All of the people, who say that Senator Lieberman ISN'T a Democrat

[...of J.Temperance]

What I'd like is for you to read these percentages and read what organizations they're from. The only thing you have on Senator Lieberman is that he voted for the IWR and he babbles on about his support for the Iraq War.

I've NEVER supported the Iraq War, had I of been a Senator I would have voted AGAINST the IWR.

I 100% disagree with Senator Lieberman regarding his stance on Iraq. However, his stance on Iraq does NOT somehow make him a Republican OR this curious thing called a DINO. Senator Lieberman is a Democrat 100% on social issues and economic issues....and IF you recall Vice-President Al Gore chose Senator Lieberman as his Veep....and yes, I think that Gore/Lieberman won the 2000 election.

But to the many people who constantly bash Senator Lieberman, the bashing now in one thread has become a wish for him to be dead and go and burn in Hell with Junior and Cheney, which to anyone should be a monstrous comment....to all the Senator Lieberman bashers, I want you to read these percentages from these organizations...these are Senator Lieberman's ratings.

Christian Coalition rating for Lieberman 0%.

Phyllis Schlafley's Eagle Forum rating for Lieberman 0%.

FAIR (Immigration Reform pushing English as a national language) Kennedy 0%, Boxer 0%,Lieberman 0%.

Family Research Council(2000), Lieberman 0%.

Family Research Council(2004), Lieberman 0%.

UAW, Lieberman 86%.

Citizens for Global Solutions (envisions a future in which nations work together to abolish war, protect our rights and freedoms, and solve the problems facing humanity that no nation can solve alone. This vision requires effective democratic global institutions that will apply the rule of law while respecting the diversity and autonomy of national and local communities), Lieberman A, Kennedy A+, Boxer A+.

That's all I wanted to comment and these are facts and not the fiction about Senator Lieberman that's often posted....the latest being a thread that's subject title is that he's going to run as a Republican, even though NOWHERE in that article does it even mention such a thing....but that didn't stop all the bashing did it? No.

Senator Lieberman is a Democrat, he's a member of the Democratic Party, he's not a Republican, he's not a member of the Republican Party....he's a DEMOCRAT!!!!

On Edit: A lot of people like John Murtha because he's commenting the truth about Iraq, and I respect John Murtha for that....but would you like me to post John Murtha's rating's from similar organizations to the one's I've posted for Senator Lieberman? You want this curious thing called a DINO? I give you John Murtha who IS a Republican, he's got a perfect Republican voting record.

I hope that the Moderators will allow my post here, it took some time to post this, and I just felt that I'd like to do some comments in light of the Lieberman to run as a Republican thread, so I hope that this is deemed okay? Thanks.

[WannaJumpMyScooter]

1. But he is still an annoying one, who is on the wrong

side of an important issue.

[MrBenchley]

2. Frankly, Joe seems like much more of a plus to the party

that some of the mushbrained imbeciles ranting about how much they hate him....

[...of J.Temperance]

9. I completely agree MrB

There's already comments in this thread that are totally ignoring the rating percentages that I've posted in my OP.

The thing is, I think that some people are so blinded by their utter hatred of Senator Lieberman they don't read what's written, they just see LIEBERMAN and that's enough to get them bashing him.

I know that you MrB know all about John Murtha's voting record.

[MrBenchley]

62. It's a lynch mob mentality

And by the way, could there be a better term to indicate this peurile and vapid bunch than the one they picked themselves: "the lefty left"....

[400Years]

65. ah, more name calling from benchly because he can't make a real point

pathetic.

Why don't you and Joementum take your asses over to Iraq?

Fact is Lieberman is pro-police state, pro-censorship, pro-war, and pro-corporate.

[MrBenchley]

74. Go cry about it with the rest of the "lefty left"

[Ken Burch]

85. Benchley, "the lefty left" isn't even a good insult.

C'mon, you can do better than that, Duckworth Boy.

[MrBenchley]

99. It's a term one of you wowsers coined yourself

and it perfectly summed up the vapid, peurile content of your posts.....

[Name removed]

87. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[killerbush]

88. J. Temperence

Great post. I wrote a post tonight on how Ned Lamont should get out while he's behind, and the people attacked me when I dare support Lieberman. They call me all sorts of names, and blather on just how bad Lieberman is on the war and stuff. These pathetic Lieberman bashers make no sense whatsoever. They live in a fantasy world where Daily Kos, Buzzflash, and the lefty websites think for them. Rush Limbaugh tells the right what to think, and Daily Kos and Buzzflash do the same for the left.

[Ken Burch]

91. We didn't attack you personally. We attacked the absurd demand

That Lamont get out of the race. There is no serious or even potentially serious Republican candidate in the race this year, so there is no reason for Democrats to support the reelection of Senator Lieberman, when he is the most conservative candidate in the entire race.

I assume you concede my point on this, since neither you or any other Lieberman apologist has rebutted it.

Why should Lieberman be spared a primary challenge when many of the same people who oppose Lamont are passionate defenders of the party leadership-organized Tammy Duckworth challenge to electable progressive Christine Cegelis? How come only YOUR favored candidates should get a free ride?

[Ken Burch]

90. And with that, the "It's antisemitic to oppose Lieberman" slur

has officially been uttered.

It was only a matter of time until that was dragged out.

[Name removed]

92. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Colorado Blue]

71. Totally agree. Look at the record - this is a solid liberal.

I disagreed about Iraq of course.

But on the home front - we need people like this - badly.

[MrBenchley]

75. One wonders who benefits by this sort of hate-filled gibberish

It sure as shit isn't the Democratic party.

[Colorado Blue]

76. That's a good point. I hadn't thought of it. One suspects,

the Republicans would LOVE to pick off Connecticut.

Why not? If they can use our own far left to discredit a Democratic Senator - they know damn well the Green Party or the Communists aren't gonna win - especially not in Connecticut.

That leaves guess who?

[MrBenchley]

77. You will notice just about every Democrat who comes under attack here

is:
a) up for election/re-election in 2006, and
b) walloping his or her Republican opponent like a red-headed stepchild.

In Joe's case, the Republican who was planning to run bowed out in November of last year.

[Ken Burch]

86. Dear God, Benchley's back on his "Republican conspiracy" rant.

We've proved that one was wrong time after time. Give it a rest.

And, since Lieberman has no Republican opponent, what harm would it do to defeat him?
It would mean a more progressive senator no matter what.

[MrBenchley]

97. Gee, Ken, what a shame for you that it's a fact....

It's hilarious to hear that you think tossing a snit is "proving" anything "wrong"...

[Ken Burch]

101. It isn't a fact. Progressives hate the GOP. We aren't trying to help

those guys. And none of the incumbents you mentioned are in any danger of defeat.

All you have is you insane left-hating paranoia on this.

[MrBenchley]

102. It sure as shit is a fact.....

[Ken Burch]

103. No, it is not. If it were a fact

All the progressive Democratic challegers would be beating the conservative Democratic incumbents
but polling way behind the Republican challengers. If it were a fact, those progressive candidates
would have inexplicably massive campaign warchests. If it were a fact, there would be a strong Republican
candidate in the Ct. Senate race. None of those things are the case, so all you've got is paranoia.

The Democratic Party does NOT depend on moderate-to-conservative candidates to have any chance of winning
anywhere.

You're just spreading slander against people who have done the party no harm. People who should never have
been driven away by Clinton. People the party needs to work with if it is to win.

[MrBenchley]

104. Tough titty, Ken. It's a fact.

"If it were a fact, those progressive candidates
would have inexplicably massive campaign warchests"
On what fucking planet?

"People who should never have
been driven away by Clinton."
Hey, fuck anybody who doesn't like Bill Clinton. AND the horse they rode in on.

