Wednesday, August 09, 2006

Open Letter To Senator Joe Lieberman

Senator Lieberman,
I am writing to express my disappointment in your speech last night, and to
request that you respect the wishes of the Democratic voters in Connecticut.
You lost fair and square in yesterday's primary and now it's time for you to step down.

Senator, In your speech last night you said: For the sake of our state, our
country and my party, I cannot and will not let that result stand.
Excuse me,
but your party? The Democratic party does not belong to you and it never did.
Democrats are frustrated sir and have been for quite some time. 'Your party'
didn't abandon you, but you certainly have abandoned us.

You also said: It is time for our elected leaders to stop playing political
games, so we can get things done for the people who are good enough to send
us to Washington to serve them.
That's exactly what I am asking you to do.
At this point an independent run is nothing more than a 'political game'. Senator
it's time for you to take a bow and end the folly that has been this campaign.

It's not that Ned Lamont won but rather that you lost. Senator Lieberman this
primary was yours to lose. You are a three term incumbent and a former Vice
Presidential candidate. Lamont's challenge should not have made much of an
impact. But you have ignored your constituents for to long, and your own
campaign reflected how out of touch you are. The reality is that you
and your staff are not prepared for a statewide campaign.

You claim that you are a Democrat and will always be a Democrat. As a fellow
Democrat and resident of Connecticut I am asking you to respect the results of
the primary and end your campaign. It's not a litmus test, just one Democrat
encouraging another to what's right for our state, our country, and our party.

Sincerely,
Caffeinated Geek Girl


Source
"Excerpts: Lieberman's Concession Speech". New York Times. 8/9/06

19 comments:

Anonymous said...

I love when others eloquently state my own personal thoughts. You are certainly more capable than I am at articulating those sentiments. I applaud your letter. --mm

Abe Lincoln said...

While Joe may have to respect the wishes of the Democratic party voters, ultimately he is a public servant who should abide by the wishes of the total citizenry of the state of Connecticut.

While you may see it as political games, I think it is appropriate for Joe (who polling suggests is the true choice of Connecticut voters) be allowed to run in the general election and have the people speak. Isn't that what the Democratic party is always professing... to let the people's voice be heard, not just a select 20% of the CT voters who are registered Democrat, but the 100% of the voters of CT.

AnonAndOnAndOn said...

I'm with Honest Abe on this one.

Sergei said...

Does Lieberman ever listen to anyone but himself?

Gabe said...

Well said.

WHOSLAMONTKIDDING said...

Thanks Abe. Well put. Maybe the girl ought to read Team of Rivals about your administration when she comes down from her high.

Anonymous said...

an open letter to Caffeinated Geek Girl

The U.S. Constitution allows the citizens of the various United States to elect Senators.

There are no references to political parties in the Consitution. Alas, your overall sentiments are an example of what Thomas Jefferson warned about it the Federalist Papers, the elevation of "factions" as more important than the interests of the general citizenry

One suspect that the new and old supporters of Neddy fear his new venture will fail in the marketplace of ideas. So much for that radio ad puffing up his chest about how he isn't afraid. Are the non-Democrats of CT that frightening?

Maura said...

Great letter.

BTW, I was really happy to meet you last night! Hopefully we'll get a chance to hang out at another event soon.

FatGuyinMiddleSeat said...

George Washington, a man I knew well in my early career, anticipated this problem and would have backed Joe.

His Farewell Address warned of the dangers of party over democracy:

[Partisans] serve to organize faction, to give it an artificial and extraordinary force; to put, in the place of the delegated will of the nation the will of a party, often a small but artful and enterprising minority of the community; and, according to the alternate triumphs of different parties, to make the public administration the mirror of the ill-concerted and incongruous projects of faction, rather than the organ of consistent and wholesome plans digested by common counsels and modified by mutual interests.

However combinations or associations of the above description may now and then answer popular ends, they are likely, in the course of time and things, to become potent engines, by which cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people and to usurp for themselves the reins of government, destroying afterwards the very engines which have lifted them to unjust dominion.


