This past Monday, I wrote a column for the
Yale Daily News, which was linked to by
Kos and on
MyDD, as well as elsewhere. In it, I laid out the case for Lamont and against Lieberman. Today, the YDN published a
rebuttal piece, written by the student who is leading Lieberman's (minimal) efforts on campus. There are numerous problems with the piece. I will address the specific, point-by-point ones below.
There are also broader problems with it. Mr. Shaffer failed to address several major points. The first is Lieberman's consistent support of Iraq and criticism of any war criticism or protest. Shaffer also did not address Lieberman's propensity to undermine Democratic ideas and reinforce Republican talking points.
He also seemed to continue this canard that Lamont's challenge is about this issue, or that issue. IT ISN'T. While Lieberman's many wrong-headed votes obviously play a key role, it is also about Lieberman's constant willingness to make Democrats look bad and speak out against them on conservative media and his failure to be the leader of the Democratic party that he should be.
Let's get started.
In a recent column, Ben Simon criticizes Connecticut senator Joseph Lieberman in favor of Ned Lamont ("Lamont could help reestablish Dems' hold," 2/27). While Lamont's political experience as a selectman for Greenwich ranks nowhere near Lieberman's (he has been senator since 1988 and is a former Connecticut attorney general and former state Senate majority leader), Ned Lamont has repeatedly commented over the last few weeks that he is a fast learner. Indeed -- in almost no time, he and his staff have learned the art of spin and fact manipulation.
A former entrepreneur in telecommunications, it's no surprise Lamont is so adept at putting on a show. On blogs, Lamont and his supporters have posted information similar to that in Simon's editorial. But as my grade school librarian used to say, "Not everything you find on the Internet is true."
Prove it - let's see what you got, Marshall:
Simon unfairly accuses Lieberman of "abandoning his constituents and his party." But a look at his record shows Lieberman is a committed, principled Democrat who fights for progressive causes for the left. On labor issues, Lieberman has consistently beaten back Republican attempts to water down collective bargaining; it's no accident that a host of Connecticut unions endorsed him last week.
CAFTA? That's really voting with labor, isn't it?
He led the fight against drilling in ANWR, called for increasing pollution regulations and demanded Bush take steps to reduce global warming. Thus, it's no surprise he has a lifetime approval rating of over 80 percent from the League of Conservation Voters.
How about the Bush Energy Bill, which Lieberman supported? I don't think you can find too many environmental activists who are happy about that one...
Lieberman voted against two Supreme Court nominees, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito LAW '75, in large part because of their troubling anti-choice stances.
Let's see: he also voted AGAINST the filibuster of Alito. It's great that he was able to bring himself to cast a completely meaningless vote against Alito once it was clear he would get confirmed. However, when his vote really mattered, on cloture, Lieberman voted with the Republicans.
He voted against John Ashcroft's nomination for Attorney General because he didn't believe Ashcroft would protect Americans' privacy.
I also applaud his vote against Ashcroft. However, he voted FOR Alberto Gonzales. I, personally, consider issues about indefinite detentions without due process and torture to be important and privacy related - it's too bad Lieberman's commitment to privacy didn't extend that far. In addition, he was in favor of the Bill Frist and George Bush led intervention in the Terry Schiavo affair.
Lieberman's commitment to civil rights has been strong and clear: In the 1960s, he marched in Mississippi for African-American voting rights; in the 1970s he fought to end discriminatory practices against gays and lesbians. This past year, he supported Connecticut's groundbreaking civil union legislation.
He also voted to deny federal funding to schools that used materials "supportive of homosexuality", and he voted FOR the Defense of Marriage Amendment.
A supporter of labor, privacy, the environment and civil rights? Yeah, I guess Joe Lieberman must truly be a card-carrying Republican. Wait a second ...
Labor? CAFTA. Privacy? Alito and Gonzales. Environment? Energy Bill. Civil rights? School funding and Defense of Marriage Amendment.
Simon asserts Lieberman supported the contracting of United Arab Emirates-owned companies to guard our ports and "refused" to oppose Bush on the matter. In fact, Lieberman sent letters to Department of Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff and Department of Treasury Secretary John Snow expressing "serious concerns" with the proposed sale of operations, asking for a delay in Bush's Dubai port deal so the matter could be investigated further. Lieberman did not stop there. On Monday, he chaired the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Senate Committee hearing, at which he spearheaded the investigation on the contracts. The only thing Lieberman "refused" to do here was let our nation take any unsafe action.