[LincolnMcGrath]

105. "Making The Pie Higher"

It's MrB, Appearing Daily on DU....

Did you just post tough titty?

:rofl:

[MrBenchley]

106. Try to be a bit more lame....

Repost some more of what I've written....

[LincolnMcGrath]

107. So what you just said is.

If I post more of your rantings, then DU will be more lame?


Who says we can't agree? :hug:

(tough titty) :rofl:

[MrBenchley]

109. Poor little bobo, tugging at my coat hem for attention......

[LincolnMcGrath]

110. tee hee hee "Making The Pie Higher"

(reality)

[Ken Burch]

118. One More Point If there WERE a Republican/left Democrat conspiracy

against center-right Democratic incumbents, it would be SUCCESSFUL(like the Nixon sabotage of the Paris Peace Talks in '68, the Committee to Re-Elect the President/Dirty Tricks Squad of '72, and the Reagan "arms for hostages" scheme with Iran to ratfuck Carter in '80). Since none of the Democratic conservatives you are so defensive about are in any danger of defeat(and Lieberman, if he did loss, would inevitably be replaced by someone to his left since THERE IS NO ELECTABLE CONSERVATIVE REPUBLICAN IN THAT RACE), your paranoid smear is disproved again.

Progressive Democrats(and progressives who should be invited to be Democrats)are not the Democratic Party's enemy. We were not to blame for the defeats of the '70s and '80s. The party insiders caused those losses.

The Democratic Party needs to be a party of the majority of the people who were left out by Reaganomics. We need to be the party of ALL the American peoples, the multicultural majority. We need to be the party of all the kinds of families. If we can be these things we can win. If we insist on trying to be nothing more than the second conservative party, the second party of uptight Sixties-hating, life-hating white suburbanites, we'll go on losing, because Republicans will always be better at being that party than we will.

We need to be a party of big, bold dreams and hopes to win.

Get it?

(btw, I don't think your titties are any tougher than anyone else's. Not that I want to find out, mind you.)

[MrBenchley]

127. LOL!

"Progressive Democrats(and progressives who should be invited to be Democrats)are not the Democratic Party's enemy."
You sure as shit fooled me....

But then the evidence says otherwise. Loud AND clear.

[Ken Burch]

133. No it doesn't, because their IS no evidence.

There are a couple of meaningless coincidences. There is no conspiracy.

If you want to watch out for REAL conspiracies, I suggest you keep an eye on Diebold and what
they do to the vote counting. Your enemy is the RIGHT, not the left. It's corporate power, not activists.

Democrats don't gain from treating
progressives as the enemy. Clinton was only good for Clinton. And YOU should only post when sober. So there.

[MrBenchley]

134. Sorry, Ken, it's a fact.....

"Clinton was only good for Clinton."
Guess you're not even trying to sound plausible any more.

[Ken Burch]

137. Do you have any evidence that it's "a fact" other than your repeated

statement that "it's a fact"?

If you want to hate Republicans, fine. We hate 'em too. Just get off this ridiculous fantasy that we're in league with 'em. We're not, and you know it.

Progressives and activists have just as much right to a place in this party as right-wing hacks like you. We're not going away, and you need us if the party wants to win.

Fight the real enemy. Not us.

[LincolnMcGrath]

81. As if we have made any tremendous gains from your Anti-DLC screeds

and attacks on gun owners. :eyes:

One can only be left to wonder if you feel your cookie cutter propaganda is working on any readers.

[MrBenchley]

82. Better stick to re-posting what I've written

Your own posts aren't worth reading.

[LincolnMcGrath]

83. And yet you keep reading them and running from your own words.

Sad, if you think about it.

Have you tried to purge any hunters today?

[Ken Burch]

135. Uhh, Lincoln...

Benchley LOVES the DLC now. It's everybody else he writes screeds about these days.

[LiberalUprising]

3. Oh C'mon dude

Give me a break joementum can burn in hell with his neo con buds

Shout all ya want, it won't make ole joe any more liberal

On edit

maybe he IS a Dem seeing as how todays 'Dems' are to the right of center anyways, you may have a point after all, you see 'Dems' like joe are what have turned myself and so many others to the 3rd parties. I have no use for repub lite.

[...of J.Temperance]

11. I'm a girl n/t

[LiberalUprising]

20. Sorry, I should have checked your profile

If Joe is an example of a Dem these days, then there is indeed very little difference btwn Dems and Repubs, the Iraq invasion is the source of the majority of our problems as a country and going even further back 911 (the new pearl harbor) started the downhill slide for America. Anyone who is not solidly against the war in Iraq will get nothing but scorn from me and I will do everything in my power to see they are booted to the curb.

It's way past time to realize that if (and by if I mean the powers that be allow it) Dems take over, it will only be as in the past to build up the treasury so the repubs can can in 8 years from now and pull the same shit all over again, it's becoming a very clear pattern, imho. The repubs would also be able to say, see the elections aren't rigged, your guys won. And we will stay the course on bush's policies and more schools and hiways will be named after neo cons. The corporations own both parties, much as a bookie hedges his bets.

[stepnw1f]

4. Joe is Toast...

fuck em...

[roguevalley]

5. the pugs are going to endorse him in the elections

according to Shays, that's how much THEY need him.

[...of J.Temperance]

12. I've already responded to a similar comment in

This thread. But I'm responding to you to say that I'm glad that Tippy has returned, a gorgeous little honey pie :)

[roguevalley]

78. Tippy is my baby love, that one.

:)

[madinmaryland]

66. Only Shays, the rest of the state pubs

are not endorsing Lieberman.

[gordianot]

6. He may not be a Republican I wish he was not a Democrat.

His stance in support of Bush War will never be reconciled in my view.

[Gman]

7. You're exactly right

Lieberman is a great friend of labor and a good Democrat. The Democratic party is not defined by how one stands on this war in spite of what some people would have you believe. Those are the same people that will be jumping ship to the Green Party no matter who the Democrats nominate in November. No reason to think differently.

[...of J.Temperance]

15. Thanks for your positive comments

You're absolutely correct of course.

[Name removed]

8. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[IndianaGreen]

10. Bush on his buddy Lieberman:

One of those who has seen that progress is Democratic Senator Joe Lieberman. Senator Lieberman has traveled to Iraq four times in the past 17 months, and the article he wrote when he returned from his most recent trip provides a clear description of the situation on the ground. Here's what Senator Lieberman wrote -- Senator Lieberman wrote about the Iraq he saw: "Progress is visible and practical. There are many more cars on the streets, satellite television dishes on the roofs, and literally millions more cell phones in Iraq hands than before." He describes an Iraqi poll showing that, "two-thirds say they are better off than they were under Saddam Hussein."

Senator Lieberman goes on, "Does America have a good plan for doing this, a strategy for victory in Iraq? Yes, we do. And it's important to make clear to the American people that the plan has not remained stubbornly still, but has changed over the years." The Senator says that mistakes have been made. But he goes on to say that he is worried about a bigger mistake. He writes, "What a colossal mistake it would be for America's bipartisan political leadership to choose this moment in history to lose its will and, in the famous phrase, to seize defeat from the jaws of the coming victory." Senator Lieberman is right.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/12/20051207-1.html

Lieberman on Lieberman:

“It’s time,” he said, “for Democrats who distrust President Bush to acknowledge he’ll be commander-in-chief for three more years.”

http://www.progressive.org/mag_wx120705

[...of J.Temperance]

14. IndianaGreen on Lieberman

Holy Joe is not Russ Feingold!

and for that alone I hope G-d strikes the warmongering gnome dead and calls him to his well-deserved eternal damnation. He can spent eternity in Hades with the likes of Cheney and Bush!

