Lieberman Undermines Trust of Constituents

Send NYT reporter Medina an e-mail (0.00 / 0)

http://www.nytimes.c...

---

by: jhayes @ Sat Sep 09, 2006 at 21:18:19 PM UTC

Almost not worth responding (0.00 / 0)

It's almost not worth responding to the comments of irishred but here goes.  Far from cheering Joe on Lamont says he reluctantly feels something had to be said by a Democrat but that Joe should now work to bring the matter to a close.  Now if we want to see cheerleading, lets look at Joe's support for invading Iraq, whether Saddam had weapons of mass destruction or not.

---

by: amarko55 @ Sun Sep 10, 2006 at 01:24:27 AM UTC

I just wrote this letter to Joe (0.00 / 0)

I was dismayed to read in the New York Times excerpts from Ned Lamonts letter to you from 1998. 

He was writing to you as a constituent about an issue that concerned him as a private citizen. 

What right do you have to publish that letter 8 years later?

Isn't this a violation of the privacy policy that is posted on your website?

Are my letters to you subjected to public consumption if it was to ever suit your own selfish purposes?

I would like a response as to why you think it's okay to do what you did.

I'll let you know if he responds...

 

---

by: CtLiberal @ Sun Sep 10, 2006 at 01:27:04 AM UTC

Did you send it to his senate office? (4.00 / 1)

If so, my prediction is that you'll get a perfunctory note saying that since it had something to do with the campaign, it had to be forwarded to his campaign office. And from there it will be completely ignored.

---

by: da0802 @ Sun Sep 10, 2006 at 04:24:54 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Here's what we can expect: (0.00 / 0)

The Republicans will be fighting tooth and nail for guys like Lieberman and Chafee.

From the Washington Post, (via TPM):

"Sunday's Washington Post front page:

  Republicans are planning to spend the vast majority of their sizable financial war chest over the final 60 days of the campaign attacking Democratic House and Senate candidates over personal issues and local controversies, GOP officials said.

  The National Republican Congressional Committee, which this year dispatched a half-dozen operatives to comb through tax, court and other records looking for damaging information on Democratic candidates, plans to spend more than 90 percent of its $50 million-plus advertising budget on what officials described as negative ads.

  The hope is that a vigorous effort to "define" opponents, in the parlance of GOP operatives, can help Republicans shift the midterm debate away from Iraq and limit losses this fall.

Anyone not see this coming?
-- TPM Reader DK"
http://www.washingto...

 

---

by: jeffs @ Sun Sep 10, 2006 at 12:14:52 PM UTC

Weekend a study in contrasts (0.00 / 0)

So let's see - Ned spent the weekend meeting with people, including some at a VFW picnic who he knew going in probably didn't agree with him.  The Joementum campaign spends the weekend releasing e-mails that their candidate had said would be kept confidential and then misrepresents their content to boot. Who's running the negative campaign?

---

by: amarko55 @ Sun Sep 10, 2006 at 12:36:34 PM UTC

Look who has his very own blog! (0.00 / 0)

http://dangerstein.b...

---

by: Sue @ Sun Sep 10, 2006 at 13:18:30 PM UTC

And Dangerstein and Sundog are looking for writers (0.00 / 0)

http://lieberdem.blo...

The name of the final site is still TBD (we have several URLs reserved, but need to pick which one to use). Until then, here's the temporary URL while the new site is being chosen and designed:

http://demprogress.b...

Sundog and I will be posting our thoughts there over the next week or two while the new site is being completed. If you are interested in being a contributor to the new blog, send me an email with a brief (500 words or less) writing sample and a summary of your political views. And yes, the name of the temp blog is a nod to the recently-formed "GOP Progress" website designed to get Republicans who don't want to toe the line demanded by the more hardline elements of the conservative blogosphere.

The first posts on the new blog will be up shortly. Hope to see you all there.

---

by: Sue @ Sun Sep 10, 2006 at 13:26:53 PM UTC

Dangerstein blog (0.00 / 0)

Did he have to start a new blog because all comment is shut off on the Lieberman "blog."  How long til the new one shuts down.  And here we are, only weeks out from the election and they are just now dicking around with set up a new website -- name to be announced.  What about Loser-Liar?

---

by: gchaucer2 @ Sun Sep 10, 2006 at 15:04:20 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Serve Your Constituents, Don't Use Them (0.00 / 0)

Many, many thanks, Spazeboy, for intelligently framing the issue here and pointing out what I think are far more compelling and telling aspects of this whole story than the angle the Times used.  I am very disappointed that the Times seemed to report and edit without engaging in critical thinking about how the campaign obtained the correspondence.  They really, really should stop using the consulting services of Judith Miller.

Can anyone clarify the legal obligations of a senator vis a vis constituents, and how the the campaign/public office Chinese wall is legally constructed?  One would hope that would be a possible role of ...uh, the New York Times?? Or will activist citizen journalism once again trump them?

