On Wednesday, September 6, we held our seventh Prospect breakfast -- this one was actually held during lunchtime, and featured Connecticut's Democratic Senate candidate, Ned Lamont. The guests included Michael Tomasky, Joe Conason, Mark Schmitt, Robert Dreyfuss, and Ezra Klein from The American Prospect; Walter Shapiro, Salon; Ari Berman and David Corn, The Nation; Ellen Ratner, Talk Radio News Service; Paul Glastris and Zachory Roth, Washington Monthly; and Joshua Green, The Atlantic Monthly. A full transcript follows:
Ned Lamont: I'm delighted to be here. Been having a pretty busy day, I've got to say. Started out talking to 40 journalists, AFSCME, The Wall Street Journal, and it's great to be here. I think a lot of the mainstream media misses the point of these races. You know, it's always “Lefty” Ned and all these insurgents taking on moderate Joe. I think a lot of you have recognized that the Bush administration has taken this country way off its historical moorings, way beyond the bipartisan foreign policy we've traditionally had, trying to privatize Social Security, double the number of lobbyists just in the last five years. I think too often Senator Lieberman gives a vote to an administration that's taken this country way off course.
With that, let me just say a couple of brief things. I came down to Washington DC … everyone seems to be covering this race in Connecticut, I figured I'd better introduce myself to folks before they jump to some conclusions. I wanted to say what was important to me in this race, and that's what I've been doing today.
I've introduced myself as a guy who started up a business from scratch. I'm coming into this race as an outsider and I'm coming into this race as someone who wants to shake things up. And I say as a business guy that there are a couple of numbers that make me think this country's headed in the wrong direction, numbers starting with 47 million. What's that number? The number of people without health insurance in this country. Not only is that wrong and unconscionable, it's also incredibly unsmart. Forty-seven million people without health insurance -- small businesses, taxpayers, corporate are picking up the cost of that. And what's going on is the incredibly high cost of health insurance is beginning to put us at a competitive disadvantage. It's beginning to bankrupt big business and small business alike. Businesses are walking away from their historical obligation to provide health insurance for their employees; they're beginning to push more and more of the load onto employees, and employees can't afford it, even if any is offered at all. It's a system that is fundamentally broken, so … I've gone around the state of Connecticut, the No. 1 question I've heard as I've gone around is health care and jobs. The two are related. People are losing their jobs, good-paying manufacturing jobs; they're working in the service sector; they're earning less, and they're paying a hell of a lot more for their health insurance. And I like to think that there's someplace we'll be able to find some common ground. We have a system that's broken right now …
I go down to Washington DC, I think I'm going down as a bit of an outsider … and I think it's a system that we've got to fix. We've got to fix it in the sense that we make health care a basic right for each and every American. I think it's important for Democrats to stand up and say a lot of things frankly. Let's say what we're for. Everyone knows what we're against, so let's say what we're for. And I've put forward a methodology that is comprehensive and moves us towards universality. I like to think that all businesses have an obligation to provide health insurance; we'll make that clear. And we'd also allow businesses to buy into some pools like expanded Medicare programs. So like for small business guys like myself, we'd make it affordable. We can talk a little bit more about health insurance if you want.
Another number that comes up is $8.5 trillion -- that's the size of the federal deficit. I just think it's unconscionable that … you know, the Republicans are always talking about the death tax … my God, look at the mortgage that we're leaving to our kids. And instead of investing in our country, investing in our young people, investing in our future, like our parents and their parents did … we have a generational obligation to fix this broken system we've got right now.