From this thread your post #82.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x2486294

And as I pointed out to you in that thread, in my post #95, Senator Lieberman is MORE LIBERAL than your Julia Carson!!!! And do you think that Senator Feingold would agree with you, do you think he wishes DEATH on Senator Lieberman as well?

On Edit: Link corrected.

[IndianaGreen]

25. Lieberman in his own words

IRAQ Senate September 13, 2002

Mr. LIEBERMAN:

Saddam hates America and Americans and is working furiously to accumulate deadly weapons of mass destruction and the missiles, planes, and unmanned aerial vehicles to use in attacking distant targets.

Every day Saddam remains in power is a day of danger for the Iraqi people, for Iraq's neighbors, for the American people, and for the world. As long as Saddam remains in power, there will be no genuine security and no lasting peace in the Middle East, among the Arab nations or among the Arabs, Israelis, and Christians who live there.

The threat Saddam poses has been articulated so often that some may have grown numb to the reality of his brutality. But after September 11, we must reacquaint ourselves with him because if we do not understand and act, his next victims, like Osama bin Laden's, could be innocent Americans.

President Bush advanced that process with great effectiveness in his speech at the U.N. yesterday, albeit after a season long on the beating of drums of war and short on explaining why war may now be necessary. But the President did that yesterday in New York. Now we, in Congress, must go forward together with him as the Constitution's competing clauses require us to do. Each of us must decide what actions will best advance America's values and secure the future of the American people.

The essential facts are known. We know of the weapons in Saddam's possession--chemical, biological, and nuclear in time. We know of his unequaled willingness to use them. We know his history, his invasions of his neighbors, his dreams of achieving hegemonic control over the Arab world, his record of anti-American rage, his willingness to terrorize, to slaughter, to suppress his own people and others. And we need not stretch to imagine nightmare scenarios in which Saddam makes common cause with the terrorists who want to kill Americans and destroy our way of life.

http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/45/205.html

[IndianaGreen]

28. Lieberman: Our Troops Must Stay

Our Troops Must Stay

America can't abandon 27 million Iraqis to 10,000 terrorists.

BY JOE LIEBERMAN
Tuesday, November 29, 2005 12:01 a.m. EST

I have just returned from my fourth trip to Iraq in the past 17 months and can report real progress there. More work needs to be done, of course, but the Iraqi people are in reach of a watershed transformation from the primitive, killing tyranny of Saddam to modern, self-governing, self-securing nationhood--unless the great American military that has given them and us this unexpected opportunity is prematurely withdrawn.

Progress is visible and practical. In the Kurdish North, there is continuing security and growing prosperity. The primarily Shiite South remains largely free of terrorism, receives much more electric power and other public services than it did under Saddam, and is experiencing greater economic activity. The Sunni triangle, geographically defined by Baghdad to the east, Tikrit to the north and Ramadi to the west, is where most of the terrorist enemy attacks occur. And yet here, too, there is progress.

There are many more cars on the streets, satellite television dishes on the roofs, and literally millions more cell phones in Iraqi hands than before. All of that says the Iraqi economy is growing. And Sunni candidates are actively campaigning for seats in the National Assembly. People are working their way toward a functioning society and economy in the midst of a very brutal, inhumane, sustained terrorist war against the civilian population and the Iraqi and American military there to protect it.

It is a war between 27 million and 10,000; 27 million Iraqis who want to live lives of freedom, opportunity and prosperity and roughly 10,000 terrorists who are either Saddam revanchists, Iraqi Islamic extremists or al Qaeda foreign fighters who know their wretched causes will be set back if Iraq becomes free and modern. The terrorists are intent on stopping this by instigating a civil war to produce the chaos that will allow Iraq to replace Afghanistan as the base for their fanatical war-making. We are fighting on the side of the 27 million because the outcome of this war is critically important to the security and freedom of America. If the terrorists win, they will be emboldened to strike us directly again and to further undermine the growing stability and progress in the Middle East, which has long been a major American national and economic security priority.

http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110007611

[Catamount]

42. That last comment from Mr. Lieberman is enough to turn me off!

I voted for him in 2000, because he was on Gore's ticket and also because he has some great views on enviromental issues--but how he can defend the shrub and anything the repugs do is beyond me. Especially given the devastation going on in the name of freedom!
Personally I think it's because of the Israealy situation that he has sided with shrub, but that should not be his priority.
He seemed genuinely pleased to be kissed by shrub, even though he denied it.
Judas comes to mind!

[Strawman]

13. Those ratings skew something important

The war is the most salient issue and Lieberman is a Bush cheerleader on the war. Why should his position on the "patients bill of rights" or something like that be given equal weight?

Is he a Republican, no, but how can you not understand why so many Democrats have a problem with this guy? On the most visible and important issue out there all this guy can do is go on TV and blow Chimpy. Well, golly he got a B+ rating from ADA (or whatever). Whoopdeedoo.

[LincolnMcGrath]

17. And how much weight do we give certain ratings?

There has not been much in the way of worker rights come down the pike in a long time.

Sure there was FMLA, and that is great legislation, but there was little before that for decades and little since. As a Union man I am not so sure a mid-eighties rating is something to shout about? :shrug:

And should ratings be weighted differently if a party is in the minority? Like with civil rights, I give a southern Dem who was in effect, ending his political career more points than I would a northern Dem in a Progressive area.

Does that make sense the way i explained it?

[Strawman]

72. Yes. That's a good point

I think you use common sense like you are doing and take these ratings for what they're worth. They show some tendencies in voting behavior, but they don't tell enough of the story. Your analysis on labor issues adds valuable context to ratings based on those "labor issues" votes.

Lieberman is what he is. I'll take him over a Republican, but why should anyone here be at all enthusiastic about him after his unabashed cheerleading of Bush on the war? I'll give some support to any progressive who would try to unseat him, but at the same time unseating him is probably not at the top of my priority list. As irksome as his apostasy is, there are at least 54 people in the Senate that are worse and they're called Republicans. I think he is getting what he deserves on DU, but at the same time I don't think it makes much sense to focus on getting rid of him at the expense of other causes in the world beyond the DU message board. But he absolutely deserves to be called out in a forum like this.

[Smarmie Doofus]

16. Read paragraph one in the attached:

http://www.nedlamont.com/blog020206.html

[PassingFair]

18. Yeah, he's a REAL man of the people!

It's NOT a one issue problem with Joe...

His public statements are an embarrassment to the party; and THE KISS!



# Boxer Rebellion (Electorial Ballot Count). Joe voted WITH the Republican Majority
# Confirmation Condoleeza Rice (she who lied about 9/11), of California, to be Secretary of State. Joe voted WITH the Republican Majority
# Confirmation Alberto R. Gonzales (he who approved torture and thinks the Geneva Convention is quaint and antiquated) to be Attorney General. Joe voted WITH the Republican Majority
# Senate Bill 5 - Class Actions. Joe voted WITH the Republican Majority
# Confirmation Michael Chertoff, of New Jersey, To Be Secretary of Homeland Security. Joe voted WITH the Republican Majority
# Cloture Motion on Senate Bill 256 - Bankruptcy Bill. Joe voted WITH the Republican Majority
# Senate Bill 256 - Bankruptcy Bill. After joing the GOP and saying that the item couldn't be debated, DINO Joe was too confused to understand the reasons for what he did, and in error voted NO (the Democratic position) shocking his GOP handlers. (matching this vote with the last one makes NO SENSE! He stops debate, which could have changed peoples minds, and then votes NO? The two votes don't go together. The first vote gave the GOP what they wanted, a fast track to approval of a bad bill, this just looks like he was covering his ass.)HE VOTED FOR CLOTURE ON THIS, THEN VOTED NO. WE WEREN'T FOOLED- BECAUSE WE WERE WATCHING!

