Transcript: Sen. Joseph Lieberman on 'Fox News Sunday'

[Khephra]

The following is a transcribed excerpt from "Fox News Sunday," Aug. 10, 2003

TONY SNOW, FOX NEWS: Democrats running for president were warned this week by one of their own not to let the party drift too far left.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. JOSEPH LIEBERMAN, D-CT: I'm not going to stand back and let this party be taken over by people who would bring us to the political wilderness again.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SNOW: Meanwhile, a new Pew poll shows a solid majority of Democrats are not satisfied with the Democrat stands on traditional issues. So what do Democrats stand for, other than opposition to George W. Bush? We'll ask Senator Joseph Lieberman.

MORE..........................

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,94329,00.html

Provided for those people who don't have a strong enough stomach to deal with Fox on a Sunday morning. Personally, I wish I had slept instead of getting up for this. Oh well, what can you do if you're a political junkie? :shrug:

For the most part it's rehash of what Joe has said before. There's a few statements in here that make it worth reading. I particularly loved his definition of a Democrat.

[w13rd0]

1. His definition of a Democrat...

...sounds a helluva lot like a Republican. Why am I not surprised?

STFU Joe...

[chaumont58]

2. What could be more appropriate than....

Lieberman on Fox?
"Hi, I'm Joe Lieberman. I represent the Republican wing of the Democratic Party!"

[Bushknew]

7. So true and so sad

.

[Walt Starr]

3. Joe Lieberman is living proof that Ralph Nader

was not far off the mark.

[bpilgrim]

4. he talks out of both sides of his mouth and

uses the same spin to define 'liberals' as the reTHUGS :puke:

"If we're for middle-class tax increases, if we send a message of weakness and ambivalence on defense, if we go back to big government spending when we're already so deeply in debt because of the Bush fiscal irresponsibility, if we're against trade for protectionism, which never created a job, we don't deserve to govern the country."

then he goes on to mouth 'tradtional' dem concerns...

"I from the beginning have made the case about the failure of the Bush economic leadership: 3.1 million jobs lost; no attention to our hemorrhaging of manufacturing jobs; no protection of the environment; compromising people's rights and liberties; an attitude, an old attitude that virtually no government is the best government."

yet offers no IDEAS just typical empty calorie platitudes...

"And what I'm saying is, I share the anger, but ultimately, to govern this country it takes more than anger. It takes experience. It takes positions that reflect the best values of the American people. And it takes the kind of solid leadership capacity that America will need in an age of terrorism and in an age of real economic anxiety."

or is this his 'BIG IDEA"...

"But you're not going to respond to that with an argument that big government is the answer."

not to mention he was ALL FOR THE ILLEGAL INVASION...

"Look, in 1998, John McCain, Bob Kerry, some other senators and I decided it was time for Saddam to go. There was enough evidence on the record — this man was a brutal dictator, he wanted to control the Arab world. He had weapons of mass destruction, chemical and biological. He admitted — not only did he use them, he admitted it to the United Nations."

:puke:

his supporters certainly have their work cut out for them ;->

peace

[Clete]

5. I'm going out on a limb now because it's only

my gut feeling that is telling me this. I think Lieberman is a Republican registered as a Democrat for a couple of reasons. First, he knows he wouldn't have the Jewish vote as a Republican in his state. So his career would be over with if he ran against another Republican as a Republican.

Second, he seems bent on dividing the Democrats. He was a spoiler in the last election dragging Al Gore down with him. I believe there was a very calculating reason he ran for the Senate at the same time as running for Vice President. I think that deep down he was setting up Bush to win by eroding Democratic votes. He's bent this time on attacking his fellow candidates and the Democratic Party.

"But Joe's a Democrat, so he must be right!" Spare me. Joe is not working for the Party, but against it. I'll bet he's on the phone with Karl Rove on a daily basis.

