Think Lieberman is not that bad? Read this

[jos]

http://www.laweekly.com/ink/03/34/news-ireland.php

[mumon]

1. I've said it before, I'll say it again: Liberman is TOAST.

Liberman is not fit to be god-cather.

Or dog-catcher.

He should go Repuke.

[Melsky]

2. I have never thought he was not that bad.

but now I think he was worse than I thought!

More on Leiberman from the memory hole:
http://www.thememoryhole.org/pol/lieberman-ifcj.htm

[IndianaGreen]

69. This article confirms my worst fears about Lieberman

Holy Joe is a Bill Bennett clone!

BTW, I went to your website and I love your artwork! I like the picture of the cat saying "Feed Me", it reminds me of my own cats.

Do you take personal checks?

Back on point, this article shows the fallacy of relying exclusively on a politician's voting record to judge his or her character. While voting records are indeed an important factor to be considered, when it comes to running for President one must also consider the candidate's record on the whole. Whatever Lieberman has done or failed to do, whatever he has written or spoken, are all significant factors to be evaluated when considering his fitness to be President of the United States. Such an analysis was severely lacking with Bush when he was running in 2000! Such an analysis is a must for all candidates running in 2003!

This article confirms my worst fears about Lieberman. Despite his support for ENDA, a bill that would have outlawed discrimination on gender orientation, and his long voting record in support of gay rights and women's rights, Lieberman's record on the whole shows that he is unfit to hold public office, much less sit in the Oval Office.

[Eloriel]

3. Whoaaa. Even worse than I thought.

Way worse. Almost "no redeeming social value" worse.

Yuck.

Eloriel

[JasonBerry]

9. Eloriel

"Way worse. Almost 'no redeeming social value' worse."

Couldn't agree with you more. You read that and think, "This guy is running for the Democratic nomination??? Must be some mistake!!

[Eloriel]

15. LOL -- Yeah, it's like

ONE of us is on a different planet, Joe. Which one of us is it?

Eloriel

[T Roosevelt]

4. And this from the MSNBC article

Bush team united Iraq front unravels - MSNBC

He also noted that Powell, his former boss, did not repeat the Iraqi uranium allegation during his own presentations of the case for war.
The infighting, and the admission that a key allegation is probably incorrect, also has emboldened those who have argued all along that the war was fought for reasons other than those stated. Even Democrats who have been tremendously wary of criticizing a popular president while troops are in the field are beginning to stir, though most, like Connecticut Democrat and presidential hopeful Joseph Lieberman, prefer to view it as a case of intelligence agencies misleading the president, rather than the president misleading the nation.

[sendero]

7. Uh...

... Holy Joe is never going to have time to win the nomination until he PULLS HIS NOSE OUT OF BUSH*'S BACKSIDE.

There is no way he's that stupid, so it must be a calculation. Jerk.

[ButterflyBlood]

5. see, this is why we hate him so much

[jiacinto]

29. Just another biased article

with the same drivel painted as fact that gets posted here daily even though it falls apart under further scrutiny.

[burythehatchet]

79. Please remain in FA/NS cage.....thank you

[buddhamama]

81. this sounds familiar to me for some reason

oh yeah now i remember

"...the same drivel painted as fact that gets posted here daily even though it falls apart under further scrutiny."

that's what usually runs through my head after reading one of your posts.

[ulysses]

6. the things you won't find

in ADA ratings...

[jiacinto]

22. Another biased article filled with sophomoric words

People hate Lieberman because he is pro-Israel, which I find funny when almost every other Deomcrat running shares the same position.

Why don't you all just be honest and admit it, given the strong anti-Israeli sentiment that is all too prevalent here?

[Rose Siding]

26. Can you dispute any of what's in the article?

Have you any specific evidence to the contrary beyond characterizing the words they've chosen?

As to "strong anti-Israeli sentiment", I find the more prevailing sentiment is anti-militarism and anti-killing of civilians by anyone.

[jiacinto]

28. See reply #19

I tackle some of the issues raised therein.

[ulysses]

30. for an article on which you're not wasting any time, Carlos,

you seem to be spending a lot of time talking about how biased it is. Would you care to actually refute the points it makes?

