How is Joe too Repuke?

[Iluvleiberman]

Is he pro gun? Anti choice? What?

[Ediacara]

1. it's not really his voting record

although he definately is on the wrong side of the war and gay marriage, it's more his style.

He refuses to attcka Bush, he always has a giant grin on his face at photo-ops with Bush and he says that moving to the left is the wrong thing to do.

I don't want him to be friends with George Bush, I wouldn't be, neither should he.

[Ediacara]

3. BTW

you know you've spelled Lieberman wrong in your handle...

[Wonk]

9. *snarf* nt

[caledesi]

10. Yes, please remember it's LIEberman. Appropirate.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

36. Also...approPIRATE is appropriate.

[dolstein]

8. Refuses to attack Bush -- what a load of steaming horse dung

Have you ever visited his web site? If you did, you'd know that Lieberman has been a consistent and vocal critic of the Bush administration, from its economic policies, to its energy policies to its social agenda. It's just that Lieberman's attacks tend to be more thoughtful and reasoned, as opposed to the "fuck Bush" variety that leftists seem to prefer. You may not like it that Lieberman agreed with Bush's decision to go to war in Iraq, but the fact is, that's just about the only decision Bush has made in the past two and half years that Lieberman has agreed with. Sorry, but you're claim that Lieberman refuses to attack Bush is flagrantly untrue, and should you choose to repeat it, I will have no choice but to call you a liar.

[Ediacara]

14. why as a matter of fact I HAVE visted his website

Maybe I was too blinded by all the photo ops of him smiling with Bush to take notice of his non-criticisms of Bush.

Sorry, but he has NOT taken an active aproach to distance himself from Bush.

And if you call me a liar, I'll call you a Republican, which is far closer to the truth.

[dolstein]

19. You obviously haven't visited his web site

For one thing, the web site doesn't have any photos of Lieberman with Bush.

For another, his web site is chock full of attacks on Bush. For example:

Lieberman Challenges Bush on Arizona Forest Visit: http://www.joe2004.com/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5613&news_iv_ctrl=1001

Lieberman Statement on Earned Income Tax Credit:
http://www.joe2004.com/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5597&news_iv_ctrl=1001

Lieberman Criticizes Bush Pressure Tactic on Israel:
http://www.joe2004.com/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5577&news_iv_ctrl=1001

Lieberman Presses for Administration Leadership, Accountability
http://www.joe2004.com/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5552&news_iv_ctrl=1001

And that's just the past two weeks. The web site has featured a steady stream of attacks on the Bush administration. If you had actually bothered to visit Joe's web site -- instead of merely claiming to have visited it -- you'd know this.

Please do everyone a favor and stop lying about Joe Lieberman.

[Ediacara]

25. that's hard hitting

really, I must admit, he is exactly as I said, generally ok with voting, but wrong on VERY KEY ISSUES. Press releases on your website don't really count as attacking though.

Anyway, when Joe puts this headline on his website:

"Lieberman chastises Bush for lying to him and the American public about the eminent threat of Iraqi nukyular weapons, forcing him into photo-ops smiling from ear to ear in photos that will destroy Joe's candidacy because the voters will see no difference between democrat and republican."

I will eat my hat and love Lieberman as much as Republicans do.

[dolstein]

2. He supports Israel and the war in Iraq

Of course, all of the other top candidates for the nomination are staunchly pro-Israel. But Lieberman's an orthodox Jew, and that makes a world of difference to some people around here.

And of course Lieberman isn't the only candidate to support the war in Iraq -- Gephardt played no less prominent a role than Lieberman did, and both Edwards and Kerry voted for the war resolution, and while I can't speak for Kerry, Edwards certainly hasn't backed off that position. But once again, Lieberman is an orthodox Jew, and that makes a world of difference to some people around here.

If you visited the Project Vote Smart web site, you'd know by now that Lieberman has a strong pro-choice and pro-gun control voting record.

[Ediacara]

4. yab that's it....

....it has nothing to do with his ass-kissing of Bush, but everything to do with him being a Jew.....

DU is a cesspool of anti-Semitism, and Joe's the personification of Jew-ness.....

Or maybe it's his positions we disagree with?

Or perhaps the shit-eating-grin photo ops with Bush (granted Gephardt is there too generally, but he doesn't look nearly as happy)?

[dolstein]

11. Stop kidding yourself

There have been plenty of anti-semitic posts on DU. The moderators are very agressive in deleting these posts, but even they can't completely cover up the anti-semitism on this board.

And the fact is, there's an obvious double standard when it comes to the issue of Lieberman and Israel. Nobody has been able to explain to me just how other candidates like Kerry, Gephardt, Graham, Edwards and Dean are any less pro-Israel than Lieberman is, yet Lieberman is the one who gets criticized. Ditto for Iraq. Gephardt and Edwards have the same position as Lieberman does, yet Lieberman gets ten times the criticism of Gephardt and Edwards combined.

[Ediacara]

16. get off the cross, someone needs the wood!

Your answer to everything is anti-Semitism. We don't like Joe because he's an asshole, not because he's a Jew.

It's very convenient for people to fall back on calling anti-Semitism when they don't want to deal with an argument.

I'm sick and tired of it.

Joe is an asshole, he happens to be a Jew, he also happens to be a man. If I call Joe an asshole, does it mean that I am calling all men assholes? Obviously not.

[dolstein]

24. Excuse me, but you're the one who can't deal with it

I keep pointing out time and time again the obvious double standard that exists around here when it comes to Joe Lieberman and Israel, and his stance on Iraq. Why is it that Lieberman gets criticized far more often on Israel when other Democrats have the same positoin? Why is it that Lieberman gets criticized far more often than Edwards and Gephardt on Iraq when they have the same position. Nobody has been able to explain away this double standard. And until somebody does, I will continue to suggest that many of these attacks are in fact motivated by hostility towards Lieberman's orthodox Jewish faith -- a hostility that would be more obvious to DU'ers were it not for the fact that the most blatantly anti-Semitic posts are routinely deleted by the administrators.

[Ediacara]

33. Look

I never said anti-Semitism doesn't exist on DU.

