Ned Lamont, Progressive

I just finished reading this interview with Ned Lamont on truthdig.com, and I must say I am impressed with this young man from Vermont. Prior to reading the interview, while I certainly welcomed the alternative to Joe Lieberman, I was worried that Lamont might be yet another bored millionaire, buying his way into a race and using a polarising issue as a political tool.

But check out these gems from the interview:

• Lamont: The Senate should not be a sinecure for career politicians. Somebody who started up a business from scratch and someone who knows how hard it is to be a small businessman in this country, who works with employees over a period of years and knows the trials and tribulations of families, and how healthcare and pensions weigh on them--those are important experiences that are underrepresented in Congress. We have plenty of former attorneys general.


• truthdig: What should we do, right now, in Iraq?
  
  Lamont: Move our front-line troops out of harm's way. Start bringing the 130,000 troops who are stuck in the middle of that bloody civil war onto the periphery, and start bringing our combat troops home.
  
• truthdig: But can we maintain our reconstruction efforts without the cover that American forces at least try to maintain?
  
  Lamont: You've got 230,000 troops in the Iraqi army who are more or less trained, you've got a police force that is ridden with militias, obviously, but if the Iraqis can put together this unity government over the course of the next 30 days, anything is possible. Perhaps the Arab League, the Saudis, even the U.N. can help with some of the security functions, so reconstruction can start again.
  
  I think Americans should remain in the background, aiding in the construction--we can't desert the people of Iraq, but right now our front-line military presence is not making the situation better. It is stirring things up, making it worse.


• truthdig: Do you suspect Iran is making a nuclear bomb?
  
  Lamont: I suspect they are making a bomb, just like India and Pakistan have. It's a source of great nationalist pride. I think they're a little paranoid. They see Afghanistan on one side of them and Iraq on the other side of them, and a [U.S.] president who is talking about an Axis of Evil. Maybe they are worried.


• truthdig: Do you think it's inevitable that they'll get the bomb, and should the U.S. base its diplomacy on that assumption?
  
  Lamont: No, on the contrary, we should work diplomatically and aggressively to give them reasons why they don't need to build a bomb, to give them incentives.
  
• truthdig: How would that work?
  
  Lamont: 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.
  
  Iran has a large middle class; they're dependent on the sale of energy products to China; they want to engage more with Western Europe; they have a longstanding relationship with Russia, so there are levers we can use with people who have real leverage with Iran.
  
  We have so many different ways we can engage them, and all this saber rattling and "Axis of Evil" rhetoric is playing into the hands of the nationalists and the extremists in Iran.
  
  We can't take diplomacy off the table. But Lieberman is the one who keeps talking about keeping the military option on the table.


• Lamont: One of the crucial issues confronting our country is energy independence, and its corollary: global warming and the environment. I thought after 9/11 we had a real unique opportunity to deal with those twin issues in a serious way. Instead the president invited the lobbyists to Dick Cheney's office and we ended up with the energy bill that gave away tens of millions in subsidies to the oil producers, very little for energy conservation and efficiency--and Sen. Lieberman supported that bill.
  
• Lamont: We're a much stronger country when we work in concert with our neighbors and allies and deal with the rest of the world with respect. We're a much stronger country when we hold true to our values and our heritage, when our moral authority isn't compromised. I think there is a battle of ideas, and we have to be true to what we stand for.


• Lamont: The nation's war on drugs? As long as there's a demand, people are going to find a way to get drugs in this country. And sure, I could talk about tighter border controls, I could talk about interdiction, I could talk about dealing with it in Afghanistan, Bolivia, Colombia--wherever the sources are, but let's face it--the law of supply and demand: As long as there's an overwhelming demand here, drugs are going to find their way in.
  
  When it comes to drug use in this country, we've got to be very forthright with our kids and family and talk about it in a way we find constructive alternatives to drug use. That's our best hope.


• truthdig: What about on the state and federal level? Sending people to jail for nonviolent drug-related crimes?
  
  Lamont: I'm very skeptical about that. It doesn't act as a deterrent. And it congests our jails with folks who aren't a danger to society, and in many cases we have revolving doors--in which people who are a danger to society are let out. Where drug addiction is a disease, it should be treated as a disease. Where it's a crime, it should be treated as a crime.


• truthdig: Where are you on gay marriage?
  
  Lamont: There are some places where the government should butt out and leave people alone. And if two people are in love and want to get married, God bless 'em. I'm not advocating anything, but I am saying that the government should know when it's overstepped its bounds. All this stuff about a constitutional amendment outlawing the right of gay people to get married--that's wrong. It's wrongheaded. We don't need those kinds of restrictions. We're going to figure those things out as a society, and I'd just tell government to step back.


• truthdig: Do you prefer a more progressive tax policy than the one we have now?
  
  Lamont: Yes. We have an incredibly complicated tax code loaded with loopholes and exemptions, and billions of dollars that go uncollected each year due to the complexity of the laws. I would simplify the code, broaden the base, and I generally support a progressive tax structure.
  
• truthdig: So people like you should have to do more of the heavy lifting?
  
  Lamont: Sure. I think that's fair.


• truthdig: Are you ready to challenge Lieberman to a specific set of campaign caps or restrictions on how the campaign is financed or run?
  
  Lamont: I've tried to do it by example. I said that we're not taking any Washington lobbyist money. There's a quid pro quo there. Also, we've said publicly on a number of cases that we widely endorse the idea of a cap on spending. I think that is the key campaign finance reform.
  
  Longer term, public financing is probably a place we have to end up. These incumbents don't really get challenged. There aren't many folks who come along and jump-start a campaign, like I've been able to do. But I think with the blogs, grass roots, net roots, I think you'll see more populous types of campaigns. I hope that's an example people can take from our case. Because that's going to mean you have more competition in the marketplace, and that's always good.
  
  Nicely put, Ned. You have my vote when you run for President in 2010! ;)