(Rant over)

[BayCityProgressive]

11. Well....

As much as I loathe Joe Lieberman I have to agree with him on a few points. We are not going to win this election with anger, we need a positive message and plan for America, things are depressing enough as it is without having an angry pessimistic message to boot. I also think repealing ALL the tax cuts is what will lose us the election. I personally agree they should all be repealed HOWEVER with the economy as is and with the publics horrible understanding of tax cut policies..the last thing the middle class is going to want to do is send in the money the govenrment just gave them when they are losing jobs and are short on cash. I say repeal the tax cuts for the rich, let the middle class keep theirs, that is a winning strategy and will be hard enough to defend. try to unite people against president Bush's foreign policy. People's minds are mad eup, they either think the war was just or they don't and opinions aren't likely to change now. What we can do instead of criticizing the war criticize the Bush lies, the deception on the costs, and the inabilty to include the world community, and his apparent lack of planning. We need to have a clear opposing message but we can't risk sounding extreme, this election is way to important for unrestricted idealism. We can work on changing public attitude on the issues after election day.

[bpilgrim]

15. first of all the tax cuts went to the rich for the most part...

i really don't think anyone is campaigning on 'anger' alone that is simply painting with a broad negitive brush, not to mention the very same brush the repukes use...

also it is hypocritical to bring up the lies that were used to start a war yet support it at the same time, folks tend to notice that.

then you got the selection 2000, i know, move on
911
Enronomics
Envio
Foreign Policy
Domestic Policy
Jobs
Liberties

you see when taking all together folks tend to get pissed off, don't worry... it's ONLY HUMAN, and folks are gonna vote for the folks that most reflected their mood - ps 101

so i say that while his platitudes may sound reasonable they really don't reflect the reality though his flagging support does.

peace

[BayCityProgressive]

19. If you think you are going to change the minds

of the majority of the people in this country who thought the war was just with the right wing media we have...you are living in a fantasy world,and I am as anti-war as anyone. Just the cold fatcs. It is not hypocritical to point out the Bush lies and shortcomings on the war if you were pro-war. A lot of Americans just don't care about WMD they thought Saddam was an evil mass murderer..I know this is really stupid but its just the way people think and the media portrays it. A lot of people who were pro-war still aren't happy with how Bush handled the whole situation though and you can capitalize on that. You are right, the rich did get most of the tax cut but middle class people got a few hundred bucks too, and a lot of people aren't going to be too cool with giving that back. We can slam Bush on civil liberties,jobs,environment,trickle on economics, domestic policy ect. The reason I don't support Lieberman is because he is a corporate whore and would never go after corporate crime like the Enron fiasco. He also blurs the line between church and state too much with his support for Faith Based Initiative ect. I also think he's wrong on government programs. If the programs are funded properly and there is a clear mandate they are effective. Most Americans would agree that government should give a hand up not a hand out, so we just need programs that Americans don't see as wasteful handouts. I think Lieberman made some good points but he definately isn't my guy and he takes some things way too far to the Right.

[jab105]

24. But our voices can change people's minds....

The REASON why people think that the war was right is BECAUSE OF the right wing media...but the cracks are all over the place, and with more death and destruction as a result, that can crumble.....

Saddam is a mass murderer but others would put Saddam Hussein to shame as far as mass murders.....

Most middle class Americans might have seen their federal taxes go down, but those same people saw state taxes go up, and may have lost their job!! I know my federal taxes went down by approx. $100, but my property taxes alone went up $400, so how is that good news for me?

[BayCityProgressive]

27. And I totally agree with you..

But we need to appeal to what the people now right now to get into office so that we can work on legislation to diversify the media and get our message out. We have to actually get into office before we can make real change because when he Taliban controls all three branches of government there is no way for us to change anything. Im just saying we need to take a moderate but opposing and positive approach that will get us some power back. Thenw e can go about diversifying the media and putting our ideas for change out there more.