And "admit" what, exactly? I know you enjoy slinging around the quiet suggestion that people who oppose the man are anti-Semitic, and I still think that that habit of yours is completely destructive of honest dialogue. I don't hate Lieberman. I distrust him as a politician, not because of his support for Israel and certainly not because he's an observant Jew, but in part because I distrust *anyone* who believes that Americans have no right to freedom from religion.

[jiacinto]

32. It's because you have a problem with his beling religous

I'm glad that you've admitted that finally.

[ulysses]

34. no. Try reading next time.

Joe Lieberman can be religious all the livelong day. I genuinely don't care - it's none of my business. But he does not have to stand up, as the vice-presidential nominee of my party, and announce that Americans have no freedom from religion in order to be religious himself.

I don't expect you to understand or admit that, because the anti-Semite label is too juicy to be left behind, isn't it?

[jiacinto]

45. I think it is more true than you want to admit

I really do. Go to I/P forum. I do think that his positions on Israel are a lot of the reasons why people don't like him even though almost every other Democrat running shares the same position on Israel.

[anti_shrub]

48. People here are against militarism

Thats why we oppose the invasion of Iraq, thats why I oppose the right wing regime in Israel just as much as I opposed the right wing regime here. I won't let the fear of being labeled anti-Israel to stop me from pointing out a bully when I see it.

Rachel Corrie, need I say more?

[jiacinto]

50. I am not a Sharon fan by far either

But I've been to the I/P forum before and some of it makes me cringe. I hope as few as possible Jewish voters ever see that board.

As for Rachel Corrie I do have concerns about her death.

[anti_shrub]

54. Do you believe that Israel is above critique?

You seem to admit they do bad things, re: Rachel Corrie, but you seem uncomfortable to call them on it.

Besides, no less an authority than Jon Stewart (who at last check is Jewish) took shots at Lieberman. Is he anti-Israel too?

[jiacinto]

60. I don't think Israel is "above critique"

But I do have problems when Lieberman gets singled out for his views on Israel when almost every other candidate has the same position.

[anti_shrub]

64. You seriously can't be this naiive

Joe has been the poster child for the wimpy "We love Shrubbie" Democrats. People bash him because he's had zillions of chances to challenge Shrub and he's passed up almost all of them. Thats why he gets the treatment he gets, not because he supports Israel, not because he's Jewish, but because he's a Dem Senator who wields power and could actually challenge this unelected sham of an admin but chooses to be all "gosh gollly gee whiz" instead.

[jiacinto]

67. I don't think Lieberman is aggressive enough

But I do think the issues I mentiond earlier in this thread are the reason why, by and large, a lot of people don't like him.

[ulysses]

52. You really feel that comfortable telling me what I think?

Best check yourself, son.

[JohnKleeb]

39. actually I am not anti Israel

Certainly not a fan of Sharon either.

[JohnKleeb]

8. whoa

at least he wasnt always bad

[Capn Sunshine]

10. There's NO WAY that Lieberman will get the nomination

NO WAY>
NO HOW
UH-UH. AIN'T GONNA HAPPEN.
NICHT
NEIN
NON.

So I already know this about Joe. I hope others do now too.

[hedda_foil]

11. And I thought I knew a lot about this SOB ... NOT!

On March 9, 1995, in remarks at the National Press Club, as chairman of the pro-corporate Democratic Leadership Council, Lieberman denounced the case for affirmative action as “an un-American argument because it’s based on averages, not individuals,” and went on to praise Ward Connerly’s Proposition 209, the misnamed “California Civil Rights Initiative,” which outlawed affirmative action: “I can’t see how I could be opposed to it, because it basically is a statement of American values.” The year before, the New Haven Advocate’s excellent Paul Bass — who’s covered Lieberman for 22 years — wrote, “After meeting with racist scholar Charles Murray, Lieberman promoted Murray’s idea of taking children away from mothers on welfare and putting them in new government-run orphanages (rather than, for instance, boosting support for agencies seeking to keep together families in crisis).”

OMFG! I've just emailed this to my list but we really need to get this on the blogs FAST!

