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