Does anyone here give a damn that Lieberman has a lifetime

[Gman]

84% Right record with the AFL-CIO. Does anyone give a damn that Lieberman had a 92% Right record with the AFL-CIO last year?

Does anyone know what kind of labor record Lamont has? Has anyone here even given this the slightest thought?

Why would anyone in their right mind work to oust someone with a lifetime 84% Right labor voting record is beyond me. The war is not the only issue.

-------on edit-----------

I'm running this up the flag pole to check the general sentiment here at DU to the things that are important to organized labor, a very key component of the Democratic Party.

-------on another edit---

Lieberman's labor record can be found here: http://www.aflcio.org/issues/legislativealert/votes/member.cfm?state=CT&pg=1

See for yourself.

[QuettaKid]

1. the war IS the issue this year.

adios Joementum.

[skyblue]

17. Too Bad only Dems care and Republicans think about their taxes.

Sorry, but my guess is the ones who poll the most as wanting immediate withdrawl are Democrats. Doubt he'll see much gain from this in a mid-term election.

[chelsea0011]

97. And he had his chance when he came back from a visit to Iraq.

Instead of being honest and admitting he was wrong, we got the cable-in-all-those-houses and cell phones comments. A complete whack-job he is.

[cali]

2. That Lieberman's record

on some issues is OK, isn't the point for me, and it's not only that he supports the war, it's how he's gone about it. And that's not all for me either, there's just something about Lieberman that I plain don't like or trust.

[Mandate My Ass]

5. For me it's that he sells out dems all the time

but until a few days ago has never had anything but praise for Bush. Any sympathy or loyalty I felt for him dried up during the dirty, rove-like campaign he's been running.

[skyblue]

19. Bullshit!

[Mandate My Ass]

119. Ohhhh what a great retort

really. :eyes:

[matcom]

3. nope. don't give a damn

and if you think this is JUST about the war, you are severely misguided. stop spouting the talking points CNN wants you to.

[skipos]

4. Lamont will be more progressive than Lieberman overall, IMO

Joe prides himself on being the Democrat who often crosses party lines. Why do you think Hannity, Coulter, O'Reilly, Kristol, etc want him to win?

[skyblue]

20. Because they want to get Dems mad at him.

[skipos]

34. So all those people really want Lamont to win?

Then why didn't they endorse Kerry or Gore?

[skyblue]

66. Lamont easier to beat.

[skipos]

78. You didn't answer my question

Hannity, COulter, O'Reilly and Kristol say they want Lieberman to win, because they really want Lamont to win? Yes or no?

[skyblue]

135. Yes.

[DemonFighterLives]

110. Your posts are getting stranger as I move down this thread

What's up?

[skyblue]

153. Good keep reading them!!!

I'll get back to you. Not at you, as I am a lady.

[readmoreoften]

191. Beat by WHO? Schelsinger????

The Neo-cons like Lieberman because he's a NEO-CON.

[cgrindley]

74. Because Kerry was a terrible candidate

Not to mention Edwards.

[WinkyDink]

103. Go away.

[Clark2008]

126. Actually, they were.

Well... not so much terrible candidates as they were too willing to cede the "red states" to Bush without much of a fight - even those red states with Dem governors and Dem state congressional make-ups.

That's where they failed, barring Diebold.

[WildEyedLiberal]

132. What does anyone's opinion of that have to do with this thread?

[cgrindley]

158. Message 34 brought it up

I didn't start it.

[dogday]

116. Nothing to be proud of with this administration

He should of realized that this is the worst administration ever and being proud of crossing to their side is nothing to be proud of at all...

[Saturday]

6. JL doesn't help AFL-CIO members.....

if they went to Iraq and died.

[Lochloosa]

7. ...

SEAN HANNITY RADIO SHOW, FEBRUARY 10, 2006
HANNITY: He's agreed to do this program once a month, we hold him to it, he's keeping his pledge, Sen. Joe Lieberman of Connecticut is with us. How are you, Senator?

LIEBERMAN: Sean, I'm great, how are you doing?

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.

[Demit]

8. A lot of us care that he voted for cloture on Alito. A lot of us care that

he thinks rape victims should take a ride to another hospital if the first one won't give her the morning after pill. A lot of us care that he publicly chastised Democrats for criticizing Bush. A lot of us might wonder if you have ever heard Lamont speak, or read what his positions are.

[MiniMe]

11. A lot of us care that he voted for the bankruptcy bill too

That bill has harmed so many americans

[Gman]

21. Yes and that pissed me off too

told me where Lieberman's allegiance really was.

I'm not here to sing Lieberman's praises. I'm just curious how much labor issues figure into people's support or lack thereof of Lieberman.

[im10ashus]

90. It's certainly a factor for me, Gman.

But he has disappointed on so many other issues that, were I in CT, I would vote for Lamont.

[skyblue]

22. Which would have passed anyway.

[matcom]

27. THAT is your litmus test?

when is it time for one to actually take a STAND?

[fishwax]

133. oh, well, if it's going to pass, then one might as well vote for it

wouldn't want to be on the losing side, after all :eyes:

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

161. Wimpiest. Principles. Ever. -nt

[theHandpuppet]

194. THANK YOU!

You know, I wish you'd expand upon this and post it as its own thread.

[CrazyForKucinich]

9. Joe is an idiot

Blaming Marilyn Manson, videogames and rap music for violence all the while supporting and funding wars himself. The man doesn't get it. He's the problem not Manson.

[adriennui]

67. i can't stand his holier than thou attitude

and the way he brought religion and "moral values" into his candidacy.

[KharmaTrain]

10. Whatcha Done For Me Lately

Looking at the sad state of the labor movement in this country, I wouldn't go bragging that "accomplishment" if I were Joementum. Over the past 40 year...those years Joe uses as his credentials for another 6 years of appeasing...the labor movement has been almost gutted. "Right To Work" states gave way to wholescale off-shoring and outsourcing...and where was Joe? Health care to workers has become a silent killer and crisis for many union folks...and where was Joe?

Most of us never heard of the Junior Senator from Connecticut (Dodd is the one with the experience) he got up on the Senate floor and lambasted a President he felt had violated the public trust. Now that was ok for a blowjob, but when it comes to launching an illegal invasion that is now piling up 5 to 10 American bodies a day, nary a peep from this "conscious" of the Senate.

At best, Liebermann was a go-along, get-along Democrat, at worst (more often than not), he played appeaser to this regime and now he stands in judgement by the fine folks of Connecticut for what all his "service" has brought the state. I'm confident they'll do the right thing.

Cheers...

[Gman]

16. As for your comments about the decline of labor

you could also ask where was Paul Wellstone or Tom Harkin. Both, of course, did/have done everything they could and the jobs are still gone.

I don't live in CT and don't have a vote there. So, I'm pretty much ambivalent. I just hope Lamont, should he win, proves to be as good a friend of labor as is/was Lieberman.

[papau]

25. I agree - and if Joe wins I'll have no problem supporting him - but Joe

made a decision to go after Clinton via impeachment - not censure, and Joe made a decision to shit on the party's base by public love of Bush and the Iraq war.

His occasional statement that if he were in charge Rummy would be gone are overshadowed by his actual votes to stop any Congressional action on that very point.

Joe is a solid liberal - with a large problem that is hopefully in the past. But primaries are a time for the base to send messages.

[louis c]

173. Liberal? Joe's no Liberal

what are you kidding. If Joe's a liberal, so's Bush.