That's true - since my column, once it became clear that public opinion was completely against the Dubai Ports World deal, Lieberman has now shown some signs of a spine. However, it took him a while. He was one of the only Democrats to say anything even remotely conciliatory towards it from the beginning, saying that he was "not yet" prepared to block the sale after many democrats had already spoken out against it.
Simon wrote that Lieberman was the only Democrat willing to work with Bush on social security privatization. Not true: Lieberman signed a letter with 41 other Democratic senators opposing Bush on Social Security reform. Last I checked, that's a pretty big majority of Democratic senators. What's more, Lieberman has strongly opposed Bush tax cuts -- every time.
In a New York Times story publiched on March 7, 2005, the authors discuss Lieberman's repeated statements reflecting a willingness to compromise with Bush on private accounts. While he eventually signed on with those other Democratic senators, his initial statements of non-criticism could have been very bad.
Simon implies Lieberman lacks Connecticut Democratic political support. On the contrary, Sen. Chistopher Dodd, Congressman John Larson, Lieutenant Governor Kevin Sullivan, Attorney General Richard Blumenthal, State Senate President Pro Tempore Donald Williams and State Speaker of the House Jim Amann have all recently voiced support for Lieberman's reelection.
The closest thing to that which I can find in my piece is this: "his politics make many feel like he has abandoned his constituents and his party." As Shaffer should have realized, the "many" in that sentence had nothing whatsoever to do with incumbent CT Democrats. Neither I nor Mr. Lamont had or have any expectations that any incumbent statewide Democrats would/will support Lamont. Rather, I was referring to the broad grassroots discontent with Lieberman.
"This isn't a requirement," Dodd said in a campaign speech Feb. 24. "It's an act of love and affection. We don't need a battle in our own state about Democrats. Democrats stand with Joe Lieberman."
Senator Dodd has to say this. That's how party politics work. However, it does not mean that those disaffected by Lieberman's politics and actions don't have the right to challenge him on them.
In these precarious times, we need every experienced Democrat in D.C. that we can get. By running for office, Ned Lamont is splintering the party and increasing the chance that Connecticut might end up with a Republican senator. What kind of message does it send to our party at the national level if, in a Democratic primary, we un-elect a respected U.S. senator with a strong record and history of fighting for progressive causes?
It sends the message that "I don't care about how you voted on a Supreme Court Nominee in 1991 - I care about how you consistently abandon and undermine your party and it's core values in order to look more moderate and bi-partisan." I fail to see how this will splinter the party in any meaningful way in the long run. It is democracy in action for constituents dissatisfied with their representative to seek a change in their representation. As far as a republican winning, so far the only credible name I've heard about being mentioned for the Republican endorsement is...Joe Lieberman
Senators are supposed to put country first, and that's what Lieberman does. He's a patriot and a leader, not a partisan hack.
Who does he lead, and to where? He sends out troops into Iraq, and criticizes those who question the President's actions.
There's no question that Sen. Lieberman sometimes supports policies closer to the "political center." Considering Democrats have been trying to capture "the middle" for years, this strikes me as not only good policy, but good politics.
Democrats have been trying to capture the "middle" for years - AND LOSING THE WHOLE TIME. Governing from the center, as Clinton did very effectively, is one thing. However, constantly seeking the middle ground and compromising, when you are in the minority and the majority is NOT compromising or trying to find the middle ground, leads to a shifting center. The "moderate" position has shifted steadily to the right over the last several years, in large part due to Senators like Joe Lieberman who consistently sell out their party's core principles in the name of compromise, only to have the ruling party not give any on their end.
We're Democrats. We support people from all walks of life, with all types of viewpoints. Our diversity is our strength; it always has been. If we push Senator Lieberman out of the party, we are exactly what we accuse Republicans of being: close-minded. The day we become that is the day we've lost our way, and our souls.
This paragraph is flawed on so many levels - I hardly no where to begin. First of all, we do not support people of all types of viewpoints - that's pretty much the essence of political parties. While I am happy to support someone who disagrees with me on a couple of issues but is fantastic otherwise, I would not be happy to support a hypothetical person with, say, Rick Santorum's policies but who called himself a Democrat.
This is an effort to push Senator Lieberman out of OFFICE, not out of the party. I would welcome someone like him in the party - however, there is no reason to have someone as conservative as he is representing a state as blue as CT. The only Democratic senators rated as more conservative than him come from solidly red states like Nebraska, Louisiana, and the Dakotas. The effort to remove him from office has nothing to do with being closed- or open-minded; it is an effort to get someone to represent me who actually represents ME.
And thank you, Marshall, for your concern over the fate of my soul, but I'm feeling pretty good about my ability to keep a hold on it.
cross-posted at Yale College Democrats Blog
Ned Lamont
Volunteer
Contribute