[LincolnMcGrath]

22. Smooch!

[smoogatz]

37. Excellent rundown.

Lieberman's a moderate Republican posing as a Democrat; he is anything but a member of the Democratic opposition to Bushco and their imperial wetdreams. He's a Faux Democrat and a major Bush/Cheney enabler. Fuck him. He's got to go.

[belpejic]

19. Joementum's Got to Go

He's solid on lots of issues, but he's an insurance company whore and he's supported the Chimp all the way on Iraq. I think Biden actually may be worse, but it doesn't exonerate the Joe man.

[Hippo_Tron]

21. I have a problem with Lieberman telling me I'm wrong for what I believe

It's not that Lieberman supports the war that I have a problem with. There are several democrats that basically tow the Bush line on the war. It's that he goes on national television and says that "Democrats need to accept the fact that Bush is president and follow him on Iraq." It's not as inflamatory as saying "You're Un-American if you don't support the war" but I can read between the lines and it's pretty damn close.

If Lieberman had simply gone on TV and simply said, "I respect the opinion of many members of my party on this issue but I have to disagree" then I would be completely fine with him.

Sorry Joe but you can go fuck yourself. I am going to keep speaking out against this war until more people listen to me and convert to my side because I'm right and you're wrong. I do not need to accept the fact that Bush is president and support his war. The people who disagree with this war are growing in numbers and eventually our numbers will be large enough that the president will have to pull out of Iraq or this country will elect somebody that will, it is that simple.

BTW, should Ned Lamont win in the primary I certainly hope that those DUers who are claiming that voting for Democrats is the most important thing won't pull a double standard.

[Solon]

24. Not just that though...

His pandering to Bush, his need to continue to be hawkish when it is totally uncalled for, his outspoken support for such a right-wing position, is simply unconscionable.

[Hippo_Tron]

26. If it were just that, then I might have to agree with the OP

If Lieberman genuinely believes in this war then I don't have a problem with him saying what he believes. I can't in good conscience say that people should automatically be purged just because I don't agree with them, although I will say that we have primaries for a reason and that I have the right to vote for whoever I want to in the primary.

That being said, if Lieberman is pandering because he wants favorable treatment from Bush and doesn't believe the bullshit that is coming out of his mouth then he is a traitor to his party but to his country as well.

[Solon]

35. My problem is a little more reality based...

OK, so good old Joe thinks going into Iraq was OK, regardless of the evidence, REAL concrete evidence, that shows that the reasons for war were BS, the effects are getting worst the longer we are there, etc. I don't see how I can support someone who DOESN'T have a firm grip on reality. Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but not to their own facts.

Seriously, this is a problem with a lot of politicians, Bush most of all, whether muzzling Scientists on Climate Change, or having a politician who believes ID can be taught in science class. In cases similar to those, it doesn't matter what letter they have next to their name, I can't vote for them, period.

[Hippo_Tron]

46. In all fairness to Joe, he did campaign for Kerry

Which shows that he has some functioning brain cells. Now, had Howard Dean been the nominee, that would have been a true test of Lieberman's party loyalty.

[LincolnMcGrath]

49. He was quick to back-stab Gore in a 2002 speech he gave.

[Hippo_Tron]

51. No surprise that Gore endorsed Dean in the primaries

What goes around comes around, I guess...

Not saying that Joe is a great guy and frankly if I lived in Connecticut I probably would be taking a serious look at Ned Lamont right now, but at least he did support Kerry over Bush.

[SaveElmer]

33. If you found one instance...

Of any DU'er who defends Lieberman, or the DLC, or who argues for not challenging Nelson or Lieberman or any of the numerous other Democrats that seem to come in for scorn around here, saying they would not vote for the Democratic nominee, I would be extremely shocked.

[LincolnMcGrath]

44. There were tons of posts implying Cegelis was a loser

And if you could prove that any Dem on here actually would not vote for a Dem, I would be surprised.

I told my Governor I didn't support a presidential bid on his part. (To his face) But alas, I would work ever bit as hard for him as I did J Kerry.

[Hippo_Tron]

47. I hope that is the case

[CTyankee]

113. Don't hold your breath on that primary

I'm volunteering for Ned but you gotta realize that the primary will be held Aug.8. Half of the state of CT will be on vacation. So will my spouse and I. Of course, we'll trot down and get our absentee ballots but how many other dems will? Off year primaries have notoriously low voter turnouts. This is gonna be one hard deal to pull off, but we gotta do it to show Joe what we think. He has not had this kind of opposition before. He needs to hear it.

I am concerned about losing a Jewish perspective in the Senate, so this is a sad thing for me. I do like Ned. He's a decent guy and would be a wonderful senator. I'm not Jewish but I would like more Jews in Congress, not fewer. It is tough for dems like me to have to do this in many ways...

[Hippo_Tron]

125. As a Jewish person, I think that we are fine in the senate

Lieberman doesn't do us a service I believe because I think that he perpetuates the stereotype that Jewish figures in government are concerned about Israel over all other things.

If you want to talk about blows to Jewish representation... Corzine and Wellstone were huge losses.

That's okay though, we still have Boxer, Feingold, and Levin who are three of the best. Also, we have Feinstein, Schumer, Kohl, Wyden, and... yea Specter too. Frankly we are vastly over-represented in terms of the amount of Jewish people in the United States.

Personally I'd like to see a non Judeo-Christian voice in the senate.

[CTyankee]

126. Of course, you are right

I hadn't stopped to count up our Jewish Senators. I guess Joe stands out because he is Orthodox.

[rpannier]

23. I'm sort of surprised he got a zero from Family Research

he has voiced his support for vouchers and for prayer in school.

To be fair, he is fairly liberal on many issues: The environment and civil rights being two examples.
What troubles me about Sen. Lieberman is his willingness to openly criticize the Party leadership over Iraq. His public criticism, hurts the parties ability to craft a national message on issues like Iraq.

I don't these he's terrible for the party, but if we can do better I'm all for it. I'm not willing to give up a seat in the senate to the pukes just to get rid of him however.

The only Dem I want out is that guy from Texas. The Congressman who supported scrub in 2000 and 2004.
His Dem opponent is Ciro.

[IndianaGreen]

27. What is troubling Joe Lieberman?

Democrat denounces opposition to Iraq war

What is troubling Joe Lieberman?

By Patrick Martin
6 December 2005

No contemporary US political figure more epitomizes the right-wing, pro-war politics of the Democratic Party than Joe Lieberman. It is no exaggeration to say that the senator from Connecticut is the most important congressional ally of the Bush administration, as he demonstrated again in a column published last week in the Wall Street Journal, a day before Bush’s speech at the US Naval Academy outlining his “strategy for victory” in Iraq.

Even more categorically than the Republican president, the Democratic senator portrayed the US occupation in Iraq as a war between good and evil, declaring that the US military was fighting on the side of 27 million Iraqis against 10,000 terrorists. Why 27 million Iraqis should need 150,000 heavily armed US troops to assist them in such an absurdly one-sided fight, Lieberman did not explain; nor why most of those killed by the US are innocent civilians, i.e., part of the 27 million, not terrorists.

In another assertion that is wildly at odds with the facts, Lieberman claimed that the vast majority of Iraqis and the vast majority of the US forces in Iraq support the US military occupation and are confident of its success. The only danger, he said, was “whether the American people and enough of their representatives in Congress from both parties understand this.”

Lieberman criticized the representatives of both parties in Congress: “I am disappointed by Democrats who are more focused on how President Bush took America into the war in Iraq almost three years ago, and by Republicans who are more worried about whether the war will bring them down in next November’s elections, than they are concerned about how we continue the progress in Iraq in the months and years ahead.”

This remarkable declaration deserves a closer look. What are these trifling questions that, according to Lieberman, are distracting his Democratic and Republican colleagues from the greater goal of achieving “progress” in Iraq?

