MS. SMITH GOES TO WASHINGTON
The Greeks of ancient times prompted the following ideas of mine that were also brought about by what Ralph Nader had to say today on Democracy Now when talking to Amy Goodman about Lieberman.
The Achilles' heel of Democrats like Lieberman brings to mind another Greek cliche: "A man ought not to be deemed by his wordes, but by his workis" (Dictes and Sayenges of the Philosophirs, 1477).
Translated in these progressive times, that would be, "Actions speak louder than words." And, the list of actions by Lieberman who calls himself the Democratic candidate for Progressives, doesn't read that way.
Progressive for whom? Corporations, that's who. In fact, the question should be, what has Lieberman ever done for the average American, period? The records speak more clearly of what Lieberman "is" than anything out there today, including Lieberman himself. How he views himself as a Democrat can only be answered by the fact that he's never been challenged for his actions until now, which is a pity.
Over and over (well a couple of times) I watched Leiberman give his acceptance speech (paraphrasing) that if the people of Connecticut would support him, he would continue his Progressive leadership (which only proves he's good at name dropping) and run as an Independent candidate, or something like that. I've never been a Lieberman supporter, and I could never understand why he was chosen by the Democrats to run against Bush and Cheney (he seemed weak to me at the time), but, then again, all of those smart moves were orchestrated by the Democratic Losers Club (DLC) at that time. Still, Lieberman couldn't take his loss like a man or like the solid Democrat that he professes to be and support the winning Democrat, naw, he doesn't care who votes for him, it's all of that support he gets when in office for voting with the corporations. That's who Lieberman supports. I have to wonder how many votes he would have had if people knew his whole record? And, it's never too late.
Below is a short list by Nader of Lieberman's accomplishments. If Lieberman is a Progressive ... then, what in the hell is a Republican?
RALPH NADER: Well, Senator Lieberman would have lost even bigger last night if Lamont's people actually expanded their criticism of Senator Lieberman as big business’s favorite Democratic senator, not just George Bush's favorite Democratic senator.
The most aggressive, cruel and insensitive business lobby and the most powerful in Washington is the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and they have enthusiastically endorsed Senator Joseph Lieberman, one of only two Democratic senators they've endorsed out of 46 Democratic senators. And they have given him the highest cumulative score in their ranking of any Democratic senator in the Northeast, and for good reason.
He has supported the U.S. Chamber of Commerce positions, not only on capital gains tax cuts, he supported NAFTA and WTO and CAFTA, which have depleted jobs here, high-paying jobs here in Connecticut. He has supported the Chamber's drive to weaken the rights of injured workers and consumers and defrauded investors from having their full day in court against the perpetrators of their misery.
He has supported the Exxon-Cheney energy bill, that notorious energy bill that was signed into law last year that subsidized big oil’s profiteering, weakened environmental standards in a variety of ways and made sure that there were no further advances in fuel efficiency for motor vehicles. And here in Connecticut, like everywhere else, they're paying $3.40 - $3.50 a gallon, and it's going up. So he hasn't done anything on that.
And then, finally, on the labor issue, he's not been outspoken on the minimum wage like Senator Kennedy. He has not pushed for labor law reform to give workers a chance to organize. He has not gone after OSHA because of its weak enforcement of the Occupational Safety and Health laws. 58,000 American workers die every year, according to OSHA, from worker-related diseases and trauma.
So, in many, many ways, including never challenging the military budget -- that's the Chamber of Commerce position, as well -- never really in 18 years advancing universal health insurance. That's a Chamber of Commerce provision.
So, you know, the question I ask Joe Lieberman is, is he going to repudiate publicly the Chamber of Commerce's endorsement and campaign support -- lots of money from businesses in his campaign -- and is he going to challenge the Chamber of Commerce's drive all over the United States in hundreds of campaigns, working overtime to undermine his own Democratic Party and its more progressive candidates? Well, calls to four Lieberman offices in Washington and Connecticut last week received no answer to the question: Joe Lieberman, are you going to reject the Chamber of Commerce's endorsement of you?