[bpilgrim]

30. it's happened before...

not that long ago either... VIETNAM.

history is repleat with examples of the people standing up and speaking out for CHANGE :bounce:

you stick with the convential wisdom and you will be stuck right where your at...

the PEOPLE are ready for CHANGE always have been and is why clinton got in, he was PREACHING IT, folks should read his campaign speaches, he pitched to the people and governed to the corp elite - same as it ever was - but he demonstrate very well how to win.

i agree that the image must be of hope but hope of change not going back to the status quo which he advocates :puke:

peace

[w4rma]

12. I think you could be right. Lieberman = Republican saboteur

I think that Sen. Lieberman is going to have a strong challenger in his primary come 2006.

[susu369]

34. I'm with you

"I believe there was a very calculating reason he ran for the Senate at the same time as running for Vice President."

[greekspeak]

6. I saw about 1 minute of Lieberman

My (euphemism) Clint doesnt really get it that Faux News is not a good source for "fair and balanced" reporting. So he had it on. I came in to sit with him and eat breakfast. Holy Joe was on there, outlining his crypto-republican beliefs. I asked Clint to change the channel, because I cannot stand that damned "Mr. Drummond from Diffrent Strokes Clone" talking head. I think that it is clear that Lieberman's popularity is slipping among Democrats, while I am also sure that Republicans would love to have him jump the aisle.

[tjdee]

8. He's not going to "stand back"?? What's he gonna do??

He's not going to stand back and let this happen.

Fascinating.

He's stood back on a number of issues, the least of which not being the theft of his own ticket's victory in 2000.

What's he going to do? His campaign is not raising any money, he's squandering the easy lead he had on everybody else...what's he gonna do, that's what I want to know.

[GCP]

9. As usual, Holy Joe talks out of his ass

"LIEBERMAN: Brit, I understand the frustration and anger that a lot of Democrats have about the failure of the Bush leadership."

No, Joe, the Democrats are angry about the spinelessness shown by their representatives and senators against Bush and his policies.

We want real democrats, not DINOs.

[mcd1982]

13. I read recently...

a good article talking about the "spineless representatives and senators" who don't stand against Bush -- can't remember where it was though.

Basically, it stated that the Democrats are fighting Bush -- they are offering their own bills, trying to engage the Rs in debate -- and are be stiffled at every turn.

When you don't control any branch of government, it's difficult to get the media to pay attention to you, esp. if your bills aren't even being given consideration.

I'm not saying there aren't Democrats laying down to Bush -- but knowing what I know by currently interning for the chief deputy whip of the House, a lot of crap is going on that the media doesn't report -- and the House Ds, at least, are trying to stand up to him.

Just my two cents...

Matthew

[bpilgrim]

16. thanks

i agree that many in the 'trenches' are putting up a fight it is the leadership that is the problem.

they have no controll in congress they need to be working the media and only the leadership and canidates do that consistantly.

i am sure corp america likes what it sees though ;->

peace

[mcd1982]

17. Yes, but....

the problem is that who is the media most likely to listen to? The Speaker of the House/House Majority Leader, or the Minority Leader? The Senate Majority Leader? Or the Senate Minority Leader?

I think it's obvious the majority in Congress always gets listened too first, b/c they can really effect the way things turn out, generally speaking.

The Democrats were lucky enough to control Congress almost solidly for the past 30 years or so, but not the presidency, so we were still able to get our message out. Then, when get gained the presidency once again with Clinton, we lost the House shortly thereafter, but we were still able to get our message out. Then, after GWB "won" in 2000, we still had the Senate, and I remember hearing Daschle a lot on the news -- fast forward to 2003 -- Daschle is still saying the same things -- it's just harder to find b/c the media vastly ignores the minority party.


Matthew

[bpilgrim]

31. it doesn't matter what the media thinks, they are there to be used

of course i am not saying that they aren't powerful opinion shapers but they are there to convey messages to their audience and our leaders should use them to speak to that audience... the media will ALWAYS SPIN, we need to use that platform to get the message out WHENEVER we can. :bounce:

we are just spinning our wheels if we are tryin to out guess the media, imo

peace

[Eloriel]

28. Yeah, Matthew, but

they not only didn't stand up when they HAD control of the Senate and more power in the House, they consistently give mealy-mouthed answers or outright pro-Bush spin when they DO have the mike.