I think we have a system in Washington, D.C., that's just broken. I just think it's broken in terms of how we budget and how we legislate. To me that's reflected in the fact that we have another number -- 63 -- what's that? That's the number of lobbyists for each and every congressman in Washington, D.C. They're spending over $400,000 a month in lobbying monies per congressman per month. And we had 6,341 earmarks as part of that transportation bill that included a bridge to nowhere. And nobody stood up. Nobody on either side of the aisle stood up to that process and that abuse of government. And Joe Lieberman often talks about reaching out and finding common ground with George Bush and finding common ground with the Republicans, and I think it's high time to send some people to Washington, D.C., to talk about the common good. That's what I mean to do. I said I'm not taking lobbyists' money; I'm not taking any PAC money. I'm going to go down there unencumbered. I've said this to the people of Connecticut wherever I go; I look them in the eye. Look, I had no party support when I got into this primary; they hated the idea of a primary, they didn't want to shake things up. We had a three-term entrenched incumbent -- it was a safe seat. We're getting to realize more and more that it was a safe seat for a Republican senator, but…
The final number I'll leave you with is 135,000. What's that? That's the number of brave troops we have stuck in the middle of a bloody civil war over in Iraq right now. I think we take it to the Bush administration: You got us into this mess, you rushed us into this war, you didn't do the necessary homework. It was ill conceived, it was poorly executed, and you've made the world more dangerous and you've done nothing for America's security. And I think it's important that Democrats stay on the offensive there. It was a bad decision for this country. We can fuss about what to do as we go forward, but I've tried to be clear and I think it's important that Democrats be clear. I think it's time to level with the Maliki government, time to put together a plan … but let's be clear: You can tell me it's six months, you can tell me it's 18 months, but there's going to be a plan to have the Iraqis take the front-line responsibilities and American troops start heading home. I've tried to be clear also that we're going to be there for reconstruction and humanitarian support. We're not deserting the people of Iraq. We broke that country; we owe them more that that, but we've got to take the very American face off this occupation.
As I go around the state of Connecticut, people say, “Oh, it's just a single issue, the war in Iraq.” But let me tell you, the people of Connecticut, I think they really get it. And they get it not just in terms of our national security, but if you go to Bridgeport, Connecticut, where I've had the opportunity to teach a class called “How To Start Your Own Business” -- I did that at Harding High School -- the people of Bridgeport say, “How can we afford to spend $250 million a day -- $250 million a day -- in Iraq and we can't afford to keep Harding High School, an urban high school, open past 2:30 in the afternoon, with these kids going home to an empty house?” Or you go up to the workers in Sikorski, who are on strike, and they're on strike because their health-care benefits were getting cut back. And you hear health care, like I said, wherever you go, and you hear, “How come we can afford to spend $250 million a day in Iraq and we can't afford universal health care for each and every American?”
Or you go to a lot of the colleges. I went to every single college in Connecticut … you know, they were so energized. They looked at this war and said in a very moral sense, “America's a much stronger country when we stay true to our values.” In this war of ideas, we're compromising ourselves in the eyes of the world and we're compromising ourselves here at home. Guantanamo, Abu Ghraib, illegal wiretaps -- that's not American. We're a strong country when we stay true to our values.
So there's a real, broad-based grass-roots organization. I like to think that what we've got going in Connecticut we're going to take elsewhere around this country. It's veterans, it's students, it's young and old, it's labor, it's small business, which know this country is headed in the wrong direction. Those are some of the questions that I think reflect that. And I'll just leave you with a thought that yes, I like the results of the primary. I got into this thing, it was absolutely impossible last January. I was an asterisk in the race, nobody really gave us a shot. And if you go around the state of Connecticut and around this country, I think you're going to find the people are really ready for a change. They're ready for a really fundamental change, and I think that's what the vote was all about on August 8 -- you want to stay the course or you want to change course. You want to stay the course in Iraq or are you ready to change course? And if I had one thing to say to the Democrats: Stand up and be bold and be clear and tell us what you're for. We can be against Bush; we can say you're taking the country in the wrong direction, but I've also tried to tell people what I'm for.
I think by being positive, coming forward with a constructive alternative agenda, we've registered tens of thousands of new Democrats in the state in the lead-up to the primary, and that's a lot -- 30,000 people -- we're a small state, Connecticut, and that's a lot. That represented 5 or 7 percent of the voters. They all registered at the last moment. I think they were registering not to vote against something; they were registering because we gave people something to believe in and vote for. We had the highest turnout in the history of the state – 43 percent. You know, the powerbrokers -- they put this primary in August. They said a hot day in August, nobody's really going to turn out … it didn't work out that way. Everybody turned out. You know, Joe Lieberman and Dick Cheney tried to say it was a small group of al-Qaeda types that had captured the Democratic primary. That's nonsense. It was almost half of all the Democrats; 43 percent turned out and voted. And we're going to do that again in the general election. I think we're going to turn out a lot of people; we're going to register a lot of people, and we're going to do that by holding Bush and Lieberman's feet to the fire. We're going to show them where they're wrong on the issues, and we're going to show them why we're right.
Michael Tomasky: A straightforward political question. If Joe Lieberman gets 75 percent of the Republican vote and if Alan Schlesinger is in single digits … that seems to me like a big problem for you. Are you concerned about that and is there anything you can or should do about it?