NAFTA, CAFTA, Bankruptcy Reform, Schiavo, Gonzales, breaking ranks on filibusters.

Oh ya, something about supporting the shrub's lies on the War in Iraq, too.

Give me a break. For Christ sake, Lieberman's not even a moderate, let alone liberal.

Get with it. Fox news calls him a "centrist". Hannity thinks Mussolini was a "centrist".

[louis c]

164. LIEberman is no friend of Labor

NAFTA, OK, he didn't heed the warnings of Labor, but neither did a lot of DEMS. Clinton sold us out on that one. But what was ASSHOLE JOE'S excuse for CAFTA. He was only one of 13 Dems in favor. You see, I can concede a mistake or two, but joe, just like his mentor, W. Bush, never admits a mistake. He just plows forward to the detriment of the rest of us. Fuck him, I hope he loses.

[louis c]

162. I'm 100% UNION and you're 100% correct

[Benhurst]

12. History is full of such examples.

Why would anyone turn on the man who established the Environmental Protection Agency?

Or the man who made the trains run on time?

:shrug:

[DoYouEverWonder]

13. Lamont is a small business owner

and has a small business owner, I can't wait to have people in Congress who understand our POV.

Small business owners generate 50% of the jobs in this country, it's about time we get some representation.

[skyblue]

24. Wife is investment banker: Compliance issues will be a problem.

[w4rma]

101. LIEberman's wife is a lobbyist for the pharmaceutical industry.

Compliance issues ARE a problem for LIEberman.

[adriennui]

70. lamont made his money from cablevision

i'm not sure that qualifies him as a small business owner. he's been on both sides of that issue (corporate vs labor vs small business).

[MiniMe]

14. And Hannity, Coulter, and Rush support him

Anybody that those right wing clowns support is not a true democrat.

[skyblue]

26. And Boxer, Reid, Clinton, Unions, Womens Groups Support him

Those rightwingers only want to get Dems mad at him.

[cgrindley]

93. Coulter honestly supports Joe

The Coultergeist is serious. She likes him and wishes that he'd go all the way and join the Republicans.

[WinkyDink]

105. No, they support Lieberman's SENIORITY.

[kysrsoze]

121. You need to read up on the DLC, which includes Clinton, Reid, etc.

They want to keep a government going which fully supports the needs of corporations and the oil-military-industrial complex to do what they think they need to do. Under these schlocks, there will continue to be NO focus on national healthcare, American jobs (unions need to exist, but sometimes a union can kill a good job situation), corporate lobbyist takeovers of key departmental positions, etc. You will have NOTHING but the status quo.

What you're not getting is that this primary's outcome will signal where the Democratic Party finally goes. If Lamont wins, we may start to get more candidates like Paul Hackett some support. If Lieberman wins, it'll be the same old B.S. of hushing anyone who speaks against the party line as the party slowly aligns itself with the other.

My biggest hope in all this is that these "other" voices in our party will no longer be silenced, because there has been very little fight showing in the Democratic Congress for years and I've had enough of "Republican Lite" stances. Nobody wants to take a chance on getting voted out, so they all vote in a way which they think will support their re-election while still supporting the largest and most influential campaign voters. If that's what you want, go hold up a sign for Lieberman in CT.

[skyblue]

146. "Republican Lite" is unfortunate, but Americans are somewhat backwards.

and they vote. Every positive social policy you profer is going to get counterattacked by a Republican who thinks "there they go again raising my taxes" (eg.. national healthcare). I hope some of these policies will be made, but they won't be made if we lose because we have a candidate who will sacrifice everything to prove a point instead of make some sacrifices in order to win an election.

[itsrobert]

15. Yup 84 and 92 percent. That matters to me!

He should be with the AFL-CIO 100 PERCENT OF THE TIME!!!!!!! Go away JOE!

[readmoreoften]

192. Haha! Good point.

He voted for CAFTA and labor is in an ABYSMAL STATE because of DLCers like him.

[Warren Stupidity]

18. Gee I don't know, perhaps because of the DAMN WAR?

And Lieberman's repeated cozying up to Bush, and his castigations that all of us opposed to the war are unamerican? Right now the war, while not the only issue, is by far the most important issue facing us, and one that the electorate can actually affect by their votes. Right now, this election may very well determine if Iraq is a one time event or the first phase of a much broader war. Not the only issue, just one of massive importance.

Your pal Joe supports free trade at the expense of domestic jobs. You might consider that a pro labor position, but I say it is DLC New Democrat bullshit and he is no friend of workers.

Joe can't see the problem with gross violations of constitutional rights as long as the president waves his Holy War On Terror card. I have a major problem with that position.

Joe is in favor of legal restrictions on marriage that institutionalize discrimination against homosexuals. I find that abhorrent and am astounded that any person of the Jewish faith would support this sort of legislation.

Lieberman is on the fence with respect to social security privatization. Along with the rest of the DLC New Democrats, they would love to give their wall street pals a steady tap on our pensions but are scared of voter reaction.

Your guy kissed president bush. What's up with that? He's supposed to be a goddamn Democrat.


http://www.issues2000.org/2006_CT_Senate.htm

[skyblue]

30. Only 1/5 of Americans want immediate withdrawl.

[Warren Stupidity]

52. Lamont is running in Connecticut.

And the voters in Connecticut will decide if they support Lamont's position or Lieberman's. All indications are that the vote is going to be about the war and and it is going to go Lamont's way. By the way, you did not provide any link for your 20% support position. A majority of americans believe the war was a mistake and that we should get out.

"Do you approve or disapprove of the way Bush is handling the situation in Iraq?" 62 % disapprove - 8/6/2006 WP/ABC


"Do you think the United States should or should not set a timetable for the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq?" 56% YES.

Ah - here is your data, I knew I could find it. This is a typical multichoice question that allows one to make the argument that only 20% support out now.

"Here are four different plans the U.S. could follow in dealing with the war in Iraq. Which ONE do you prefer? Withdraw all troops from Iraq immediately. Withdraw all troops by August 2007, that is, in 12 months' time. Withdraw troops, but take as many years to do this as are needed to turn control over to the Iraqis. OR, Send more troops to Iraq."

Withdraw Immediately 19%
Withdraw by August 2007 33%
Take as Long as Needed 38%
Send More Troops 7%
Unsure 2%

That is one dubious question, but an appropriate interpretation is that 52% want withdrawal regardless of what happens to Iraq.


http://www.pollingreport.com/iraq.htm

You think perhaps Joe's Kiss of Bush is a Kiss of Death?

[skyblue]

58. With the I-L thing going on that point will remain volatile.

[Oak2004]

168. And another interpretation is that 33%

have a clue that it takes some time to safely withdraw a large military force (i.e. served in the military, know someone who served and has talked to them about Iraq, paid attention in history class, is involved with the transportation of goods and/or people, etc.).

I'd have chosen a one year timetable, given the same question, not because I don't want us out of there as soon as possible, but because I think that a date like that is the nearest option to what is possible.

[Warren Stupidity]

178. Actually I am fairly sure that plans for a rapid withdrawal

on the order of weeks are firmly in place. The pentagon has oceans of officers who just sit around planning shit. The theory that somehow it would take a year to organize an exit is total bullshit.

[Oak2004]

181. We've got more than military interests there

We've got business interests. Disgusting profiteers, in most cases, but American interests nonetheless.