[karlschneider]

12. I said in 2000 (guess the archives are gone) that Holy Joe would cost Gore

the election. I still haven't heard any rational explanation of how this jerkoff got on the ticket.
:grr:

[hedda_foil]

13. He was Gore's DLC minder.

Gore was DLC too, of course, but Holy Joe ... now he was the real deal. Remember that he ran for Senate at the same time as VP?

[Cascadian]

16. This is what I have been thinking!

Had Gore picked somebody else like say....Kerry or Edwards, then Gore's numbers would have been widened and Gore would be sitting in the White House and Florida would have been a minor issue. Lieberman is a fly in the Democratic oinment.

John

[jos]

17. Gore has no one but himself

to blame on that one. He could have picked Graham, Kerry or Edwards. Lieberman added nothing to the ticket except for making Gore's margin in Connecticut wider. Gore won about the same percentage of the Jewish vote as Clinton won in '96.

[Cascadian]

18. John Kerry would have been a better fit with Al Gore

IMHO

John

[jiacinto]

21. DU wasn't around yet in 2000

So you couldn't have posted that.

[neuvocat]

14. You'd think he was more conservative than Bush

eom

[jiacinto]

20. And Lieberman isn't more conservative than Bush

The facts simply don't agree with you.

[neuvocat]

36. Why are you defending Lieberman?

Is his racist stance agreeable with you?

[jiacinto]

44. Are you saying Lieberman is a racist?

Well here are what some civil rights organizations think of him. And--suprise!!--they don't share the same view on your part that Lieberman is a racist.

Here is what civil rights groups think:

2002 On the votes that the Human Rights Campaign considered to be the most important in 2002, Senator Lieberman voted their preferred position 100 percent of the time.

2002 Bsed on legislative votes, sponsorship of legislation not voted upon, and endorsements of special "dear colleague" letters that the Arab American Institute considered to be the most important in 2002, Senator Lieberman supported their preferred position 60 percent of the time.

2002 On the votes that the National Hispanic Leadership Agenda considered to be the most important in 2002, Senator Lieberman voted their preferred position 91 percent of the time.

2001-2002 On the votes that the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People considered to be the most important in 2001-2002, Senator Lieberman voted their preferred position 94 percent of the time.

2001-2002 On the votes that the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights considered to be the most important in 2001-2002, Senator Lieberman voted their preferred position 100 percent of the time.

2001 On the votes that the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People considered to be the most important in 2001, Senator Lieberman voted their preferred position 91 percent of the time.

2001 On the votes that the Human Rights Campaign considered to be the most important in 2001, Senator Lieberman voted their preferred position 100 percent of the time.

2001 Bsed on legislative votes, sponsorship of legislation not voted upon, and endorsements of special "dear colleague" letters that the Arab American Institute considered to be the most important in 2001, Senator Lieberman supported their preferred position 75 percent of the time.

2001 On the votes that the National Hispanic Leadership Agenda considered to be the most important in 2001, Senator Lieberman voted their preferred position 91 percent of the time.

Source: http://www.vote-smart.org/issue_rating_category.php?can_id=S0141103#Civil+Rights

For being such a "racist" it was Lieberman who registered black voters in the South during the Civil Rights era. Would a "racist" do that?

As for why I "defend" Lieberman it's because I think he is unfairly attacked here at DU. And I say this as a Dean supporter.

[anti_shrub]

46. Here's another question for you

There's lots of people you can make a case for being unfairly attacked at DU. Why does Lieberman hold such a special place near and dear to your heart?

[jiacinto]

51. Because he gets singled out most often

Lieberman gets the brunt of the unfair attacks.

[neuvocat]

53. Ok, so it isn't his racism you are defending.

Lieberman is apparently a racist but maybe it is his lack of religious tolerance that's more appealing to you.

[jiacinto]

56. You really are calling him a racist

That's low, Neuvocat, even when the facts contradict you.

Again would a "racist" register black voters in the South during the 1960s? Would a "racist" get high rankings from civil rights groups?

You are smearing Lieberman. You have no basis to call him a racist.

[neuvocat]

63. Ok, then so's the NAACP.

After all, it gave him a "D" rating, and the "D" doesn't stand for "Dem".

What do you expect from someone who subscribes to the notion that blacks are inferior people?

