Ned Rocks the East Hartford Vote

Congrats to all the election winners for winning and the losers for going up against unbeatable odds trying to beat any Democrat in this town. The toughest race for a Democrat in East Hartford was the one for Senate. Ned Lamont managed to get 47% of the vote to Lieberman's 42%, almost the opposite of state results.

By voting for Ned Lamont East Hartford joined with the rest of the country in voting for change. Though Ned didn't win the general election, by winning the primary he sent a message to George Bush that his "stay the course" policy in Iraq was a mess. Ned gave others like Chris Murphy, Joe Courtney and Democrats across the country the courage to stand up and voice their displeasure for a war gone awry. Let's get our kids home.

As a Lamont staffer and East Hartford resident it gave me great pleasure to see East Hartford go for Lamont. Looking at the exit polls statewide 33% of Democrats voted against their party in the Senate race. My guess is East Hartford is a bit more loyal then most. When I first started working for the Lamont campaign in June I knew that our state and local Democratic leaders weren't behind us. They were being loyal to Joe and it was understandable. After Ned's primary win some did come and support him 110%, but many did not. Joe Lieberman isn't the only person who believes that party loyalty and primaries mean nothing. But it might make for an interesting strategy for the future. Primary against a Democrat, lose the primary but get free press coverage and name recognition, then run again as a third party candidate, such as a Working Families candidate. Sounds like fun.

Speaking of Working Families congrats to East Hartford for becoming sophisticated with the cross endorsement line. Senator Gary LeBeau received 7.4% of his East Hartford total on the WFP line and Representative Henry Genga picked up 5.4 % more votes. Especially interesting was Goodwin School District 6, where Henry got over 50% of his WFP total and Gary got 25% of his. For those who don't understand cross endorsing, voters use the WFP line as a way to keep politicians accountable to working family issues. Finally, congrats to WFP candidate Geronimo Valdez, a fellow union brother who ran a respectable campaign. Way to go, Bro!

Fear vs. Courage

Exit polls show people over 61 went for Joe Lieberman by a 2 to 1 margin. While the rest of America voted across the country for change, when it came to our senator, seniors voted to “stay the course”.

So why did Connecticut seniors vote to “stay the course”? Was it Joe’s experience? Would they “stay the course” with a doctor having 30 years experience but consistently makes misdiagnoses? Yes, I see some returning to that doctor irregardless of his ineptness. Would they “stay the course” and keep returning their car to the same mechanic, even after he continuously made faulty repairs? Yes, we all know people, young and old, who do that very thing. Would these same seniors “stay the course” and keep calling the same inept plumber or electrician? The answer is yes and most of us have done it. Having said this I guess it’s easy to stay with the experienced politician who makes bad policy decisions.

So maybe it comes down to the fear of the unknown, the fear of change. Working on the Lamont campaign it was uplifting to see our most ardent and loyal volunteer callers being seniors, perhaps knowing they needed to be doubly active to offset their peers. Many were veterans, not chicken hawks, of Vietnam, Korea, and even WWII. These seniors knew the difference between live fire and hollow rhetoric. One D-Day veteran pilot spoke of his missions over Normandy beaches and his need for “one more mission” to convince people of the failed policies of the Iraq War. Other seniors spoke of the terrible deficit bill being presented to their grandchildren because of these “failed policies”.

So I want to salute these seniors that had the courage to stand up for change. These seniors know that real change begins with a change in leadership, as did the rest of America. They know that sometimes, like in Connecticut on August 8th, and across America on November 7th, courage wins out over fear.

Winds of Change

Connecticut voted for change Aug. 8, and it was as refreshing as the change in the weather.

