Anybody for Lieberman?

I know there's plenty of ABBs hanging out here(one of which I am not, thank you very much), but I see very little discussion of Joe.

I don't like him, he's the only dem in the running right now, that if he won the nom tomorrow, I'd latch onto a third party immediately. There are other candidates of whom I am not a fan, but that can wait for another thread.

Here's my question. "Anybody but Bush" is not good enough for me, I need someone to give me a reason that Joe Lieberman should be my president. Can anybody help me out?

nt

Who's been banned or driven away? Please.

down in the I/P forum.

you also imply that there is a bias on the part of DU to anyone who supports Joe.

I haven't been here long but Joe is persona non grata.

I like him over Bush. Great environment policy. In fact, overall, his domestic policy is damn solid.

but that's about it. Yes, I'd vote for him if he was the nominee, bit I would not campaign for him, and I'd be there ready to pounce on election night after he got destroyed to remind people that he lost because he was a DINO.

In 1992 I said that I'd reluctantly vote for Clinton (and did), but that I might not in 1996. In 1996 I gladly voted for his re-election.

In 2004 I would reluctantly vote for Leiberman. Who knows what 2008 will bring?

to have that choice from hell.

...ultra rich. And that's good. But as far as "foreign policy" goes, he's been 100% supportive of the Bush/PNAC agenda, and that makes him intolerable. And I'm not crazy about his "ban everything that I find morally objectionable" attitude either.

His foreign policy is at least as bad as Shrub's, I don't trust him to fix anything domestically, and on top of that, he's a damn censorbot! I really just can't handle that. I'd sooner vote for Nixon's Brain In A Vat.

yesterday who were for Howard Dean. I'm in New YOrk and they came into our Co-op and saw my Dean pin. I asked them why they like Dean over lieberman or kerry and they said because Dean has a plan~ http://www.deanforamerica.com ~ and he was definetly Against the Iraq Attack!

Lieberman basically is arguing that the rest of his opponents are commies, and that war in Iraq is wonderful, and we should be more respectful of chimpy.

How exactly are we supposed to get enthused about him? Yes, I will vote for him over the Chimp. He is not as bad as Shrub, in fact he is quite good in many areas. I admit that the democrats have me where they want me this time around. No third party, no staying home. Bush must go, even if it means voting for Lieberman.

I would vote for Lieberman if he were nominated, because Bush is worse. But AFAIK, he is the only Dem. candidate to explicitly state that the Dems need RESIST any shift to the left. That makes him a complete joke to me.

but he's my #8 choice at this point. There are just so many better candidates out there, that represent the people better.

:evilgrin:

I think he'd make a good president, but I also think there are other Democrats (Edwards and Clark come to mind) who'd run stronger against Bush.

His pathetic performance debating Cheney was the lowest point of the 2000 campaign. In a way he's a worse DIN0 than Zell Miller or John Breaux since those guys compete in a culture that is dominated by freeper types. Lieberman is in an extremely liberal and educated state and that has had Republicans more progressive than Joe.
I also question whether Lieberman is more patriotic to the Likud than he is to the Democratic party.

I don't know which to criticize first -- your apalling grammar or your antisemitic sentiments. Perhaps I should simply chalk both up to ignorance and be done with it.

But first -- Connecticut is not "an extremely liberal" state. It has a Republican governor and three of its five seats in Congress are held by Republicans. While the Republicans who get elected in Connecticut tend to be more moderate than Republicans outside the northeast, they're still clearly to the right of Joe Lieberman, who's far more liberal than DU'ers are willing to admit.

I'm glad that the line of criticism you actually pursued had nothing to do with grammar or billbuckhead's imagined antisemitism.

There are plenty of Israeli nationals who oppose the Likud party, and most politically aware jews I know here in the states are dismayed that Likud has Israel marching lockstep with PNAC.

