Lamont's "Single Issue" Voters

The Q-Poll shows that 44% of Lamont’s supporters support him mainly because of Lieberman’s stance on the Iraq war. And Markos anticipates a bunch of pundits frowning on the large number of "Single Issue" voters.

For a pundit to suggest the Iraq war is a "Single Issue" simply betrays their ignorance of the impact that war has and will continue to have on this country and the rest of the world.

Some are opposed to the war because they’re opposed to 2,500 Americans dead, 18,000 Americans wounded, perhaps 100,000 Iraqis dead, untold wounded. Some oppose the war simply because it uses violence to solve problems that should be solved using other means.

Some are opposed to the war because it has ruined our military. Two-thirds of our active army and three-quarters of our National Guard face readiness problems because it needs to replace equipment used in Iraq. Extended deployments and lowered recruiting standards are having bad effects on the military, their families, and our mission. The Iraq war–sold as a way to make our country safer–has only exposed it defensively.

Some are opposed to the war because it has thoroughly destabilized Iraq, and threatens to destabilize the entire region. By almost every standard, Iraqi quality of life is worse today than it was under Saddam.

Some are opposed to the war because it has created precisely the problem that it was cynically sold as a way to prevent. Iraq is creating terrorists, at a time when the threat of terrorism remains very real.

Some are opposed to the war because it has turned us into an international pariah. Some countries no longer trust us. Others want nothing to do with our aggressive ways.

  1. Anonymous says:

    Well said. Any time you hear a Republican say we â€can’t afford†something, ask them why they think it’s better to spend the money in Iraq.

    Supporting the war unquestioningly means you support the war over rebuilding New Orleans.

  2. Anonymous says:

    As I was writing this, I kept thinking, â€and it’d be different if, for example, Joe used his big sway with the GOP to insist on raising taxes for the wealthy to pay for this, rather than helping them cut taxes. And it’d be different if he used his sway to make sure we had enough troops. Or made sure we were caring for our veterans adequately.â€

    Joe keeps saying his bipartisanship has been a great big thing. But he certainly didn’t use it where he was ethically obliged, in making sure the war was conducted in such a way we MIGHT have succeeded, in making sure our troops were adequately cared for.

  3. demtom says:

    I’d go further, emptywheel. I’d like to hear a Lieberman supporter cite me one instance in which his â€ability to work with the GOP†has resulted in our side getting anything we wanted to which the Bush administration was averse. As far as I can tell, all Lieberman has done is made it far easier for the GOP to achieve ITS desires.

  4. Jonathan says:

    Supporting the war in Iraq unquestioningly means you support it over following through in Afghanistan!

  5. John B. says:

    Another important reason to not support this war is becuase it is illegal immoral and purported to be an aggressive policy of so-called preemptive invasion of a sovreign country based on lies and dishonesty.

  6. freepatriot says:

    what was the line from â€The Battle of Algeirs†???

    â€If you want to remain in Algeria, you must accep everything we do as necessaryâ€

    so if you support the war in iraq you must support MURDER, TORTURE, THEFT OF NATIONAL RESOURCES, and the MAIMING OF THOUSANDS OF INNOCENTS

    and in return for supporting all of these crimes against humanity, we will receive ???

    nothing, not even gratitude from those we’ve murdered, tortured, stole from, and maimed

    thank god we’re a christian nation, or i don’t think I could stand it

  7. Anonymous says:

    Oh, I agree with you, demtom. But I think the question might be very useful if there is a three-way race to November (not counting chickens, but if).

    That is, we know Dems (and most of the country) hate the war. But even for those who like the war, wouldn’t you like someone who made sure it was run effectively?

  8. merciless says:

    â€I supported our war in Iraq but I have always questioned the way it was being executed,†Lieberman said.

    Joe said this. It’s pathetic. Now he’s running from his own words and throwing stink bombs behind him as he goes. He doesn’t need to lose; he needs to be demolished.

    People are against the war for all the resons mentioned, and also because people are against being lied to, patronized, and dismissed as irrelevant.

  9. windje says:

    With nearly 70% of the country stating that the direction is wrong and should be changed, is it any surprise that 65% of Democrats stated the vote for Lamont was a vote against Lieberman.In other words a vote for change. (

    Its taken a long time (Bush got a lot of byes after 9/11) and a lot of failure (Katrina seems to have been the tipping point)to reach the current level of discontent, which does not seem to abate with ’good’ news. Bush’s approval/disapproval remains mid thirties high 60’s respectively. Association with this administration’s policies appears to be radioactive, particularly in blue states, of which there seems to be an increasing number.

    With Kansas electing a non creationist school board and South Dakota heading towards defeating theAmerican Taliban abortion bill, it may well be a harbinger that the religious right extremists have lost sway with voters.

    I think Charles Barkley has it just right – I was a Republican until they lost their minds – it is a sentiment I’ve heard echoed by moderate republicans/conservatives.

    Lieberman seems to be caught in the Republican rip tide. That’s good news for the country. Personally, I hope he drowns.

  10. Anonymous says:

    “For a pundit to suggest the Iraq war is a â€Single Issue†simply betrays their ignorance of the impact that war has and will continue to have on this country and the rest of the world.’’

    A plausible analogy, it seems to me, would be to a congressional race in, say, 1970, in which the insurgent candidate was largely running on Vietnam, and, say, against the pro-war stance of the incumbent. Would such a candidate have deserved to be decryed as “single issue’’ then? [Indeed, there is the example of the campaign of Eugene McCarthy in 1968, as an instance in point, now that I think about it.]

  11. orionATL says:

    this is a first rate column about the consequences and costs of war.

    it wasn’t necessary to include, but you could have thrown fiscal irresponsibility and calculated deception of the public into the mix — my understanding is that the entire war has been financed by emergency appropriations.

    i feel bound to ask of the pundits:

    what’s wrong with being a â€single-issue†voter (or candidate for that matter)?

    it’s not as if this is perverse or unusual human behavior.

    â€single-issueâ€, in the â€pundit†vocabulary is just a dismissive slur, a way to negatively characterize folks you want to negatively characterize.

    in short, it’s an empty negative phrase employed in empty analyses.