What I said was that you ALWAYS fall back on that excuse when people say they don't like Lieberman.

Let's get this out in the open.

Are you calling me an anti-Semite? Yes or no?

If yes, then hit the alert button in the lower left of this post and have the moderators deal with me.

If not, then you will STOP making the accusation when discussion Lieberman with me and others, unless it is OBVIOUS to all that the poster is being an anti-Semite.

I really don't think you are able to discuss Lieberman without resorting to, "People are anti-Semites!"

[jos]

44. The ever present straw man

You keep making the same argument over and over again. It is nothing more than a straw man. All you have to know to realize why so many here can't stand Lieberman is to hear his performance the last two Sundays. He goes out of his way to bash the party's base, and uses the same "big government" canard that the Republicans do.

I'm a Jew, and I dislike him, but it has little to do with his views on Israel, and everything to do with his Republican-lite rhetoric and policy stands.

[dfong63]

31. for the sake of balance,

There have been plenty of anti-semitic posts on DU.

there have been plenty of bogus accusations of anti-semitism on DU too.

[pruner]

6. I'm a Jew…

and I hate Lieberman for what he says, not who he is.

[GumboYaYa]

5. He believes in limitations on the first amendment.

In my book he is almost as dangerous as Bush solely based on his positions on censorship.

He is also a religious fundamentalist. That is always dangerous.

[dolstein]

13. So you'd agree that Jimmy Carter is dangerous too, right?

After all, Carter is born again Christian.

[Ediacara]

17. sorry dolstein

but born again christian and religious extremist are not synonymous.

[dolstein]

20. Jimmy Carter is a religious fundamentalist

In my book, that doesn't make him a bad person. But I was responding to someone who claimed that religious fundamentalism is always dangerous. So if they really believed that, they'd have to agree that Jimmy Carter is dangerous.

[Ediacara]

22. I think

that you and everyone else on the planet have a different idea of what "religious fundimentalist" means.

[dolstein]

26. Well, here's what Grolier's has to say

"A Baptist fundamentalist who had been "born again" in the faith, Carter was a deeply and openly religious man."

http://gi.grolier.com/presidents/aae/bios/39pcart.html

So I'm clearly not the only person who believes that Carter is a religious fundamentalist. I know how much it frustrates you to be confronted by the facts, but you get what you deserve. Trying to group Lieberman with Christian conservative Republicans (who vehemently disagree with Lieberman on the vast majority of social issues) is a desparate, despicable tactic, and you should be ashamed of yourself.

[Ediacara]

27. I'm *so* ashamed

haha

You should a) re-read this part of thread and see that I didn't call Joe a fundimentalist and b) understand that religious fundimentalist as used in common English in the United States in 2003 means right wing wack-job Christians and those that long for the theocratic state.

If you think Joe falls (or doesn't fall) into that catergory, then fine, I never said he did.

Ya anyway... Trying to claim I said something I didn't is a desparate, despicable tactic, and you should be ashamed of yourself.

[gottaB]

30. Lieberman's fundamentalsim is unconstitutional

In Philly last night Lieberman took the opportunity to talk about a belief in God as something all of our founders shared, and he cited the Declaration of Independence. He did not see fit to quote the First Amendment to the Consititution, which begins "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

By contrast when Carol Moseley Braun, who is also a person of religious convictions, was recently asked about the place of God in American politics, she spoke in general terms about spiritual values, but she also took the opportunity to reaffirm the value of religious freedom, and the principle of the separation of church and state.

One of these positions is closer to the religious right, and it's not the one that rests on the establishment clause.

Now, on the subject of Jimmy Carter, many athiests recognize him as one of the best separationist Presidents this country has ever had, or perhaps second only to Kennedy, who was also a person of religious convictions. Why? Ask yourself how many of Carter's appointees have cited the establishment clause to strike down unconstitutional laws and government practices.

Or look at Carter's views in his words:

"Last year I was on Pat Robertson's show, and we discussed our basic Christian faith—for instance, separation of church and state. It's contrary to my beliefs to try to exalt Christianity as having some sort of preferential status in the United States. That violates the Constitution. I'm not in favor of mandatory prayer in school or of using public funds to finance religious education."

(source.)

Lieberman, finally, and just for the record, has argued that his critics "seem to have forgotten that the Constitution promises freedom of religion -- not freedom from religion" ( quoted here). Think about it. It's not Joe's devotion to his God that's a problem, it's his narrow understanding of freedom.

[GumboYaYa]

35. I called him a religious fundamentalist and I stand by it.

To me fundamentalism means the acceptance of ones religious views to the exclusion of other views and the inability to separate religious views from policy decisions. Carter certainly never did that. Lieberman allows his religious views to blind him to the blatant unconstitutionality of his views on censorship. That scares me almost as much as anything Bush has done. Sorry, but the First Amendment is very important in a democratic society.

It has nothing to do with anti-Semitism. The way you are trying to redefine the debate as anti-Semitism is a contentless way to try to stifle discussion of Lieberman's positions on real issues.

I find Lieberman's support of the war and slander of other Democrats very disconcerting, but ultimately my strong negativism to him stems from his support of censorship. I see this as an extension of his religious fundamentalism, which is dangerous whether it is Christian, Muslim, or Jewish fundamentalism. I was troubled when Gore selected him as a running mate and I would be more troubled if he is our nominee in 2004.

You asked the question and got my answer. Don't try to change the debate. If you find Lieberman to be a strong proponent of the First Amendment prove it to me. If you do, I am open-minded enough to change my opinion.

[Fair and Balanced]

42. How did Lieberman

slander other Democrats in a way the others don't?

[GumboYaYa]

45. I did not say that other Democrats had not

done the same.

[Fair and Balanced]

47. Oh boy

You get called on your charge Lieberman has 'slandered' other Democrats and your response is an blank 11 word statement about how you never said other Democrats didn't do it, too. So was that just a throw-away line? Or has Lieberman done some 'slandering' of Democrats that lowers your opinion of him? And if so, what was it?

[GumboYaYa]

48. You asked...

How did Lieberman slander other Democrats in a way the others don't?