[Warren Stupidity]

183. Huh? They get out first.

It is the Iraqi idiots who played nice with us who will be left grasping at the ass end of fleeing copters, not american business men.

[Lerkfish]

89. really?

only 20% of americans want an immediate withdrawal? where'd you get that from, Drudge?

got any links to that percentage?

but I will say one thing, you're making me laugh, here. I hope Joementum gives you a nice reward.

[kysrsoze]

124. You're spinning as much as Fox News. Getting dizzy?

[proud2BlibKansan]

176. What dark place did you pull that number out of?

Here's one to think about - 45% of Iraqis think it is okay to kill Americans.

Still think we should leave our troops there?

[sendero]

23. My god...

... if we don't rein in the neocons EVERY OTHER ISSUE WILL BE MOOT.

What part of that simple fact do you not get?

Joe is in trouble for supporting the neocon agenda 100%. Pay attention, and stop buying into the bullshit.

[Gman]

31. I'm not buying into anything

I just went to the AFL-CIO website to see what his labor record was. Pretty damn good record. I don't live in CT and don't have a dog in this fight.

[sendero]

41. There will be no labor rights whatsoever..

... for anybody if the neocons get their way.

It's just like his vaunted vote for choice and civil rights. Then he turns around and enables the appointment of TWO WINGNUTS on the SCOTUS.

The latter goes well beyond trumping the former.

[skyblue]

43. Marched with MLK what is he a friggin racist now! I don't think so.

[sendero]

50. Joe is not our friend..

... I never said he was a racist nor do I think that.

He's simply a classic neocon, supporting every element of Bush**'s neocon agenda. Namely perpetual war, economic disaster, delusional middle east policies.

Joe has got to go.

[atreides1]

64. So

David Horowitz was a card carrying liberal, now he's so far on the right that he makes Mussolini look like a moderate.

In other words people can change!

[Name removed]

106. Deleted message

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

[saigon68]

182. Au Revoir voyez-vous

[skyblue]

35. Voted with Democrats 90% of the Time. Meet The Press, Aug 6 Transcript

[sendero]

39. On everything..

... that is moot, he votes with us.

There are lies, damnable lies and statistics. This is a perfect example of that maxim.

Now, I'm going to PRAY he loses today. He sucks.

[skyblue]

49. Right, Unions, Womens Groups are behind Joe Lieberman. Sorry!

[sendero]

53. Only those..

.. who are stupid and gullible beyond belief. Nobody thinks Roberts or Alito will be good for any of those rights, and Joe helped put them on the court.

There is nothing I can do about stupid people.

[adriennui]

85. pray that he loses?

let's hope your passion extends to all races this november. lieberman is one senator, there are many more that should go. truth is most democrats (with few exceptions)are as corporatist as lieberman.

[sendero]

95. You have to start..

.. somewhere. And while I agree that there are many corporatist Dems in the senate, Lieberman's sins go well beyond being "corporatist".

[WinkyDink]

111. I've voted with the Democrats 100% of the time. Is he or is he NOT

a DEMOCRATIC Senator??

[femmedem]

28. Joe never saw a free trade agreement he didn't like.

How does labor feel about their jobs going overseas?

[JHB]

Speaking of flagpoles...

...How about unfurling how those numbers were calculated?

Because somehow Joe's reputation as a Champion of Labor has escaped me (and obviously plenty of others).

So how did he get those ratings? Because if they were tallied up from many small "punch my card" votes while letting the big things sail through in the hallowed name of "free trade", then his statistics don't count for beans.

[skyblue]

38. More Unions support Joe. Are you saying they're wrong?

[Gman]

40. Go here

http://www.aflcio.org/issues/legislativealert/votes/member.cfm?state=CT&pg=1

select Lieberman from the drop-down box and see for yourself.

[Onlooker]

29. He's the worst Dem senator, not the worst Senator*

I don't think it would dreadful if Lieberman was re-elected, but clearly progressives have a chance to make a strong statement about the war by defeating Lieberman. The effort to defeat Lieberman is not so much about Lieberman as it is about ending the war on Iraq. Today, the voters of Connecticut have a chance to send a strong message to the Democratic Party.

*Actually, he's probably not even the worst Democratic Senator. There seem to be a few worse ones in the midwest, but I don't know enough about them.

[bunkerbuster1]

155. Ben Nelson is worse...

http://www.ontheissues.org/Social/Ben_Nelson_Abortion.htm

Strongly opposes "Abortion is a woman's right"

Voted NO on $100M to reduce teen pregnancy by education & contraceptives.

Voted YES on criminal penalty for harming unborn fetus during other crime.

Voted YES on banning partial birth abortions except for maternal life.

Rated 7% by NARAL, indicating a pro-life voting record.

[The Backlash Cometh]

32. It's a freakin Democratic state. Why isn't his record at 100%?

[skyblue]

37. Blue, riight with 3 Republ Reps only 2 Dem Reps, and a Repub Governor

[The Backlash Cometh]

48. I keep hearing that Connecticut is a Dem state, so now you're telling

me that someone is lying to me?

I think this one is going to come down to the Iraq War issue. If the Republican candidate is pro-Iraq, I think even moderate Republicans will vote Dem.

[skyblue]

61. When there's3 Repub Repsand2 Dem, the "blue" title only 4 Pres. & Incum.

[cgrindley]

94. That's not really really accurate

Rell is hardly a Republican cut from the same cloth as other Republicans. Here in CT, the political spectrum is perhaps more centrist than in other states. No Republican here would ever dare to start Jesus thumping for example.

[skyblue]

131. I agree on the Jesus bit, they just care about taxes, & warmonger racist.

[WinkyDink]

115. It goes by Presidential elections. DUH.

[skyblue]

134. misleads to meaning a Senator from CT would automatically be Dem

[MannyGoldstein]

33. Only 50% ACLU Record

His lifetime voting record on issues important to the ACLU is only 50% or so.

And given how far to the right the Senate has gone, his record on labor issues should be 100%.

[Name removed]

201. Deleted message

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

[Atman]

36. As I analogized on another post yesterday, it'd be like driving to CA...

...and gettting 90% of the directions correct. Big deal. It's the ten percent wrong turns that wind you up in the middle of Death Valley instead. Where have you driven us lately, Joe?

[Gman]

42. Clearly a "liberal" response

It's a very old saying that when we have the glass 90% full, we bitch about the other 10%.

[Atman]

45. It isn't that the 90% hasn't been good...but the 10% has been DEADLY.

Again...where have you driven us lately, Joe?

And, yes GMAN, it is clearly a liberal response, because I am clearly a liberal and damned proud of it. We need to come up with a new name for you mushy-in-the-middle types.

[Dhalgren]

60. It's like the statement made yesterday in a thread here.

(Paraphrase) "Other than that, Mrs. Lincoln, how was your night at the theater?" This idea that warmongers are ok as long as they support "labor" or the "environment" or "women's rights" is bogus. The advocation of war for profit (which is what the current war is all about) is anti-labor, anti-environment, and anti-women's rights; it is 'anti" everything progressive, everything liberal, everything humane...

[AndyA]

44. Lieberman's fatal mistake with me was cozying up to Bush.

George Bush is one of the most dangerous men in American politics. Ever. His record of violating the law, walking all over the Constitution, lying, manipulating, and discriminatory actions should be enough for every other politician to know he's up to no good.