As a matter of fact, he also endorsed Prop 209 out here in California which was widescale legislation aimed at singling out hispanics.

[jiacinto]

66. That is a not the truth--and you know it

Here is how the NAACP rates him:

2001-2002 On the votes that the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People considered to be the most important in 2001-2002, Senator Lieberman voted their preferred position 94 percent of the time.

Project Vote Smart contradicts you completely. You should know better than to make a smear like that against Lieberman.

[Name removed]

74. Deleted message

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

[jiacinto]

76. Now you resort to personal attacks

Lieberman isn't a racist and you should know better than to smear him. Does a "racist" register black voters in the Deep South during the 1960s?

He isn't a Republican and you know it. If all you can do is call me an idiot then it means that you know I'm right and that you're, well, just plain wrong.

I am not an idiot--you just don't like being proven wrong.

[jiacinto]

19. I won't waste my time on this biased article

But then again most of you hate Lieberman and no matter what the facts actually say you will repeat the same lies over and over again.

The article attacks Lieberman as being anti-gay, yet the human rights watch gives him a very high score.

2002 On the votes that the Human Rights Campaign considered to be the most important in 2002, Senator Lieberman voted their preferred position 100 percent of the time.

Source: http://www.vote-smart.org/issue_rating_category.php?can_id=S0141103#Civil+Rights

As for the issue with Lynne Cheney that one has be debunked several times. When Lieberman found out what the orgnization was doing he resigned from it. But I know that for most of you that's not enough.

Lieberman has to be a screaming Marxist rioting on the street for you. But even then I am sure that some of you would have problems with him.

This article is biased and filled with the same sophmoric phrases that the same people use over and over again here.

Why don't you all just be honest?

You hate Lieberman because he is religious. You hate Lieberman because he is pro-Israel.

I've tried so much to find out some other rationalization for your attacks on him, but I can't. I find it troubling that Lieberman is singled out for criticism on many issues even though the other candidates often share the same position. Take the Iraq vote for example. Lieberman voted for it, but so too did Edwards and Kerry. But Lieberman is subjected to more scrutiny.

Take the issue of Israel. Lieberman is singled out here more often than any other Democrat by the the pro-Palestinian forces here over Israel. And that is in spite of the fact that almost every other Democrat running for the nomination shares the same views on Israel.

This is just another biased viewpoint spread by people who hate Lieberman for reasons not connected to his actual political positions.

And I say this as a Dean supporter. I just get angry when people lie about Lieberman over and over again when they know they are not presenting the truth, but rather their biased viewpoints.

[jos]

23. Biased?

Perhaps. But backed by the facts. You only challenge two. I assume you concede the rest.

It's not that I "hate" Lieberman. I dislike his positions on many issues, his self-righteous attitude, his flacking for the insurance and securities industries, and his desire to make the Democratic party into a Republican-light party.

[jiacinto]

25. I don't concede the rest

I just don't have time to read and research every little thing mentioned there. But I am sure that this authort takes liberty with the facts and the issues that I didn't take the time to look up.

Let me just add one more. The author implies that Lieberman supports the Bell Curve and is anti-minority. Well I will show that most minoirty civil rights groups do not share the same view of Lieberman:

2002 On the votes that the Human Rights Campaign considered to be the most important in 2002, Senator Lieberman voted their preferred position 100 percent of the time.

2002 Bsed on legislative votes, sponsorship of legislation not voted upon, and endorsements of special "dear colleague" letters that the Arab American Institute considered to be the most important in 2002, Senator Lieberman supported their preferred position 60 percent of the time.

2002 On the votes that the National Hispanic Leadership Agenda considered to be the most important in 2002, Senator Lieberman voted their preferred position 91 percent of the time.

2001-2002 On the votes that the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People considered to be the most important in 2001-2002, Senator Lieberman voted their preferred position 94 percent of the time.

2001-2002 On the votes that the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights considered to be the most important in 2001-2002, Senator Lieberman voted their preferred position 100 percent of the time.

2001 On the votes that the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People considered to be the most important in 2001, Senator Lieberman voted their preferred position 91 percent of the time.