That said, I think Lieberman may be a more dangerous President than Bush, in terms of foreign policy. Bush wanted to attack Iraq so bad that you could see a wet spot on his pants if he got out from behind a podium. He justified it any way he could. Lieberman, on the other hand, likes the decision to attack Iraq, and has a consistent ideology to support the foreign policy behind it. He's practically PNAC incarnate.

I feel I should note that all of the jews I know stateside are college students. Probably not a representative cross-section of the American jewish community, but, I dunno, I haven't seen any Gallup polls of American jews asking whether Ariel Sharon is a war criminal or a hero, so all I have to go on is the opinions of friends.

Then you would have World War III! He surely would be more of a dangerous president than Bush. I also think he would have continued to pass out money to the rich though not as much as Bush is doing now and he will want prayer in schools and ban people like Marilyn Manson from performing or producing music.

No Holy Roller in the White House for me thank you!

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

For one, you don't know me and two you have no right to call me a bigot. What makes you say that? But I have been called worse things by better people.

John

If you're the kind of person who gets offended when people call him a bigot, then why do you feel the need to post things that invite such criticism?

does not make me a bigot or a fringe person. It is just a knee-jerk reaction to views that some people find too left or anti-Israel which they aren't. I am in favor of a two-nation plan in the Middle East. I believe that the right-wing in Israel, the US, and the radical fringe in Palestine derailed the Oslo accords. That is just my view.

John

Suggesting that a candidate would start World War III without any evidence to back up such a claim, however, would certainly raise questions. As would claiming that a particular candidate would pass out money to the rich, despite the fact that such candidate has repeatedly opposed tax cuts for the wealthy (and, in fact, has proposed RAISING taxes on the wealthy). As would claiming that a particular candidate would put prayer back in the public school, when such candidate, while willing to allow a moment of silence, opposed prayer in the public schools.

Oh, and perhaps you haven't heard this before, but Lieberman supports a two state solution. He just doesn't think there's much chance of achieving that solution as long as the Palestinian Authority refuses to do anything to stop the terrorist bombings that have been directed as Israeli civilians. Believe it or not, many non-Jews believe that these suicide bomber attacks are wrong.

I think suicide bombing is wrong!

I don't get you sometimes. Just because somebody is critical of Lieberman or Israel doesn't mean they are anti-semetic. Does that mean if anybody says anything bad about Arabs are anti-semetic too? Give me a break!

John

Because nobody ever says things like "John Kerry (R-Israel) is more loyal to Likud than he is to the Democratic Party", "John Edwards should run for mayor of Jersalem instead of president," "Dick Gephardt should go back to Israel where he belongs." All of these things (and more) have been said about Lieberman. Yet you'd have to look under a high powered microscope to discern any difference between Joe Lieberman and the other candidates I've mentioned on the issues of U.S.-Israel relations and the Middle East peace process.

Hell, the differences between Howard Dean and Lieberman on Israel are more rhetorical than substantive. Just as Steve Grossman, Howard Dean's campaign co-chair (and former president of AIPAC).

Yet it is ALWAYS Lieberman whose loyalty to America and the Democratic Party is questioned in discussions about Israel. It's always Lieberman that DU'ers associate with the Likud Party. It's always Lieberman who gets mentioned in the same breath as Ariel Sharon.

The U.S.'s policy towards Israel and the Middle East is so one-sided these days, it is just sad. I guess Ariel Sharon wants the U.S. to come join in if there is a war between Israel and Syria.




John

Just don't single out Lieberman for positions he shares with nearly everyone else in the Democratic field.

Which is why he gets called on for his misguided views.


John

First of all, saying that Lieberman is the most conservative Democrat in the presidential field is like saying Ringo Starr was the least talented Beatle. The fact is, all of the Democrats seeking the nomination are pretty damn liberal. Joe Lieberman just happens to be not quite as liberal as the others.