Having respect for the office is fine, but by not condemning these actions, by not backing away from him, you are in essence approving of what he does. And by doing so, allowing the people who voted for you, the people whose rights and liberties you're supposed to protect, have those rights and liberties taken away from them. It's a slow process, but it is happening.

Any politician who does not have enough care and respect for his constituents to protect their core rights should not be in office.

Joe Lieberman is such a man. He needs to go. This is not a game, there is no second chance.

[tabasco]

46. Then he gets a lifetime achievement award, not re-election.

What has he done for us lately?

[Cerridwen]

47. Someone tell me about his record.

Does he vote pro-labor when it's easy, politically expedient, or when it's a tough fight? Yes, that matters. Politics is a game of appearances; see recent vote to cut inheritance tax which can be twisted to be a vote against a minimum (and I do mean, minimum) wage.

If a politician wants to look good to certain groups, s/he can vote on those issues which are a "slam dunk" and therefore appear to be supporting certain groups, but when push comes to shove will vote against said certain groups if it might hurt their poll numbers or their monied supporters. Its an old game which, I think, many here are now starting to see. (see previous about tax vote)

In other words, which of the 84%/92% were the hard votes; the unpopular with his monied supporters votes? Which actually supported unions and which were just easy, I won't piss off anyone and I'll look good doing it, votes? Did he actually take a side?

I don't know about his record. I ask out of curiosity.

Actually, I ask these questions about all our "elected representatives". Do they truly represent our interests? Or do they just pay lip service?

[Gman]

55. See for yourself here:

http://www.aflcio.org/issues/legislativealert/votes/member.cfm?state=CT&pg=1

[Cerridwen]

69. Thanks for the link.

I'll keep researching. A voting record illuminates only so much.

[Lurking Dem]

51. I care

in that, if he wins I won't be rending my garments and wailing like some at DU. He's a staunch Democrat on social issues.

BUT, his hawkish embrace of Bush policies is HIS downfall. He has no one to blame for that but himself. He has become a windsock where once he had a firm and decided ideology.

[WilliamPitt]

54. NEVER FORGET: Enron Democrats

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20020408/greider

Enron Democrats
William Greider

If left-labor-liberal progressives had the cohesion and muscle of their right-wing opposites, they would be articulating a simple-to-understand litmus test for the Democratic Party--no "Enron Democrats" on the presidential ticket in 2004. That precondition would eliminate a number of presidential wannabes now mentioned by the Washington media's Great Mentioner. Scratch Senator Joe Lieberman. Forget the happy talk about Senate majority leader Tom Daschle's running for the White House. And Senator Joe Biden can stop daydreaming. These men--and perhaps some other would-be candidates--do not pass the Enron smell test.

(snip)

Lieberman's Slippery Slope

Senator Joe Lieberman, as chairman of the Governmental Affairs Committee, presides over hearings into what-went-wrong with the air of sorrowful piety that is his specialty. "Gatekeepers weren't keeping the gate, watchdogs weren't watching," he lamented. He neglects to mention that he is one of the faulty watchdogs and also a leading gatekeeper who blocked the timely reform of corporate finance. The Senator has a hypocrisy problem. He frequently sermonizes on the moral failings of others, including other public figures. Meanwhile, he has shilled vigorously, sometimes venomously, for the very players who are new icons of corruption--major auditing firms, corporate executives who cashed stock options early while investors took a bath and, especially, those self-inflating high-tech companies in Silicon Valley that drove the stock-market bubble. As a New Democrat, Lieberman held the door for their escapades.

His most important crusade was protecting the loopy accounting for corporate stock options. Nervous regulators recognized early on that the profusion of stock options had the potential to deceive investors while cheating the tax system--illusions that could drive company stock prices to impossible heights. Tech startup firms, as well as established names like Microsoft, were issuing a growing volume of stock options as a substitute for wage compensation, especially for top executives. These companies did not have to report the billions in new options as an operating cost, thus making their earnings seem much greater than they were. Yet when employees eventually cashed in the options, the companies claimed them as tax deductions. This two-way mirror is symptomatic of the deceptive bookkeeping that permeated corporate affairs during the boom and the bubble.

Back in 1993, when the Financial Accounting Standards Board proposed to stop it, Lieberman went to war. "I believe that the global pre-eminence of America's vital technological industries could be damaged by the proposal," he warned. The FASB, he insinuated, was politically motivated or simply didn't grasp the bright promise of the New Economy. Lieberman organized a series of letters warning the accountants' board to stop its meddling. In the Senate, he mobilized a resolution urging the Securities and Exchange Commission to squelch the reform. It passed 88 to 9. The regulators backed off--and stock prices soared on the inflated earnings reports. Whenever FASB tried to reopen the issue, Lieberman jumped them again. He was well rewarded by Silicon Valley and auditing firms. He is the New Democrats' favorite candidate for 2004.

Lieberman's victory was extraordinarily costly for the economy, not to mention duped investors, unhinging valuations and fostering the overinvestments that now hang over the tech industry. Accounting professor Itzhak Sharav of the Columbia University Business School describes Lieberman's intervention as the first step on "the slippery slope that got us mired in the Enron swamp." Once auditors and corporate managers saw regulators defanged on stock options, Sharav explained, they were emboldened to explore further in the realm of gimmicky profit reports. "How much is two plus two? How much do you want it to be?" Sharav said. "Once you start playing games with the numbers, there's no limit to what you might do." Senators Carl Levin and John McCain have proposed a nifty solution--companies can no longer have it both ways. If they don't account for their stock options as a cost in earnings reports, then they cannot claim them later as tax deductions. Lieberman is opposed--still on the slippery slope.

During the 2000 election, other New Dems organized a direct assault on SEC chairman Arthur Levitt, who was challenging the big five auditing firms on their conflicted interests--consulting with companies on business strategy, then auditing the books with supposed independence. Dozens of politicians piled on Democrats Torricelli, Schumer and Bayh in the Senate; and Jim Moran, Cal Dooley, Ellen Tauscher and other New Dem regulars in the House. The New Democrat Network harvested more than $1 million that year for deserving politicians. Some have now recanted. "We were wrong, you were right," Torricelli told Levitt, though he neglected to mention the money. The luster of Silicon Valley fundraising has not been dimmed by the scandals and bankruptcies. The "economic stimulus" bill passed in March was described as a Democratic victory because it includes a minor dollop for the unemployed. But most of the $43 billion went to business--including a gorgeous tax bonus sought by the needy entrepreneurs of Silicon Valley.

...more...

[Gman]

68. Good stuff and clearly shows some of the major problems with Lieberman

Lieberman's one of corporate America's biggest and most loyal friends. As someone pointed out above, he also voted for the bankruptcy bill. And, its hard to reconcile Lieberman's position on legislation that is clearly damaging to working people with his favorable votes for labor; in fact they can't be reconciled. There are many very good reasons to not support Lieberman. I don't necessarily support Lieberman and am really ambivalent toward him.

But I'm just wondering if anyone at all thought, "Hmmm, Lieberman's also a good friend of labor. How can I vote against someone that has an 84% lifetime labor record." The replies to this pretty much support my contention that labor issues and the positions the AFL-CIO takes matter little here at DU where people claim to be "liberal" but are pretty much oblivious to organized labor and it's positions. These same people are working directly against organized labor and I wonder how they can square that with being liberal.

