldnewstrust.org/modules/AMS/article.php?storyid=4022

[GreenPartyVoter]

1. Hmm.. I am disappointed that Lamont is not for Universal Healthcare

but at least he knows what's what in terms of the war.

[Patsy Stone]

2. Since the GOP is supporting Joementum

that makes Lamont look a bleeding-heart liberal. This is according to the GOP, of course, who are the only ones who care about labels. It's funny that the GOP seems to ignore the fact that the label they should be using for Joe (at least right now) is Democrat.

Hey, Bill! The KOEB misses you.

[madfloridian]

3. I have not read the article, but I did a search on "Lamont, health care"

Someone is not being honest about Lamont's stances. I got pages.

[madfloridian]

4. Lamont's view on health care.

Ned Lamont's Answer:

"I strongly support universal health care. Forty-seven million Americans have no insurance, which profoundly impacts their care and their health. One in nine Connecticut residents has no health insurance, and more and more of these are from families where someone works.

It's a further disgrace that health-care special interests have such a strong voice in shaping legislation. Health professionals, pharmaceutical interests, hospitals, and health-service interests have invested more than $32 million in contributions to members of Congress.

I believe that the government should guarantee health-care security for all, but we must start with the system we have and make sure everyone is covered. I'd require employers to provide coverage to their workers, paired with the ability of employers to lower costs by purchasing insurance from larger pools, including the one used by members of Congress. I'd also make health care affordable for everyone by creating a sliding-scale system for people who can't buy health insurance through their jobs, and reduce costs and improve the quality of health care by, lowering costs and substantially leveraging the government's bulk purchasing and regulatory power. My plan is available at www.nedlamont.com. We can target preventable disease, educate and provide wellness programs, and protect health care from further erosion and cost shifting.

Most of the uninsured in America have a family member working full time. Employers must realize that they are corporate citizens. I run a business and provide health care for my workers -- and I have lost contracts to companies that do not. Requiring all employers to provide health insurance will level the playing field for business and provide health care for people that need it."

http://www.courant.com/news/local/northeast/hc-ne-nedjoe-n40806,0,4684322.story?coll=hc-northeast-top

So I guess you could say he is for health care, but not single payer right away. I recognize the stance, because many other Democrats have it. I think SEIU is trying to get employers totally off the hook for insurance, but many Democrats realize the change will be gradual. I don't understand the stance of SEIU on this.

Not fair to say he is not for universal health care. That is not what Ned Lamont says at all.

[madfloridian]

5. I think the statement about Lamont and universal health care ..

should be corrected, IMO. It is not fair to say he is not for it, when he is.