Lamont: I just came from the Wall Street Journal meeting and believe me, I told them Alan Schlesinger, the Republican, was an extraordinary candidate, I guarantee he will cut your taxes -- their eyes lit up at that point -- OK, he does a little gambling on the side, but nobody's perfect. [laughter]
Look, we're going to win. We're going to win because right now we've got, whatever it is, two-thirds or three-quarters of the Democrats and we're going to do better than that. Every day Joe Lieberman is coming more and more out of the closet, he's more and more closely allied with Karl Rove. You know, two days after the primary, Joe Lieberman and Dick Cheney both came out with the exact same talking points: you know, the terrorists gained a lot of comfort from our vote or something like that. I think I'm going to do just fine with the moderates and independents. I'm only now beginning to introduce myself to them. As Walter [Shapiro] knows, I started this race with absolutely zero name recognition so I had to go around the state and introduce myself to primary voters. And I did that in a really aggressive way. It's a small state and I think we did pretty well.
And I'm going to go in and I'm going to tell the independents and the moderates and Republicans and Democrats that I think I'm different. I'm not an 18-year incumbent. I haven't spent my whole life in politics. I'm somebody who started up a business from scratch. But don't worry. I think if you're an entrepreneur in business, you're a progressive in politics. You see things are broken and you want to change it. You want to fix it. You're willing to experiment; you're willing to make that effort. And I think government has a role in doing that, a strong role, starting with the health-care system. So I think that's a message that will resonate with moderates and independents. Right now, I'm running behind with that group; we're going to work hard over the course of the next few weeks. And we're lining up a strong Democratic base. We've got a lot of the unions that weren't with us in the primary -- frankly, nobody was with us in the primary -- and they're going to be coming on strong. And I think we've got a great grass-roots organization. Thanks to them, thanks to a lot of community groups that were with us before, we're going to turn out the vote and we're going to win.
And I like to think we're also going to help out … we have three strong congressional candidates who are running in Connecticut. It makes Connecticut kind of fun. People don't normally pay attention to races in Connecticut, but they're sure paying attention this time. We're going to win those races. Joe's not making it any easier. As you probably know, Chris Shays, our Republican congressman, has already endorsed Joe Lieberman. The other two are getting close to doing that, and that's going to make it a little tougher. We're going to turn out an awful lot of voters. We're aligned on the issues, and that's why we're going to win.
Ellen Ratner: So how much Republican money is going into the Lieberman campaign and where is it coming from?
Lamont: I could start, but there's a guy here named Tom Swan who I'd love to get to answer some of these questions as well. Tom is the guy who used to run the Connecticut Citizens Action Group, a leading progressive in the state going back to the Ming dynasty. He's been great for me, especially on the politics, where I've been really focused more on the issues.
That said, I can tell you the Republicans were explicitly fundraising for Joe Lieberman. They're channeling a lot of money in there right now. The party has said loud and clear, look, we're not going to endorse Alan Schlesinger, wink wink, you know what we mean. Joe and our Republican governor and our Republican congress-people are all sharing the same pollster at this point, so increasingly, he's acting like the de facto Republican candidate. You have anything to add on that Tom?
Tom Swan: It's not traditionally a place that I cite, but you may have seen yesterday's Insight Magazine article that talked about $7 million being funneled to [inaudible]. In the last several days both the Chamber of Commerce and Veterans for Truth, the new version of Swift Boat Veterans, have begun to run independent expenditure campaigns on behalf of Senator Lieberman. [inaudible] Alphonse D'Amato has attended a fund-raiser and is planning on hosting another one. There's a Republican fundraiser coming up this week. Jack Kemp's coming to the state to fund-raise and campaign for him, so when Ned joked about Senator Lieberman's finally coming out of the closet, I think that's what's happening.
In terms of one of the earlier questions, Ned is ahead of the Republican candidate among Republicans in the polls. And I actually think that will continue because Connecticut is a socially liberal state where people are very fed up with the direction the country is heading in. And I think he's exactly right: we get 75 to 80 percent of the Democrats with a high turnout, anywhere between 40 and 45 percent unaffiliated voter … we're going to play to win the unaffiliated voter. We're going to be just on fire on November 7. I think by being able to have a unified message on the war and health care with all the Democratic congressional candidates, which Joe never could have, never, we're going to help win the House races in November.
Joe Conason: I could be wrong about this but I sense a certain hesitancy on your part to attack Lieberman frontally since the primary victory. And the example I have in mind is Social Security, where I think he's very vulnerable since the Republicans clearly intend to revive privatization if somehow they hold onto Congress, and he's had flip-flops. So I was wondering, is there a hesitancy to go strongly negative on your part on issues like that?