But its not like this is the first time this has happened. Organized labor more often than not is much to the right of progressives. Those who we would now consider progressives staunchly supported Eugene McCarthy who was arguably the most liberal candidate in 1968 while labor supported at first RFK and later Humphrey. There are many other examples since.

[WilliamPitt]

71. There's a disconnect here

You wonder how someone can vote against a friend of labor while lamenting the manner in which he has sold labor out by way of his corporate support. You acknowledge this, true, but still don't seem to make the connection.

Here's the deal, G. If I call you my friend and support you in the community, but sell all your stuff out the back door to the highest bidder, I am not your friend.

[Gman]

84. And that has been the lament of labor over many of it's "friends"

for so many years. But labor has also recognized that this happens and simply lives from vote to vote with a lot of these people.

And I have GOT to get to a meeting!

Thanks for the good and valid comments.

[mmonk]

56. No. While I appreciate it, circumstances change

and things seldom remain static. Current circumstances provoke new actions.

[Little Star]

57. Lamont's labor record.............

I wish you would have found out how he feels about labor before insinuating that he is against labor. Maybe Leiberman is not the only one who is pro-labor??????

[TreasonousBastard]

59. Nobody cares about his...

environmental record, his civil rights record, his labor record, his seniority, or anything else.

He pissed off the Legion of Ideological Purity be being for the Iraq war and kissing Shrub's ass. He pissed off Jesse Jackson by questioning affirmative action, even though his actual civil rights record is a good one. Pissed off a lot of other people, too, by not meeting their standards of purity.

For a bunch of people screaming all the time about swiftboating and how the "media" only gives on side of things, it seems like Lieberman is getting a pretty raw deal being slammed for two or three things in 18 years that have become dealkillers. He must have done something right in all that time to make up for at least a few of his alleged sins. I guess whatever he might have done right, or might do in the future, just doesn't count any more.

Too bad it's up the voters of Connecticut to sort this out, and not the screaming minions of discussion boards. Me, I'm just across the Sound from CT and I'll let them deal with it. And hope against hope that if this newbie manages to buy his way into the general election with his single issue, he's OK on the other issues that count and not just more hot air from another rich kid with more money and ambition than talent. Be careful what you wish for.

Either way, we gotta keep that seat, and I'll take the devil we know if that's the way it falls.

[mmonk]

63. That's right. And democrats shouldn't criticize the president

in a time of war.

[Demit]

65. Your boy wants to split the Dem vote in the general, if he loses today.

He will not promise to support the Democratic candidate. Apparently you want to "keep that seat" more than Lieberman does.

[skyblue]

72. You want to put all your eggs in 1 basket.

[Demit]

81. Huh? What on earth does that mean?

[skyblue]

99. You're thinking that automatically the Non-Democrats in this state will

hook up with Lamont, inspite of the fact that the Republican candidate has not yet d e b a t e d Lamont, has not had any ads, think that Republicans want what you want when they will think about their taxes 1st, when Lieberman probably didn't hire any paid bloggers to attack your candidate whereas the Republican candidate probably will, when Lieberman did not fight as dirty as you or a Republican would, when Lieberman did not put out counter ads with all the people who've kissed him while you are so perversely exited about Bush's kissing Lieberman, when you think that immediate withdrawl is what Republicans want, when you don't know how the public will take to talking points. It will be a tough fight, so backing us up in case Lamont starts tanking makes sense. Sorry if you feel threatened.

[Demit]

177. What I'm thinking is, avowed Democrat Lieberman refuses to back the

Democrat in the general election unless it is himself. Which is pretty much what I said, pretty clearly, I thought, in the post you responded to. How you managed to read all of the things you just said in that incoherent run-on sentence I can't imagine.

Ned Lamont has not threatened to run as a third-party candidate if he loses the primary. Lieberman has. That situation will without doubt be detrimental to the Democratic Party. Lieberman evidently does not care.

[Libby2]

62. Nope

[cgrindley]

73. Nope

Your job as a senator is to do the will of your electorate. Lieberman has deserted both the state and the party on several key votes that have nothing to do with the war. Plus, Lamont enjoys some pretty key support from labor.

PS to Joe. What have you done for us this decade?

[peace13]

75. All of this back and forth is interesting

but prepare yourself for another stolen election. The press has been trying to muddy the water for the last week and you can be assured that there will be a come from behind Joe at the end of the day!

[DemonFighterLives]

147. Please say that can't happen

I'm had enought right wing surprises for a lifetime.
:dem:

[peace13]

166. Take it from someone who lives in Ohio

Anything is possible. Sorry to say.

[TheCowsCameHome]

76. Getting support from the rabid right doesn't doesn't sit well with me

Hannity, O'Lielly, Limbaugh, et al are suddenly Friends of Joe.

Is that because he is so close to their fair-haired boy Bush?

Makes me wonder...............

[skyblue]

86. Getting support from many Unions and Womens groups sits just fine with me.

The right wing talk show hosts only want to get the liberals fired up.

[louis c]

77. BULLSHIT

I'm on an AFL-CIO COPE committee and I see that bullshit all the time. 84 % or 90%.

Just like the war, only a few issues really matter. NAFTA, Joe voted YES. Cafta, Joe was one of only 13 DEm Senators that Voted Yes. The Supreme Court has upheld most of the Bush appointments to the Labor Board's anti-union decisions, and there's Joe breaking Filibusters to get them confirmed. He voted for Gonzales who has decimated worker's rights. His support for this administration is the most complete in the DEm Party, and Bush has set Labor back 30 years.

Joe's cute. He votes with the majority on major issues during the procedural votes. The Dems. can only stop adverse legislation in the Senate with cloture. That's our only line of defense in congress. Joe is always counted by the Repugs to be one of the 6 they need. Even when cloture has failed, Joe voted on the Repuke side.

Those percentages are bullshit. I know Ned Lamont comes from a privileged background, but so did FDR, all the Kennedy's and John Kerry. I'll take them in the Senate, too, over an ass-kissing piece of shit like Lieberman any day of the week.

[adriennui]

114. did you vote for gore in 2000?

he was the biggest cheerleader for NAFTA and corporate interests.

[louis c]

152. A lot of Dem's supported NAFTA, but changed their minds.

and admitted the mistake. That's first off. ASSHOLE Joe was one of 13 Dem's to vote for CAFTA. Secondly, I voted for Perot on the very issue in 1992 and 1996. I could not cast a vote for someone with no chance in 2000. Lamont, unlike Nader, is not just a protest vote. He has a real chance to win the whole thing.

I have also noticed you dodged all the other LIEberman positions, like Schiavo, CAFTA, breaking Filibusters to help Bush, voting for Cheney's energy bill and on and on.

If Connecticut Dems picks ASSHOLE JOE, perhaps I might turn into an independent.

After all, if ASS-KISSIG JOE wins then that will prove that supporting Bush has no consequences.

[adriennui]

171. i'm not dodging anything.

quite frankly, if i lived in connecticut i'd vote for lamont and i don't even know where he is on domestic policies. i think all incumbents should get the boot(except for russ feingold).

[silverojo]

79. No, the war is not the only issue

But when he votes with the GOP most of the time on other issues as well as the war, then yes he deserves to be ousted, and no -- I don't give a damn about his AFL-CIO votes.

[newportdadde]

80. He deserves to take a walk just on his sense of entitlement.

His whole attitude during this primary and the attitude of the DLC has been "How dare you for lefties try to oust our corporate stooge!" Its his god given right as an incumbent to get on the ticket right? His whole attitude, the feelers on running as an independent etc is bullshit.

