I received two emails from our junior and senior Senators. By coincidence they arrived in my inbox within hours of each other. While both emails sound stale, like they were written in January, I couldn't help but not the contrast.
Lieberman:
In 2003, I supported the use of force in Iraq to remove Saddam Hussein from power because I believed that he was a grave threat to our country, his people, and the world; and I continue to believe that decision was right. Since then, I have often disagreed with how the war has been run. And I have not hesitated to speak out about the mistakes the Bush Administration has made, mistakes that have made this war more costly than it should have been. But I have worked hard to stay away from partisan political attacks because that is unacceptable when our nation is at war. And I continue to believe that how we end our involvement in Iraq will have a significant effect on our security for a long time to come.
The Administration was wrong for not: (1) securing the support of enough of our allies in the run-up to the war; (2) having enough troops on the ground; (3) having a sensible plan to win the peace and establish stability in Iraq after Saddam fell; and (4) sooner putting the Iraqis in charge of their government and their economy, including their oil supply.
Note Lieberman does not include the administration's lying about the intelligence in the lead-up to war.
Dodd:
The President's decision to invade Iraq in 2003 was an enormous mistake. I regret my vote in 2002 to give the President the authority to do so. It was a terrible mistake. I intend to do everything possible in the coming days to put pressure on the President to change course in Iraq.
While he doesn't lay out the case that the administration was deceiving the public, at least Dodd acknowledges his mistake, and if you want you can read into it that Dodd thinks Congress had a duty and failed to act as a check on the President.
Sen. Joe Lieberman is now saying that joining the Republican Party is now "a very remote possibility" for him. In an interview with Time, Lieberman does not rule out tipping the balance of power in the Senate back to the Republicans.
The Chairman's responsibilities and Jurisdictions will include real oversight concerning failures of the Bush administration in providing security to our nation during times of war, illegal invasions, ongoing occupations, and natural disasters, as well as overseeing the bloated budget and operations of the largest branch of government ever to be created in the US governments' history through legislation authored under the Republican controlled Senate and House, and signed by the Republican pResident of the time.
Your main and immidiate responsibilities will include holding the needed hearings, directing sub-commitees and legislation needed to avoid repeating the previous disasters, corrupt practices, and failures that will be found with the propper direction and oversight of a NON-PARTISAN and ethical Senate leader.
(1)Minorities such as moderate Republicans having no ties to far-right-wing radical organizations like the Neoconservative movement, the American Enterprise Institute, The Heritage Foundation, Energy Corporations, or the Bush administrations most recent policy proposals that are doomed to failure, are encouraged to apply to Senator Harry Reid for any consideration concerning this soon to be available position.
(2)Note to applicants: Please mark the subject of the Email as "Homeland Security" and refer to this x-posted Blog diary in the opening paragragh of the application. You will be contacted shortly before I post an "I told you so!" diary covering the flawed positons, election statement lies, and propaganda of the far-right-wing radical Neoconservative Joe Lieberman.
Former (sadly, as of today) Air America radio host Al Franken has announced his run for the Minnesota U.S. Senate seat now held by Norm Coleman. I know Minnesota isn't Connecticut, but Franken has been a tireless voice for progressive issues and in opposition to the current right-wing regime, so his run is of interest to us all. Besides, his Midwest Values PAC supported Democratic candidates all around the country in 2006, including our very own Joe Courtney and Diane Farrell... so I, for one, plan to return the favor. Here's Al's announcement video:
Could be old news here, but I didn't see it after a quick search.
No matter what comes of this, the story reminds us that back in 1993, Dodd wrote the existing law which is being sized up by the Bush administration for alteration. This sounds smart, and sends a subtle message to me at least, that while the Clinton health care plans pancaked, he passed the Family and Medical Leave Act.
The proposal Dodd unveiled today would allow most employees to receive up to six weeks of paid leave to care for themselves, their children and immediate family members.
The cost would be shared by employers, employees and the federal government.
Dodd, senior member of the health and education committee, wrote the original 1993 law, the that requires most employers to provide up to 12 weeks of unpaid leave.
Unless they're now using (D) in the pejorative sense, as in "Demented", they ought to stop this nonsense forthwith. If they have to be told to C&D then so be it. You know the drill.
