People who think Lieberman is a progessive except for one issue..

[CTLawGuy]

Explain these points.

1. Lieberman backed by more Republicans than Democrats in CT:

"Seventy-five (75) percent of Republicans, 61 percent of unaffiliated voters and 59 percent of Democrats said Lieberman deserves to be re-elected. "


http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=1494858

So 75% of CT Republicans are progressive all except for the war? Seems unlikely.

2. Lieberman was supported by conservative Bill Buckley against Liberal Republican Senator Lowell Weicker in the 1988 Senate Race.

"Lieberman was first elected to the United States Senate as a Democrat in 1988, scoring the nation's biggest political upset that year by a margin of just 10,000 votes after being backed by a coalition of conservative Democrats, allied with conservative Republicans who were upset with Republican incumbent Lowell Weicker's liberal voting record. Lieberman was even endorsed by National Review and it was joked in many circles how the Democratic candidate was more conservative than the Republican one."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Lieberman

"That was true even in Lieberman's very first campaign for the U.S. Senate in 1988 when he defeated liberal Republican Lowell Weicker. Lieberman was endorsed then by William F. Buckley Jr., who could be seen as the founder of the modern conservative movement, because Buckley despised Weicker. This unlikely alliance later opened many conservative doors for Lieberman."

http://www.workingforchange.com/article.cfm?ItemID=14358

3. Hannity speaks about endorsing Lieberman

"SEAN HANNITY RADIO SHOW, FEBRUARY 10, 2006
...
HANNITY: I'm good. Now listen, before we get into all the stuff that we need to talk about, there's a lot of news here. I need to know, yes or no, do you want my public support, do you want my endorsement, do you think that hurts your re-election efforts, do you want me to come out in opposition of you, I want to do what's in your best interests, you gotta tell me what you want me to do.

LIEBERMAN: Yeah. Well, you know, it's good of you to ask me in private like this. (Laughter)

HANNITY: (Laughter) I'm thinking... I'm thinking Hannity Conservatives for Lieberman and I'll do a big fundraiser in Connecticut.

LIEBERMAN: Yeah, yeah. Let me just say, I appreciate your friendship, and I appreciate your support. Really.

HANNITY: So you want my endorsement?

LIEBERMAN: What can I... if you support me... Look, I've always gotten elected by people from all parties. Now if there's a Democratic primary against me, which there might be, I might ask you to come in and endorse my opponent. (Laughter)"

http://www.myleftnutmeg.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=407

-----------------------

Now I know that on many issues, Lieberman is with us, but I can't ignore the conservative love of this guy. If it is true that Lieberman is progressive all except for the war, how do you explain:

1. Why Bill Buckley backed him in 1988 over a REPUBLICAN?
2. Why Lieberman is supported by more CT Republicans than Democrats (75% of CT repubs like him!!!, only 59% of dems like him)
3. Why Sean Hannity is talking about endorsing him and holding a fundraiser for him?

How do you explain all these things? Something is not right. This wouldn't happen to a good Democrat except for the war.

[Crunchy Frog]

1. I remember JERRY FALWELL endorsing Lieberman in '88.

I think that our party could learn something from the Repubs who aren't afraid of sacrificing a seat if it gets rid of someone who they feel is harmful to their agenda.

We need alot more primary challenges for DINOs, especially the ones that are in relatively liberal areas IMO.

[Zhade]

3. Considering Lieberman isn't the strongest guy on church/state separation..

...as evidenced by his "freedom OF religion doesn't mean freedom FROM religion" remark a few years ago, this isn't surprising.

[liberalpragmatist]

2. Lowell Weicker was the most liberal Republican in the Senate

He was the senator prior to Lieberman and was well to the left even of many Senate Democrats. Bill Buckley and the National Review along with the Republican leadership despised Weicker and endorsed Lieberman in order to rid themselves of him.

I think the best analogy for Lieberman on the Republican side is Chuck Hagel, who has left a lot of Democrats and Liberals swooning over his foreign policy stances and his criticism of Bush's Iraq policy but who is somewhat "maverick" but overall still has a pretty conservative record.