You did not call anyone on anything. You asked an irrelevant question and got an appropriate response. Had you said show me examples of Lieberman's statements I would have replied with:

Sen. Joseph Lieberman (D-Conn.) called the liberal plans of his presidential campaign rivals a political "ticket to nowhere."
"For most of two decades, before 1992, the Democratic Party was in fact in the political wilderness," said Lieberman, answering questions after a speech at the National Press Club.
"The candidates who opposed the war (in Iraq), who called for the repeal of all the Bush tax cuts -- which would result in an increase in taxes on the middle class -- I find do not offer the kind of leadership the American people need to meet the challenges we face today," Lieberman said.

Let's see, repeal of the Bush tax cuts equals a tax increase...hmmm...seems like that is a Republican talking point. Way to stand up for the opposition there Joe. As I remember it, for two decades before 1992, the Dems controlled the House and usually the Senate to boot. Jimmy Carter was President from 76-80. His little two decade remark there even captures Kennedy. Is this how Joe really feels abot the Democratic party? If so, he can kiss my vote goodbye. However, I guess I should have revised my remark to say he has mailigned Democratic candidates and the Democratic party.

Regardless, your response is really nothing more than a subterfuge to avoid my real point. Joe Lieberman is the anti First Amendment candidate. He believes in censorship; there is no question about that. That is why I don't like him.

Dispense with the straw man argument and address my point.

[dolstein]

49. How can we address your point when it's bullshit?

Please cite the legislation Lieberman has introduced that would impose government censorship. For the record, Lieberman has pushed the FCC to take an aggressive approach to COMMERCIAL ADVERSTISING of adult-oriented entertainment. Now perhaps you believe that the movie studios should be free to use the public airwaves to adverstise R-rated movies during television programs whose primary demographic is children under 18. But there's nothing in the First Amendment that would prevent the FCC from regulating when these advertisements may be aired. Lieberman has also spoken out publicly against video games that glorify violence against woman. Now perhaps you like video games in which characters are awarded bonus points for raping street hookers, but I see nothing wrong with Lieberman exercising his own First Amendment rights to criticize these game manufacturers. And as far as I know, Lieberman has never sponsored legislation that would ban the manufacture of these games or force manufacturers to alter their context. Since you hold yourself out as an expert on this subject, I'm sure you could direct me to this legislation if it indeed exists.

I suspect that what you'll probably do is regurgitate the same old story about the academic blacklist promoted by an organization that Lieberman quickly resigned from when he learned what they were up to. Of course it's been clearly established that Lieberman had nothing to do with the blacklist, but that hasn't prevented Lieberman backers from mindlessly rehasing the story ad nauseum.

[GumboYaYa]

55. Here are a few examples:

Lieberman is a founder of the "Empower America" group along with William Bennett. That group has demanded that movie producers, writers, musicians, lyricists and others in the entertainment industry take steps "to curtail excessive violence and sexual content." While there is occasional lip service to asking for "voluntary" compliance, this same organization often backs legislative proposals to mandate "Tipper stickers" -- printed advisories which purportedly warn consumers about the content of a particular CD, movie or other item -- or even institute some form of more direct government censorship.

Lieberman, sits on the advisory board of the American Council of Trustees and Alumni, which released a report that criticizes universities for evidence of anti-Americanism during the current war in Afghanistan. An obvious attempt to stifle debate over the root causes of Islamic hatred of America.

Lieberman signed the "Appeal to Hollywood" petition sponsored by the Institute for Communitarian Policy at George Washington University. In addition to Lieberman and Bennett, other high-profile signers of the "petition" include Gen. Colin Powell; millionaire publisher and former GOP contender Steve Forbes; Orrin Hatch; Pat Buchanan; several U.S. Senators including Kent Conrad, Kay Bailey Hutchison and John Kyl. Great company for someone seeking the DEMOCRATIC nomination for President.

Lieberman voted for S. 1965, which overhauled the welfare system and gave state governments a green light for farming out social welfare administration contacts to religious groups. The measure seriously affects the balance between church and state, and under the guise of "charitable choice" and other schemes, threatens to put sectarian groups on the public payroll. Lieberman also backed H.R. 3734, another welfare reform scheme that brought faith-based groups another step closer to taxpaying funding.

Lieberman also voted yes for, H.R. 3396, "The Defense of Marriage Act." This measure denied federal recognition of marriages involving gay couples.

Sorry, but Lieberman seeks to impose his morals on others to much to ever get my support.

[dolstein]

61. None of the things you cite involve censorship

Sorry, but you have failed to back up your claim that Lieberman supports censorship. All you've pointed out is that Lieberman has some ties to groups that have vocally opposed Hollywood's glorification of violence. Please explain to me how this is censorship. Are you saying that the First Amendment doesn't give people the right to speak out against violence in film? If you have the right to defend the use of gratuitous violence on Hollywood films, then surely those who feel differently have the right to voice their opinions.

Not having read the content of the American Council of Trustees and Alumni report, I can't comment on it (though obviously that hasn't stopped you). However, their web site describes the council as follows: The American Council of Trustees and Alumni is a nonprofit educational organization committed to academic freedom, excellence, and accountability on college and university campuses. It supports programs and policies that encourage high academic standards, strong curricula, and the free exchange of ideas. Doesn't exactly sound like a pro-censorship bogeyman to me. You also fail to point out that the members of the Council include Richard Lamm, a former Democratic governor of Colorado and Martin Peretz, editor-in-chief of the New Republic. You also fail to point out that Lieberman does not currently serve on the counsil or the advisory committees (I suppose the web site you cribbed this information from is probably outdated) and almost certainly have no involvement in the preparation of the report you refer to. Were you not aware of this? Did you even attempt to verify your statements before you posted them?

Oh, and in case you weren't aware, Kent Conrad is a Democratic senator from North Dakota. And you also forgot to mention that Jimmy Carter and Mario Cuomo signed the Appeal to Hollywood too. Surely you attempted to determine whether other prominent Democrats signed onto this before you trashed Lieberman for being part of a right-wing Republican censorship plot, right? Do you think that Jimmy Carter, Mario Cuomo and Kent Conrad are fascists? Did you even bothered to read the appeal?