I am reminded of a news article I read about the new Lamont political advertisement. Tom Swan was quoted as saying that the Lamont campaign asked the permission of the families of those deceased members of the military whose names were read.

The contrast in principles is quite telling.

---

by: greenpeas @ Sun Sep 10, 2006 at 13:55:58 PM UTC

Links to Senate Ethics document quotes (0.00 / 0)

Every time something like this happens, I learn a little more about how government works.

Here's a link to the page that has the Senate rules that cover campaigning vs. official work. and outlines a code of conduct for senators and their staff.

http://ethics.senate...

The situation of publicly revealing a private senator/constituent piece of correspondence is not specifically addressed, but it appears to me (a layperson, not a lawyer or senate rules specialist) that the private correspondence was part of official duties and resources and should not have been transferred to the campaign, that releasing it violates an accepted norm of conduct by senators (respecting senator/constituent confidentiality) that would negatively impact citizens' view of the Senate and how it functions.  Here are some links and quotes that seem to me to support that perspective.

At the time the ethics document was written,
"The floor debate on this resolution demonstrates that the Rules were not intended to be a comprehensive code of conduct for Senators, but were targeted at a limited area of activity, and more importantly, that they were not intended to displace generally accepted norms of conduct. During that debate, the Committee’s Chairman, Senator John Stennis, stated:
'We do not try to write a full code of regulations . . . . [O]ur effort is merely to add rules and not to replace that great body of unwritten but generally accepted standards that will, of course, continue in effect.’8
In addition, the Committee’s Vice Chairman, Senator Wallace Bennett, stated that it was impossible to develop written rules that address every possible area of misconduct. 9  The phrase ‘‘improper conduct’’ as used by S. Res. 338 can be given meaning by reference to generally accepted standards of conduct, the letter and spirit of laws and Rules, 10 and by reference to past cases where the Senate has disciplined its Members for conduct that was deemed improper, regardless of whether it violated any law or Senate rule or regulation." (page 433 of above linked document)

One example of an action for which no specific rule existed, but was judged to require action:

"In 1811, the Senate censured Senator Thomas Pickering for reading a confidential communication on the Senate floor, despite the fact that there was no written rule prohibiting such conduct. 12" (see page 433 of ethics PDF file, sixth paragraph)

The other area that someone questioned on the blog is the official vs. campaign duties wall of separation.

The House of Representatives' booklet on ethics is a lot more user friendly than the Senate's, and contains this statement:

"Internal Office Files. As discussed below, a congressional office may provide campaign personnel with copies of its press releases and other materials that were distributed publicly. However, the internal office files, such as research files on legislation, may not be used for campaign or political purposes.

Example 2. A Member’s campaign wishes to make commercials featuring testimonials by individuals whom the office has assisted on casework matters. The office casework files may not be reviewed to obtain names of individuals whom the office has assisted. Likewise, the office files may not be reviewed to obtain names of individuals to solicit for campaign contributions."

Link:  http://www.house.gov...

I did not find such a clear corollary in my quick review of the Senate document, but it seems consistent with the following.

Senate ethics document says:
"•Use of official resources to assist campaign organization—Senate space, equipment, staff time,
and resources generally should not be used to assist campaign organizations. Certain de minimis
overlap between the official office and the campaign inevitably may occur and is permissible; such
de minimis overlap includes scheduling assistance between offices and, as noted above, press response
to ‘‘official’’ inquiries that may also include inquiries about campaign matters. Also, the
campaign may be treated in the same manner that the Senate office would treat any other outside
organization on a non-partisan basis. Thus, a Senate office may make available with officially related
funds a copy of the Member’s floor speech to the campaign committee at its request so long
as the Senate office would provide the speech to any other organization or individual who asks,
without regard to political affiliation. Similarly, the office may make available with officially related
funds information about the Senator’s legislative accomplishments to the campaign committee
at its request, if the office would do the same for anyone who asks for it. Conversely, however,
the Senate office should not provide press clips about the Senator that were collected by the office
to the campaign because Senate offices do not routinely provide clipping services to anyone who
asks for them."  (pp. 150-151)

As it turns out, Chris Dodd is a co-chair of the Ethics Committee which is responsible for this document and dealing with complaints, so it would appear he would be a logical person to turn to for clarification.

---

by: greenpeas @ Sun Sep 10, 2006 at 16:26:35 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Joe removed the comment section of his blog (0.00 / 0)

I guess a relentless 98% anti-Joe comments became too much for them!

This way they can print all the lies they want and no one can dispute them... he truly is a Bush clone, isn't he -- "I'm the decider"!!!!

---

by: Harriet @ Sun Sep 10, 2006 at 14:05:29 PM UTC

Non-blog (0.00 / 0)

Is a blog a blog if you don't provide interaction?  I never looked at blogs until this campaign.  I thought they were for the self-absorbed.  Hey, now there's a case in point.

---

by: gchaucer2 @ Sun Sep 10, 2006 at 15:06:23 PM UTC

[ Parent ]