Leslie "Wolf" Blitzer, CNN
One CNN Center, Box 105366, Atlanta, GA 30303-5366
Phone: 404-827-1500
Fax: 404-827-1906
Senator Dodd has followed up his good work on the credit card industry with hearings on the predatory lending industry. Dodd came out swinging in defense of homeownership and fair lending practices:
However, it is not enough simply to create homeownership - we must sustain, preserve, and protect it as well. Yet, today, we are seeing increasing evidence that this important source of wealth for so many American families is under a grave threat from predatory, abusive, and irresponsible lending practices undertaken by too many subprime lenders.
The borrowers who are too frequently targeted for these loans are minorities, immigrants, the elderly, and the unsophisticated. For these families, failure means the loss of a home, the loss of wealth, the loss of middle class status, and the loss of the opportunity for financial security.
...
It is time for the Congress, the Administration, and the lending industry to face up to the fact that predatory and irresponsible lending practices are creating a crisis for millions of American homeowners at a time when general economic trends are good.
...
In short, the system is out of balance. There is a chain of responsibility that makes these abusive loans possible. I look forward to working with each link in that chain - the brokers, the bankers, Wall Street, the regulators, my colleagues on the Committee and in the Congress, and the Administration - to help restore this balance for the sake of the safety and soundness of the banking system; for the sake of the homeowners who are being victimized; and to make sure that subprime credit can, once again, play a constructive role in the marketplace.
As I've said before, Dodd's only hope as a presidential candidate is by using his bully pulpit in the Senate to lead by example. He has to keep showing us that he will fight for our interests in a way that other Democratic contenders are not or cannot. His recent work on the Banking Committee is evidence that he recognizes the dynamic between doing the right thing as a legislator and growing his presidential candidacy.
New Political Review, which describes itself as "America's bi-weekly, nonpartisan, political Web newsletter", is running a poll to rank your Senator on the basis of four criteria: integrity, honor, dignity, and character.
Russ Feingold is currently ranked highest at #1. Following him are, in order, John Kerry, Jim Webb, Jon Tester, and Bernie Sanders. Clearly the lefties have taken over!
Joe Lieberman is currently ranked #99, leading only Alaska's Ted Stevens.
Chris Dodd's at #35 and could surely use some love from Nutmeggers.
Okay, so we don't have recalls in Connecticut (for which I am thankful, save this one time). We can, however, petition for ballot questions for the 2007 elections. I propose we get a (non-binding, unenforceable) "Dump Joe?" question on the ballot.
One issue that the Connecticut for Lieberman party (under its new leadership) would be particularly well-positioned to focus on is reform of the flawed electoral system that allowed for and encouraged its existence in the first place. This could include initiatives such as the sore loser law, which Secretary of State Bysiewicz will hopefully continue to advocate for in 2007.
But with a legislative super-majority, Democrats (along with CFLers) should go further and push for a same-party replacement law as well. Robert Speel, a political science professor in Pennsylvania, explains the situation in an op-ed:
This year, six states -- Vermont, Connecticut, Rhode Island, North Dakota, California and Hawaii -- will have two Democratic senators and a Republican governor (one Vermont senator is an independent who caucuses with the Democrats). In five of these states, if either of their senators resigns to take another office or dies in 2007, the Republican governor will have the opportunity to hand the Senate majority back to the Republicans through a simple appointment.
(Personally I think it's the President's disrespectful words towards Webb and his son that are the story in this exchange. - promoted by Matt Browner Hamlin)
Can you picture our Junior Senator ever having an exchange like this with the President?
At a recent White House reception for freshman members of Congress, Virginia's newest senator tried to avoid President Bush. Democrat James Webb declined to stand in a presidential receiving line or to have his picture taken with the man he had often criticized on the stump this fall. But it wasn't long before Bush found him.
"How's your boy?" Bush asked, referring to Webb's son, a Marine serving in Iraq.
"I'd like to get them out of Iraq, Mr. President," Webb responded, echoing a campaign theme.
"That's not what I asked you," Bush said. "How's your boy?"
"That's between me and my boy, Mr. President," Webb said coldly, ending the conversation on the State Floor of the East Wing of the White House.