And please explain to me how voting for the Defense of Marriage Act constitutes censorship.

Next time you trash Lieberman, please try to get your facts straight. I simply don't have the time to continue debunking all of these misleading posts.

[GumboYaYa]

64. Don't you remember all the controversy caused by the

ACTA report. Lynne Cheney is, or was, also on the Board at the time. The report called many college professors on the carpet for having an open discussion about the root causes of terrorism. Much to your dismay, some of us were appalled when the report initially was released and yes we did read it. In the interest of full-disclosure, Lieberman did indicate that he was not aware of the report before it was released.

I do know Kent Conrad is a Democrat from North Dakota. I saw him on Capitol Report a few weeks ago, as a matter of fact and thought he had a good showing. I guess I'm damned if I do and damned if I don't. In the same post you try to take me to task for not pointing out that Jimmy Carter and Cuomo signed the Appeal to Hollywood. Again, I remember when the Appeal was released and I'm sorry I forgot that Cuomo had signed that. In fact Cuomo did several national media appearances on it now that I think about it. I never called anyone a fascist so stop with the inflammatory BS.

I threw in the Defense of Marriage as just another example of Lieberman's moralistic attitude. Empower America scares the hell out of me. I have always opposed the Tipper Stickers. It is one more step towards forcing artists to remove content from their artwork. Empower America is a clear example of censorship.

What about the other evidence I cited. You pick and choose arguments where you can make ad hominen attacks on me, but you completely ignore the pattern of Lieberman attempting to promote his moralistic vision to other Americans.

It goes beyond looking at specific legislation. Lieberman is a strong proponent of a moralistic vision of America and imposing that vision on others. You have to look at the whole picture. You are trying to narrow the argument to one that fits your predetermined responses.

[dolstein]

68. Yes, I remember the ACTA report. But you apparently forget this . . .

I also remember that Lieberman had nothing to do with it, and that as soon as he learned about it, he criticized the report and severed his ties with the organization. Here's the link: http://www.theithacajournal.com/news/stories/20020205/opinion/1589693.html. Jiacinto has posted this information many times before.

What I'd like to know is this -- why do Lieberman bashers mention his association with the ACTA, mention the report, but always fail to disclose that (1) Lieberman had nothing to do with the report, (2) Lieberman criticized the report and (3) Lieberman severed ties with the organization. Why can't you simply tell the truth? Why are you so willing to use the "guilt by association tactics" that you so readily condemnt when they're practised by right-wing groups?

Basically, your criticism amounts to this: Lieberman served on the board of an organization on which Lynn Cheney also served. Your implication, of course, is that Joe Lieberman is simply Lynn Cheney without the dress. But obviously, the facts show that this isn't true. Lynn Cheney is a right-wing Republican, whereas Joe Lieberman is a moderate Democrat (an a liberal when it comes to social issues). But instead of sticking to the facts, you try to obscure them, because the facts get in the way of the point you're trying to make.

Of course, now that you know the facts regarding the ACTA report, I presume you will stop using it to advance your "Lieberman is a fascist" theory.

[GumboYaYa]

72. Here are some more examples"

Lieberman who co-sponsored the 1996 Telecommunications Act which required manufacturers to put V-chips in all new television sets. Sorry, but I don’t need technology or the government telling me what me or my children can watch on TV. I am perfectly capable of changing the channel myself. The Telecommunications Act also required TV programmers to devise a content-labeling system. It also provided for government to take the whole system over if the (allegedly) voluntary system didn't satisfy them and that’s exactly what they did.

Lieberman co-sponsored the Television Improvement Act of 1997 to force television broadcast and cable networks to establish a "voluntary" code of conduct to make shows more "family friendly."

Lieberman also said in a recorded Speech that if the entertainment industry “continues to market death and degradation to our children and continues to pay no heed to the genuine bloodshed staining our communities, then one way or the other the government will act."

And did I not say in my post that Lieberman said he was not aware of the report. The point is that even if he was not aware, he does associate with some scary people.

You are picking and chosing the points to respond to without addressing the full panoply of facts. Lieberman clearly has particpated in a moralistic campaign against the first amendment. He is an opponent of the separation of church and state and he approves of regulations on free speech. He allows his morality to pervade his public policies. That scares me.

Ultimately you will never change my mind and I will never change yours. I hope we can eventually agree on a candidate that we both can vote for.

[dolstein]

74. Why don't you save us the time and simply provide the

link to the web site you are cribbing this information from. You obviously aren't researching any of this yourself, so you are in no position to vouch for the accuracy of your statements.

[GumboYaYa]

76. Why don't you address the facts and

stop making ad hominen attacks on me.

[GumboYaYa]

79. Lieberman, Hilary and some others also

sponsored a bill last year (The Media Marketing Accountability Act)that would punish content producers for not complying with ther own "voluntary" standards.

How many more of these do I need to list before you acknowledge that at a bare minimum I have legitimate concerns. You may disagree with me, but there is abundant evidence that Lieberman is not the strongest proponent of the First Amendment.

[GumboYaYa]

80. Lieberman supports vouchers

which would use federal funds to pay for education in religious schools.

How many more examples of Joe's lax attitude to the First Amendment do I have to provide before it is okay for me to voice the opinion that Lieberman is opposed to the First Amendment without being accused of being anti-Semitic?

[Fair and Balanced]

50. Your statement was

"I find Lieberman's support of the war and slander of other Democrats very disconcerting."

Then when challenged on the 'slander' remark you have nothing but, well, I never said other Democrats don't do it. Why are you so concerned about Lieberman 'slandering' other Democrats when you can't even muster up a statement on how he does it any more than the othe canidates?

So he calls his opponents' plans a "ticket to nowhere". He doesn't favor repealing all the tax cuts, and he favors the war on Iraq. That's called a moderate Democrat.

"He believes in censorship; there is no question about that. That is why I don't like him."

If you're that concerned with his stands on 'censorship', ok. But nothing he said above is that outrageous, and your 'slander' remark was just rhetoric.