I'm certainly not saying you can't criticize Lieberman. But if you are going to SINGLE OUT Lieberman for criticism on a particular issue, you ought to be able to explain how Lieberman's position
is substantively different from the positions of the other candidates. And with respect to Israel, that simply hasn't been done.

nt

It's a shame that others haven't stood up to it.

You guys cannot see the forest beyond the trees. The Democrats have a problem and you two just cannot see it. Too bad!


John

Crack you up? How does it feel to be a fringe minority? How does it feel to be in a very small minority?

Better being in a small pack of lions than being in a flock of sheep.

John

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

eom

John

Please tell me why then, if they are so popular, why Arianna and Camejo couldn't even get more than a few percentage points? If Ralph Nader wers so popular then why didn't he get more than 2.74% of the vote?

That's a new one. When did she swing over to the left? I thought she was centrist now.

Look. What is so wrong with having a left of center agenda. It is as if you guys who want to stay middle of the road have forsaken the Democratic Party's roots. You guys want to continue to move towards the right then what is the point in having a Democratic Party? It does not work. Never has and never will.

John

I just don't want to move back to the days of George McGovern, Walter Mondale, and Michael Dukais either.

of the invasion and occupation of Iraq.

That said, since Liebmerman has quit attacking Democrats, I'm liking him, personally, again.

Gephardt was no less outspoken a supporter of the resolution than Lieberman was. Lieberman was the chief Democratic co-sponsor of the resolution in the Senate. Gephardt was the chief Democratic co-sponsor of the resolution in the House.

I would love to see that. Expose his weaknesses and his pro-Bush stance. Are there any possible names?

John

I'm telling you right now Zell, fugetdaboudit.

nt

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

I think he came up with the idea for a Homeland Security dept - did he not?

He also is the staunchest supporter of the unlilateral Iraq invasion.

He should just join the Republicans.


John

However, after I heard him talk about the Syria situation last week, I became very frightened of the thought of him as President.

:scared:

had he picked Graham over Holy Joe. Bob would have got him 50,000 more Florida votes. And maybe more votes is other states.

Lieberman was the worm in Gore's apple. Even if he had picked Kerry would have been better.


John

what is JEOPARDY?



John

As Garrison Keillor says "We're all Republicans now" so why not?

I guess if we can't beat em then we should join em! (end of sarcasm!)


John

on a platter in the debates when HolyJoe started sniping about Clark..
SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO HolyJoe made an arse out of himself once again
I certainly would hold my nose, vomitting greatly, if Joe was the only one on the ballot, and vote for the snivelling fellow if I had to .

ABB.

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

thats about it.

for those disloyal Jews, right? I mean, obviously, that Star of David gives him away.

I'd say more but then *I'd* be violating DU rules too.

I think I got really drunk one time and said something that could have been perceived as positive about Lieberman.

Then I danced naked down the street with a bunch of bananas on my head like the Chiquita banana woman.

Or maybe more.....
DU is extremely inhospitable to any centrist candidates, especially to Lieberman. Moderate Dems start feeling quite out of place and out of step when the purists of the party begin defining what is acceptable and what is not. That is exactly what drives middle America nuts and what drives moderate Dems out of the party.

Lieberman is not my first choice, but he is hardly deserving of the scorn heaped upon him at DU. It is almost considered good sport here.

You are so right.

I'm not aware of anybody else, though.

He certainly wouldn't be my first choice, but he'd get it if he is the last man standing. I know that doesn't help you, sorry.

Nah, looks like no one wants one.

to vote for him if he's nominated. He has a very solid environmental record (the League of Conservation Voters gave him an 88% rating on its last scorecard, for example). Even his voting-record ratings from more all-around liberal organizations like Americans for Democratic Action are quite high: ADA gave him 85% for 2002 and 95% for 2001. All of those numbers are as good as or better than, for example, John Edwards.
(Edited to add: Lieberman's lifetime ADA rating is only 78%, but that's still better than Gephardt's 74%. See http://www.adaction.org/Campaign2004/2004PR_1/2004pr_1.HTM .)