[still_one]

4. That is why I have donated to Ned Lamont

unfortunately, lieberman has far more money than Lamont has, but what I am hoping is that the people of CT are fed up with the lies and misinformtion, not only from the administration, but also from lieberman

[CTLawGuy]

5. the town parties are upset with Lieberman's constant support of Bush and

his war.

[still_one]

6. That is good to hear

I am from California, and am periodically sending contributions to Ned. It is extremely important that our party stand liberal/progressive ideas

[ihelpu2see]

13. Yup, Me to... Gave to Lamont 2 weeks ago. And pushing hard for

my towns delegates to vote Lamont...(we have 5 of 6 leaning that way)

[saltpoint]

7. On Buckley -- he was threatened, I guess, by Lowell Weicker.

Not physically threatened, but Buckly felt Weicker had betrayed Nixon.

That's the story I got.

Don't know if it's factual but it has a right ring to it.

It has a Right ring to it, too.

[dolstein]

8. Sure, the explanations are pretty obvious

1. Sure, Lieberman's popular among Republicans in Connecticut. But he's also popular among Democrats too -- a 59% approval rating is nothing to sneeze at. How could someone who wasn't fairly progressive attract the support of 59% of Democrats? How about explaining THAT?

As for why Republicans like him, it may not have much to do with issues. After all, Ronald Reagan was elected president twice even though the public by and large didn't agree with him on issues. I think Republicans probably support Lieberman because he comes off as decent, fair minded and bipartisan. The Republicans haven't won a Senate contest in Connecticut in over a quarter century. I think they're probably appreciative of the fact that, unlike many left-wing DU'ers, Lieberman adopts a civil tone on matters where he disagrees with Republicans. He doesn't rub their noses in it, even though he could probably get away with doing so.

2. The reason why Buckley supported Lieberman in 1986 is pretty obvious -- he hated Lowell Weicker. Weicker represented the Lindsay/Rockefeller wing of the Republcian Party that Buckley had worked his entire life to destroy. He'd do just about anything to rid the Republican Party of its last vestiges of liberalism, even if it meant supporting a Democrat who agreed with Weicker on most issues. Seriously, if the Republicans nominated someone like Chris Shays to run against Lieberman, I could imagine plenty of DU'ers supporting Shays simply to get rid of Lieberman.

3. As for Hannity supporting Lieberman, I imagine he's doing so simply because of the war issue, since that's the only issue those two agree on. But again, issues are just one thing.

[CTLawGuy]

9. thanks for the replies

1. I think democrats are not paying attention to the race yet. and Joe has a lot of credibility from past service to CT. Once the race gets going and they get reminded of Joe's support for the war and support for other conservative causes, his support will drop among Dems. His support has been dropping as Lamont's name ID has gotten higher. a few months ago Liebermans favorability among dems was at like 69% or so.

2. Would Buckley have supported Dennis Kucinich to get rid of Weicker? I doubt it. Lieberman's conservative bent made it really easy to support him.

3. That doesn't fly because many other Dems supported Bush's war, though not to the same extent, and yet Hannity wouldn't support them. In general the right wing radio machine continued to trash dems even as they were "bipartisan." I think Hannity supports Lieberman because he gives Bush a cover of bipartisanship on his overtly right wing initiatives, like the war.

[dolstein]

10. Why did you even bother to ask?

You seem to have your minded pretty much made up. It doesn't matter that labor unions, civil rights groups, abortion rights groups and environmental groups have supported Lieberman over the years and continue to support him to this day. You've made up your mind that Lieberman's a right winger and you're sticking to your story come hell or high water. That's fine. But why bother wasting other people's time by asking a question that you already believe you know the answer to?

[CTLawGuy]

11. Does it bother you that Lieberman won't commit to supporting

the Dem nominee?

The usual suspects don't seem to be up in arms about this, and I find it very strange. Are you ok with him Nadering our party?

How much of a Democrat can Joe be if after 18 years as a Democratic Senator he is ready to possibly hand our seat to a Republican becuase the Democrats of CT might prefer someone else?

What if Ralph Nader were a centrist.....?