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2005/dec2005/lieb-d06.shtml

[Lexingtonian]

29. I don't care

Democrats simply can't tolerate his public behavior and be a serious effort at a competent ruling party at the same time. Some weaklings and morons and doddering idiots, Joe included, have to get tossed over the side. We're not their party, they're not our leaders and representatives, and actions prove it in ways words cannot.

More simply, he's senile in his judgment too often, easily intimidated and seduced, and he cuts bad bargains. You wouldn't have him as your lawyer or tax accountant or friend or share a foxhole with him. A Senator's job consists basically of knowing when it is wise to say "no" and doing so at the right time. Joe doesn't. Oh, he pretends to it, of course. But he doesn't.

[SaveElmer]

30. What troubles me about Lieberman...

Is not his stance on the war...though I think his enthusiasm is way overblown. Things are not going well to put it mildly. I don't believe an immediate pull out is wise because I think we would see a worse blood bath than is occurring there now. I do believe a withdrawl plan should be implemented however.

What really bugs me though is his constant boot licking of Bush. It is one thing for a Democrat to have supported the war, many did, many now regret it, some do not. But none of them suck up to Bush the way Lieberman does, and none of them think Bush has done a good job managing the war the way Lieberman does.

Connecticut is a liberal state, if by some miracle Lamont got the nod he probably would be elected, so my normal trepidation at trying to defeat a popular incumbent in the primary is less in this case.

Having said that however, I do not think for one minute Lieberman is a Republican, or would ever consider switching. He has done some admirable things in his life...I believe he rode with the freedom riders in the 60's, and his voting record outside the war is pretty good, certainly could not be considered conservative. So if gets the nomination, having him in there would be preferable to a Republican. At the very minimum Lieberman is a vote for Harry Reid, and that does count for something.

[leesa]

31. Doesn't matter. He votes for safe issues that will be controlled by his

corporate masters anyway, Just like the warmonger Feinstein. He is a disgusting human being and he is supporting and advocating the murder of people who have done nothing to us. If you support him, there is something WRONG with you.

[dolstein]

32. You are under the mistaken impression that DU'ers can be reasoned with

They can't. Their hatred of Joe Lieberman borders on the psychopathic. They aren't interested in the facts.

[LincolnMcGrath]

34. That's some broad brush you got there dolstein.

Not that we haven't seen it before.

(and this isn't surprising, given how far to the left the typical DU'ers is) Sound Familiar?

[dolstein]

45. Sadly, it's an accurate brush

There is a sizable population of hard-core Lieberman haters on this board, and no amount of evidence to the contrary can convince these people that Lieberman is anything other than a right-wing Republican. Believe me, I've tried. I've posted the liberal interest group ratings scores for Lieberman. I've invited people to visit Project Vote Smart. None of this makes any difference to these people.

[LincolnMcGrath]

48. You're still talking Bat Squeeze

The overwhelming majority of DUers just think he is a piss poor Dem. Not a right wing Rep.

Now, how about addressing your broad brush against the rest of DU?

[saracat]

52. I don't hate Joe but I hate many of his votes!

And NOT just Iwar. The Bankruptsy Bill for one. As far as I know, it isn't possible to be a real Dem and support that Bill. And some of his votes make his "liberal" rating questionable.And there is that little question of Alito!

[More Than A Feeling]

57. Ned Lamont will garner equally gaudy scores

and he won't screw us over on high-profile votes, and in the media, and on the war.

[Spiffarino]

40. Came up for air just to say that, did ya?

Thanks for that. :eyes:

Not all DUers think Joe's a RWer. However, he's awfully conservative for somebody who represents a strongly "blue" state. I personally see him as either a very conservative Democrat or a moderate Republican. His environmentalism is wonderful. His support for corporate interests, war in Iraq, and Bush in general is troubling.

[mzmolly]

36. Agreed 100%

Thanks for the post.

[The Backlash Cometh]

38. He's the kind of Dem that keeps me being an Independent.

The man comes from Connecticut, he should be a strong Democrat, not a right-leaning conservative. You can't count on Lieberman to stand alongside of you to make that united Democratic comeback. If this country goes too far left, he'll lose his big money connections.

Don't like the guy and as long as he's one of the 19 that gave us Alito, he's not worthy of my consideration.

[crispini]

39. Oh, but it's much more fun

to have our little two minutes hate and pillory the guy every so often. I mean, jeez, calmness and reasonableness won't get you noticed around here, but flamefests and rants certainly will, and if you can rack up an extra 20 posts or so on your thread by punching DU's Lieberman button, why the hell not? :evilgrin:

[progressoid]

41. This site gives him a score of 65.7 on the liberal scale.

http://nationaljournal.com/voteratings/sen/lib_cons.htm?o1=con_composite&o2=desc
...
Nelson, Ben, D-Neb. 49.7
Smith, Gordon, R-Ore. 49.8
Snowe, Olympia, R-Maine 52.7
Specter, Arlen, R-Pa. 53.2
Collins, Susan, R-Maine 53.3
Landrieu, Mary, D-La. 58.3
Chafee, Lincoln, R-R.I. 59.2
Conrad, Kent, D-N.D. 59.7
Pryor, Mark, D-Ark. 59.8
Salazar, Ken, D-Colo. 60.2
Baucus, Max, D-Mont. 60.7
Byrd, Robert, D-W.Va. 65.5
Lieberman, Joe, D-Conn. 65.7
Bingaman, Jeff, D-N.M. 66
Nelson, Bill, D-Fla. 66.2
Lincoln, Blanche, D-Ark. 69

etc...

[Spiffarino]

43. Connecticut deserves a better Senator

Lieberman would make a suitable Connecticut Republican, like Chris Shays. I'm sure Connecticut Democrats can find a good candidate who won't help Bush move his imperial agenda forward. Then Joe could run as a moderate Republican and order would be restored.

[paineinthearse]

53. Louis Black thinks the US could scare the shit out of the world by....

electing a dead President (namely Reagan), so let Connecticut bring back...

[LiberalUprising]

50. Ricki Lee Jones doesn't like Lieberman either

Musicians are starting to speak out against Joe.

Howie:

"Lieberman was the first indication that there were actually Republicans in the Democratic Party. Forgive my naivety, but before the series of betrayals by Lieberman against important progressive legislation... I thought people with his sensibilities, voting for the war, for the Patriot Act, and voting against Medicare benefits for a very severely taxed generation of elderly ill, and against the few ideological stands the so-called left has been willing to brush up against since Bush took office... here were registered Republicans....read on"

-Rickie Lee Jones
February 27, 2006

Just another reason to support Ned Lamont. He has a new website too....Joe the Republican

http://www.crooksandliars.com/2006/02/28.html#a7343

[Rowdyboy]

54. I defended Lieberman when I arrived on DU in the summer of 2002

I had been pleased with Gore's selection and thought it was an excellent move, though my political mentor, an elderly ex-state senator told me he would cost Gore the election.

Unfortunately, time after time after time since then, Senator Lieberman has ridiculed his fellow Democrats as being wrong, weak and inept when they chose to oppose GWB. He has a right to his opinion and his vote. He does not have a right to denigrate and belittle his party to curry favor with the media and the White House. Senator Lieberman's voting behavior since his capitulation in the 2000 election has been depressing and defeatist. I don't understand why he wants so desperately to support those who hate us and why he so easily harms his Democratic allies.

Yes, I'd rather have him in the seat than another one of those piss-ant, slack-jawed, cousin-mating "liberal yankee republicans" like Olympia Snow or Lincoln Chafee, but not by much.

Why can't one of the most liberal states in the union give us a SOLIDLY liberal senator instead of a man who could easily be elected in red states like Nebraska and South Dakota. I just expect more out of Connecticut.

