The following letter was sent via private e-mail this morning to David Broder of the Washington Post, answering his column today (Sunday) about the Connecticut Senate primary:
David you know how much I have respected your work for many years and you have earned the title "Dean of Washington political correspondents". But I must protest your piece today and ask you as a matter of honor and professionalism to set the record straight prior to the August Connecticut primary for Senator.
First, you named a list of supporters of Ned Lamont and treated Lamont supporters as though they (we) are some sort of leftist fringe group.
Since you personalized this, I am a Ned Lamont supporter and as you know I am not a fringe leftist but a centrist who has worked for Lloyd Bentsen and the House Democratic Leadership. I am long term supporter of our intelligence community, have served on boards involving intelligence, am aligned on defense issues with the views of Senator Sam Nunn, am a strong supporter of the U.S. military, am a strong advocate of helping wounded troops and homeless vets.
So if you insist on personalizing supporters of Lamont, I am one of them, and I do not believe your stereotypical labelling of supporters of Ned Lamont is fair or accurate. There are many others like myself.
Second, you treat Ned Lamont's views on the Iraq war as fringe. Like Lamont, as you know, I opposed going to war in Iraq, and advocated instead a far more aggressive attack on Bin Laden and Al Quada starting with our strong opposition to making it easier to allow Bin Laden to escape from Tora Bora.
These views represent the public or private views of a long list of senior retired and active duty commanders; many of their views are now widely known, others will be known when they retire. I ask you as a matter of intellectual honesty, which view has been proven more correct, the position of Mr. Lamont or the position of Senator Lieberman?
Third, while I don't appreciate labelling, I would respectfully suggest that Mr. Lamont's views on Iraq represent well over half of the American people, while Senator Lieberman's views represent perhaps 30% on a good day. If we must use labels of fringe, it is Mr. Lamont who represents mainstream America and it is Senator Lieberman's views which can be described more accurately as fringe, if we must use those labels, which I personally do not.
Fourth, you may casually dismiss the idea of Senator Lieberman, who accepted nomination of the Democratic Party for Vice President, abandoning and rejecting the Democratic voters of Connecticut if he loses the primary. I do not, and this is not a fringe position either. I will support the Democratic nominee, whether his name is Lieberman or Lamont, but while Senator Lieberman has the right to run as an independent, for him to attack the Party nominee and the party voters if they choose Ned Lamont is the fringe position here.
David, I respect Senator Lieberman, and deplore any personal attacks on him, for any reason, as strongly as I deplore any personal attacks, labelling or misrepresentation of Ned Lamont or his supporters. I believe Joe Lieberman is a good guy, I have personal and professional respect for him, I will support him if the Democratic voters choose him, but I strongly support Ned Lamont and believe he will be nominated, and elected.
You certainly have the right to your opinion, but I believe your characterization of Ned Lamont and his supporters is profoundly unfair, and contributes to the kind of politics of demonization that I would hope someone of your stature would rise above.