[GumboYaYa]

58. I said....

I find Lieberman's support of the war and slander of other Democrats very disconcerting, but ultimately my strong negativism to him stems from his support of censorship.

So yes, I am not a moderate Democrat and I disagree with Lieberman on many issues. That is why I will not vote for him in the primary just like I won'y vote for Gephardt. I support Dean, so I did not like his negative statements about Dean. That is my opinion and it will not change. I also do not like Dean trying to paint other Dems into a corner on the war. I think we need party unity to beat Bush and I do not like all the infighting, but as I said the reason I will not support Lieberman in the primary and possibly the general election is that he is a moralistic prig who things he needs to tell others what they can say and do. There is ample evidence of his moralistic attitude. It scares me and I will make me think long and hard before I could ever vote for Lieberman under any circumstances.

[dolstein]

71. The only problem is, Lieberman doesn't support cencorship

and you've been unable to identify a single piece of legislation Lieberman has supported that involves censorship. Instead you reference an ACTA report that (a) Lieberman had nothing to do with, (b) Lieberman criticized when he learned about it and (c) led to Lieberman severing his ties with ACTA.

You also cited Lieberman's support for the Defense of Marriage Act, which the last time I checked had nothing to do with censorship (and was supported by many Democrats). And you claimed this demonstrates Lieberman's moralistic attitude, yet you conveniently neglect to mention that Lieberman has compiled a very strong record on the issue of gay rights over the course of his thirty year carrer in politics. You try to portray Lieberman as Lynn Cheney, Pat Robertson and Jerry Fallwell all wrapped up in a tidy package, but the facts simply don't support it. Like it or not, when it comes to social issues, Lieberman's a traditional liberal. Sure, he talks a good game when it comes to values and morality, but he votes liberal.

I don't object to DU'ers criticizing Lieberman. What I object to is their steadfast refusal to acknowledge the facts that contradict their arguments. I don't know why DU'ers insist on overstating their case. Why isn't it enough for you people to say "yeah, Lieberman's no Republican, but I want a more liberal candidate to be the party's nominee." Why do you feel the need to demonize the guy and falsely protray him as a right-wing fascist?

[GumboYaYa]

78. You are attributing statements to me that I never wrote.

I never said anything about facism or called anyone a fascist. I never said Lieberman is a Republican. I never said he was Lynne Cheney etc., but he does agree with them on some issues that are very important to me. You obviously have an axe to grind over this issue and you are not paying attention to the content of my posts.

The First Amednment is a big issue to me. I oppose any laws that blur the line between church and state. Lieberman does not. There is ample evidence of that whether you acknowledge it or not. I also strongly support freedom of speech and abhor even the most remote forms of censorship. Joe does not share that view with me. As I said before, Joe Lieberman is the anti First Amendment candidate. That scares me. I guess I'm not allowed to state own opinion without being accused of being a prevaricator, liar, and anti-Semite.

For another example, Lieberman has proposed anti spam legislation, another intrusion on free speech. I can go on all day with these if I have to do so.

It is fairly obvious that your vitriol is based in defense of a Jewish heritage. Just for your info, I share the same heritage but not the same belief system. My family had to escape Germany in the early 30's because of intense bigotry and hatred and I abhor that type of hatred. Please stop attributing those ideas to me. I honestly disagree with Lieberman's positions on some key issues.

[FreeperSlayer]

7. Joe Lieberman, please resign

Your recent comments on the democratic left make you unacceptable to any air-breathing human.
You're a disgrace.

[Voltaire99]

28. Hear, hear! For these reasons...

Where to start?

How about his early 90s opposition to reform of lax accounting regulations, which, as William Greider explained in his Nation piece last year, "The Enron Democrats," helped set the stage for the debacle that followed?

Or how about his scolding and threats to regulate Hollywood and the games industry, which would impose his own ultra-pious standards upon free Americans?

Or is it his love of our imperial war in Iraq, which he supports with as much vigor as he does the Sharonist policies of Israel?

Or is it his fronting for the right wing International Fellowship of Christians and Jews, redolent not merely of his theocratic tendencies but his tendency to get cozy with ultra conservatives like Robertson and Falwell?

Or his fervent support for the hokey Missile Defense Shield?

Or his terrible civil rights record, in which gays are seen as threats and religious sectarian interests are seen as goals to be promoted?

Maybe it's all those things--or that his fans are people like Bill Bennett, who was publicly delighted when Gore chose Lieberman. Maybe it's that, or his recent denunciations of more liberal Democrats.

Nah.

All of the above.

http://www.joseph2004.org/

[poskonig]

12. Lieberman is awful.

Lieberman is hyper-militarist, extremely free trade and anti-job, and a religious fanatic on many social issues. His record stinks, with all sorts of anti-abortion, pro-vouchers, pro-missile defense, pro-privatizing social security, pro-censorship, anti-affirmative action, and other nonsense in there.

I kid you not -- this guy has GOP written all over him.

[dolstein]

15. Find me one Republican who agrees with you

I don't know any Republicans who believe that Lieberman is one of them. If, as you say, Lieberman has GOP written all over him, then you shouldn't have any problem finding some Republican interest groups that give Lieberman high marks.

[FreeperSlayer]

18. Joe, lick some Bush ass

He's a w kiss-up

[Name removed]

21. Deleted message

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

[poskonig]

23. Pharmaceuticals, defense contractors, superbanks,

and insurance companies for starters? Granted, Lieberman is not a member of the GOP political infrastructure, but he is bankrolled by the same monied interests, which explains most of his issue positions.

Why Lieberman chooses to be socially conservative is beyond me.

[Voltaire99]

29. Dolstein: Do your research!

Dolstein throws down the gauntlet:

"I don't know any Republicans who believe that Lieberman is one of them. If, as you say, Lieberman has GOP written all over him, then you shouldn't have any problem finding some Republican interest groups that give Lieberman high marks.

Happily, no one has any problem finding such facts.