With change comes hope, something people need. It also sent a shot across the bow of George Bush, Karl Rove, and other conservatives. While some were afraid of change, the majority wished for it, welcomed it, and reveled in it till the wee hours of the morning.
Being involved in the Ned Lamont campaign was as exciting a thing as I've ever been involved with. I'll never forget the feeling when Lamont addressed us in Meriden. I remember seeing Jesse Jackson on the podium and thinking of his "Keep Hope Alive" speech. Today in Connecticut, hope is alive and well.
I was a bit disappointed East Hartford went for Sen. Joseph Lieberman. Do I live in a red town surrounded by blue towns? Are my neighbors content with the war? Do they understand the ruinous effects of corporate-written free trade agreements supported by Lieberman? At Pratt and Whitney, East Hartford's jewel, the Machinists endorsed Lamont. They've seen the result of Lieberman's free-trade deals. They've seen manufacturing jobs disappear by the thousands. While Sen. Christopher Dodd and Rep. Rosa DeLauro fight these deals, Lieberman supports them.
So what do you think, East Hartford? Suppose Pratt packed and moved to Oman? Would you still support Joe?
I saw young people voting; many were minorities. Use your cell and call your friends, I'd tell them. You need to vote, young people, because there are people much older than you who are controlling your destiny.
Many younger and older voters were turned away because they were unaffiliated, but thanks for the effort, folks. They won't turn you away in November and we're going to need you. In part 2 of Lamont vs. Lieberman let's turn East Hartford blue and "keep hope alive." Then we can paint the town red.

Dear Senator Lieberman,

After the shock of defeat wears off you need to grasp and understand that you are out of touch with your voters. After working the polls in East Hartford, I noticed much of your support came from voters blindly supporting John Larson, where he is an icon, not you. Also, you had the support of seniors, but some were not afraid of change. Young people almost knocked me down to get in to vote. Many young were turned away from the polls because of unaffiliation, but they'll return more eager another day. Don't allow your career to crash and burn in humiliation and defeat. By running as an independent you'll be fulfilling one of my poll standing chants, Joe cares about Joe, not about you. As energized as I and other volunteers were yesterday, in a week we will be refreshed and the fight will begin. My goal will be to organize the young and motivate them to vote, and they will not vote for you, regardless of how many paid staffers you employ. Someone with your experience should know that paid staffers cannot compete with dedicated and committed volunteers.

A voter on Election Day approached me at the poll. She was almost in tears because she wasn't allowed to vote. I assumed she was an unaffiliated voter but she said she was a Republican. I was amazed and it's something you should think about. Yes, the Democratic machine did its job in East Hartford, but don’t expect it to happen again.

As a union man I was proud to persuade my local to endorse Ned Lamont. As far as I'm concerned, John Olsen and the AFL-CIO are as out of touch with their rank and file membership as you are with the voters. I'm willing to bet Ned got a pretty good share of rank and file labor, and as a Teamster I'm looking forward to working with the Machinists again, and the rest of labor who will jump on board. Sorry, Joe, but I didn’t see many labor people out working for you.

Over the next few days you’ll have the opportunity to hear from people like Chris Dodd, Bill and Hillary Clinton, and others who will try to convince you to do the right thing for the Democratic Party. I know those words won’t reach you because you do not have a history of Party loyalty, which you prove when you support George Bush’s Iraq War agenda, or when you threatened Roe vs. Wade with your non-support of the Alito filibuster, and when you’re continually supporting Bush’s policies on free trade and other right wing positions. Also, you demonstrated when you ran for Vice-President and kept your Senate seat that you did not care if that seat went to a Republican, and now you’re proving it again with you’re threatened independent run.

So I’m appealing to you to do what’s best for Joe. Take a few days off and reflect, then consider what’s best not for the Democratic Party, not for Connecticut, not for the United States of America, but what’s best for Senator Joseph Lieberman and his family.

An open letter to
U.S. Representative John B. Larson

Dear John,

We appreciate your dilemma. On most issues your position is closer to Ned Lamont’s than to Joe Lieberman’s. That not only includes Iraq, but also domestic issues such as health care, free trade, education, civil liberties, judicial appointments, separation of church and state, preserving American jobs, and more. While Senator Lieberman has supported many Democratic issues over the years, the 10% where he has supported the Republicans are of a highly significant nature, and go to the core of Democratic beliefs.