Eloriel

[dansolo]

33. But the Dems didn't fight when they had the Senate

Daschle sat on his hands when he was given the golden opportunity with Jeffords' defection. Daschle deserves a lot of blame. The most obvious example was the formation of the Department of Homeland Security. It was initially proposed by the Democrats, and opposed by Bush. But instead of pushing the issue, and having a clear line of attack on Bush showing that he didn't care about defending our country, they sat back and did nothing. All of a sudden, Bush does a complete 180 and favored it, and was able to add in a lot of provisions that he wanted that he knew the Democrats opposed. Now the Democrats were painted into a corner, and we saw the result of it. Part of the reason the Democrats are out of power is because they were inept at countering Bush when they had control.

[maggrwaggr]

10. Faux News -- perfect place for Lieberbush

Maybe they'll give him a talk show

[Jack Rabbit]

14. Alternate question for Senator Lieberman

TITLE EDIT

Do you want the Democratic Party to be taken over by those gullible enough to have believed and repeated the Bush junta's lies about the Iraq invasion?

[revcarol]

18. He doesn't care. Israel's enemy was eliminated BY US.

They didn't have to lift a finger.Whether he believed it or still believes it is irrelevant in his world view.

[BayCityProgressive]

21. All the Dems are pro-Israel

why aren't you bashing the rest of them?

[Jack Rabbit]

25. Please get off of that

I think Lieberman's reasons for supporting the invasion had more to do with finger-to-the-wind political analysis than anything to do with Isreal. They certinly had nothing to do with sound strategy. The junta had sold the lies to the public because the corporate media did not challenge them. Lieberman found it easier to go along with the polls.

I am not sympathetic to Lieberman's difficulty explaining himself. I and many other marched against the invasion ahead of it this winter. We weren't all knee-jerk pacifists. Based on information we got from foreign and non-mainstream sources, we conlcude that the Saddam was not a threat to his weakest neighbor, let alone the United States; that the inspections process was working and deserved to continue; that the war was one with colonial goals that not only had nothing to do bringing democracy to the Arab world, but was antithetical to that goal. It had nothing to do with enforcing UN resolutions, but was in fact a gross violation of internation law in its own right. The opposition to the war was based on informed opinion. If this information was available to me, it was available to Senators Lieberman, Kerry and Edwards and to Mr. Gephardt. They have no good excuse for supporting Bush's war crimes.

The peace movement has been proven right on all counts. The only thing Lieberman and each of the other "Blair Democrats" should say is:

I supported the war. I was wrong. I'm sorry.

[Walt Starr]

20. That "wilderness" statement bothers the fuck out of me

I'm not going to stand back and let this party be taken over by people who would bring us to the political wilderness again.

If we are not in the political wilderness right now, he must be speaking of 1993 when we had both houses and the White House.

That's Lieberman's version of "political wilderness." He's stating outright he does not want the Democrats to be in control of anything.

Fucking bastard.

[Clete]

22. No kidding. n/t

[Walt Starr]

23. Preciesely why I will be ABL if he gets the nomination

A Lieberman presidency would devestate he Democrats. They would never have power again.

We entered the "political wilderness" January 2003 when the Repukes took total control. This was due to basing the campaigns on "we're everything you want from a Republican without that (R) after our names" which is Lieberman's stance.

IMO, he should be expelled from the Democratic Party as a traitor.

[BayCityProgressive]

26. LOL

The funny thing to me is..almost everyone running for the nomination is a "moderate" whatever that means...Dean and Kerry are playing to the Left wing voters hoping they will send them sailing to the nomination..real liberals like Kucinich, Sharpton, and Braun are also out there getting Left wing voters. Lieberman is taking a gamble and playing up to conservative Democrats in hopes that the others will split the liberal Democrat vote. He is by no means a Republican on issues like the environment, tax cuts for the rich, gay rights, abortion, ect. Although I don't like his message and would not vote for him it really is the only strategy that can work for him. I think he and all the others that I just mentioned have painted themselves into a corner.If any of them do win the nomination it will be really hard for them to win support from both wings of the party AND swing voters and any one of them (maybe not Kerry) would cause a war within the party. Edwards and Graham are laying low and not appealing to the "Left" or "Right" wing of the party. I think as we get closer to the primaries both of them and possibly Clark will begin using their money and saying that they can bridge the gap between the two wings and get swing votes. They will come out as the bigger people who didn't get caught up in the infighting and I think if one of them were to be nominated we would avoid all out civil war within the party and be able to appeal to swing voters who are not satisfied with the Presidents performance. I think this is the best way for us to go.