So, he goes around, including this morning, saying he's a progressive Democrat and a progressive independent Democrat. So I think the struggle is going to be between the progressive Democrats and the corporate Democrats, who for years have dominated the party and has had Joe Lieberman as one of their charter members
I have to agree with Nader. Progressives need to be identified by their actions in congress. All of their actions. I'll admit, Lieberman was much worse than even I suspected. Lists like this constantly make me aware of my own ignorance, which is a daily occurrence (damn), but, it also reminds me that most of us Americans out in the mother land know about some of the votes as they come up and rarely see this in debates or during the contests between candidates. Ads, for instance. Work history should be used as the list of "symptoms" when trying to determine if a candidate is part of the illness that has been killing off the Democratic Party or not. I think we will find that most of those Republican Lites, Centrists, Moderates, or whatever they prefer to call themselves, will be pretty much the same when comparing their list of actions.
We shouldn't be surprised about those Democrats who went to Connecticut to give their support to Lieberman, they were DLC, and Boxer is a family member of the Clintons, so no surprise there. In my mind, when it comes down to specifics, Boxer will do what the Clintons want her to do, I mean, who you going to support if not the family. Eh? Politics are too enmeshed in DC, with long term friendships and politicians with family members as lobbyists. Years and years of sitting back real friendly like, and those friendships have brought us a treasonous war and a whole lot more that is strictly too un-American for Americans to tolerate any longer. Bipartisan politics, meaning the Democrats are bipartisan to the partisan politics of the GOP and these political buttons have been pushed too far for too long.
Also, I want to mention how impressed I was with Jonathan Tasini, also on the show, who is on the New York ballot and running against Hillary Clinton. However, after listening to Nader, it sounds like Tasini's team needs good lawyers because they are being scammed by the big guy media, who won't hold their debate. Sounds worse when they listed the donation by this same company owned by Time/Warner, who gave over 100,000 bucks to Clinton. That's what I mean when I say Clinton can just sit back and not have to debate the issues. Wrong. That's not democracy in action that she is supposed to represent and wants the job in the White House. Of course, Bush doesn't represent democracy in any way ... so, I guess, people think that anyone up against Bush's administration will look better. If that's what it takes, we are a weak nation.
I happen to love New York, but I've never understood how they can be thought of as Liberal with so many Republicans, but, I'm guilty of that thought. New Yorkers should vote for themselves, the candidate that supports them. Don't just listen to the candidates, check out their actions. You might be surprised at how their actions have in some way changed your own life.
Clinton's voting records should be out there for perusal. Just thinking about how much the American voter knows about their candidates, it would be interesting to know how many of those who voted for Lieberman, actually knew about his voting record and support for corporations and what he has done to hurt the American worker, the American woman, etc. If Lieberman is brought out to be what Americans think is Progressive, he's treating that word the same way the Bush GOP treat the word Liberal, because he is far from being Progressive with his actions in congress, and a real democratic Progressive would support the Democratic candidate. Don'tcha think?
It's really the height of snobbery to want people to vote for your ass, and then when a candidate like Lieberman gets into congress, does everything he can to help this treasonous Bush GOP, who will go down in US history as the most abusive, destructive reign of terror against our democracy that this country has ever known. Americans put more emphasis on their grocery lists every week than they do on the lists of actions and accomplishments by Democratic candidates. Most of the time, it's if they like their persona or not. People need to take the time. Why take their word for it? Like Lieberman, and most Republicans, they lie.
Lieberman deserves to be retired and from what I saw and heard from Tasini, he deserves to be hired. Evidently, Clinton is afraid of him, because she will not debate him. Nice, to get elected to a cushy job without anyone knowing what you stand for, I mean, really, I watched a film clip of Clinton as she used her best demanding voice when questioning Rumsfeld, but anyone who follows what Clinton believes would not be fooled by that act (actions), she's always been for the treasonous Iraq invasion/occupation, which to me is very much against US democracy and what thousands of Americans have died for, fighting wars against such aggressors in the past.
I will never understand anyone who thinks like that. We've always been the country to fight against invasions, the killing of innocent people ... Clinton refusing, but without refusing (face to face refusals) to debate Tasini, should sound familiar, isn't that tactic, in itself, contemptuously Republican?
Just askin' ...
MS. SMITH GOES TO WASHINGTON