Thus, in terms of principles, the logic of your beliefs would lead you to embrace Ned Lamont’s candidacy. Yet, for some reason you do not or cannot bring yourself to do so. In this instance there is a higher priority underlying your motivation. We can only attribute it to the power of incumbency.

Remember when Senator Lieberman ran for Vice President with Al Gore in 2000 and he decided to simultaneously run for his U.S. Senate seat? John Rowland was governor and would have appointed a Republican to fill the vacant seat had the Gore-Lieberman team been successful. Joe was hedging his bets and placed self above party. His motivation was only too transparent. Once again we have more hedging with Lieberman refusing to accept the results of the August 8th primary if the vote doesn’t go his way. So much for his loyalty and principles! We do note your “disappointment” of Lieberman’s willingness to toss the party aside if he loses the primary. What we haven’t yet heard on your part is that you will support the primary winner, as other Democratic leaders have agreed to do.

It is stated in the current polls that in a three way race Lieberman would win hands down, but who knows? We can only assume that a Lamont victory in the primary would result in an unequivocal Party endorsement and mobilization for the nominated candidate. The base would insist on it and would hold the Party leadership to account. Such support, in turn would translate into other endorsements among interest groups within the Democratic constituency. So the mythology that a three way race results in a Lieberman win is, in reality, much more doubtful than common wisdom would dictate.

However, there’s a more fundamental issue at stake; namely, whether the Party establishment is willing to give credence to its base and not simply take it for granted on the assumption that it has nowhere else to go. By circling the wagons in the name of incumbency when we have a candidate who is much more akin to the grass root beliefs of the Party, you and your cohorts are exhibiting a profound arrogance that seeks to ignore what “we the people” have identified as important. If your goal is to further alienate your base, then go ahead, continue to support Joe. John, you’ve been such a courageous supporter of John Murtha. We can’t understand why you are enthusiastically stumping for Lieberman when he continues to support this immoral war and immoral President, then has the gall to scold us for being against it.

Question: Is the power of incumbency and alleged “loyalty” so great that at least in this case you are willing to sacrifice your OWN principles in your support of Lieberman? Have you become that mired in such stodgy Party thinking that, notwithstanding your political courage in many other areas, something prevents you from stepping out for truth and principle based on your core values?

Under another circumstance it could have been you leading the challenge against Lieberman, putting principle ahead of Party loyalty. You could have been a contender and a mighty one at that. Yet for whatever set of “play it safe” reasons you chose not pick up that mantel. To his vast credit, Ned Lamont did. If you cannot bring yourself to support him even as Ned and you are exceedingly close on the major issues of the day without contradiction, at the very least you can get out of the way—that is, until August 8th when we will then need and expect your support to assure a Lamont victory in November.

John, this is your base. The soul and future of the Democratic Party hangs in the balance.

Sincerely,

George Demetrion
Pam Bergren
Dan Durso

The Hartford Courant’s Endorsement of Joe Lieberman: A Dubious Proposition for Democrats
George Demetrion
Gdemerion@msn.com
East Hartford, CT

The Hartford Courant’s endorsement of Joe Lieberman is humorous in too many ways to spell out. A few points will suffice. Namely

• The Courant’s endorsement of George. W. Bush in 2000 and 2004
• Its various endorsements of Governor John Rowland
• Its inevitable endorsement of Jodi Rell
• Its inevitable endorsement of an independent Lieberman candidacy should he lose the primary

Based on these past and future endorsements any assumption that the Courant has the best interests of the Democratic Party at heart and should be taken seriously by self respecting Democrats is something that should be taken with at least 12 grains of salt.

Also, to assume that the Courant does, that Lieberman is the antacid of an era of corrosive politics is to fly in the face of what we have witnessed in this state in the past month or so. This is of no account to the Courant because the liberal constituency in the Democratic Party is the antidote to whom Joe Lieberman is the solution. What the conservative leaning Tribune-owned Courant means is that a full fledged Democrat (and Lamont is not flaming radical) would itself be a cause of an increasingly corrosive politics. Earth to the Democrats leadership, the Hartford Courant does not have your interests in mind, but only the “consensus” politics of the conservative-based U.S. Congress whose interests will only be served too well by Joseph L. Lieberman.