Lamont: Yes and no. On the issues, I hit hard. And I said all throughout the primary that Joe Lieberman played footsie with the president when it came to privatization and Social Security. He was never a strong leader on that. In fact, he was on the wrong side until 11:59 when he flipped at the last moment. The hesitancy you hear though is, right now I'm establishing my bona fides with the Democratic Party in the state, and I'm charging George Bush, saying that's where we're wrong and that's who the guy is we've got to challenge. I've got an awful lot of folks who were strongly in Joe Lieberman's court; now they're in my court. For me, I'm going to hit George Bush where he's wrong and talk about where Joe Lieberman's wrong on the issues, and then we'll see where we go from there.
Judith Kargbo: There were a lot of congressional black leaders who were supporting you. How important is the black vote in gaining more Democratic seats, and also, just now the president is going to make his third speech in a series that's he's doing. Are you worried at all, or how effective do you think these speeches are in maintaining a Republican majority? Is there anything he can say to hinder Democrats' winning a majority in Congress?
Lamont: I think the president's singing off a playbook that's getting really dated. And as you go around, at least my state, I think people recognize that this war has nothing to do with the serious fight against the terrorists. It has nothing to do with homeland security. It's been a terrible distraction. I think it's time the Democrats get on offense there, loud and clear. So my personal feeling is that I don't think that's an attack that's going to stick right now and I'm not hearing a lot about it except among Republicans who are preaching to their base.
When it comes to African Americans -- it's a really important constituency in the state. Hartford, New Haven, Bridgeport … Bridgeport's a city where I've spent an awful lot of time. We worked hard during the primary to get as many people as we could to vote, registered and voting. And we're going to try just as ambitiously during the general election.
Robert Dreyfuss: To get a little bit of background about your views on Iraq. In 2001, 2002, up until March … I did a little research, I didn't find anything on the record about you saying what you thought about the war before it happened, nor did I find anything from 2004 when I Nexised Lamont and Iraq. So can you say a little bit about your history, how it evolved, what you thought during those three years, 2001 to 2004, on Iraq? And also, do you agree with Murtha that we should just get out of Iraq or, it sounds to me you're saying almost what President Bush says, which is we've got to tell the Maliki government they've got to stand up, then we'll stand down.
Lamont: It's the opposite of what President Bush says. I think that's why he's got it so damned wrong. I don't think the Iraqis will stand up until we stand down. And that's why I think it's so important that we be clear with the Iraqis government that it's not a blank check, it's time for us to start bringing our troops home. I was very clear months ago when I said I would have supported not only Reid-Levin but also Kerry-Feingold in terms of amendments. I think things are much more successful when you're clear with your allies. I think it's time to set some guidelines … we're making the situation worse. General Casey said we're making the situation worse, our allies have said that, and that's why it's so important we change course, we do that clearly.
Look, up until January of 2006, I was a guy who was installing satellite systems in America's college campuses. That said, I've been active in Democratic politics my whole life. I thought the war in Iraq was ill conceived and wrong-headed from the very beginning. What did I do on that? I worked with Diane Farrell, our congressional candidate; before her, Stephanie Sanchez. I tried to work with candidates and get them to be strong on that issue. I was involved in a number of presidential campaigns, most recently the John Kerry campaign. That was how I expressed myself politically, up until about a year ago.
There were a couple of issues that really propelled me into this race. It was a year ago, after Katrina broke and everybody in Congress was running around trying to figure out how we were going to pay to rebuild New Orleans, I wrote a letter to every single newspaper I could … I should have sent something to The American Prospect. It was called "Give It Back." Give back all those earmarks, give back that bridge to nowhere and let's put that money into levees. What type of government is it that we can afford a bridge to nowhere and we can't afford to fix the levees in New Orleans? And the straw that broke the camel's back for me was Murtha. When Jack Murtha stood up, a decorated war hero … he had the courage to change his mind. I can't figure out what it is in politics that changing your mind is a high crime and misdemeanor. But Mr. Murtha stood up and said what we're doing is wrong, it's not working, it's making the situation more dangerous. And when he stood up and said that, I saluted and applauded. And when Joe Lieberman said these critics of the war are undermining the credibility of the president, that's when I jumped in.