We need MORE of this, we need to hold our elected officials to the fire occassionally, make them remember who the hell put them there in the first place. They need to know they have to EARN our vote every election cycle, its not enough to just have an D next to your name.

Bottom line is if he looses he didn't represent the voters of CT properly.

[Warpy]

82. No, the war is not the only issue, but it is a very, very big issue.

Lieberman also has a 76% rating from Progressive Punch.

Most people were outraged by his kissy face with Stupid. It may have been a perfect Judas kiss. Who knows?

However, his stand on the war and his stands for big insurance and big pill are costing him.

On edit: http://www.progressivepunch.org/members.jsp?search=selectName&member=CTI&chamber=Senate&zip=&x=19&y=12

[Eric J in MN]

83. I predict that if Ned Lamont wins, he'll have better than an 84%

...right record with the AFL-CIO

[ToeBot]

87. How many of those pro-labor votes resulted in signed legislation?

I'm having trouble remembering the last piece of pro-union legislation that was passed in this administration or by any of the previous three administrations. Attempting to justify Lieberman's (or any democrat's) reelection based on their support of labor is to shine a spotlight on a conspicuous Democratic Failure. It's even more galling that said candidate is DLC approved. If your trying to tell me that Lamont will be less responsive to the needs of unions, I don't buy it - in fact, I don't think its possible.

[saltpoint]

88. Let's see how the voting analysis goes in the next day or so. Lamont

is likely to draw many union voters.

The Bush administration is famously anti-union, anti-labor, and immorally clueless about working generally since most of them never had to work, Dubya especially.

Lieberman is perceived as too close to Bush.

A problem for Lieberman, A plus for Lamont, a primary for Connecticut. Later tonight we'll see how it turned out.

[janx]

91. It doesn't matter what I think, because I don't live in CT.

(I did once, for a couple of years, and Joe was there then.)

The only thing that matters is what the people of CT decide. Joe has been representing him for 18 years, and if they decide they need different representation, so be it.

[JNelson6563]

92. Um, lemme think...

NO.

I could possibly consider it if it weren't for his chiding war dissenters. His support for this pointless and costly slaughter was bad enough but to be such a * enabler like that!! Oh that just tears it!

Let us remember too how proudly he proclaimed himself to be one who goes his own way no matter what other Dems might think. He gestured toward boo's he got from the audience as confirmation.

Buh- bye Joe. Don't let the door hitcha...

Julie

[DanCa]

96. How many times has he been on Sean Hannity's program?

His voting record may not be that bad, but he has insulted his base numerous times. Joe's attitude screwed Joe his IWV only added fuel to the fire.

[peacetalksforall]

98. When more people in the US started waking up and learning about the

atrocities against our country by PNAC and the Cheney administration, Leiberman became even more verbal and active in his lean towards the Republicans.

What kind of message has he been sending?

Many of us had strong reservations about him for six years.

Then, when polls started reflecting our sentiments, he started calling Dems who were not adoring and supporting him "anti's". We can only presume he is inferring anti-Semites.

How can he be so pro-labor and then turn around an vote the way he has - what about the backruptcy bill? Yes, other Dems screwed us, also.

I'm no expert on Joe, but I hold strong suspicions about him since the days after the Gore-Leiberman vote through Dec 12 when the Supreme Court chose the President. And I wonder if a study of his votes would reveal a strong link and relationship to donations.

A good labor vote is to be commended. It's part of the package that makes one ask - who is Joe?

I prefer to base everything on whatever is going through his head in his support of the war and George Bush-Dick Cheney-PNAC. He made himself into our questionable enemy.

Edited to add that my comment about unions was before I read the post above that had more detail. Yes, NAFTA is big. I am extremely unhappy with Clinton also re NAFTA and the other ...TA's.

[w4rma]

100. He votes like an Enron accountant counts. (nt)

[WinkyDink]

102. Well, if the youngest union members go off to DIE IN IRAQ,

what differeence does Joe's 84% rating make (and whynis it not 100%??)?

[skyblue]

113. If the rest of Ct voters are not in favor of immediate withdrawl, then

lets see how the mid-term election goes for Lamont.

[Hubert Flottz]

104. " Joe NAFTA/CAFTA Lieberman”

What a union member said about Joe's pro union get together...


"I’ve been a member of both Local 210(carpenters) and AFSCME(public works machine operator) in my days before my retirement and I have to say todays show is a prime example of why the Labor movement is going down the tubes at an amazing pace.Their were no trade union men there no teachers,painters,pipe fitters,steel workers or even any public works guys like I was for 14 yrs there.The only union guys there were firefighter and half of then admitted to being Republicans."

http://www.spazeboy.net/2006/07/lieberman-at-afl-cio-event-dissed-by-dick/

Joe voted for Fast Track too. Some union man...

[Hubert Flottz]

118. "More Evidence of Lieberman’s Republican Nature"

More Evidence of Lieberman’s Republican Nature – His Support from the Chamber of Commerce

Ralph Nader

U.S. Chamber of Commerce - - the largest, cruelest and most extreme corporate lobby against workers', consumers' and environmental protections - - endorses Senator Joseph Lieberman...




The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, through its front groups such as the Institute for Legal Reform (ILR) and Voters Education Committee (VEC), has been deeply involved in opposing or supporting hundreds of state and federal candidates for both legislative and judicial offices. (See "The Secret Chamber: The Inner Workings of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce..") (http://centerjd.org)

Chamber CEO Tom Donohue bragged in 2004 about defeating Senator Tom Daschle (S.D.), the leader of the Democrats in the Senate.

A Chamber endorsement leads to more business campaign contributions and other supportive activities from mass mailings to phone calls and media strategies that have involved "dirty tricks" against their opponents. ...more...

http://www.thepeoplesvoice.org/cgi-bin/blogs/voices.php/2006/08/04/p9840

Ralph I hate you, but sometimes you tell the truth...

[kentuck]

107. It is a mistake to give all issues equal weight...

If a Democrat is for school vouchers, for government interference in the Sciavo privacy case, supportive of "private accounts" for Social Security, against Affirmative Action, supportive of an illegal war, etc..., then those 5 or 6% of the issues does not make a candidate a 95% "Democrat"...

[FredScuttle]

108. Do you give a damn that Joe won't support the winner of the Dem primary?

What say you, oh unconnected bystander who just happened to drop by?

on edit: meant to add "won't support the winner of the primary if it ain't Joementum"

[KurtNYC]

109. Social Security, Schiavo, Iraq, Dissent = wrong on all of them

JL backed B*sh's social security rip off plan -- how is that good for labor?
JL wanted to diagnose Terri Schiavo and keep a tube in her, just like his republican friends.
JL consistently backs the occupation of Iraq and
JL scolded Democrats when they questioned B*sh/Rumsfailed and their failed policies in Iraq.

[skyblue]

120. I take it you didn't see Meet the Press on August 6 where these accusation

about Joe were found to be untrue.
And that many anti-war Democrats want Lieberman elected.

[KurtNYC]

150. MTP is not a court of law - they don't find things "to be untrue"

especially when THEY ARE TRUE.