[Douglas Carpenter]

55. Fair enough he is a Democrat. I myself have posted his record from

vote smart which certainly is at least moderately liberal on most domestic issues.

But he doesn't need to make a career out of bashing Democrats which hurts the party. And he certainly doesn't have to make a career out using Orwellian disinformation to promote a dangerously irresponsible and a radical-extremist foreign policy that damages America and destabilizes the world.

As Sen. Lieberman said himself about President Clinton's personal indiscretions, I would say say about Sen. Lieberman dangerous tendencies regarding policies in the Middle East, "It is not just a mistake. It is immoral".

[More Than A Feeling]

56. Sorry, not buying. Joe Lieberman has been endorsed by Chris Shays

The Connecticut REPUBLICAN congressman. One of the fake GOP moderates that we are trying so hard to remove.

Lieberman voted against cloture on Alito, completely repudiating everything that having Alito on the Court will harm.

He's the go-to guy when the media needs a Democrat to reinforce the Republican conventional wisdom.

At the very least, primarying him will force him to reflect the values of blue Connecticut better, or else he will be replaced by someone who will.

[ihelpu2see]

100. I agree 100% I would also add his introduction of Sen McCain

as the next president of the US at a dinner in NYC this past winter. Mr. Lieberman has drifted to far and supports GW foreign policy to a fault and 99% of our current foreign policy is faulty...

[NobleCynic]

58. Fine. Then let me just say

I'd vote against Lieberman in a primary and for him in a general election. I'd also vote against Murtha in a primary, but for him in a general. For the same reason. They're both Democrats. Unfortunately. We can do better, but until then they will have my support. My luckluster, unenthusiastic, sarcastic, non-financial support. Having either one win reelection in Congress is a good thing in that it means a Republican doesn't get the seat. But that doesn't mean I'll consider it a victory.

[JNelson6563]

59. Lieberman is good liberal, DLC is on our side

Freedom is slavery and we have always been at war with Eurasia.

Of course, since they increased the chocolate rations I don't even care about those other things.

Double-plus-good!

[Name removed]

64. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[JNelson6563]

70. When all else fails, try personal attacks

and get away with them if you pretend you're making a joke.

[Behind the Aegis]

60. Then there is this...

...And yet the senator has a strongly liberal voting record on public education, health care, reproductive rights, labor and repealing Bush tax cuts for the wealthy.

"

From the same source... there is also...

6. Lieberman stunned Yale classmates by refusing membership in Skull & Bones, the elite, secretive Yale society whose members include some of the 20th century's most powerful men.

7. Joe was part of the Martin Luther King, Jr. march into Washington in August 1963. He's said that Dr. King's "I Have a Dream" speech was a moment "that really did transform my life."

8. Inspired by the Washington march, Lieberman went to Mississippi to work for civil rights. It was the first time he felt and witnessed the emotional impact of racial segregation.

The "Speech" and trip to Mississippi can be confirmed by a NY Times article, if you want to pay for it.

The rest of this is from Senator Joe Lieberman: Democrat Who Angers Democrats.

[mmonk]

61. This period of American history

will go down as one of our darkest moments. Illegal invasion and lies are one of its cornerstones. To chastise and put down those raising questions of this horrendous policy puts Lieberman as my political enemy whether he be a democrat or republican. Does the label of democrat define you and your soul? Or does your feelings and sensibilities of right or wrong define you? At some point, everyone must make that determination and stand on one side or the other of right or wrong.

[gratuitous]

63. Of course Lieberman's a Democrat, and he provides the GOP cover

His crucial support on so many issues, ranging from the invasion of Iraq to confirming Bush's administrative choices who support torture, has given the corrupt Bush administration the appearance of "bipartisan" support for those disastrous policies. Lieberman's sins aren't going to register with the Eagle Forum or the Family Research Council; those organizations carefully pick and choose their topics so they can demonize the likes of Ted Kennedy and Barbara Boxer. Their topics also coincidentally include Joementum, and their "ratings" gull the credulous.

But Joe is convicted by his own words and actions (emphasis added):

http://lieberman.senate.gov/newsroom/release.cfm?id=231...

"In this case, I’ve met with Judge Gonzales. I've reviewed his record throughout his career. I'm familiar with his life story. I’ve reviewed the proceedings before the Judiciary Committee -- the comments made by many on the Committee in explaining their votes, as well as Judge Gonzales’ testimony there. I have concluded that this nominee deserves to be confirmed and, therefore, I will vote to confirm the nominee.

* * *

"As I look back post-September 11, what seems to be in Judge Gonzales’s memo and memos submitted by the State Department, by the Defense Department and others, there is a very serious and classically American debate going on about how to handle al Qaeda and the Taliban – prisoners taken from their membership. And what is the relevance of the Geneva Convention to those people? It is the argument of a nation that cares about the rule of law.

"You can agree with Judge Gonzales’s position in this matter or not. I happen to agree with the ultimate decision made."

[wryter2000]

67. Also,

He said that freedom of religion doesn't mean freedom from religion. That one, right there, is almost a deal breaker for me.

[Chemical Bill]

68. I may have a problem with Joe...

but I'd just as soon have more guys with (D) after their name in the Senate and House. I wish Lieberman was the right wing of the majority party in DC.

Bill

[Warren Stupidity]

69. So the (D) is all that matters?

To a certain extent I agree, better a D than an R. But, just suppose we win in 06 and we have a majority in both houses and, just for arguments sake, NOTHING CHANGES. The war doesn't end, the patriot act doesn't get revised, the tax gutting of the treasury continues unabated, etc. etc. And just suppose the reason that nothing changes is that there are enough nominal (D)s who vote (R) on critical issues, allowing for example cloture votes to fail, or refusing to go along with veto overrides. Will you still be satisfied with that (D)? I won't. I will feel defrauded.

Can't happen? This is exactly what did happen when old Ronny was riding high. This is what happened from for the first two years of the Bush regime when we controlled (on paper) the senate and those hideous tax guts got passed as well as the patriot act.

My point is that we can deny it, and we have our vocal deniers here, but there is a corporatist wing of the Democratic Party, call it 'the DLC' or 'New Democrats' call it The War Party or whatever, that aligns itself with the corporatist wing of the Republican Party, and together they play the tweedledum tweedledee shell game with us. To a certain extent it doesn't matter which party runs congress, as nothing much changes and we just get more of the same. We really need to fix that. We really need to make sure that the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party is in control.

[Chemical Bill]

79. Look at my senator, Chafee.

He votes fairly well, but the (R) after his name contributes to the majority that controls the legislation.

The "Great Society" and civil rights legislation could never have passed if southern dems hadn't been there. They hated civil rights, and left the party over it. But if they had been repugs, it never would have gotten introduced.

No, the party isn't all that matters, but it is very important.

Bill

Edit: Sorry, I just saw the patriot act thread. I take it all back. Where is the "move to Costa Rica" thread, and the "apoplogize to Nader" thread. ;)

[Hippo_Tron]

124. If we get the House, Conyers get subpoena power

Yea, the DINOs may prevent a lot of what we want from happening but at least Conyers gets to call real hearings and force whoever he wants to testify under oath. The GOP will be shitting themselves.

[Ken Burch]

94. But in Ct, you aren't faced with that choice.

There is no electable conservative Republican running there this year. Lieberman is actually the MOST CONSERVATIVE candidate who stands a chance of being elected.

Free yourself from the fear on this one.

[CTyankee]

114. Remember who Joe's Republican opponent 6 years ago was?

Phil Giordano, former mayor of Waterbury. Turns out he was paying a crack addict to bring in her little daughter and her niece for oral sex in his office. Of course, we didn't know about that back then.

[Ken Burch]

95. Duplicate post deleted by sender

nt

[NoPasaran]

73. I invite all the Leiberman-haters here

To move to Connecticut and vote against him in the primary. Railing on the internet about how "Joe Must Go" is just a waste of bandwidth.

