Demagogue

But will he be smiling tonight?

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

I'm not sure what to make of this bizarre quote by the Democratic speaker of the Connecticut House. This is what House Speaker Jim Amman, described as "a Lieberman supporter," said:

"If Democrats have a problem with someone who voted on the war, you go into a backroom and hammer it out. This is not our war, this is Bush's war. Our guys have lost focus.''

What the hell does he mean? Instead of challenging Lieberman in a democratic election, Lamont should have purchased a pair of cigars, phoned Lieberman and asked to meet with him behind closed doors to talk about the war?

What makes Amman think Lieberman would agree to meet with Lamont or any other Democrat to "hammer ... out" the war issue? As if a 15-minute conversation would produce agreement among all parties.

Perhaps this is how all incumbent officeholders think: it's somehow rude or inappropriate to actually force an elected official to publicly defend his/her votes on major issues -- instead, "hammer it out" (whatever the hell that means) in a backroom.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Heading into the last weekend of the primary campaign, Lieberman told the Washington Post:

"I haven't changed. Events around me have changed."

But shouldn't a senator's views and understanding of issues evolve as events evolve?

I've often felt that people tend to overvalue consistency of ideology.