Michael Schiavo: U.S. Sen. Joe Lieberman "thinks that government should have made that decision," he said. "Joe Lieberman is wrong, and that's why Joe Lieberman is going to be defeated." Michael is vocally and actively campaigning against Lieb. Perhaps Michael Schiavo also did not see Meet the Press.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/07/27/politics/main1843144.shtml?source=RSS&attr=Politics_1843144


Mr. Lieberman set off alarms within the party even before the State of the Union address. "This is an ongoing problem, and we'd be wise to deal with it," Mr. Lieberman told The Hartford Courant in January when asked about Social Security. "If we can figure out a way to help people through private accounts or something else, great."

NYTimes 3/7/2005

And of course he infamously uttered phrases including: “In matters of war, we undermine presidential credibility at our nation’s peril."

[skyblue]

159. He voted with the Democrats on that issue.

[SaveElmer]

112. I do...which is why I reject comparisons of him with Zell Miller...

In terms of political idealogy...in terms of party loyalty...that is a more apt comparison

Lieberman also has a very good civil rights and environmental record...

[lpbk2713]

117. He's a turncoat. It doesn't matter now how he *used* to vote.

And to be honest, my opinion doesn't matter at this time. I'm not a Connecticut resident.

[ChickMagic]

122. I generally respect Lieberman

However, he has failed in his primary duty to hold the
executive branch accountable. In fact, he has enabled
them to continue violating international law and
breaking treaties which the Constitution says are to
be considered the law of the land. You know that.

His voting record is to be commended, but I can not
be a party to the destruction of our democracy.

[Vidar]

123. Just like Petain was once the hero of Verdun.

[truebrit71]

125. Nope. He traded it all away with the Kiss.....

...and chiding fellow Democrats for being critical of * "during a time of war"...


Fuck Joe Lieberman.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

127. LBJ was a great president......except for Vietnam.

LBJ was forced out of office despite his great record in other areas.

Rightfully so.

HolyJoeMentum isn't even close to LBJ in his achievements and is even worse in his support for Bush's slaughter.

[MadHound]

128. A larger paycheck doesn't do a union member much good

If they get killed in an illegal, immoral war. Don't you get it, the war is *the* issue this year, and ol' Joe's been pimping it for all he's worth, even after it became painfully obvious that it's a huge, deadly mistake.

And dear ol' Joe hasn't been disappointing his corporate masters either. Voted for the bankruptcy bill, was in favor of NAFTA/CAFTA(how do his labor backers like that one?) And he has been staunchly anti-choice, not a good way to win liberal votes. And frankly, his long record of kissing Bushco butt has got to make one wonder if the Democratic party is the right one for him.

Sorry, but it's time for Joe to go.

[DemonFighterLives]

129. Support for Labor is fine

but there is so much more involved. His non-oppostion to anything the little dicatator wants is too much to take.
When he wanted Gore to give up the fight in FL2000 was the turning point of our whole country toward this facist regime and he has never looked back.
So the sooner Joe is gone the better for all of us including the "other" deluded 29%.

[bigwillq]

130. Joe continues to support the murder

of American troops and Iraqi civilians, including many women and children.

Joe supported the Energy Bill, CAFTA, voted for John Roberts, refuses to mandate that birth control be distributed in all CT hospitals.....and yes the War is a big issue. I cannot support any Pro-War candidate.

Ned supports the labor groups too. Most DEMS do. To me, Joe's record with labor is not too big of a deal.

[Prisoner_Number_Six]

136. No.

:shrug:

[RaleighNCDUer]

137. I give a damn, and I find it very sad

that with such a record he would betray his constituency to go along with the worst president in US history. There's only so far you can go with your track record. Voting for labor issues while supporting anti-labor NAFTA, CAFTA, etc., makes those votes a wash. Voting for pro-labor legislation while supporting an anti-labor Supreme Court justice makes those votes a wash.

And there are issues other than labor, as well. Voting for women's issues while saying that "there's another hospital just down the road" where Plan B might be available, makes those votes a wash.

What's left is the war. And he is purely wrong on that.

And BTW, if he and a 92 last year (with a re-election coming up) but a lifetime of 84, that would indicate that there there was at least one year when he was down in the 70s - which for any Democrat is hardly stellar. I didn't see from the link any year-by-year listing, but I'd be willing to bet there is a bump into the 90s about, oh, every six years or so.

Is there a similar legislative rating for big pharma and the insurance industry? I'd like to see where he stands with them.

[fishwax]

138. in the long run, lieberman's courting of bush has done more harm to labor

than his voting record can compensate for. By echoing republican attempts to marginalize democrats who spoke against the war or criticized the president, joe undermined democrats in general.

[deaniac21]

139. We need peas in our thyme.

Visualize whirled peas.

[Nimrod2005]

140. Ned will have the same record, calm down...nt

[H2O Man]

141. No.

Many neocons are somewhat progressive on social issues.

[dpbrown]

142. Schiavo? Rape Victims can go to another hospital? Censure Clinton?

Leiberman's lost touch and has to go.

[Cha]

143. Traitorjoe is a Big Fat

Sellout! That matters to me! Fucking joe.

[WyLoochka]

144. I'm for changing elected politicians

frequently, on principle. Being an elected representative of the people is a temporary privilege and should not be regarded as a "career." This is one of the biggest problems plaguing our government - career politicians. Allowing them to think they will never be voted out as long as they show up and put a few votes in the right columns, so they can have bragging rights for merely voting "correctly" while utterly failing to stop the right wing takeover of the whole governmnet is not good enough.

Joe has had 18 long years to devise an effective plan to stop the assault on unions. Whatever he has done on this issue has obviously not been effective as the unions have very little, if any, influence on labor policies today.

[TygrBright]

145. Does anyone give a damn that Joe is a wholly owned subsidiary...

...of the banking and finance industries?

I think so. And maybe Joe's gonna learn about that today, too.

wistfully,
Bright

[Zorra]

163. Yep. He voted with the fascists to invoke cloture on the bankruptcy

bill.

No honest Democrat would have done this. Joe had to have made a deal with the devil on that one.

[leesa]

148. Anyone who would support an illegal invasion does not belong in this tent.

[warrens]

149. There's a lot more than that

Remember Joe's campaign "Lowell Weicker: Too Liberal for Connecticut?" He gave the GOP that canard and electoral victories for many years to come by liberal bashing. I doubt Ned will be any less liberal on the issues where Joe was truly liberal.

[skyblue]

156. Weicker dug his own grave and Dems by initiating CT state tax

Again, not Joe's fault.

[Kingshakabobo]

151. .

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

HANNITY: So you want my endorsement?



HANNITY: Last question. If you ever want me to do anything, for you and your re-election, I think we ought to have Conservatives for Lieberman, a big fundraiser in Connecticut, and if I could ever do that, I'd make it the biggest blowout celebration ever.

LIEBERMAN: Thanks, pal. You're a great guy. It would just be fun to be with you. My wife, my daughters, my sons...

HANNITY: I don't know why they like me.

LIEBERMAN: You know, you're... well, you're a straight talker, that's one thing they like.

HANNITY: Alright, Senator.

LIEBERMAN: And you're a good to their... husband and father, so how could they not like you?

HANNITY: You're a great American, Senator.

LIEBERMAN: You too, pal.

[jpkenny]

154. No. I care about what is happening now and in the future.

How do you know that Lamont's record won't exceed Liberman's?

[skyblue]

157. How do you know he'll get elected in a mid-term election?

[MsMagnificent]

184. If one is constantly afraid of

what could happen, then why do anything at all?