Ezra Klein: You spoke a lot about health care. You've said many times Joe Lieberman's been in Congress 18 years and hasn't done anything about it. It won't take you 18 years to bring universal health care to the country. What will you do that Kennedy and these guys who have been in Congress forever couldn't do, and from your comments earlier, I got the feeling you believe the employer-based system is not dead, that employers have a responsibility to provide health care and should continue doing so through the private market. Do you believe that or do you believe this should move more toward a system where government provides health care?
Lamont: I want to get something done and I think the way we're going to get it done and get it done on a timely basis is to come up with a core benefit that makes sense and that we can afford, and make sure that's an obligation every employer has an obligation to provide. I've been critiqued on that … they say, “Ned, you're putting lipstick on the pig. We've got to throw the whole system out and start again.” We've been trying to do that since Franklin Roosevelt proposed it in '37, Harry Truman in '49. So I think I've come up with a program that we can get done and I think can get done on a timely basis. I think I can help get it done. As I said before, our health care system is bankrupting businesses and working families alike and at some point it's going to be bankrupting the United States of America when the baby boomers start retiring. We've got to have a more efficient system and I think the best way to a more efficient system is a system that provides universal coverage. And I think as someone who can go in there as a small businessperson and as a progressive Democrat, maybe, just maybe, I can get together different constituencies who otherwise haven't been talking to each other, and say this is the direction we've got to go.
David Corn: You said that you wanted the Democrats to stand up and be bold and be clear on the war and everything. Do you think they have done so on the war? The way your campaign's been interpreted by some is a manifestation of this pent-up frustration among many grass-roots Democrats, not just in Connecticut, but across the country because the party leadership has not been bold and clear enough in its opposition to the war. Do you accept that interpretation and what do you think about the Democratic leadership so far in terms of the war?
Lamont: It's easier for me as a candidate to be clear than it is for Senator Harry Reid, who's got 47 cats he's got to herd. So that's why we end up with “2006 will be a year of transition,” whatever the hell that means. I have tried to be clear, tried to be respectful, but clear. That a change of course is going to mean tough love with the Maliki government and setting some guidelines and supporting a way that we comprehensively get our troops out of harm's way and have the Iraqis step up. It's no longer a question of training, it's a question of will … as Tom Friedman asked, do the Iraqis have the will to stand up and take responsibility for their own destiny? I think we've tried to do that in a clear way.
I think the Democrats as we get into this political season are talking more and more clearly. I think on Social Security they came through loud and clear. You knew where Democrats stood, or almost all Democrats stood. I think on the war, at least we had Reid-Levin, at least we knew we supported a fundamental change in strategy, and I think that's getting more clarity every week. I haven't heard as much on health care and some of the other issues, but I think Democrats are stepping up and that's how we're going to win.
Joshua Green: You talk about being an outsider. You got the ultimate insider embrace when Hillary Clinton endorsed you after the primary. I was wondering if you could talk a little bit about your relationship with her and how it was that Howard Wolfson came to work for you.
Lamont: I think “came to work for us” is a little bit of a stretch. But he did say he'd provide some informal advice for us. Look, I had no establishment support at 8 on Tuesday night and I had a lot of new best friends by 11. I'm happy to have as many supporters as I can; I'm really reaching out to the Democrats; I'm going to consolidate my hold there. But I'm not changing. I'm going to be who I am. I was delighted to meet with Hillary Clinton. I've met with a couple of other senators; John Edwards came to the state. I'm going up to Capitol Hill later. But at the end of the day, I think we did pretty well by Ned Lamont looking voters in the eye and telling them what I'm all about. I'm not positive this is going to be a big national thing with a lot of guys from out of state coming in; maybe we'll rethink that as time goes on to help get-out-the-vote. But at the end of the day, we're a pretty small state, I'm going to go out and meet as many people as I can and look them straight in the eye and say why this vote's important.
Green: Are you expecting a Bill Clinton visit to match Lieberman's?
Lamont: It would be ironic to get him down in Waterbury just 60 days after the fact. He's pretty good; that guy can think. I heard him on the news…”Only Joe Lieberman would have supported the war in Iraq whether or not there were any weapons of mass destruction. He's the only Democrat in the United States Senate who would have had that point of view.”
Green: Doesn't sound like you're begging for a visit.
Lamont: Oh, have President Clinton come up? I think that'd be pretty good.
Sam Rosenfeld: Another question to get a sense of how you would act as a U.S. senator, on another foreign policy issue -- Iran. If diplomatic efforts to halt Iran's nuclear program fail, would you be open to voting to authorize military strikes against Iranian nuclear facilities?