Ignore George Washington's admonitions at your will. Yeah, I know he said to avoid excessive foreign entanglements, but that was immediately blown by that cretin John Adams. XYZ Affair? Remember that, you punks?

Anonymous said...

abe Lincoln said: "Isn't that what the Democratic party is always professing... to let the people's voice be heard...."

Dear Honest Abe,

Perhaps that is what the Democratic Party stood for in your day, but no longer. Recently, in CT, our state legislature, which is dominated by the Democratic Party, passed a campaign finance reform law that provides special advantages to both major parties, at the expense and to the detriment of third parties. In fact, third parties have been forced to sue in court for their right to the same money that the Ds and Rs get. Sounds crazy, doesn't Abe. Sadly, that is your modern Democratic Party in CT.

Anonymous said...

I found Lieberman's concession speech the most disgraceful part of an already dishonest campaign. His arrogance and sanctimony know no bounds. He used all sorts of distortions to smear Lamont whom he did not even congratulate or name by name (at least as far as I recall). Yet he continues to play the choirboy. And the media continues to let him. When will someone in power (and not just in the blogosphere) call him out: the emperor has no clothes. I hate Lieberman. There, I said it.

Anonymous said...

My open letter to Joe lieberman:

I hope you are seeing the real Democrats. After all you have done for the party, did you see your phony "friends" Chris Dodd, John Larson, John Destefano,Nancy Dinardo etal today are all saying Joe who?

They have all given Ned the keys to your office and are his new best friends. They never were Joe Lieberman's friends...they were (D) Senator Lieberman's friends and now that they see you as a loser they have kicked you to the curb.

There is no room in the CT Democrat party for moderates. The left fringe is now in control and with all of their hate filled venom I predict the party will implode. When they choose Rev Sharpton and Rev. Jackson over Bill Clinton you know the party has lost its way.

Remember another former Democrat Ronald Reagan who said…I didn’t leave the Democratic Party…the Democratic Party left me. Can you identify?

Anonymous said...

Dear Anon. 9:09 - While you may feel that Sen. Lieberman's "concession" speech was "disgraceful" (your word), from a political stand point, it was brilliant. He didn' concede, he launched straight into his re-election campaign and said, in effect, that he has no choice but to run because someone has to stand on principle and fight against the evil forces of partisanship in Washington, DC. Quite frankly, I thought it was brilliant, and fitting with his character, as a man who has always worked to bring people together for the good of the nation (even when I disagree with him on issues, i.e. the war).

disgruntled_republican said...

Anon 9:31 -

Well said. My sentiments exactly.

hotpotatomash said...

very nice letter though it is likely to fall on deaf ears. those who see nothing wrong with Joe's actions are missing at least one key point:

as that loyal democrat of the last 18 years he has enjoyed a great deal of financial support from the democratic party, not to mention a vp candidacy that made him a national figure that he clearly relishes.

and he repays the party, all of which went to bat for him again, despite a pro bush stance that has hurt the country immeasurably. i can't get over the contrast of joe being the first democrat to rip clinton a new one for an extramarital affair while taking up the BFF role with bush despite obvious war crimes and at least 100,000 dead.

and joe will have us believe he lives by a higher morality than the rest of us. in fact, its that very morality that has lead him to take his unpopular stance on iraq. you know why that stance is so unpopular joe? because it is immoral. at least a hundred thousand innocents are dead based, we know now, on intentional lies of the administration. and yet he would do it all over again.

this is the same morality that led him to call Lamont a conservative one day and a raving liberal the next. or to complain incessantly about Lamont's money despite outspending at least 2 to 1. or to claim before the election that a poor turnout in the primary would preclude a decision from the people only to see a huge turnout and him stick to his plan anyway.

and i doubt it is possible for any pol to be anymore condescending to his constituents. well, he gives bush a run for his money anyway and its unclear that bush is even aware of this unflattering characteristic. but how man times can one man say he is so much better than another man? which, of course, conflicted with talking point that no one really knew who lamont. just how do you know you are better than joe?

the sad thing is that he has had a good career and has always (perhaps wrongly) been considered a good man. now he is a cartoonish thug who has proven himself incapable of humility.

but i will say much blame lay with democrats. when you are chosen to represent your party as VP and you fail to relinquish your senate seat - well, the writing was on the wall. how is the country supposed to get behind the presidential candidate if the vp doesn't even believe in him.

well joe fooled us twice.