William J. Bennett's right wing think tank Empower America "applauds" Lieberman here (and well it would: Lieberman is a co-founder): http://www.empoweramerica.org/stories/storyReader$42

Joe Conason of Salon discusses further Bennett-Lieberman collaboration here: http://www.salon.com/opinion/conason/2003/01/13/bush/

Lieberman is also linked to Bennett (and the theocrat Gary Bauer) through the right wing Center for Jewish and Christian Values, operated by the International Fellowship of Christians and Jews, as discussed here: http://www.atheists.org/flash.line/elec12b.htm

What's more, here you can see a little tape Lieberman cut for his friends and now wants to hide: http://joseph2004.org

While this should set you on the path to enlightenment, Dolstein, and Google stands ready to help you further, I've prepared a special bonus for you, too:

A Republican senator from Utah giving Joe the thumbs up, suggesting the Dems picked the wrong nominee in 2000--why, if only it had been Lieberman!
http://bennett.senate.gov/~bennett/bennett_on_gore_s_pick_of_lieb.html

[dolstein]

37. In case you missed it, Bennett did NOT support Joe in 2000

He backed Bush. And it's safe to say that Bennett (both Bill and the Utah Senator) would not support Joe in 2004. I don't know of any conservative Republican who is supporting Joe in his presidential bid, and all these attempts to tie Lieberman to conservative Republicans, in the face of a 14 year voting record in the Senate that demonostrates quite conclusively that Lieberman is moderately liberal Democrat, smacks of desperation and outright prejudice. Seriously, you'd have to go back all the way to Joe's election in 1988, when William F. Buckley backed him over maverick Republican Weicker (less out of enthusiasm for Lieberman than out of hatred towards Weicker) to find the support you speak of. And I dare saw that Buckley won't be jumping on the Lieberman bandwagon now.

[ozymandius]

46. Perhaps you should read this more clearly.

Bennett clearly backed Bush. As Bennett is a Republican of the worst order, he was delighted when Gore chose Lieberman as his running mate. Bennett knew, as we all know now, that the choice of Lieberman as a running mate equated to cognitive and image dissonance for Gore, thus hobbling his candidacy.

Would you not be delighted if Bush dumped Cheney and chose either Aschroft or Poindexter as his running mate?

[jiacinto]

32. Why do you waste your time with these people?

They hate Lieberman, think he is Satan, and nothing you or I will change their opinions.

[Ediacara]

34. Carlos

Dolstein cannot discuss Lieberman without bringing up anti-Semitism, and I for one am sick and tired of him using that as an excuse for why people don't like him. I don't think he's Satan, but I think he's wrong on some major issues, none of which have anything to do with him being a Jew.

[jiacinto]

40. Let me say this

I think anti-semtism plays more of a role regarding the anti-Lieberman sentiment here than people want to admit. Does that apply to everyone? No, not by far.

But Dolstein brings up some valid points. I mean, what else are we to expect when the subject of Israel comes up and the Palestinian Extremists here single out Lieberman?

[GOPBasher]

43. I don't think it's Anti-Semitism

I don't think it's that at all. Russ Feingold is Jewish and everyone here loves him. However, what most here say about Lieberman simply isn't true. He gets a 20% rating from the ACU. 20%! C'mon, does that sound conservative to you?

Dont' get me wrong, his very hawkish stance on Iraq pisses me off too. But looking at his entire career, the man is definately a Democrat -- a centrist, to be sure, but certainly no Repug.

[dolstein]

51. Yes, the old Feingold example

Sure, DU'ers have no complaint when it comes to secular Jews, especially those who vote against the Patriot Act. But there's no denying that many people around here are very uncomfortable with the idea of an orthodox Jew -- especially one who has been known to quote scripture -- occupying the White House. And need I point out all the posts referring to an alliance between Lieberman and Sharon? Again, if people were simply opposed to any religious person occupying the White House, I wouldn't have quite the same problem (even though I find such sentiments to be no less objectionable than the view that no athiest is fit to occupy the White House). But apparently it's ok for religious people to occupy the White House if they're Christian -- people who aren't alarmed by the thought of Al Sharpton, a preacher, occupying the White House, or a Christian evangelical like Jimmy Cartner, are somehow frightened at the prospect of an orthodox Jew becoming president. And what's particularly galling is that Lieberman's voting record on gay rights, abortion rights -- not to mention the fact that he's had a divoce -- clearly demonstrates that these fears of Lieberman "voting his religion" so to speak, are entirely unfounded. Yes, Lieberman talks about religious faith, values and morality, but always in defense of liberal principles. Lieberman is the only candidate who points out time and time again that the Republican Party does not have a monopoly on values, and that in the past, religious groups often were a positive and progressive force for social change -- most notably in the civil rights movement.

[jos]

54. Narrowing it down are you

First it was because he's Jewish. Now it's because he's an orthodox Jew. Next your going to get into sects of orthodox Judaism.:eyes:

[dolstein]

62. No -- this is what I've been saying all along

Obviously being Jewish, in and of itself, isn't what people find so objectionable. Rather, it's the fact that Lieberman is a devoutly religious orthodox Jew who talks about religion and faith in positive terms. Many people around here simply can't stand that, even though they have no such qualms when it comes to other devoutly religious -- albeit non-Jewish -- Democrats, like Jimmy Carter and Al Sharpton. And I've yet to see anyone criticize John Edwards for co-chairing the Senate Prayer Breakfast with Arizona senator John Kyl. Now we can get into a semantic game if you like about whether it's anti-Semitic to show prejudice towards orthodox Jews and not secular Jews, but the double standard obviously exists.

[Ediacara]

70. so no response to my challenge?

am I an anti-Semite or not? Is the Duer you're responding to an anti-Semite or not? If no to both, STFU!

[dolstein]

73. Only you know what's in your heart

All I know is that, like many DU'ers, you freely embrace a double standard when it comes to Joe Lieberman. I believe that this double standard is largely rooted in a general hostility DU'ers feel towards people who are devoutly religious, and (fueled by anti-Israeli sentiment) more specifically towards orthodox Jews. Perhaps you are an exception. But I've seen far too many flagrantly anti-Semitic posts on DU (which have been received more with casual indifference than alarm) and far too many lies told about Lieberman to believe that this prejudice doesn't exist.