2001 On the votes that the Human Rights Campaign considered to be the most important in 2001, Senator Lieberman voted their preferred position 100 percent of the time.

2001 Bsed on legislative votes, sponsorship of legislation not voted upon, and endorsements of special "dear colleague" letters that the Arab American Institute considered to be the most important in 2001, Senator Lieberman supported their preferred position 75 percent of the time.

2001 On the votes that the National Hispanic Leadership Agenda considered to be the most important in 2001, Senator Lieberman voted their preferred position 91 percent of the time.

Source: http://www.vote-smart.org/issue_rating_category.php?can_id=S0141103#Civil+Rights

I don't think Lieberman is perfect but I do take isssue when people continually lie about him and his actual votes or positions. They make all encompassing generalizations about him that fall apart upon further scrutiny.

The real reason why people oppose Lieberman is that he happens to be religious and that he is pro-Israel. Given the strong anti-Israeli sentiment one finds in the I/P forum that is one of the few conclusions I can draw. And I find that to be even more troubling because Lieberman gets singled out for being pro-Israel even through even though every other Democrat running shares the same position.

I am supporting Dean because I don't think Lieberman can win.

[jos]

35. The "real reason"

Rather presumptuous of you to allege that the "real reason" for people here opposing Lieberman is his attitude towards Israel and his "religiousity." As I note above, there are many other issues to oppose Lieberman. It's all part of a mosaic.

[jiacinto]

41. Look at this board

It's not being presumptuous

[anti_shrub]

43. Look at you

You make more presumptions than Bush in the SOTUS....

[anti_shrub]

38. Interesting

I always find it interesting how pretty much everyone here has been accused of being Anti American because of a disagreement with ShrubCo policy. We know that dissent is not un-American and all that.

So why do people think that disagreeing with Israeli policy makes one "anti-Israel"?

And for that matter, why is Israel such a big issue in US elections? No other country plays such a huge role in electing leaders of another nation.

[wellstone_democrat]

24. Guess that depends on whether YOU were a target, eh?

"As for the issue with Lynne Cheney that one has be debunked several times. When Lieberman found out what the orgnization was doing he resigned from it. But I know that for most of you that's not enough."

Lieberman asked that his name be removed as a founder from their website. He WAS a founder. Plus, joining with Cheney and others who have repeatedly used the code words "excellence" "academic freedom" and "quality" to mean adherence to their narrow view of what excellence in education is and who is qualified to provide said excellence. In 1995 when this organization was started---with Mr. Lieberman---no one who paid ANY attention to the shenanigans of Cheney at NEH and on the lecture circuit had any doubt of this at all. This organization of "concerned" trustees, alums and their quisling supporters was formed to enforce ideological purity in service to conservatism.

You can claim the opposite all you like. I lived through their trolling through my life. No one questioned my "quality" or the ability of students to express their views, what was questioned was a supposed "liberal bias". Acharge easily dispatched by the reading list and questions but, which, like most "investigations" left my name, my relationship with my administration, and my own belief in free inquiry tainted. Oh, and with a big damn legal bill too. So, I do know more than a little bit about this organization and its members---that Lieberman found it too extreme when they finally got some heat has more to do with his political aspirations in '04 than his standards. What has happened lately is that social climate has allowed this group to intensify their rhetoric and activities----or, its a matter of degree not a change in "mission."

[jiacinto]

27. Again

That one has been debunked several times here. DSC and Dolstein have debunked here. Lieberman resigned when he found out what the group was actually doing.

I am not supporting him in the primaries, but he is not the devil people make him out to be either.

As for what happened to you I am truly sorry.

[wellstone_democrat]

37. No he didn't

he "resigned" when it became a political liability. My "experience" with them was long before that resignation. I didn't say he was "the devil" in any form. I said that if I, John Q. Public, Ph.D., knew what this group was when it was reported on in 1996 in the Chronicle of Higher Education and through their myriad press releases over the four years + after, please do not try to say that Joe Lieberman did not know what Lynne "Kill the Godless NEH!" Cheney was up to when organizing people to enforce their vision of "excellence" and "free speech"

The idea of the liberal campus is only slightly less false than that of the liberal media---I've been on five campuses in 10 years for grad study or employment. Two are generally thought to be bastions of liberalism---sure, if you are a long tenured type. For every "old campus radical with tenure" there are at minimum three colleagues who are ardent conservatives.