[Ken Burch]

96. If you're going to attack LIEBERMAN haters

At least spell the man's name right.

[Douglas Carpenter]

80. Lieberman on War and Peace vs Lieberman on domestic issues

First let me point out that even on issues of War and Peace; although Sen. Lieberman's voting record is well below average by Democratic Party standard - it is still significantly better than almost any Republican including a so-called moderate Republican like Sen. McCain.

Sen. Lieberman voting record on most domestic-social issues is essentially moderately liberal. However one must keep in mind that he is a strong proponent of neoliberal economic ideology otherwise known as "free trade" and along with that a strong supporter of NAFTA and CAFTA.

The major problem many of us have with Sen. Lieberman is his staunch support for both the Iraq War and a militaristic/interventionist world view in general. Particularly annoying is his continual public support for Bush Administration war policies and public denunciation of Democrats who oppose them.

I don't think this is a minor point. Just as the Viet Nam War derailed the Democratic Party and the Great Society--the militarism and hegemonic philosophy of the GOP as well as Sen. Lieberman and Democrats who think like him may very well derail any serious advancement of a socially progressive agenda.

However, in fairness to Sen. Lieberman let again say that although his ratings on War/Peace issues are significantly below average by Democratic Party Senatorial standards they are far and away above even "moderate Republicans" like Sen. McCain.

here is a look at interest group ratings of Sen. Lieberman both on War and Peace issues and domestic/social issues. I have contrasted them with Sen. Kennedy, Sen. Clinton, Sen. Allen and Sen. McCain.

War and Peace -- from Peace Majority -- a coalition of various peace groups - link: http://www.peacemajority.org/about.htm

Sen. Lieberman: Final Score: 13.0/52.0 votes = 25%

Sen. Kennedy: Final Score: 72.0/87.0 votes = 83%

Sen. Clinton: Final Score: 52.0/88.0 votes = 59%

Sen. Allen Final Score: 3.0/88.0 votes = 3%

Sen. McCain Final Score: 3.0/85.0 votes = 4%

__________________________

This is courtesy of project vote smart - link:

http://www.vote-smart.org/index.htm
_____________________

2004 Senator Lieberman supported the interests of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation 33 percent in 2004.

2004 Senator Kennedy supported the interests of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation 100 percent in 2004.

2004 Senator Clinton supported the interests of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation 67 percent in 2004.

2004 Senator Allen supported the interests of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation 0 percent in 2004.

2004 Senator McCain supported the interests of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation 0 percent in 2004.
_________________________________

2004 Senator Lieberman supported the interests of the Peace Action 38 percent in 2004

2004 Senator Kennedy supported the interests of the Peace Action 100 percent in 2004.

2004 Senator Clinton supported the interests of the Peace Action 75 percent in 2004.

2004 Senator Allen supported the interests of the Peace Action 0 percent in 2004.

2004 Senator McCain supported the interests of the Peace Action 13 percent in 2004.
______________________________________

2004 Senator Lieberman supported the interests of the National Abortion Reproductive Rights Action League 100 percent in 2004

2004 Senator Kennedy supported the interests of the National Abortion Reproductive Rights Action League 100 percent in 2004.

2004 Senator Clinton supported the interests of the National Abortion Reproductive Rights Action League 100 percent in 2004.

2004 Senator Allen supported the interests of the National Abortion Reproductive Rights Action League 0 percent in 2004

2004 Senator McCain supported the interests of the National Abortion Reproductive Rights Action League 0 percent in 2004.
__________________


2003-2004 Senator Lieberman supported the interests of the American Civil Liberties Union 83 percent in 2003-2004

2003-2004 Senator Kennedy supported the interests of the American Civil Liberties Union 86 percent in 2003-2004.

2003-2004 Senator Clinton supported the interests of the American Civil Liberties Union 78 percent in 2003-2004

2003-2004 Senator Allen supported the interests of the American Civil Liberties Union 0 percent in 2003-2004.

2003-2004 Senator McCain supported the interests of the American Civil Liberties Union 22 percent in 2003-2004.
_____________________________


2004 Senator Lieberman supported the interests of the Americans for Democratic Action 75 percent in 2004.

2004 Senator Kennedy supported the interests of the Americans for Democratic Action 100 percent in 2004.

2004 Senator Clinton supported the interests of the Americans for Democratic Action 95 percent in 2004.

2004 Senator Allen supported the interests of the Americans for Democratic Action 15 percent in 2004..

2004 Senator McCain supported the interests of the Americans for Democratic Action 35 percent in 2004.
__________________________.

2004 Senator Lieberman supported the interests of the AFL-CIO 83 percent in 2004.

2004 Senator Kennedy supported the interests of the AFL-CIO 100 percent in 2004.

2004 Senator Clinton supported the interests of the AFL-CIO 100 percent in 2004.

2004 Senator Allen supported the interests of the AFL-CIO 17 percent in 2004.

2004 Senator McCain supported the interests of the AFL-CIO 33 percent in 2004.
_________________________

2004 Senator Lieberman supported the interests of the United Auto Workers 92 percent in 2004.

2004 Senator Kennedy supported the interests of the United Auto Workers 110 percent in 2004.

2004 Senator Clinton supported the interests of the United Auto Workers 110 percent in 2004

2004 Senator Allen supported the interests of the United Auto Workers 9 percent in 2004

2004 Senator McCain supported the interests of the United Auto Workers 9 percent in 2004.
__________________________

2003-2004 Senator Lieberman supported the interests of the National Education Association 88 percent in 2003-2004.

2003-2004 Senator Kennedy supported the interests of the National Education Association 80 percent in 2003-2004.

2003-2004 Senator Clinton supported the interests of the National Education Association 85 percent in 2003-2004.

2003-2004 Senator Allen supported the interests of the National Education Association 25 percent in 2003-2004.

2003-2004 Senator McCain supported the interests of the National Education Association 35 percent in 2003-2004.
______________________


2003-2004 Senator Lieberman supported the interests of the Human Rights Campaign 88 percent in 2003-2004.

2003-2004 Senator Kennedy supported the interests of the Human Rights Campaign 100 percent in 2003-2004.

2003-2004 Senator Clinton supported the interests of the Human Rights Campaign 88 percent in 2003-2004.

2003-2004 Senator Allen supported the interests of the Human Rights Campaign 13 percent in 2003-2004.

2003-2004 Senator McCain supported the interests of the Human Rights Campaign 25 percent in 2003-2004.
_____________________________________


2003-2004 Senator Lieberman supported the interests of the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights 95 percent in 2003-2004.

2003-2004 Senator Kennedy supported the interests of the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights 100 percent in 2003-2004

2003-2004 Senator Clinton supported the interests of the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights 100 percent in 2003-2004

2003-2004 Senator Allen supported the interests of the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights 7 percent in 2003-2004.

2003-2004 Senator McCain supported the interests of the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights 14 percent in 2003-2004.
_____________________________

2004 Senator Lieberman supported the interests of the Arab American Institute 50 percent in 2004.

2004 Senator Kennedy supported the interests of the Arab American Institute 80 percent in 2004.

2004 Senator Clinton supported the interests of the Arab American Institute 25 percent in 2004.

2004 Senator Allen supported the interests of the Arab American Institute 0 percent in 2004.

2004 Senator McCain supported the interests of the Arab American Institute 0 percent in 2004.
__________________________

2003-2004 Senator Lieberman supported the interests of the League of Conservation Voters 56 percent in 2003-2004.

2003-2004 Senator Kennedy supported the interests of the League of Conservation Voters 92 percent in 2003-2004.

2003-2004 Senator Clinton supported the interests of the League of Conservation Voters 92 percent in 2003-2004.