Lamont: I sort of dispute the premise of that question. We're the largest superpower on the face of this earth and there's always a military option. But we don't have to talk about it, we don't have to lay it on the table, we don't have to rattle that saber, we don't have to do “axis of evil.” I think our country's isolated itself by refusing to negotiate with Syria and Iran and maybe even North Korea. I think we've weakened ourselves for it. Jack Kennedy: we never negotiate out of fear but we never fear to negotiate. And when I look at a country like Iran, you think about, well, OK, who has leverage with Iran? Not us, we have very little. Western Europe has some; Russia has a historical relationship there. China's their biggest importer of energy; India wants to have that India-Iran natural gas pipeline. There's a lot of folks that have leverage and a stake with Iran. So before we jump to any of these conclusions, we've got to talk to these people.
And Joe Lieberman's been dead wrong on that issue. He and Santorum say, “Don't talk, let's go with the Iran Destabilization Act,” or whatever they call it., “and start thinking about overthrowing the country.” I would go in there loud and clear, working with our allies, maybe in a five-party way, see what we could do in a serious way, use direct diplomacy. We've got time, we've got some time. People say, “Oh that's impossible, it's naïve, it can't be done.” But they said that about Quaddafi.
Ellen Ratner: Here's some breaking news: President Bush has just now announced that detainees held at secret CIA prisons will be transferred to the custody of the Department of Defense and granted protections under Geneva. What's your thought about why Mr. Bush is doing this at this time?
Lamont: I think he saw the results of the Connecticut primary and he's getting nervous. I just think it's unconscionable that this country compromises its values like it does, be it on the military tribunals, be it on Guantanamo, be it on playing fast and loose with the Geneva Conventions. Joe Lieberman was one of the few Democrats who supported Gonzales, who said the Geneva Conventions were quaint. That's not America. I think it's important for Democrats to stand up and say that's not America, that's not our tradition, it weakens us when you compromise us that way. So I'm glad that, kicking and screaming, the president's coming around to that.
Mark Goldberg: I'm from Connecticut; my parents still vote there. My dad is completely undecided between you and Lieberman. I think although he'd identify himself as being a very strong Democrat, he's a Jewish voter and he's torn a bit about voting against Lieberman. And I'm wondering what your outreach has been to Jewish groups who have a history of supporting Democratic candidates but might be in a bind in this election.
Lamont: We had really strong Jewish support throughout the state and beyond. I'd say maybe the war, the Hezbollah attack on Israel undercut that a little bit. I'm somebody who's been strong on Israel. I'm somebody who believes it was a country under attack and had a right to defend itself. But I'm harsh on the Bush administration when it comes to the peace process. I believe that with the death of Arafat and Mahmoud Abbas taking over the PLO, we missed an historic opportunity to build on what Bill Clinton tried to do just a few years earlier. I think that the war in Iraq has done nothing for Israel's security. It's emboldened Iran … let's face it, the big winner of our invasion of Iraq has been Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. When he's emboldened, that makes Israel all the more vulnerable, and that's a case I've got to go back to, day in and day out. And here we are, we've got this fragile cease-fire. I hope the United States can go back to its historical role as a peacemaker in that region and use this as an opportunity to start again. I like to quote … tell this to your dad … Abe Ribicoff, our former senator and governor who said, “America's Israel's best friend when we have credibility and respect throughout the region.” We've compromised that so much, and that makes us less helpful than we could be.
Walter Shapiro: Earlier you were talking about Joe Lieberman's displaying his true colors since the election, and both you and Tom were talking about the implicit Republican embrace of Lieberman and the Rove explicit support. What do you think their game is? Do you think they think Joe is lying right now, publicly, and is going to vote with the Republicans to organize the Senate if he beats you? Or do you think this is gratitude for prior votes? Or do you think they have another game they're playing?
Lamont: I think Joe Lieberman is terribly damaging to Democrats, Democratic candidates across the country. He challenges our patriotism. He challenges our national security position, and he accuses us of being partisan and un-American in some ways. And I think that plays right into a Republican frame. I think they're pretty happy having Senator Lieberman carry that water. So what happens if he gets elected to the Senate and 80 percent of the votes he got end up being Republican, how's he going to vote on the next Supreme Court nominee? I don't know. But I'd worry.
Shapiro: Do you think there's any chance he's lying and that he'd really vote to organize with the Republicans if he beats you?
Lamont: I'd never use the word “lying,” Walter.
Shapiro: Or that he could learn and grow and change his mind?