On the other hand, Joe Lieberman helped make me a much more liberal Democrat. No more DLC for me!

ON EDIT: I put "resigned" in quotation marks as I know he asked to have his name removed from their website but nowhere have I seen him actually resigned from the organization. I've seen it asserted here but not proven.

[jiacinto]

42. DSC and Dolstein have addressed that issue

nt

[ulysses]

47. you're still not reading.

Let me see if I can boil down wellstone_democrat's point to a question: even given that Lieberman resigned after ACTA released it's report post-9/11 on "unAmerican" professors, what was he doing being involved with the organization in the first place?

[jiacinto]

49. It is my understanding that the organization

was founded under different auspicies at the time.

But again, because you hate Lieberman no matter what, the facts don't matter to you.

[Name removed]

55. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

57. Deleted message

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

[anti_shrub]

58. "I know you are but what am I".....n/t

[ulysses]

59. tell me what I've distorted.

Please.

[Name removed]

61. Deleted message

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

[ulysses]

62. bullshit.

Since I can't call you a liar, I'd like to get mod input on your post.

[jiacinto]

68. Why is it BS

You repeat the same statements about him all the time even though you know a lot of them are false.

[ulysses]

70. because I don't.

I don't post about Lieberman that much at all, and in fact have not quite written off voting for him should he win the nomination. I'd appreciate a retraction.

[jiacinto]

71. Well then

Maybe I was mistaken--if I am I apologize. I am just sick of the constant distortions made here about him.

[ulysses]

72. either back it up or retract the statement, please.

[jiacinto]

73. Fine

I retract it but I still think you distort Lieberman

[ulysses]

75. thank you.

Now - please tell me how I distort Lieberman.

[KG]

77. hey, uly.

ever notice how carlos never jumps up to protest the lies and disortions about another certain public figure?

ever notice that? :)

[ulysses]

78. of course

not all public figures are deserving of honest discussion! I mean, c'mon...;-)

[jiacinto]

80. Well

Everything I've posted about Nader I've included statements of his.

[KG]

82. my brother, its not (just) you i'm talking about.

and not what you say, though you are human enuff to twist words to suit your world view. i hope you are honest enuff to understand what i'm saying here. take time to understand my meaning.

for 1.5 years there have been weekly green/nader flamefests started, followed by a long, repetitive litany of half-truths, distortions, and out right lies about the greens, nader, etc.

and not just nader now - all the candidates are under attack due to partisan wrangling.

if the truth is what you want presented here, you got to seek it for everyone, or you are just a hypocrite.

[KG]

65. well that's a real adult reply.

can you back that up?

[tinanator]

31. I knew it

Dean/Lieberman 2004

[charlie]

33. Nope

I've never seen Joe's resignation from ACTA, got a copy? Meanwhile, you can read his letter to the group right here:

http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20020128&s=lieberman20020117

Joe doesn't have to be a screaming Marxist to suit me, just less of a screaming idiot.

...the same sophmoric phrases that the same people use over and over again here...

Click....whirrrr...

You hate Lie-ber-man be-cause he is re-lig-ious

Click....whirrr....

Na-der is a God to you peo-ple

Click....whirrr....

Tren-dy ur-ban neigh-bor-hoods

Click....whirrr....

You just re-sent the fact that I...

Click....whirrr....

Mc-Gov-ern, Mon-dale, Du-ka-kis

BTW, how do you like your friends at the DLC hanging that last one on your chosen candidate? As far as they're concerned, you're one of us irresponsible leftist nutjobs. Welcome aboard.

[JohnKleeb]

40. agree

Actually I dont cliche on him and while I dont mind Mr. Marx and his little book I prefer democracy. No actually Carlos I consider myself somewhat religious and others to do. Nader is not perfect to me but he makes sense and hes better than Lieberman on many things. Urban neighborhoods huh? Thoe three fellows were beat because of how they acted not their politics Dukakis could have won if he had stayed strong during the debate he did not lose because of his liberalism and McGovern got hosed too.