If one politician has broken the faith with his/her constituents, then all will?
Any person has that capability, surely -- but to not act with that unproven fear is pessimism and nihilism of the first order.

[Raster]

160. It's not enough!!! And the Iraq war is the issue. It is unfortunate that

Lieberman's past voting record has taken second seat to his support of the Iraq war, BUT THAT'S A CHOICE HE MADE! Now he will have to live with it.

[HamdenRice]

165. Even one needlessly dead soldier or Iraq civilian

way out balances his lifetime voting record. Human life is invaluably precious. Lieberman was the number one Democratic enabler of this illegal, immoral war.

Thanks for your voting record Joe, but your entire legacy has been destroyed by your support of the war. Now it's time to pack up and go home.

[IdaBriggs]

167. No. He hasn't been protecting me from Bush. I want someone who will. nt

[matcom]

169. 170 replies and ONE vote for the greatest page

question answered :rofl:

[Raster]

170. I'll give it TWO! And for the reason it needs to be driven home to all

that would support the illegal and immoral bush* mis-administration. It's time for courageous men and women to stand up and take courageous actions against the rethuglican fascists that have hijacked our democracy. And NO, no one gets to rest on their previous actions. What matters is what you do today!

[Dob Bole]

172. I checked Lieberman's AFL-CIO record the other day, because I DO care...

And it's decent, about the same as my Congressman's. Yet union members have higher taxes while their bosses are lower. Union members are dealing with inflation due to increased gas and oil prices...much of the price increase because of our foreign policy that Lieberman supports. Union members' sons and daughters are not coming home from Iraq.

Lieberman can (rightly) join the ranks of Zell Miller and many other Democrats who voted for the Iraq war, and are now gone. I come from a union family...but I don't live in Connecticut. So don't blame me.

[proud2BlibKansan]

174. 2500+ dead soldiers

THAT is the issue. Sorry to see you don't get it.

[Richard Steele]

175. Yes: as much as I would care about a meal that was 84% NON-POISONOUS.

[B Calm]

179. You saying Lamont will not support labor?????

[WLKjr]

180. Nope, don't give a damn either. Sorry

He sucked face with GWB, that made me lose pretty much all respect for the man. He is not a Dem, and it was apparent a long long time ago, even before he voted for the war.

[Kurovski]

185. Joe made a disastrous mistake, and he's paying for it.

That's how life works.

[eridani]

186. When was the last time he made a big public stink on labor issues?

When have any of his WSJ editorials or Faux News appearances been dedicated to that project?

[Clarkie1]

187. I posted a lot of threads on Lieberman's postive voting record awhile back

I made a separate thread for each issue or vote: women's rights, the environment, labor, standing up to the NRA, etc.

The purpose at that time, for me, was not to promote Lieberman, but simply to enrich the discussion on DU because at that time I think a lot of people may have gotten the impression that Lieberman's voting record was like Jesse Helms (based on just reading typical DU threads at the time).

I'm glad I did that, but after Liberman's arrogant statements today like "I will not allow this to stand," and "I'm a real Democrat" while at the same time he turns his back on the wishes of Democratic Party voters, I have to say am no longer neutral.

Lieberman should go. He seems to have forgotten that senators serve the people, not the other way around.

[Raine]

188. I do

I'm sorry that it came to this. I think that Lieberman is a overall a good guy but I still think he cares more about Lieberman than he does his state, country or his party. My main gripe against him is that he said if he didn't win the primary he was going to run as an independent, which shows whose interests he places first...unfortunately his own. I wish things had been different.

[wickerwoman]

189. L'man doesn't think I'm a real American

because I don't believe in God. That by itself would prevent me from shifting a hair to help him.

Even a stopped clock is right twice a day (re: the AFL-CIO rating) but those statistics are meaningless if you don't have anything against Lamont's record.

[readmoreoften]

190. Yeah I care and that's why we're going to lean on Lamont's ass about labor

I don't know where he stands, but we're gonna learn him damn fast.

[Skittles]

193. no

the bastard trashed all that when he decided we sucked for not goose-stepping with bush

[MrBenchley]

195. Worth noting that Lamont's support came from white well-to-do elites

The working class and poor supported Lieberman.

"Does anyone know what kind of labor record Lamont has? "
The Unknown Millionaire has no record on any issue whatsoever. Which is why his followers were sandbagged when it turned out he supported "the brutal zionist occupation"....

[high density]

196. And your stats came from...

...a dark orifice?

[MrBenchley]

197. No, they're not out of your mouth....

Now run along

[Gman]

199. I posted the link to the stats

go find it.

[high density]

206. The exit poll stats

...seem to challenge to the assertions in post 195. http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/CBSNews_polls/ctexitpoll.pdf

Lamont and Lieberman were supported almost equally among union/non-union households and across all income groups.

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

198. It is done. Lamont is the Dem nominee. Support him. Do not support the

independent candidate.

[Gman]

200. I posted this thread to demonstrate that people at DU

are in general ambivalent at best towards organized. Judging by the responses here, my hypothesis is more than confirmed and could even be expanded on, but I'll leave that to other brothers and sisters in the labor movement.

[H2O Man]

203. Baloney.

Lamont won. That took fantastic organizational skills. DUers supported that.

[papau]

204. I suspect "ambivalent at best " is from younger age/never been in a union

They have never experienced the dramatic difference between the union shop - beyond the slightly higher wage - and the non union job doing the same work/job.

You never know how much self respect you have lost in the non union job as you fight for survival - let alone a raise. Until you are a union worker, you never realize that going to work does not require you putting on a Stockholm syndrome suit.

Of course once you realize this, and change jobs into management where there are no unions, you get a Career with jobs of 5 to 9 year duration - never more - because management has limits as to how long a non-brown nose attitude can survive (speaking from a 45 year job history).

Yes some union locals have a few little hitlers as shop stewards - but they can be "voted" out - try voting out the legacy rich that is your boss in the management organization chart.

[Gman]

205. THANK YOU, Papau!

You nailed it. That's what I'm talking about.

Yes, I agree that these completely uninformed opinions about unions do come from the kids around here who are locked in that "Stockholm Syndrome" you mention. They don't know about unions because they've never experienced a union. They've never had the opportunity to walk a picket line for a few weeks to keep their medical benefits or to keep a good pay scale. They've never had the opportunity to fight to keep what they have.

These kids' view of the world only goes as far as their own limited life experiences go, and in general, that's not very far. I am extremely happy that these kids have such passion for what they define as "liberal" causes even though they are at times misguided. But their zeal is going to change the world within the next 25 years. I'll be quite elderly by then if I'm even still around, but at least I'll die knowing these kids will change the world for a long time to come for the better. I will be very comforted in the future of my grandkids.

As a former union officer for many years that took management towards the end of my career to enhance my retirement I can say from first hand experience that what you say about being a non-bargained for manager is right on the money. That's why I took the buyout and got the hell out. After being union for many years, I wasn't going to lower myself to the personal standards being management demanded. And my stint in management lasted 7 years which is smack in the middle of the band of 5 to 9 years you describe.

Thanks!

[titoresque]

207. *Insert ALOT of bad words here!:_______________

And.......ICK!

Support for an elected official who supports theft,lies, and murder is sickening!

May I suggest you run your flagpole up over at Freeperville. They'll welcome this bullshit with open arms.

[Gman]

208. I run my flagpole where ever I want

:evilgrin:

[lectrobyte]

202. I care, but not this year, and not this war.