Well, while the Bush crew is gone, and we are rid of Chris Shays, it is amazing how much of this three-year-old letter remains relevant. Special interest money continues to trump all. . . .
Lieberman vs. Lamont June 20, 2006
At a time when America looks more and more like the state envisioned by Orwell in his novel Nineteen Eighty Four, and when the our President's policies and assumption of unwarranted executive power make him appear increasingly like Vladimir Putin, Connecticut Democrats are fortunate to have one candidate who openly supports the values and programs typically associated with a sound Democratic agenda.
Ned Lamont may have initiated his candidacy to challenge Lieberman's stand on the war; but he has demonstrated to Connecticut voters over the last few months that his campaign is multi-faceted and includes detailed positions on issues like the environment and healthcare, as well as a wisely nuanced approach to the intricacies of foreign policy.
It is a sad day for Democrats when the DSCC has chosen to support a candidate, "Bush's favorite Democrat," who has been completely unresponsive to his home constituency. Joe Lieberman has endorsed almost everything initiated by this very conservative Republican President -- particularly the immoral, ill-fated, oil-driven foreign policy. Yet Connecticut has a real Democratic candidate, one who promotes a principled foreign policy in line with that of Representative Murtha and a progressive domestic agenda which is both fiscally responsible and attentive to the issues that matter most to average Americans.
We have written many letters to Lieberman about both our domestic and foreign policy concerns; we have let him know our views about the over-all direction in which this Administration is taking our country. In return, we continue to receive boilerplate defensive responses and are told that -- in time of war -- we must stand with our President. The suggestion that dissent is unpatriotic, something we hear often from right-wing extremists, is especially disturbing when it comes from a Democratic senator; and Lieberman represents a progressive state in which nearly every Democrat (and most Independents) oppose the Iraq War.
In Ned Lamont, we have a candidate with the courage to stand up for the best American values in this increasingly dangerous environment. This Administration's reckless policies have fostered an increase in terrorism at the same time that our Constitutional freedoms are being perverted, the Geneva Accords have been scuttled, and fiscal irresponsibility has threatened the future for all of our children.
In this climate, we cannot understand your response to Ned Lamont's candidacy. He, who came out of nowhere to take 33% of the vote at a State Convention (in spite of some outrageous arm-twisting by Lieberman), already commands support from 40% of Connecticut's Democrats. Yet you have asked him not to run.
To add insult to injury, forced to use his own money until fundraising kicks in, Lamont has had to endure accusations that he is a millionaire and therefore unable to address the concerns of middle class citizens. That Lieberman could launch such a Rove-like attack is especially offensive, coming from a man who has been seen hugging our multi-millionaire President, is one of the Senate's leading recipients of money from defense and pharmaceutical industry lobbyists, and has collected over a million dollars from political action committees.
Like you, we are working hard to Take Back the Congress. Any decision to support a primary challenger against a sitting Democratic Senator should not be taken lightly. But Joe Lieberman has been wrong on the War, wrong on privacy, wrong on Gonzales, wrong on failing to use the filibuster to oppose Alito, wrong on support for federal intervention in the Schiavo case, and wrong on important social issues supported by the majority of Democrats, such as his vote to stop Federal Aid to Public Schools that use materials "supportive of homosexuality." He also has maintained a shameful and glaring silence on the issue of "enemy combatants" held here and abroad in horrific conditions without recourse to the rights afforded by our Constitution and in violation of the Geneva Conventions, the policy of Extraordinary Rendition, and overwhelming evidence of secret prisons in Eastern Europe.
While other Democrats have voiced objections, Lieberman believes that we should support the President -- right or wrong -- in a time of (illegal) war. To be silent is to be complicit. The lessons of Nazi Germany should have taught him that.
Finally -- and this ought to concern you mightily -- Lieberman's candidacy is endangering the campaigns of other good Democratic candidates who have been forced (reluctantly) to support him in order to obtain critical funding for their own campaigns. We are concerned about losing more than just one Congressional seat; Lieberman's strangle-hold on the party's funding has put several other key races in jeopardy; and his sense of "entitlement" could be responsible in November for the failure to capitalize on this critical opportunity to restore a Balance of Power. Just one example: Diane Farrell has been publicly challenged (several times recently) by disgusted constituents who would be inclined to support her, but who cannot understand why she has endorsed Lieberman. Chris Shays is and should be vulnerable, but Diane actually is losing ground because of an endorsement she should not have had to make. We urge you to wake up and support the true Connecticut Democrats -- of which Ned Lamont certainly is one -- before this whole election becomes an unnecessary fiasco.
As a post script, your support for Joseph Lieberman may come back to haunt you if -- as he now is suggesting -- Lieberman betrays the party to run as an Independent, thereby putting the cult of personal ambition before the good of the party. At the very least, we are counting on you to ask Lieberman to support Lamont, should Lieberman lose the primary.
Robin Winick, Old Greenwich
Ann Galloway, Stamford
MLN is powered by