Anonymous said...

if lieberman is simply claiming that he still has something positive to contribute to the state and country, and he'd like an opportunity for the entire state of connecticut to decide, i'd grudgingly accept that as it is his right in our democratic system to run as an independent.

however, he is not simply claiming that. he's claiming that he's forced to run as an independent because the democratic party candidacy that he believes he deserves was hijacked from him by political games, partisan polarization, bloggers, hackers.

so he's running independent because that's the only way he can show the entire state, not just the registered democrats -- who did not vote for him -- that he really is a democrat. in his mind, the democratic party has wronged him, and he's slapped it across the face with a glove and demands satisfaction.

wtf, joe?!

Anonymous said...

All of you Sore Loserman supporters--remember that demonizing you silly Repubs, think your so high and mighty and respectable, please--anyway can't you guys see how phony this guy is. He has always been a political opportunist plain and simple. He doesn't care about the people of Conn b/c he hardly even visited the state, when was the last time he went to a town hall meeting. He thought labor would just hand this to him along with all the money from his lobby buddies and PACs.

He is a self-righteous, unloyal democrat. If he honestly wanted to rise above the "partisanship" which is code for selling out the democratic party when he feels like it then he should have been an independent from the beginning.

Just wait when Joe sells out on social security b/c you know he was totally for it before the leadership was able to reign him in. Elect him and watch him jump ship to caucus with the Repubs b/c that will get him a real chairmanship which is best for Conn. He is a sell out and an unloyal democrat. When your the opposition, minority party you have to act like it. Its good to weed Loserman out.

Anonymous said...

Let me post it again from DC:

Since CT Sen is the topic du jour:

Despite my natural instinct to root against the elites' wishful thinking, I've decided that a Lamont win may pay dividends for conservatives in the long term (and with a long view).
The more this rabid element hijacks primaries and enforces purity, the less Dems can muddy the waters, play it cute, and have it all ways, like Hillary and others have long tried to.

And the more emboldened, brazen, and powerful this element becomes, the more it becomes clear which party tolerates the kookiest and nastiest conspiracy theorists. Lanny Davis got that right. Maybe Cynthia McKinney will enjoy more appreciation and longevity as a liberal blogger. I'd be happy to forward her posts on the 'Daily McKinney' all around town.

If this trend continues, we may ultimately get a lot more Al Gores (version 8.0)/Howard Deans/Nancy Pelosis (easier to caricature and defeat) and a lot less Mark Warners/John Edwards's/Evan Bayhs (harder to nail-down or pigeon-hole). Deal.

Now on to one of my long-standing pet-peeves: political labels. Maybe the 'politics of keepin' it real' will bring this benefit: more accountability for reliable Dems who have escaped the 'liberal' label by simply joining the DLC or Blue Dogs, while still maintaining the most liberal voting records (and never having their centrism scrutinized by the media or voters). The single most significant factor in determining whether a pol is labeled 'liberal' or 'moderate'/'centrist' seems to be their demeanor -- not their record. Why do DiFi and Boxer vote the same, but enjoy different labels, you ask? Style, not substance. And you only get the liberal label if you embrace it -- or at least can't seem to curb your extremist enthusiasm --like Kennedy, Wellstone, Pelosi, Dean, Boxer, Kucinich. It's not forced upon more friendly, less scary folks like H. Reid, Bayh, Edwards -- or anyone who hails from a Red State and might view the label as politically inconvenient (see Daschle, Frost, H. Ford. B. Kerrey). Seems like our moderates are the only ones who vote the way they talk and are labeled.

I like my Dems liberal and my Republicans conservative. Clear choices are good for Democracy and bad for Democrats.

Wacko-mentum

Anonymous said...

To hotpotatomash & some others,
Thank you for stating so well what I in my present state of anger have been unable to do more than splutter about. You are an inspiration to cool-headed debate.
--from Anonymous 9:09