2003-2004 Senator Allen supported the interests of the League of Conservation Voters 0 percent in 2003-2004.

2003-2004 Senator McCain supported the interests of the League of Conservation Voters 56 percent in 2003-2004

____________________________

2004 Senator Lieberman supported the interests of the Christian Coalition 0 percent in 2004.

2004 Senator Kennedy supported the interests of the Christian Coalition 0 percent in 2004.

2004 Senator Clinton supported the interests of the Christian Coalition 0 percent in 2004.

2004 Senator Allen supported the interests of the Christian Coalition 100 percent in 2004.

2004 Senator McCain supported the interests of the Christian Coalition 83 percent in 2004.
_____________________________


2004 Senator Lieberman supported the interests of the American Conservative Union 0 percent in 2004.

2004 Senator Kennedy supported the interests of the American Conservative Union 0 percent in 2004.

2004 Senator Clinton supported the interests of the American Conservative Union 0 percent in 2004

2004 Senator Allen supported the interests of the American Conservative Union 92 percent in 2004.

2004 Senator McCain supported the interests of the American Conservative Union 72 percent in 2004.”

[Ken Burch]

89. It's pointless to compare Lieberman's record to Republicans

Because there isn't a serious Republican candidate facing Lieberman this year. Progressive Connecticut voters have nothing to lose
by voting against Lieberman. He is the most conservative candidate in the race, period.

[Cronus Protagonist]

93. And he'd make a good example for the others

Who are currently cowering before the Republicans too.

[Greyhound]

84. Blah, blah, blah. Far too little, way too late. Oh wait... maybe he is a

Democrat after all.

[Tom Rinaldo]

98. You have a valid point. However

In addition to the obvious, my problems with Lieberman are: He comes from a state, CT, where Democrats should be able to elect an across the board progressive Senator. CT isn't Nebraska or Montana, and I am unhappy having Lieberman taking up a seat where Democrats should be able to elect someone better. Second, Lieberman isn't exactly a back bencher, he still is a prominent Democrat, so when Joe gets kissy huggy with Bush the Republicans exploit that for a lot of mileage, saying why can't more Democrats be good "patriots" like Lieberman?

Still Lieberman is a vote for Reid as Majority Leader in the Senate over Frist (at least as of now he is). The country is going to Hell in a runaway hand basket and we have to save the country before we can complete all the needed detail work on restoring the Democratic Party to what it should be. We need to get majorities in both houses so that Democrats control the committees that issue the subpoenas. That is priority number One in my book, and that is where our volunteer time and money needs to go, to winning those majorities.

I want Patrick Leahy to replace Arlen Specter as Chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee.

[mdmc]

108. Joementum!

He is a Democrat! Heckuvajob! :kick:

[Walt Starr]

111. Lieberman is a registered Democrat

but that's about as far as it goes, IMO.

I want something more than just a (D).

[dolstein]

116. That's a bunch of crap

What you say only makes sense if ALL YOU CARE ABOUT is the war in Iraq and eliminating any discussion of morality and religion from the public discourse. Those are things that really distinguish Lieberman from his Democratic colleagues in the Senate.

So I guess that the environment, civil rights, opposing Republican tax cuts and deficit spending -- all of that's irrelvant, eh? Why do you even bother calling yourself a Democrat if you don't care about these things?

[LincolnMcGrath]

120. Joe is the only moral and/or religious Dem in the Senate?

That a pile of dung if I ever read one.

[dolstein]

121. Of course not, which makes the "Holy Joe" attacks all the more suspicious

Apparently, it's ok to be a devout Christian, as John Edwards is. But being an orthodox Jew apparently makes you an agent of Likud.

[LincolnMcGrath]

122. Here we go again with the anti-semite nonsense.

You SAID Those are things that really distinguish Lieberman from his Democratic colleagues in the Senate.

You can go back and edit it, but you still said it.

And please stop with the anti-semite nonsense.

[Arugula Latte]

130. Excuse me, but if anti-Semitism were a factor here, then

why do we never see any anti-Feingold threads here? It's because Feingold is a real Dem., and a moral, principaled man. He stands up for real liberal issues, unlike Joe, who kisses Bush's behind at every opportunity and then thanks Bush for the privilege, and then goes on Fox to bash liberals. :grr:

[Walt Starr]

131. Wow, you got me

those are the only issues I care about WRT the fuckhead. Nothing else matters until we get it right on the illegal Iraq War and, IMO, Lieberman is as much a war criminal as the fuckhead in the White House.

BTW, I no longer call myself a Democrat, I am an Independent.

[timbnyc44]

112. War is not just one 'issue'

It's fundamental.

[dolstein]

117. That's what they said in 1968 and 1972, and look where it got us

Two terms for Richard Nixon. You may believe that Vietnam was more important than civil rights and the Great Society, but not me.

[Douglas Carpenter]

128. The Vietnam War derailed the Great Society along with the senseless

massacre of millions of Vietnamese, Cambodians and Laotians and of course 55,000 American lives.

There are reasons why Martin Luther King Jr. came out so strongly against the war. Discussions of morality in politics are important, especially when it involves mass slaughter.

Just as in these times can America afford the war policy and hegemonic dreams og George W. Bush and supported by Sen. Lieberman and also maintain the social fabric of our own society; anymore than it could afford the war on poverty and the war against Indo-China.

[Walt Starr]

132. Then we'll have to suck it up and live with the consequences of the Dems

beiong total fucking cowards, won't we.

[JerseygirlCT]

115. It's not just the immoral war support

it's the blatant and constant BUSH support that really riles me.

As the author of this article yesterday said (and I'm paraphrasing, read the article) Lieberman made sure he was right out front and loud in criticising Clinton's behavior.

Where's he now? Where's the righteous cry about the vast number of crimes committed by the Bush administration?

No, instead, he's all kissy-face with Bush, and speaking at every turn to support him.

It's vile.

edited to add link to the article:
http://www.courant.com/news/local/northeast/hc-bass0305.artmar05,0,338306.story?coll=hc-headlines-northeast

[The Gunslinger]

119. How did he vote on the Patriot Act????.

[Hippo_Tron]

123. Lieberman says I'm undermining our foreign policy by dissenting

I say that he can go fuck himself.

And Temperence, while you are making perfectly valid points about his record on the issues, people look at it in a different way. Iraq is THE issue that dominates our election cycles, news cycles, and is most important to voters (including DUers). Iraq was the issue in 2002, 2004, and will be the issue in 2006. Although this is not an official campaign slogan or anything, the message of the party has been and will continue to be is "vote for us if you are dis-satisfied with Iraq". Plus when the guy is supporting a foreign policy that slaughters innocent Iraqis and puts our troops in harms' way for oil company profits, it's hard to look at the guy as a good person no matter what else he has done.

I'm only stating what it seems like others feel about him. Again, my only problem with him is the one stated in the subject. Lieberman goes on national television and gives a dumbed down version of the "dissent is helping the terrorists" rhetoric. If it were just "I respectfully disagree with many members of my party on this issue" then I would not have a problem with him.

[truebrit71]

129. I don't care. He supports the war and supports the pretzeldent.

He needs to go.

End of story.

[Douglas Carpenter]

136. I finally made my contribution to Ned Lamont's race

http://nedlamont.com/contribute.html


http://nedlamont.com/contribute.html

[Radical Activist]

138. Bullshit. It isn't about just one issue.

There are a host of issues where Lieberman has sold out to corporate interests and pandered in the culture war. People who follow him know its about far more than the war in Iraq. BTW, why did you just list his rating with UAW instead of the AFL-CIO or another unions? Is it because of his support for bad free trade agreements and lackluster support of labor?

[Name removed]

139. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[MrBenchley]

140. Well, it's nice to see some "progressive" gay-baiting....