The Courant speaks of the 90% voting record where Lieberman is compatible with the Democratic mainstream as if this were about some quantitative calculus. What’s at issue is the content of Lieberman’s voting record. On Iraq, it’s not simply that Lieberman voted with other Democrats to give Bush the green light to go to war when he saw fit, but that he is one of the most egregious war hawks in the nation in his aggressive support of an unnecessary and immoral war. This war has cost thousands of U.S. and Iraqi lives and casualties, billions of dollars with no end in sight, and has greatly increased the prospect of terrorism in the Middle East, particularly in Iraq where it had previously not existed. The result of this arrogant miscalculation into preemptive war has profoundly tarnished the reputation of the U.S. world wide and has made it much more difficult for the government to deal effectively with the real problems it faces whether in Iran, the Middle East as a whole, North Korea, or the Sudan.

In short, George Bush, Dick Cheney, and Joseph Lieberman have done as much as anybody to erode the enormous good will the U.S. gained in the immediate aftermath of the tragic events of 9-11 and the broad-based world-wide consensus that was achieved in going after the Taliban. If this is an example of bi-partisanship we can do without it. Lieberman’s war position, which the Courant falsely labels “an anomaly,” is extremely soft pedaled in their endorsement

The Courant itself points to Lieberman’s support for the 2005 energy bill which “did nothing to curb the nation’s oil addiction or protect the environment.” As the Courant notes, Lieberman was the sole northeastern Democrat to vote for the bill, another example, no doubt, of Joe’s bi-partisanship. Thus, the Courant’s endorsement contradicts its own thesis that opposition to Joe is a one issue affair.

As central as these issues are, particularly Iraq, there are other key issues such as Lieberman’s “moderating” impulse to inhibit filibuster, the only weapons Democrats have against the onslaught of extremely conservative federal judicial appointees. The result was that Judge Alito was appointed to the Supreme Court. Many women’s groups are concerned that this increasingly conservative Supreme Court will ultimately overturn Roe vs. Wade, and remove the right for women to choose.

Many other issues are also at stake with a federal judiciary increasingly aligned with the conservative wing of the Republican Party What Joe refuses to note is that given a rabidly conservative executive branch and a highly conservative legislative branch his quest for a centrist politics can only but push the legislative process to the right. This may serve the interests of the Hartford Courant and makes Joe the best Democrat the Republicans have. Its value for the Democratic Party is dubious at best.

Lieberman’s switching on issues is also disconcerting. Thus, at one time Joe suggested supporting privatizing social security. Now he claims he’s against it. Similarly, in the past he voted against universal health care. Now he claims to be supporting it. These are troubling contradictions the cumulative sum of which is the problem not simply that of a single issue, as egregious as is that central issue.

The Courant also refers to Joe’s principled stance as if he is above the fray of self-interested politics. Let us recall what happened when Senator Lieberman ran for Vice President with Al Gore in 2000 and decided to simultaneously run for his U.S. Senate seat. John Rowland, who was Governor, would have appointed a Republican to fill Joe’s seat, the result of which would have impaired the efficacy of a Gore presidency to govern. Joe was hedging his bets and placed self above party. His motivation was only too transparent to even the unobservant eye.

Once again we have more hedging with Lieberman refusing to accept the results of the August 8th primary if the vote doesn’t go his way. In this respect it is Senator Lieberman and not Ned Lamont who is the party divider. While this may not be a great matter for the Hartford Courant, Connecticut Democrats should not pass over this intended betrayal lightly. Thus, Joe’s principled stances are highly selective and tinged at least in part by more self-serving motivations. Also, keep in mind that George Bush may also be considered a man of principle or at least stubbornly tied to a myopic world view in the face of much contrary advice and direct evidence. Stubbornness in the face of reality is no virtue.
Throughout his 18 year career Joe has done much good. Since 2001, CT’s junior senator has sided all too often with the Bush administration on too many significant issues of the day. Incumbency in itself is no virtue. Sometimes a change is called for. Now is such a time.

Contrary to the Courant, it’s not about years served. James Buchanan had much more experience than the neophyte Abraham Lincoln, but Lincoln had the perspicacity of vision, the will and the capacity to carry it out in the troubled period of the early 1860s. Yet, who would have wanted a less than a Lincoln in that troubled period, notwithstanding his more modest governmental experience? Leadership comes in many capacities as exhibited by Ned Lamont, in no small measure by the vision and power that has propelled his campaign, to say nothing of his years of service to his community, his solid Democratic stance on the core issues of the day, and his substantive knowledge of them.

That the Republican leaning Hartford Courant has given an enthusiastic endorsement of Bush’s favorite Democrat should have come as no surprise, but it is a dubious reason for supporting the Senator for another term. Make up your own mind, for sure, but don’t take the Courant’s word for it. They have their own interests in mind and it’s not ours—those of us who represent the Democratic Party.

The Big Guns

Joe Lieberman is pulling out the big guns. US Representatives John Larson and Rosa DeLauro co-write an op-ed to in the Hartford Courant. Old friend and former President Bill Clinton shows up in Waterbury. Who’s coming to Connecticut next Joe, George Bush (oop’s sorry).

State Democrat and Republican leaders alike have all endorsed Joe. Most of the major unions and newspapers in the state have endorsed Joe. Men’s groups, women’s groups, black groups, white groups, Latin groups, senior’s groups, children’s groups, animal groups, straight groups, gay groups, liberal groups, conservative groups, Democrat groups, and even Republican groups have all endorsed Joe. So what’s the problem? How is it possible that an unknown upstart like Ned Lamont is leading in the polls?

Ned might only have the endorsement of a few unions. He might only have the endorsement of a handful of Democratic state leaders. But Ned has the biggest endorsement of all, the people of the state of Connecticut. And that includes people from all those groups I named above; it just might not include their leaders. It reminds me of a quote by the famous geneticist and broadcaster David Suzuki, "If the people will lead, the leaders will follow".

Speech to Class on the Upcoming Primary

According to the US Department of Defense, the number of US casualties in the Iraq war is 2558, as of today. The number of Iraqi civilian casualties is estimated to be about 40,000. Regardless of these numbers, Democratic Senator Joe Lieberman continues to support this immoral war, and continues to support an immoral President. As political coordinator of my Teamsters local, and a chapter co-chair of CT working Families, I’ve been well tuned in to the political landscape of CT. During the last couple of months I’ve been a volunteer on the Ned Lamont campaign making phone calls, writing letters to the editor, showing up at events, blogging, and anything else that’s necessary. I’ve come to learn a lot about Ned Lamont, and also Joe Lieberman, and I’ll share that information with you and hopefully convince you why Ned Lamont should be our next US Senator.

First let’s talk a bit about Senator Joe Lieberman. Lieberman has been our Senator for 18 years. He is considered a man of integrity and principles, and I agree. In 2000 he ran with Al Gore as vice-president and Ct was proud of him. Personally, I think it was after that that he began to lose touch with his constituents, the people who elected him. I believe he started to think about himself as a national figure and he was. But he also was elected to represent the State of Connecticut, not the USA.

In a recent debate, Joe claims he voted 90% of the time with his fellow Democrats. Now at first that sounds like he’s a true supporter, but the values in the quality, not the quantity of these votes. Let’s talk about that 10% where he didn’t support his party.

Regarding Free Trade:

Recently Lieberman voted for the Oman Free Trade Act. Oman is a small country with an autocratic government and a poor record on human rights. Among the opposition to this bill were Senator Chris Dodd, CT Democratic Representatives John Larson and Rosa DeLauro, CT Republican Representative Rob Simmons, along with 416 US organizations including the AFL-CIO. As a union member who fights for working people I’m against Free trade acts that don’t include human rights provisions or labor standards. Those types of corporate written agreements hurt workers worldwide, and cost American jobs.

On a Woman’s Right to Choose:

This issue isn’t about whether your for abortion or not, but a woman’s right to choose. During the confirmation hearings for Justice Alito, Joe Lieberman refused to support the Democratic attempt to filibuster the proceedings and thus put off Alito’s nomination to the Supreme Court. Now that Justice Alito is confirmed many women’s groups are concerned the court will overturn Roe vs. Wade, and remove the right for women to choose.

On Social Security & Health Care

At one time Joe suggested privatizing social security. Only one group wins by privatizing Social Security, Wall St. Brokers. Now he says he’s against privatization, can we really trust him to protect it? And it’s the same with universal health care. In the past he voted against universal health care, specifically in 1994 when President Clinton had an ambitious plan to give health care to every American. Now Lieberman’s website says quote” Fighting for Universal health care”. Can we believe him?

I gave you 4 instances of Lieberman not supporting his party, and I didn’t even mention the war in Iraq, which 70% of the people of CT are against. What really upsets me about Joe Lieberman’s support for this war is that he came out and scolded us who are against it, reminding me of Nixon back in the days of Vietnam.

Now a word about Ned, Ned’s is a successful businessman from Greenwich who started his own cable company which continues to prosper. Even though he was financially well off, he chose to give back to the community not by making a cash donation but by volunteering to teach in a public school. You’re probably thinking he volunteered to teach in a nice comfortable community like Greenwich, or Darien, but no. He chose to teach at Bridgeport high, which I guess could be a bit challenging. I think that says a lot about the man Ned is.

On the issues Ned would be considered a progressive Democrat.

He believes in universal health care, concerned that we’re spending $250 million dollars a day in Iraq but we can’t make health care affordable and available to all Americans.

He believes that health care is a right and not a privilege, as some in this country feel.

He believes in free trade, but only strictly-enforced fair trade policies which level the playing field, and include strong labor, human rights, and environmental standards.

He believes in a woman’s right to choose, and says he would have supported the filibuster to block Judge Alito’s appointment to the Supreme Court.

He believes it’s time to get our soldiers out of harm’s way and bring our men and women home from this ill conceived war in Iraq.

Recently I had the opportunity to meet Ned Lamont. Working Families shares office space in Hartford with ACORN, which is a community group. Ned was coming to ACORN to interview for the endorsement and ACORN invited us to sit in. Now it’s been my experience that whenever I meet a politician, especially one I support and put on a pedestal that I walk away less than impressed a disappointed. It wasn’t the case with Ned. I found him to be down to earth, thoughtful, and truly interested in ACORN’s issues. I was actually pleasantly surprised for a change.

Now you’ve heard a bit about Ned Lamont and I hope you will consider supporting him. If you’re a registered Democrat please vote for Ned Lamont on Aug. 8th. If you’re a registered independent you can change your affiliation to vote in the Democratic primary, then change back to independedent after August 8th. Now Jay Leno once said that if God wanted us to vote he would have given us candidates worth voting for. Well, at least in this case he did and his name is Ned Lamont.

Politicians Know Best?

In Sunday’s (July 23, 2006) Courant Representatives John Larson and Rosa DeLauro, in supporting Joe Lieberman, tried to convince us that they know best. I’m tired of politicians telling us they know what’s best for us.

Yes, I’ll agree that Joe’s a principled person and that he has integrity. But I don’t agree he’s been a “staunch supporter of woman’s rights”. He opposed a filibuster against the anti-choice Justice Alito. I don’t agree that he protects jobs, he recently voted for the Oman Free Trade Agreement, which was opposed by the national AFL-CIO and Senator Chris Dodd. And I don’t trust him to protect Social Security, since he entertained privatizing Social Security in the past. Larson and DeLauro did mention their disagreement with Lieberman about the war, but they pushed the issue aside as if it were minor. 2500 American casualties and $300 billion is a big deal! 70% of the people of Connecticut oppose this war, but Lieberman insists on supporting it and criticizes us for speaking out against it.

The Democratic leaders in this state better start paying attention to what the people want, and not what the politicians want. The people want Ned Lamont.