[Ediacara]

75. why don't you come out and say it?

call me anti-Semite. That's what you said in so many words. Rather than continuing along this track of casually accusing people who don't like Lieberman of being anti-Semites, grow some balls and actually say the words.

[dolstein]

81. Why, so you can tell me some of your best friends are Jewish?

I've said what I said and you can read it whichever way you like. I haven't called you an anti-Semite. For one thing, it would be against the rules of this forum to engage in personal attacks. I'm sure there are plenty of people who would be more than happy to see me kicked out of DU. I'm not going to give them that pleasure. For another, I honestly don't know what's in your heart. Perhaps you have valid reasons for applying a double standard when it comes to Lieberman. I'm not aware of them, but that doesn't mean they don't exist. Perhaps some day a DU'er will be able to come up with a coherent, well-researched argument as to why, despite all evidence to the contrary, Lieberman is in fact a right-wing Republican. I'm not holding my breath on that one.

I've never claimed that all criticisms of Lieberman are invalid. Or that anyone who criticizes Lieberman is an anti-Semite. What I have said is that there is a clear and consistent pattern among DU'ers of making claims about Lieberman that are, at best, wildly exaggerated and, at worst, flagrantly untrue. It's not enough for people to say that Lieberman is too moderate, or too hawkish for them. Instead, they claim he's a right-wing Republican, a Sharon crony, and a fascist. And in many cases, the same lies keep getting repeated over and over again, despite being thoroughly debunked. And Lieberman is repeatedly singled out for criticism for holding positions that are widely shared by other prominent Democrats -- including fellow candidates for the presidential nomination. And finally there's the extremely harsh, nasty, and often violent tone of the anti-Lieberman posts -- there are things said about Lieberman that would never be tolerated if they were directly against any other Democrat. Yet Lieberman, for some reason, remains fair game. How to explain this? Frankly, I'm stumped. I simply can't think of any legitimate reason for why Lieberman would be treated this way. And that leads me to conclude that many DU'ers simply can't stand the fact that Lieberman's a devoutly religious orthodox Jew.

[w4rma]

87. I notice you haven't responded to my posts. (btw, quit Jew-baiting.)

Is the reason you haven't responded to my posts, below, because I'm correct and you don't want to admit it?

[Name removed]

88. Deleted message

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

[w4rma]

89. Post #69 and post #65: no response (also, quit the ad hominem attacks)

[GOPBasher]

38. He's pro-choice, pro-gun control, pro-gay rights, etc..

He's socially liberal, and he's a fiscal/economic centrist. My only objection to Lieberman is that he seems very hawkish on foreign affairs. However, there's nothing in his voting record to show that he's even remotely close to being a Repug -- not by a longshot. He's not my favorite in the primary, but I assure you, if he gets the nomination, he gets my vote, my money and my time to volunteer.

Not start a flame war, but I do think that anyone who calls Lieberman a Right Winger but calls Lincoln Chafee a Leftist simply isn't looking at the facts.

[jiacinto]

41. You're right

But when it comes to Lieberman the facts don't matter.

[dolstein]

52. But just wait till he gets in the White House

Then the mask will come off and we'll find a Pat Robertson clone underneath. Or so the DU (conspiracy) theory goes. Apparently these people aren't persuaded by a 14 year Senate voting record that is pretty liberal on all the hot button social issues. These people believe that Lieberman is simply trying to con the American public into thinking he's a reasonable person, which of course can't truly be the case, since he's an orthodox Jew. And as we all know, orthodox Jews, when they aren't busy trashing the First Amendment, think about nothing more than how they can help Ariel Sharon.

[jos]

56. "Pretty liberal"?

Sonmeone who doesn't believe in a wall separating church and state, who at one point came out against affirmative action, who supports school vouchers and who nearly voted for Clarence Thomas is "pretty liberal." I don't think so.

[dolstein]

63. There you go again, dissembing

You blame Lieberman for "almost" voting for Clarence Thomas, when in fact he voted AGAINST Clarence Thomas.

You blame Lieberman for "at one point" coming out against affirmative action when in fact, what he opposed for rigid quotes that were ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. Lieberman fully supported the University of Michigan in its lawsuit, a fact you conveniently neglect to mention.

You say Lieberman supports school vouchers, but you neglect to mention that Lieberman only supports limited pilot programs, and only on the condition that the vouchers be made available to poor students and that none of the money comes out of the public school budget. Obviously, Lieberman's position on vouchers is far more nuanced than you'd care to admit. And believe it or not, a large segment of the African American community supports vouchers, and Lieberman appears to be the only candidate willing to give these people the time of day.

You claim Lieberman doesn't believe in a wall of separation between church and state, yet you fail to mention that Lieberman opposes school prayer. He does support a "moment of silence" as do many Democrats.

And yes, if you look at Lieberman's voting record (which you obviously haven't) on issues like abortion, civil rights, gay rights, gun control, labor issues, etc., it is indeed quite liberal.

[w4rma]

65. How liberal is Lieberman on economic issues? Does he stand up for

*small* buisness against big buisness? Does he stand up for unions and workers against multinationals? Does he fight for American consumers against price gouging by oligopolistic big buisnesses? Does he work for lower taxes on the middle and lower classes? Does he work for more services that benefit middle and lower classes?

[jos]

67. You and Joe can't have your cake and eat it too

Someone who is "pretty liberal" would not be waffling on such issues.

Lieberman was set to vote for Thomas until the Anita Hill thing broke. Even after that, he was undecided to nearly the end. What kind of Democrat would follow such a course of action? Not a real one.

Lieberman may oppose school prayer, but has no problem funding religious institutions. And he has no problem saying that there is no right to be free from religion. He wants to shove religion down our throats. None of the other candidates running for the nomination wants to do that.

[w4rma]

59. Don't turn this into a Jew-baiting fest, dolstein. This has NOTHING to do

with Lieberman's religion. There are many many Jewish DUers who don't like Lieberman, at all. Defend him, if you like, but don't lie about it, please. Lieberman has spent alot of time recently ATTACKING (and lying about) the Democratic base and the front runners in the primary to get his conservative credentials. This is why he isn't liked.