Lamont: I think everyone can learn and grow and change their mind. I think it's a vote Republicans will be more likely to count on next time around. He had a hard time voting with the Democrats back when he had 80 percent Democrat support, be it Alito, be it Social Security, be it Deck Cheney's energy bill … one issue after another. Now he's going to be liberated from any obligation to or thoughts about a Democratic constituency. We can't count on him for any of those votes.
Jules Witcover: Mr. Lamont, were you surprised when Joe Lieberman announced in advance of the primary that he would run as an independent? And what do you think has been the impact since the primary of that decision?
Lamont: I can tell you in the primary that was very harmful to the senator, at least among … not just the primary voters but more broadly than that … there was a sense of “you've been a lifelong Democrat, you're running in a Democratic primary … abide by the rules of the primary and agree to support the winner.” Which is what I did. Instead, Senator Lieberman tried to have it both ways and said I'm going to take out an insurance policy and run as an independent as well. There's a bit of history of him trying to have it both ways, and I think that was harmful in the Democratic primary. He has all the rights in the world to run as an independent; I've said that. From a timing issue, I've got to say, and this is technical, but he had to declare as an independent because he didn't have enough time to get all the signatures he needed after the primary to run as an independent.
Witcover: What about now? Where are those people now who were concerned that he decided in advance to go independent?
Lamont: I think there's still an awful lot of people in the state of Connecticut who thought he should abide by the results of the primary. It was a clear decision by the party he's been a part of for an awfully long time. How does that play out in the general election? I think there are an awful lot of people who feel that way. Senator Lieberman, as you know and as we've talked about, pivoted almost overnight, took on a lot of Republican clothing. He claims it's bipartisanship that he represents, that there's too much partisanship in Washington. You know, I find that's one of the most abused words … partisanship, bipartisanship. To them, bipartisanship means you agree with me and you're a good American, and if you disagree with me you're a partisan hack. I think it's a word we've got to be careful with. I'm a guy in business; we sit across the table, we negotiate, we make things happen, we move things forward…but we also have our principles. And that's how I'm running this race.
Alec Oveis: Earlier you mentioned Waterbury. I was Senator Chris Murphy's campaign manager in 2004. That area had a lot of conservative Democrats. They had no interest in talking about jobs or health care; they just wanted to talk about abortion and gay marriage. How are you planning to keep those people on the Democratic side? Are you hoping to not discuss these social issues?
Lamont: The first part of your question I dispute a little bit. I've spent a lot of time in Waterbury. It's a place that…brass capitol, they lost a lot of their good-paying jobs. And I think jobs and health care are basic to a lot of those New England communities, and I'd say that Waterbury is one of them. When it comes to the social issues, I am who I am. And when I go to Waterbury I say we have a federal government that's intruding into our lives too much. It's time for them to leave us alone. And I think it's wrong to have a federal government that wants to pass a constitutional amendment telling our churches who they can marry and not marry, wants to pass a constitutional amendment telling a woman what she can do and not do, invading the privacy of her and her doctor … that's not where you want your federal government going. You can make your own moral decisions; it's not for the federal government to be there.
I've been right out there on that and I feel good. I didn't bring in many guys from out of state, but a guy named Michael Schiavo came in because it was an issue that was really really important to me. And he was good. I didn't know; I thought, oh my gosh, he might have a real political agenda and that's not what you want to do with a case like that. But he did so well, holding this piece of paper, shaking there at a little press thing we did. He said, "I had two tragedies. The first was when they took my wife away from me. The next was when the politicians came down and tried to exploit my tragedy.” And I think it really resonated with people, and I hope it resonated with people in Waterbury. We're all going to find ourselves in a situation like that, and the last thing you want is Joe Lieberman and Tom DeLay and Bill Frist and everybody else joining in the decision.
Ari Berman: Some numbers today from the Lieberman folks had them up 16 points on you. What do the polls look like to you, first thing, and second thing, can you win if Lieberman gets upwards of 60 percent of the Republican vote?
Lamont: Yes, absolutely. I think it's one of those press polls they throw out at this stage to try to gin up enthusiasm for the race. Our internal polls show us to be behind but a heck of a lot closer than that. What was the second part?
Berman: Can you win if Lieberman gets upwards of 60 percent of the Republican vote?
