Forums

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Regardless of where you stand on the issues, your dismissal of Lamont as shrill -- you do realize the guy is a cable-TV executive, right? -- and his supporters and whackjobs is about the squarest thing anyone has said on this board in months and months. You sound positively Broderesque. Really, if anyone comes over here from the FB you're going to lose your cynical hipster credibility. But don't worry -- we won't tell. Still, time for some soul-searching -- you're too young to sound this old.

Martin Peretz, a fairly solid card carrying liberal had this to say about Lamont in a WSJ Op-Ed:

ow Mr. Lamont's views are also not camouflaged. They are just simpleminded. Here, for instance, is his take on what should be done about Iran's nuclear-weapons venture: "We should work diplomatically and aggressively to give them reasons why they don't need to build a bomb, to give them incentives. We have to engage in very aggressive diplomacy. I'd like to bring in allies when we can. I'd like to use carrots as well as sticks to see if we can change the nature of the debate." Oh, I see. He thinks the problem is that they do not understand, and so we should explain things to them, and then they will do the right thing. It is a fortunate world that Mr. Lamont lives in, but it is not the real one. Anyway, this sort of plying is precisely what has been going on for years, and to no good effect. Mr. Lamont continues that "Lieberman is the one who keeps talking about keeping the military option on the table." And what is so plainly wrong with that? Would Mahmoud Ahmadinejad be more agreeable if he thought that we had disposed of the military option in favor of more country club behavior?

He's a dilettante and a smug ignorant elitist. I pray for Lieberman's victoury. Send this buffoon back to his country club and rarified airs in Greenwich. It's sad that the democrat party is filled with such divisive classists such as this guy.