[onehandle]

29. You folks need to spend your energy elsewhere...

Joe will not be the Nominee. Never had a chance.

The only surprise has been Dean.

Would you have been bashing Lieberman so much if his Vice Presidency hadn't been stolen?

Kick smirk and his cronies. Talk about the positives of candidates.

The candidate will be Dean, Kerry, or Gephardt.

The candidate will (hopefully) choose one of the other fine candidates for VP. That won't be Lieberman either.

[babzilla]

32. don't worry 'bout Joe: he feels your pain

a self-described "independent-minded Democrat"? Well, that's one way to put it.

"Brit, I understand the frustration and anger that a lot of Democrats have about the failure of the Bush leadership. Of course, I share that anger in a lot of different ways, but we can't let that anger allow us to grab for the failed solutions of the past.

Aw shucks Joe, thanks for the understanding. The only person I see in this race grabbing for the failed solutions of the past (we can look at the 2002 elections the as the best example of the failed solutions of the most recent past) is you, you "independent-minded democrat".

Other than empathy for us frustrated & angry folk, he seems to have the republican talking points down, let us review the checklist now:

The value of lowered expectations? Check.

LIEBERMAN: I suppose the good news in politics is, the expectations for me in the first two caucus and primary states are lower.

The value of bringing back honor and dignitude to the White House? Check.

LIEBERMAN: And then I've got to distinguish myself from the other Democratic candidates. I'm an independent-minded Democrat. I'm going to bring back prosperity and security and fairness and integrity to the White House, where it hasn't been.

Dean is too far left? Check.

HUME: Would you say, then, that Governor Dean is an extremist?

LIEBERMAN: Well, I think some of the ideas that he is reflecting are out of tune with what America needs today. And so that therefore, they're out of the mainstream of our values and our needs.

Repealing the Bush tax cuts=raising taxes? Check.

LIEBERMAN: It just seems absolutely wrong to me to raise taxes on the middle class today. They're stressed right now because of the Bush economic policies. Raising taxes would just make it worse.

Democrats as bleeding hearted, tax & spending, big-government, weak on defense, pinko-commie socialists? Check.

LIEBERMAN: If we're for middle-class tax increases, if we send a message of weakness and ambivalence on defense, if we go back to big government spending when we're already so deeply in debt because of the Bush fiscal irresponsibility, if we're against trade for protectionism, which never created a job, we don't deserve to govern the country. We're not going to be able to meet the challenges that America faces today.

Hate to tell ya Joe, no one is calling for any such agenda. It must feel sad to be running against an imaginary opponent.

and now the bonus reason why he was on fox today, to promote the CA state chairman of the Lieberman campaign, none other than, drumroll please: Cruz Bustamante. I wonder why no one on the show brought this connection up?
http://www.gwu.edu/~action/2004/lieberman/lieborgca.html

HUME: So you support Gray Davis's continuing in office?

LIEBERMAN: Here's what I do. I support — I'm against the recall. But I believe that Cruz Bustamante has done a gutsy thing in offering himself — that's the lieutenant governor — as a Democratic alternative if Gray Davis is recalled.

Bustamante is experienced. The state of California can't afford leadership that hasn't been tested at this time. And Bustamante is an American dream story. Mexican-American child of immigrants, worked his way up to the Central Valley, been speaker of the House and lieutenant governor.

He's a steady, solid, independent-minded Democrat who offers the best hope if Gray Davis unfortunately is recalled, of taking the state out of its morass right now.

Hey Joe, you're a funny one to be warning about morasses.

:evilgrin: