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.

Joe Lieberman has been a US Senator for 18 years, and he deserves our gratitude for his service to Connecticut. It was a proud moment for all of us when he ran for Vice President with Al Gore. However, sometimes people lose touch with their base. In Lieberman’s recent mailing to Democrats, he raised the issue of supporting one’s party. He’s claiming he supported Democrats in Washington 90% of the time while Lamont in Greenwich supported Republicans 80% of the time. Are we comparing apples to apples here folks?

Yes, maybe Lamont did vote with Republicans 80% of the time. Anyone familiar with town government knows that that’s the nature of the beast for the minority party. Whether it’s voting on putting in speed bumps near the town park, or setting a curfew for young people, voting with the majority party is a bit different at the town level, wouldn’t you agree? The fact is Lamont wasn’t selling out his constituency’s soul with his votes in Greenwich.

So 90% Joe, what about that 10%? A bit more than speed bumps or curfews, you think? I’d say most would agree blindly supporting President Bush and the war in Iraq (and scolding us for not), supporting privatizing Social Security, voting on dubious free trade agreements, and endangering a woman’s right to choose by not supporting the Alito filibuster rate a bit higher on the importance scale. Frankly, on the vital issues of today Lieberman is not representing the people that elected him.

Dan Durso

The Kiss

“Stick with Joe” said the balloons at the State Democratic convention, but meanwhile Joe Lieberman continues to stick it to the people of Connecticut. Joe stuck it to women when he refused to support the Democrats’ filibuster to prevent Judge Alito’s nomination to the Supreme Court, which now threatens Roe versus Wade. Joe stuck it to those without healthcare when he opposed universal healthcare in 1994 and other efforts since then. Joe stuck it to seniors when he suggested privatizing parts of social security. He even stuck it to his own Democratic Party, and 5th Congressional Candidate Chris Murphy, when he chose to walk with Nancy Johnson in the past Memorial Day parade in Waterbury. Joe stuck it to the Democratic Party again, when he declared he will petition on the ballot as an Independent if he loses the primary.

Recently Lieberman visited East Hartford’s own Pratt & Whitney. He crowed about all the contracts he has brought to the jet engine manufacturer. What he left out was the small fact that much of this work is outsourced overseas. John Taylor, President of IAM Local Lodge 1746, which represents the machinists of Pratt and Whitney, had a recent conversation with Lieberman. Taylor was asked by Lieberman how many members he represented. Taylor replied “2400 members, but it used to be close to 10,000”. End of conversation. According to the US Bureau of Labor Statistics, from 1998 to 2005 Connecticut lost 52,000 manufacturing jobs. Lieberman has always been a big supporter of corporate-written free trade deals. He supported pacts like NAFTA, WTO, and China PNTR. These pacts were stripped of any meaningful labor, wage and human rights provisions and have gone on to undermine American jobs, wages, and benefits; jump starting American workers on this path called “Race to the Bottom”. Bravo to the Machinists union for refusing to “stick with Joe” and voting to endorse Ned Lamont. Don’t fret Joe; I’m sure the corporate fat cats of UTC will continue to stick with you.

Lieberman recently voted in favor of the US-Oman Free Trade Agreement. That agreement was opposed by 416 international organizations, worried that the autocratic Oman would turn into another sweatshop exporter. Senator Chris Dodd, along with many other Democrats, voted against this bill, mostly because of labor and human rights concerns.

Seventy per cent of the people of Connecticut disapprove of the job George Bush has done, yet Joe chastised us for not sticking with the President. But there are some who are sticking with Joe. Consider the right winger Sean Hannity from Fox News, who offered his endorsement. Also ultra-conservative Ann Coulter recently endorsed Joe, and let’s not forget Joe’s kiss and tell partner George Bush himself, who wants so much to stick with Joe he felt the need to stick a big wet kiss to Joe’s cheek at the 2005 State of the Union address. Sorry Joe, I hate to pop your balloon but I’m sticking with Ned Lamont.