Like many Connecticut progressives, I was tickled pink to see Ned Lamont get 33.4% of the votes needed to force a primary. But what I do not like is the way the media is framing this and the way many Dems, even delegates at Friday's convention, are supporting that frame. Please join me below.
The frame in question is: The reason some Dems are pissed at Lieberman is "mainly about the Iraq war". Even in interviews I saw with delegates at the convention, many mentioned the "stupid war" as being a major factor for voting against Joe.
Now, first, obviously, the Iraq war is a huge, collosal issue and that would be reason alone not to support Joe. For me it is also a very big reason. Second, I commend the Lamont campaign for flushing out several key issues on why Joe should be opposed: his opposition to universal health care, his support of the bankruptcy bill, his failure to stand up to big oil etc. This is all very good and I encourage MUCH more of this. Because despite these efforts, the meme pushed by the media and even by some Lamont-supporters is:
It's mainly about the war.
It might well be. But I think it is important that we vigorously spread the message: "I no longer support Joe and could not even if he has a more moderate position on the war." Why?
- Because many of Joe's other offences, particularly high on my list is trashing other Democrats, are extremely serious
- We have to combat the myth that this is a kindly man who is just "misguided" on Iraq and a great senator otherwise
- If BushCo does a cosmetic pull-out of 20,000 troops as the October surprise, Joe and Jodi can walk hand in hand at the Connecticut parade for some select returning Connecticut troops, greatly diminishing the Iraq issue in the eyes of some voters (yes, it's all fake but we know it's all about fooling the folks just for election day)
- We must get the idea out of some Democrats' heads that, "Well, I really disagree about the war but Joe and I agree about everything else"
Um, no, that is not the case. There are many, many issues that betray Joe's abandon of the party and I think at least some of these should be pressed as hard as the Iraq war (non-exhaustive list):
1) Has habitually trashed Democrats on Fox News and other forums - you can disagree with a position without being a detriment to the party. Joe is DISLOYAL
2) Is proud of his friendship with right-wing pundits, including Sean Hannity, who have directly and indirectly called liberals terrorists. How much a Democrat can Joementum be if he supports those who compare the patriotic constituents of his own party with those who murdered 3,000 Americans on September 11th?
3) Lieberman supported censure of Clinton for a sexual dalliance but did not for Bush when he is clearly acting illegally and violating our constitution
4) Lieberman thinks his constituents are stupid and do not know the difference between voting for cloture and voting no. On Alito, bankruptcy bill etc. He votes NO only when he is safe in doing so and the Republicans get their votes.
5) Supported Alberto Gonzales and has not come out in opposition to torture
6) Is the first in line to mention military force against Iran
7) Expressed support for the privatization of Social Security
8) Poor vetting of Brownie, soft-ball questions on Repub Katrina white-wash committee
9) Opposition to universal health care
10) Support of CAFTA etc. resulting in losses of Connecticut jobs
11) Support of the Energy Bill, with record profits for the oil companies.
12) Support of school vouchers.
13) His close relationships with a war criminal and his enablers (and yes, I'd be pissed if I were a Republican and Orrin Hatch was going to Valentines soirees with the Clintons http://www.dailykos.com/...)
And I could name 10 more. So I think the message should be crystal clear. No, it is NOT just about the Iraq war. It is about his selling out Connecticut to big business, pushing us into a new war with Iran, his disloyalty and undermining of our party.
So, Joe, we can agree to disagree on Iraq. I can't support you for virtually everything else you do.