Lamont: Yes, because we're going to get 80 percent of the Democratic vote, which is a lot bigger than the Republican vote in our state. Yes, because we're going to do very well with moderates and independents because we should. We're running against an 18-year incumbent; I'm going to go down and represent a real change and I think the people, especially moderates and independents, respect that and want that. I just got to get my message out. We're just starting. Moderates and independents -- they've never gotten a piece of direct mail from me. All they've got is some TV advertising. Joe outspent us big time on TV … he outspent us big time on the whole primary. So they got one impression, and we're going to fight back hard and let them know who we really are.
Cliff Schecter: Even before Rumsfeld and Bush did their little dance with the Nazi rhetoric this past week, a couple of weeks ago Joe Lieberman also made a comment that al-Qaeda was more dangerous than the Nazis as well as the Soviets. What do you think of that?
Lamont: I think it was a cheap politicization of things, but let me say something more serious. I don't think these guys have any understanding of history. Surely they had no understanding of Middle Eastern history before they invaded Iraq and said it was going to be easy, that we'd be greeted as liberators. Look at Lawrence of Arabia … fighting an insurgency is like drinking soup with a knife. It goes way back in time, and we should have learned from the history there.
I think Republicans have over-learned the lessons of World War II. They think any time you talk to an adversary you're Neville Chamberlain. And that's nonsense and it's wrong. You can make a case that maybe liberals have over-learned the lessons of Vietnam a little bit, and that sometimes we don't realize that there's a place for the military and a place for force in the lexicon, but my God, they're so wrong. The prism through which they see the war in Iraq reflects that. Everything is not a Nazi monolith. We've got a crescent going from the Mediterranean to the Himalayas, and to say that Hezbollah and the Shias and the Sunnis and the Iranians, Chechnya to Kashmir, is all some sort of terrorist monolith and we're going to fight this war on a uniform basis is wrong-headed and understands nothing about history. And I think we ought to be clearer about that.
Michael Tomasky: You've started to answer my question so I'll just ask it and let you say more. Because a senator, ideally, a responsible senator, really does have to think about the fate of the world. In terms of foreign policy, the Democratic Party has been criticized, I think in many ways quite rightly, for not having a coherent one. If you get to the Senate, what will you be emphasizing in foreign policy, not just a critique of Iraq, but on the positive front? Should we be advancing democracy? Where should we be using force, all these kinds of questions.
Lamont: From the strategic to the tactical, first and foremost we've got to rebuild our alliances. You're not going to be able to deal with North Korea unless you can deal with China. You're not going to be able to deal with Iran unless you have China and India involved in that process. We have a go-it-alone president who thinks that we're stronger as a cowboy going forward. That has clearly been shown to be a failure. So a) we're stronger when we work in concert with our allies, b) we're stronger when we're willing to negotiate, when we put our chips on the table when it comes to Syria, when it comes to a real comprehensive peace involving Israel, when it comes to Iran, who we've got to be able to engage in a serious way. And yes, we've got force on the table in each and every situation -- everybody knows that.
More tactically, look, we've weakened our country terribly. If something happened in Pakistan, if something happened in Saudi Arabia, we can't respond. We can't respond because our military's stretched thin; we're stealing from procurement, everything is directed to Iraq. We've got to get Afghanistan right. My God, Pakistan … just yesterday Pakistan gives a carve-out to the Taliban and al-Qaeda within their own territory. I thought we were trying to make sure there was not going to be any safe haven for terrorists and here it's just been ratified by our greatest ally in the war on terror -- Pakistan. I think we have to be focused there.
We also have to look at homeland security, take a look at what Tom Kean's commission said when it comes to protecting our homeland, bringing home our National Guard. Politically, I'm not positive that's as powerful as the rest of it, but I do know George Bush has made America much more vulnerable and the world a much more dangerous place. He's created an awful lot more terrorists around the world, and he's weakened our image and the morale of our allies. I think that can only change when George Bush is gone, but I think we can make a hell of a good start in November.
Tomasky: If Bush-styled democracy promotion is wrong, what should the United States of America be doing for the people of the world who live under oppression?
Lamont: Once they start talking about American values again, start talking about our opposition to torture, start talking about building democratic institutions … maybe start with a free press, you start with some local elections, you start with universities, start by putting some money out there to replace the madrassa schools -- something that's more secular. You're going to have to build democracy one step at a time. The idea that you can impose it from 50,000 feet with F-16s is pig-headed and wrong, and it's made the Middle East a much more dangerous place. We can go forward positively and affirmatively based upon our values; we start working at the grass-roots level in ways that stay true to our values.
If you enjoyed this article, subscribe to The American Prospect here.
Support independent media with a tax-deductible donation here.
