Holy Joe is ___% liberal

with DeLay being 0% and Bernie Sanders being 100%, where would he fall in? interesting way to gauge how DU really feels about him (since we all know he'll get trounced in polls over who you support for the nomination)

It would depend on how you weight things.

If I went by his voting record, I'd mark him as "fairly liberal".

If I went by his campaign tactics the first time he was elected,
I'd rank him as a Reich Winger in training; he defeated Lowell
Weicher, one of the truly liberal Republicans, by running to his
RIGHT.

If I rank him by how much he has enabled Republicans in their
takeover of the country (by pillorying Clinton, by his lousy
debate with Cheney, by routinely supporting many of Bush's
appalling decisions, etc.), I'd rate him a Tom Delay for sure.
In fact, I think I'll do that right now.

Atlant

use to measure actual voting on legisaltion Joe Leieberman would prolly be in the 70's or 80's. That is where I'd put myself-squarely in the center-left camp but not the orthodox liberal camp.

His shrill rhetoric makes him look much more right wing.

I agree.

It's the damage he's done to liberal and Democratic causes
that has caused me to rate him so low.

Atlant

They are the ones who, during the 90s, made liberal bashing acceptable and more widespread, joining in with the their GOP buddies to mock liberals and their activists. Now, some of them want to pretend they're Democrats again.

He has an attractive package to many. He can play to the more traditionalist in our society those who are pro military, love the flag, go to church and all. TO them he's very non-threatening.

But he is very unlikely to be as belligerent as President Bush in the foriegn policy area, and he will get the budget under a bit better control (no more putting tax cuts over saving social security).

That said, he's a lousy candidate--he looks weak he's got no presense, he's kind of depressing. He will be somewhat like Mondale or Dukakis (or Dole for Republicans). A candidate that we all pretend has a chance, and ten minutes after the election we go around talking about what an awful candidate he was.

He's last on my list, with Gephardt.

Bryant
Check it out --> http:politicalcomment.blogspot.com

based on his ADA ratings.

he is 80-89 perecent liberal.

http://www.globalstewards.org/democrats.htm#lib

Click on the liberal quotent scorecard...
Hey Butterflyblood ... I'm in Minnesota too, TC area!

It never ceases to amaze me how people can continually repeat the same lies over and over again even though they know they're wrong.

huh?

...who believes that atheists have no morals, that Newdow vs. Congress is a terrible decision (other Republicrats voted to condemn it but shut up about it), and that violence in video and computer games should be censored.

And because he is a religous Jew.

That's why they call him that.

"I believe in freedom of religion, but not freedom from religion".

(Roughly)

Edit: Lieberman said that not IG of course !!!

...because on my two most important issues, privacy, and separation of church and state, he sucks, but OTOH he's good on gay rights and choice.

How is he weak on 'privacy' and separation of church and state...
I'd like to learn more.

Thanks

Either that or they think foreign policy is the ONLY thing you look at in deciding whether someone is or isn't a liberal.

The truth is that on social issues, Lieberman is solidly liberal. On economic issues, Lieberman is moderately liberal. And on foreign policy he's a hawk, which is neither liberal nor conservative.