A Good Question; A Weak Answer…

In his eloquent and incisive evisceration of Ned Lamont today, Martin Peretz asks a good question, but I’m afraid his implied answer suffers from the same pollyanna-ish wishful thinking that he persuasively lambastes in Lamont. Lieberman, he writes,

had marched for civil rights and is committed to an equal opportunity agenda with equal opportunity results. He has qualms about affirmative action. But who, in his hearts of hearts, does not?

Who? Well, for starters, many if not most elected Democrats (and all of them, plus some odd Republicans, in Michigan), virtually all of the lefty netroots, and both the leaders and members of the most loyal and active Democratic “base” groups.

Finally, I know what “an equal opportunity agenda is”; I know what “equal results” means; but I believe this is the first time I’ve ever heard of “equal opportunity results,” and I don’t know what that means.

Say What? (9)

  1. Dom August 8, 2006 at 10:02 am | | Reply

    “… this is the first time I’ve ever heard of “equal opportunity results,” and I don’t know what that means.”

    It’s the first time I heard the phrase too, but it seems to be a good way to express “the results of equal opportunity.” After all, if you keep saying things like “equality of opportunity, not equality of results”, you sound, well, negative. The phrase “equal pay for comparable work” speaks to, in my opnion, a horrifying infringement on the market place, but it sounds so pretty and positive that people buy into it.

  2. anonymous August 8, 2006 at 11:11 am | | Reply

    the key phrase is “heart of hearts,” not “public rhetoric.” you could even make a cognitive dissonance argument that the manifest injustice of a racial thumb on the scale is precisely what makes for such vociferous defense.

  3. Cobra August 8, 2006 at 6:35 pm | | Reply

    Martin Peretz writes:

    >>>”He has qualms about affirmative action. But who, in his hearts of hearts, does not?”

    I do not have qualms about Affirmative Action in America today. Not even in my heart of hearts.

    I think the author doesn’t take into account the country around him. Iraq is every bad adjective you can think of at this point. The conditions on the ground are worsening every day. The majority of Americans when polled AGREE with the Lamont position on the war, and not that of Lieberman. Perhaps if large swaths of the news media wasn’t under the control of defense contractors and corporations that PROFIT off of war, there would be even a higher degree of dissent.

    –Cobra

  4. Cobra August 9, 2006 at 7:48 am | | Reply

    …and the results of the primary VINDICATED Ned Lamont’s position. The chicken-hawkish, neo-con keyboard kommandoes are losing this argument at the polls.

    –Cobra

  5. sharon August 10, 2006 at 8:10 am | | Reply

    Lamont was vindicated among the most dedicated Democrats. It’s still too early to see if the majority in Delaware is as short-sighted and cowardly.

  6. Federal Dog August 10, 2006 at 1:09 pm | | Reply

    “It’s still too early to see if the majority in Delaware is as short-sighted and cowardly.”

    Not to mention goddamned dangerous.

  7. Cobra August 12, 2006 at 7:13 pm | | Reply

    Sharon writes:

    >>>”Lamont was vindicated among the most dedicated Democrats. It’s still too early to see if the majority in Delaware is as short-sighted and cowardly.”

    Federal Dog writes:

    >>>”Not to mention goddamned dangerous.”

    What does the State of Delaware, with Senator Biden (D) and Senator Carper (D), have to do

    with the Connecticut primary?

    Why is it “cowardly” or “dangerous” to NOT want to support the absolute FIASCO-QUAGMIRE-DEBACLE-DISASTER that is the Iraq War? How are the deaths of more innocent Iraqis including CHILDREN keeping you and me “safe” at night?

    Which side of the Civil War (large scale Sectarian Conflagration, for the Bushphiles) do you support? The Shia and their Militias, which have ties to Iran, dubbed by Bush as a fellow “Axis of Evil” member, or the Sunnis, remnants of the Ba’ath party whose regime the US overthrew in the first place, with ties to Saudi Arabia and terrorist extremists?

    Just curious, that’s all.

    –Cobra

  8. sharon August 14, 2006 at 8:04 am | | Reply

    “What does the State of Delaware, with Senator Biden (D) and Senator Carper (D), have to do

    with the Connecticut primary?”

    Nice gotcha! Wrong state, but the sentiment is still the same. There are less people in CONNECTICUT than in the metropolitan area I live in, so I guess that could explain that faux pas. But the post is still sound.

    “Why is it “cowardly” or “dangerous” to NOT want to support the absolute FIASCO-QUAGMIRE-DEBACLE-DISASTER that is the Iraq War?”

    Maybe because those involved use overheated rhetoric and have no solutions to fighting terrorists other than waiting around for the next group of terrorists to bomb us, fly airplanes into buildings, etc. What, exactly, is Ned Lamont’s solution to terrorism? Or is simply spouting “the majority of Americans are against the Iraq War” the only answer you people have? And does your figure include all the service people (you know, the people actually fighting) who wish we were being MORE aggressive? When one picks apart the number against the war, it becomes a little less impressive.

    “How are the deaths of more innocent Iraqis including CHILDREN keeping you and me “safe” at night?”

    A lot, since among those deaths are terrorists. And those dead terrorists aren’t figuring out ways to blow up airplanes full of people or perpetrate other acts of terror.

  9. Cobra August 20, 2006 at 10:42 pm | | Reply

    Sharon writes:

    >>>”A lot, since among those deaths are terrorists. And those dead terrorists aren’t figuring out ways to blow up airplanes full of people or perpetrate other acts of terror.”

    And how many IRAQIS have blown up airplanes full of people? Or are you just lumping all “those people” together?

    –Cobra

Say What?