[This letter was sent last week as it appears below to Senator and President elect Barack Obama]
Dear Senator Obama,
As a good Democrat and strong supporter of yours, who volunteered to work for your campaign and who contributed many times to your Presidential campaign coffers, I was dismayed to read that you are supporting Joe Lieberman's return to the Democratic Caucus now agreeing with some Senators who feel he shouldn't be stripped of his Committees either. I find this troubling for many reasons.
Obviously we all know that Lieberman has worked very hard, even abandoning his primary responsibility to his own state, to help Republicans get elected and not just McCain either. He helped Susan Collins and Norm Coleman too. He also has used his chairmanship of Homeland Security to create a Department of unsurpassed waste and graft, protected from Senate investigation by his chairmanship. He also used this chairmanship to prevent a full and proper investigation surrounding the government's slow and ineffective response to Hurricane Katrina to cover-up the Bush Administration's incompetence.
We also know how he used the media whenever he could to bash Democrats, you and your campaign for President, and everyone else who disagreed with his views on the Iraq war and most every issue relating to how we deal with fighting terrorism implying those who disagreed with him were traitors or at the very least "unpatriotic." He even had to be slapped down by other Dems when he made these kinds of statements while running for reelection in 2006.
So let's be totally clear on this: Lieberman cannot be trusted. It is obvious to the Democratic voters in CT this is true because in order to get their votes he promised them he would work to help elect a Democratic President in 2008. He couldn't even keep his word to them for one year!! THE MAN CANNOT BE TRUSTED SO WHY SHOULD ANY DEMOCRAT OR REPUBLICAN WANT SOMEONE LIKE THIS IN THEIR CAUCUS? AND EVEN IF YOU FELT YOU COULD WORK WITH HIM ON CERTAIN ISSUES, HOW CAN YOU RESPECT ANYONE WHO BEHAVED LIKE THIS? Plus, from positions he's taken and views he's publicly expressed, he's also somewhat delusional and dangerous as well.
While you think you may be able to control Lieberman if you take him into your caucus again this is purely fictional thinking. Here's why: The caucus currently consists of 1/3 of its members who during the 2006 CT general election couldn't even support their own party's Democratic nominee Ned Lamont in the general election. This list of Senators includes many that are in the Democratic steering committee such as: Sen. Majority Leader, Harry Reid, Robert Byrd, Max Baucus, Carl Levin, Jeff Bingaman, and Mark Pryor. In addition to these, this list also includes: Ben Nelson, Bill Nelson, Ken Salazar, Tom Carper, Kent Conrad, Byron Dorgin, Tim Johnson, Mary Landrieu, Barbara Mikulski, Paul Sarbanes and Blanche Lincoln. This full list indicates there is already a substantial number of Democratic Senators who couldn't even support their own party's nominee because of their ties to Lieberman. Why should any of these Senators be allowed now to judge Lieberman's fate? And why do you think these same Senators, many of whom are lobbying on Lieberman's behalf again, would do anything to control Lieberman now anymore than they have ever done before? So it's many more Dems than just Joe Lieberman who can't be trusted to behave as a loyal Democrat within the Senate even though most of the others I have mentioned wouldn't go as far off the deep end as Lieberman did.
From this list, it is my understanding that these four Senators actively supported Lieberman as the Independent over the Democratic nominee Ned Lamont in the general election: Mark Pryor, Ken Salazar, Tom Carper, and Ben Nelson. It is also my understanding that Harry Reid made a side deal with Lieberman during the 2006 general election campaign which allowed Lieberman to campaign as if he would be allowed to caucus with the Dems if he won as an Independent giving him an advantage in the 2006 general election that worked to undermine Ned Lamont's chances to win the general election. Why should the Dem. Senate majority leader be actively involved behind the scenes working to damage the chances of the duly elected Democratic Senate nominee? And if Harry Reid didn't make this deal like Lieberman claimed, then this is just another lie Lieberman told CT voters to try and win the election.
What's also troubling is that Lieberman is already on record this year campaigning against the Dems winning 60 seats and obtaining a filibuster proof majority. He claimed it would be a very bad thing for our country if that happened. So how can anyone trust him to vote with the Dems to give them 60 votes when they really need it? Especially on important issues like abolishing torture, closing Gitmo, or ending the Iraq War or doing anything else besides using military force to deal with Iran?
The primary reasons I have heard from Dem Senators for keeping Lieberman in their caucus and/or allowing him to keep his committees because he would resign if they were taken away from him, have been ONLY politically expedient ones: They either expect him to vote with them most of the time and/or don't want him to resign or caucus with the Republicans. For all I know many of these same Dems supporting Lieberman have been the beneficiaries of his campaign cash and past aid from him. Some may have been helped by his votes on various issues and now feel they owe him a favor. Personally I don't care!! Why? Because I don't believe it is ever good policy to reward incompetence and disloyalty. And that's what the Dems would be doing by not stripping Lieberman of his primary committees --- committees that should now go to more deserving and loyal Democrats. Our country has already suffered enough for rewarding incompetence and unlawfulness when voters reelected Bush in 2004.
Unfortunately if the Dems decide to keep Lieberman as one of their own it will say much more about them than him. And it will cause me and many other progressives to lose our respect for Senate Democrats, who are already on our short leash now. I don't think you should want this to happen if you are reaching out for broad support to pass important legislation.
So if you still prefer to get involved in this issue making your opinion known to fellow Senators to keep Lieberman, I would strongly urge you to also add this caveat: None of the Senators who couldn't even support their own party's nominee in the 2006 election should be allowed a vote or voice in the current fate of Lieberman in the party's caucus. Their disloyalty to the Democratic party by refusing to support its nominee Ned Lamont should cost them this right. And I would also suggest that when this decision is being made the current new members elected in 2008 be included in it. Won't they have to put up with Lieberman too?
Posted:
November 17, 2008
|
Share
this web page with like-minded people:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