[dolstein]

12. I think it's politically stupid, but I'm not particularly troubled

For one thing, I fully expect Lieberman to win the primary. And even if he lost and ran as an independent in the general election, I don't see any circumstances under which the Republican would win. Your talk of Lieberman handing the seat to the Republicans is nothing more than uninformed B.S. I'd expect Lieberman to attrack more support among Republicans and independents than the Republican nominee. And finally, if Lieberman won as an independent, he'd still caucus with the Democrats.

My gripe isn't with people being not liking Lieberman. Hell, there are plenty of Democrats I don't like. My problem is with people being so irrational and spiteful in their hatred of Lieberman that they refuse to even acknowledge that they guy is a Democrat. His voting record isn't as liberal as Russ Feingold's, but its still unmistakenly Democratic. With the possible exception of Lincoln Chafee (who just might be defeated in his party primary by the right-wing equivalent of DU), you'd be hard pressed to find any Republican with a voting record similar to Lieberman's. That's just the plain truth.

[Zynx]

18. 59% among your own party stinks.

I'm sorry, but that's very low.

[wyldwolf]

14. yet his voting record speaks for itself

Unless, of course, only one issue matters OR the bar to be a progressive has been set just above Lieberman's record.

[depakid]

20. Yes, it certainly does- he's no friend of the middle class

or ordinary working Americans or traditional Democratic values. Quite the opposite-

Let's see, support for offshoring? Check.

Vehement opposition to the Financial Accounting Standards Board proposed rules (the kind would have prevented ENRON, WorldCom, et al - and saved 100's of thousands of pensions- and tens of millions dollars stolen from small investors? Check.

Support for weakening SEC regulation. Check.

Support for repealing Glass-Steagall- and allowing mega-mergers in the banking, financial and insurance industry (e.g. the Citibank, Travelers Insurance and Salomon Smith Barney octopus). Check.

(that one alone is going end up helping to take down the American economy).

Support for telecommunications deregulation. Check.

(we all know what that got us).

Support for the bankruptcy bill. Check.

Support for tort deform. Check.

The list goes on-

This guy's religious moralizing on "family values" while at the same time coddling corporate criminals is the worst sort of hypocrisy. It's as indefensible as anything a Republican does. The quicker the Dems show his ass the door, the better. Then he can get a job simpering and snivelling on Fox News, without officially undercutting the Dems. He can go ahead and enable the far right and rip Howard Dean every night- with a clear conscience. Assuming he has one.

[wyldwolf]

21. wanna rid ourselves of everyone who supported one or more of those?

[SaveElmer]

15. Rudolph Guiliani supported Mario Cuomo...

Does that make him a liberal?

[Douglas Carpenter]

16. he is also a strong supporter of neoliberal economics and thus

a strong supporter of NAFTA and CAFTA... but on most other issues EXCEPT importantly War and Peace --- he is moderately liberal --

I suppose it is his very vocal support of the Bush/Neocon war policies that are the most troubling:

" Sen. Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut reproached fellow Democrats for criticizing President Bush during a time of war.

"It's time for Democrats who distrust President Bush to acknowledge that he will be the commander in chief for three more critical years and that in matters of war we undermine presidential credibility at our nation's peril," Lieberman said."

link:

http://edition.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/12/08/democrats.iraq/?section=cnn_latest

and this interesting comment from Sen. Lieberman while in Baghdad

"Time magazine Baghdad bureau chief Michael Ware on Morning Sedition this morning:

I and some other journalists had lunch with Senator Joe Lieberman the other day and we listened to him talking about Iraq. Either Senator Lieberman is so divorced from reality that he's completely lost the plot or he knows he's spinning a line. Because one of my colleagues turned to me in the middle of this lunch and said he's not talking about any country I've ever been to and yet he was talking about Iraq, the very country where we were sitting."

link:

http://atrios.blogspot.com/2005_11_27_atrios_archive.html#113328407009752558

Again, I myself have pointed out on numerous occasions that Sen. Lieberman has a moderately liberal voting record on many domestic issues along except for his enthusiastic embrace of neoliberal economic ideology.

His comments regarding the Iraq War must reveal that he is either being disingenuous or seriously delusional. The Democratic constituency of Connecticut needs the chance to express their disapproval in the Democratic Primary; win or lose.



http://www.nedlamont.com

[tsuki]

17. The last straw for me was when he advocated doctor shopping

for rape victims.

[0007]

19. Oh my goodness......