It looks like the AFL-CIO is going to stay out of the Connecticut senate race now that Joe Lieberman (Lieberman-CT) is running a fifth party campaign against Democrat Ned Lamont. While I’d rather the AFL-CIO endorse the only Democrat in the race, it’s better for them to stay away than to work against all of their Democratic members who voted Ned Lamont to victory on August 8th. The problem remains that Lieberman’s presence in the race continues to pull support away from other Democratic races and undermines the benefits of having a safe Democratic senate seat.

While the AFL-CIO tries to help the congressional candidates, it is likely to stay out of the Connecticut Senate race between incumbent Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman, who is running as an independent, and Democratic nominee Ned Lamont.

The state AFL-CIO endorsed Lieberman in the primary, and the senator has long enjoyed labor support. He was re-endorsed last week by 16 different local unions, while Lamont got the backing of the Service Employees International Union.

But the race is not expected to get national help because, Ackerman said, “Labor activists tell us that the movement is not unified on an endorsement.”

State AFL-CIO President John W. Olsen said he “won’t convene a meeting unless I see a consensus” for an endorsement. To get labor’s nod, a candidate would need two-thirds of affiliated AFL-CIO union members.

Now, the root cause of the lack of unity in the AFL-CIO’s Connecticut membership is Joe Lieberman’s vain decision to continue his run for Senate after losing the primary election that he voluntarily entered into in good faith. If Lieberman had honored the votes of Connecticut’s Democrats - union and non-union alike - the AFL-CIO would be able to invest its organizing capacity into the Democratic nominee, which in turn would give them a greater ability to influence the outcome of down-ticket races. I believe that would have happened if Joe Lieberman had honored the primary election or if Lieberman had won the primary election, as we know Lamont had pledged to honor the results.

Instead Lieberman’s continued run for Senate under the banner of himself and serving as the de facto Republican candidate is keeping labor money out of the race, while driving Republican money into the race. Both the RNC and the White House have refused to endorse the GOP candidate, Alan Schlesinger, and as a result, Republican donors, strategists, and consultants have been freed to support Joe Lieberman’s fifth party campaign.

Lieberman may have been a Democratic senator with solid labor credentials for seventeen and a half years. But despite his protestations and convoluted signifiers, Lieberman’s no longer a Democrat. He is getting in bed with a bevy of GOP goons including Karl Rove, Jack Kemp, Ann Coulter, and Chris Shays. Whatever allegiances unions might want to believe he has to his past voting record are going to be tested severely as Joe has to rely on the GOP for more and more support to keep his campaign viable. Whoever Joe was, he will have to change himself to please his new supporters.

Labor endorsements are not set in stone. In the same Lightman article quoted above, the AFL-CIO explains their decision to stop backing Rob Simmons (R: CT-02).

Ackerman insisted that the AFL-CIO will make a particularly strong effort to topple Connecticut’s three Republican House incumbents.

The biggest surprise in labor’s Connecticut effort this year may be its backing away from Rob Simmons, 2nd District, who calls himself a “big labor Republican.”

Ackerman had kind words for the three-term incumbent. “Simmons has been close to us and voted with us on a lot of things,” she said, “but we felt the stakes this time were higher.”

The union is 100% correct - the stakes are higher now. The value of every House and Senate seat is overwhelming and progressive groups cannot concede a single seat for a “moderate” Republican. Recent history has shown - from Lincoln Chafee to Chris Shays to Arlen Specter to Susan Collins and Olympia Snow - “moderate Republicans” do not have the strength to stand up to the conservative influences of the GOP to stop regressive legislation. Thus, labor unions cannot afford to support Republicans who might have the right positions on issues because the most important issues is the party to which they belong.

With the disavowal of Rep. Simmons, one would think that the AFL-CIO would carry their lucid political analysis one step further and recognize that Joe Lieberman has past his expiration date for support without the fear of intestinal discomfort. Supporting Lieberman - or rather, not supporting Ned Lamont - allows Joe to campaign for the very Republicans the unions don’t want in office, namely Simmons, Shays, Nancy Johnson, and Jodi Rell. Lieberman’s campaign, by relying on Republican voters and Republican support to win, will likely drive up the number of Republican votes down ticket and jeopardizes the ability for labor-friendly Democrats to win all over the state of Connecticut.

The AFL-CIO is victimizing itself by taking a myopic view at their involvement in the Connecticut senate race. The union has the capacity to drive large sums of money and hundreds of canvassing volunteers to Ned Lamont’s Democratic campaign. With Ned Laont there’s no question that Connecticut’s senator will continue to be a friend to labor at all times; the SEIU has already endorsed him. By not backing Ned Lamont, the AFL-CIO (and any other union who’s either endorsed Lieberman or is staying out of the race) risk much needed positive results down-ticket. Labor’s interests extend beyond simply endorsing or not endorsing the candidates who pass their metrics. There are many moderate politicians who have the right position on labor rights on paper, but repeatedly vote for “free” trade agreements, against wage increases, and do little or nothing to support pensions and healthcare benefits for workers when pressed by conservative lobbies.

The AFL-CIO is failing to take a holistic approach to their political support in their evaluation of Joe Lieberman’s fifth party campaign. Endorsing Ned Lamont and sending him all the support they can muster is a no-brainer. Only in a scenario where you care more about what happens when the progressive candidate loses than getting a progressive candidate elected can one of the nation’s most influential progressive organizations fail to make the right decision. I understand the thought of having an angry Joe Lieberman terrorizing Democratic interests come January 2007 is scary - but the fact that decisions are being made through the rubric of potential retribution by an alleged friend of labor should tell the unions that Joe Lieberman is not worthy of their support.

Single interest groups, specifically labor, environmental, and pro-choice lobbies, have an unfortunate history of being unable to see the forrest from the trees. Connecticut seems to have become ground zero for interest group myopia this election cycle. The AFL-CIO understood the big picture when it came to Rep. Simmons - why can’t they see it with Joe Lieberman?


Technorati Tags: , , ,