Lieberman's rhetoric, admittedly, is often more conservative than his voting record. But as the old saying goes, actions speak louder than words. The man may come off as a sanctimonious pr*ck sometimes, but he's a solid Democrat.

Good points, here.
But also worth note is Lieberman's 100% NARAL rating.

I spent 2 mind boggling hours on the internet this morning reading about how the Bush* High Cabal is planning on rigging the '04 election. It was pretty damn depressing. Some of what I read, I couldn't believe. Apparently, it isn't only corporate interests in this Country that are involved, but British interests as well. Some of these companies involved with the manufacture of, and programming of, the new electronic voting machines are foreign owned. Not to mention all the other ways in place to rig the election, such as purged voter rolls and harrassment at the polls,ect.. tactics used in '00 and '02. Those were just some of the ways I read about. And just as an extra added insurance policy for Bush*, the SCOTUS 5/4 vote is still an ace up his sleeve. While we are all squabbling about each other's candidates, Rove and Team Smirk are quietly(well maybe not so quietly) working to rig and steal another National Election. Free and Fair elections my a**. These slimball repukes are putting plans in place to rig the '04 election, while Dean and Kerry are busy spitting at each other, and we here are worried about Lieberman getting the Dem nomination.

The ABB mantra has real validity for me. The reason?

George W Bush

To see to it that he is not the nominee.

But if he wins, in spite of my best efforts, then he has my vote. 4 more years of this cannot be allowed.

though he won't, I will more than likely hold my nose, cast my vote for him, and then run to the nearest toilet and hurl chunks. And if he did beat Bush, which he wouldn't, I will applaud and agree with whatever policies he puts out that I think good for this country, but I doubt there will be many things to agree with him on. Yes. I will bust his chops at every opportunity and call B.S. on any policy I disagree with.


John

nt

?

It's becaues he is a religious Jew.

He and Bill Bennett have worked together against the entertainment industry in a push for greater morality. He has also gone after Marilyn Manson blaming him for the shootings at Columbine HS in Colorado which there was no proof to back this up.


That is another reason why he is known as "Holy Joe"

John

IF he weren't a religious Jew I doubt you'd be calling him that.

You don't have to be religious to be outraged at the lengths to which Hollywood will go to market violent entertainment to children.

And in case you weren't aware, the civil rights movement sought to impose their morality on the country, as did the abolitionists a century before. And thank God for that.

That's true, but here are some others that try to impose their morality:

The taliban
Gary Bauer
Jerry Faulwell
Pat Robinson
Bill Bennett
Tom Delay

Etc. The problem with lieberman, in my opinon is his support of the war, his tepid performance in the debate against cheney, his refusal to fight during the voting fiasco in Florida, and his complicity with repubs.

I would vote for him were he the nominee, but I have no confidence he would put up any type of fight. he is way to passive.

I do not support Lieberman, and this, quite simply is why: I percieve him as the wolf in sheep's clothing. He wears the Democratic label, but everything he stands for, and everything he does, and votes for...has the smell of Repuke all over it.

No other reason.

I don't care about the man's religion (I'm an agnostic practicing in a UU church, myself...so religion is not an issue I really want in the public forum, anyway.) The only thing I care about is the man's ACTIONS...and they all stink of Repuke. So, no, I do not support Lieberman.

I don't really keep up or care about who is Jewish or not.

I'm going to be brutally honest (to the point of sounding shallow). I don't like the way he comes across and I hate the way he talks. I also would like to note that my slight disgust for Lieberman is far less than the disgust I have for Zell Miller (Zell Miller attacked my representative, Cynthia McKinney, and has sided with Republicans time and time again). Also, I don't know why I think this but it seems as though Lieberman betrayed Al Gore somehow. Just a gut feeling, but I think others may share the feeling as well. BUT, if he gets the nomination, its time to fall in line. Anybody but Bush, 2004!!