Well, of course this conversation would never occur with Lieberman - he never served and neither does his family. But even on issues he may disagree on, he'd much rather make jokes and pat his back (and get a peck on the cheek). As Colbert might say... no balls.
(And how patronizing is it for Bush to bring up Webb's son - which he knew was at the least a thorny way to start a conversation? And how much of a pompous dick do you have to be to respond with the "That's not what I asked" comment?)
Webb may not be the most progressive guy, the bluest of the blue (though his stance on fair trade and economic fairness is really, really encouraging to me), but he's not afraid to draw a stark contrast between the President and himself. I can personally put aside any concerns about Webb's pro-guns position, or any other social issues, when I see a comment like this:
"I'm not particularly interested in having a picture of me and George W. Bush on my wall," Webb said in an interview yesterday in which he confirmed the exchange between him and Bush. "No offense to the institution of the presidency, and I'm certainly looking forward to working with him and his administration. [But] leaders do some symbolic things to try to convey who they are and what the message is."
I suppose it's only a matter of time until Lieberman accuses Admiral / Senator Webb of being a partisan polarizer who wants to gain political advantage instead of Getting Things Done. Oh, and he's undermining the creditibily of the Commander In Chief and wants Al Qaeda to win.
David Sirota has a piece in the Baltimore Sun today backing Jack Murtha for Majority Leader. On Iraq and free trade, there is a definite choice to make - the more progressive choice is Jack Murtha.
Mr. Hoyer's reaction to Mr. Murtha's Iraq announcement was telling. He ran to The Washington Post, not to praise Mr. Murtha for his courageous leadership in shifting the debate on the most important national security issue in a generation, but to say Mr. Murtha's announcement "could lead to disaster."
Mr. Hoyer, by contrast, voted for the China pact and a number of other trade agreements opposed by Mr. Murtha and progressive Democrats. He has parroted much of the rhetoric of the Democratic Leadership Council - the corporate front group that has relentlessly pushed Democrats to provide the crucial congressional votes necessary to pass free-trade pacts.
Neither candidate, of course, is perfect. But this is far more than merely a lesser-of-two-evils choice.
If Democrats are looking for a follower to speak for their majority - a person who regurgitates the Beltway's conventional wisdom of the day, no matter how bad for the party and the country - then they have their candidate in Steny Hoyer.
But after a mandate election such as this year's, Democrats do not have to settle. They have a rare opportunity to define themselves for the long term on the crucial national security and economic issues key to changing our country and keeping control of Congress. They must find the courage to choose not a follower but a majority leader. His name is Jack Murtha.
Races for the State Senate and Assembly are kicking off about now. Genghis over at Connecticut Local Politics provides a helpful list of races to watch.
Joe Lieberman famously remarked not long ago that "It's time for Democrats who distrust President Bush to acknowledge he'll be commander-in-chief for three more years. We undermine the president's credibility at our nation's peril."
Now he's gone and done the unthinkable.
Joe Lieberman has undermined the President! And I guess the peril is ours. Break out the duct tape. Head for the hills. Find that undisclosed location and tell Dick Cheney to move over.
Imagine my horror when I received a traitorous piece of campaign literature from the Lieberman campaign today. If there was one person in the world I thought I could count on to stand by the President, it was Joe Lieberman. But has this so-called man of "integrity" turned into the vilest sort of quisling?
Joe HATES Bush. Or so the oversized postcard his campaign is sending out would have us believe.
Here are some key phrases:
"Stood Up Against President Bush"
"Slammed Bush"
"Condemned Bush"
"Condemned Bush" (Again. Guess they liked the sound of that.)
"Denounced Bush's..."
"Opposed Bush's...."
No, no, it's all lies. This is not our Joe. Joe stood up all right. But it was not against the President. He stood up for the President. He stood up tall and proud to cheer his fearless leader at the State of the Union, the first lawmaker and the only Democrat to do so.
But this dirty Swift-Boating campaign trick (ironically being used by the Senator's own campaign, surely a first) won't work. We know our Joe. Steadfast and true. First, foremost, and for evermore George Bush's Favorite Democrat. Long may his banner wave.
No sleazy smears cooked up by Sean Smith are going to make us ignore this noble truth.
You just keep on being yourself, Joe. We've got your back.
MLN is powered by