[dolstein]

66. Sorry, but there's an obvious double standard

Lieberman gets trashed on Iraq. Gephardt and Edwards get a pass.

Lieberman gets trashed on Israel. The rest of the Democratic field gets a pass.

Lieberman gets trashed on NAFTA. Graham, Kerry and Dean get a pass.

Lieberman gets trashed for being devoutly religious. Al Sharpton and John Edward (co-chair of the Senate Prayer Breakfast) get a pass.

Sorry, but apparently certain positions that make Lieberman unacceptable to so many DU'ers are conveniently forgotten when it comes to other candidates. Now perhaps you have another plausible explanation for this double standard, but I certainly haven't found one. And surely you've noticed the sheer volume of venomous posts about Lieberman -- the things that are said about him would never be tolerated if they were used against other Democrats. For crying out loud, this guy was on the NATIONAL TICKET in 2000. Yet people insist on branding him as a right-wing Republican, truth be damned. And let's not forget the flagrantly anti-Semtic posts. They don't last very long, but I've seen them. Personally, I wish the administrators wouldn't delete them, because it allows DU'ers to pretend that anti-Semitism doesn't exist on the left.

[w4rma]

69. Gephardt has gotten no pass. Edwards is nearly invisible in the press.

Dean has been slammed on his pro-Israel stance. Especially when he said he was pro-AIPAC.

…
One thing I don't worry about is that his lefty base doesn't know what he stands for, and will bolt when they realize he's a moderate. His base knows exactly how moderate he is. I interviewed dozens of his liberal devotees, and they all know the not-so-liberal aspects of his record. Someone at the Meetup lamented his staunch pro-Israel stance; several people I met said they differed with him on the death penalty. Brilliant says he has issues with Dean on all of his more conservative stands. "But he's not afraid to say what he thinks. Dean asks the fundamentally sound questions and does not have an ideological answer that trumps reason, as Bush does."
…
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2003/08/11/dean/index3.html

Kerry and Dean support fair-trade and wish to renegotiate free-trade agreements, while Lieberman supports the current free-trade agreements. However, both Kerry and Dean have been slammed for not campaigning for the total withdrawl from NAFTA-like trade agreements.

…
HOWARD DEAN: No. What I said-- Well, I'll tell you what I said in a minute. But I'll follow my train of thought here, most briefly. Free trade has benefited Vermont a great deal. Here's the problem with free trade, and here's why I support fair trade, and why I want to change all our trade agreements to include human rights with trade, as Jimmy Carter included human rights with foreign policy. I still think NAFTA was a good thing. I think the president did the right thing. But the problem now is that, 10 years into NAFTA, here's what we've done. We have shipped a lot of our industrial capacity to other countries. And the ownership pattern, and the ratio of reward between capital and labor in those other countries is what it was 100 years ago in this country.

So the reason for NAFTA is not just trade. It's defense and foreign policy. That is, a middle class country where women fully participate in the economic and political decision making of that country is a country that doesn't harbor groups like Al-Qaeda, and it's a country that does not go to war. So that's in our intersect. That's why trade is really in our long term interest. What we've done so far in NAFTA is we've transferred industrial capacity, but we haven't transferred any of the elements that are needed to make a middle class. The truth is, the trade union movement in this country built America, not literally-- Well, they did do it literally with the Brooklyn Bridge and the Empire State Building, and things like that. But they built America because they allowed people who worked in factories and mines to become middle class people. And America was the strongest country on earth, and still is, because we have the largest middle class on earth, with democratic ideals. That is, working people in this country, by and large, feel that this is their country, and they have a piece of the pie, and it matters what they think.

Now, if you want trade to succeed, ultimately, we're going to have to create a climate in other countries that are beneficiaries of NAFTA where they can create a middle class with democratic ideals. That means we should not have any free trade agreements, and we should go back and tell the WTO that "you need also to include environmental standards and labor standards." Here's why. Today, if you run a factory in Iowa-- Let's suppose you spend a million dollars a year disposing of all the waste products that come out that are toxic. You can go to another country and dump all that stuff in the river and on the ground. So America, because we have environmental standards, and we're willing to trade, straight out, free trade, with countries that it's cheaper by a million dollars, before you even get to wages, to do business there, I think that's a big problem. We're essentially saying, "Our environmental laws are strict. It's cheaper for you to go into business someplace lese. Go ahead." That's the wrong thing to do.

The same with labor standards. I don't know why we should be shipping our jobs offshore when kids can work 12 hours a day, seven days a week, for a small amount of wages. And isn't that what America fought against 100 years go? Wasn't that the victory of the trade union movement? So it seems to me that my position makes sense. We've gone through 10 years of free trade. We've gotten to a position where we now need to change our trade agreements.
…
http://www.jfklibrary.org/forum_dean.html
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=46131&mesg_id=46131&page=
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=43435&mesg_id=43435&page=

I, personally, have no problem with talking about religion in politics, as long as one doesn't push for one religion over another in policy or divert public funds to private religious institutions. (I'm not saying that Lieberman has or hasn't done this.)

[poskonig]

82. Holy Joe will just do what he has spent his career doing.

Pimping for pharmaceuticals, superbanks, defense contractors, and insurance companies.

Joe is moderately conservative on social issues and has an extremely conservative militarist and anti-job agenda.

[Fair and Balanced]

39. Joe is not a repuke

He is perhaps the most conservative of the Democratic canidates, but the American Conservative Union rates him only 20%. He's miles better than Bush. Hating Lieberman seems to be in style here.

http://www.acuratings.com/acu.cgi?ACT=1&USER_ID=319&YEAR=2002

[CarlBallard]

60. Thank goodness

Someone beat me to that link. I'm getting sick and tired of being the guy who posts it (really I'm not even a Lieberman supporter). I tend to agree that folks here bash Lieberman unnecessaraly. I mean he does attack the party too much, and the folks here should call him on that. But then they call him a conservative nut or Republican light, and that's unnecessary and counter productive.

[w4rma]

53. He thinks he needs to attack his base, not the Republican leadership (n/t)

[Name removed]

57. Deleted message

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

[samsingh]

77. Joe seems to attack Democrats

more often than repugs.

[Nicholas_J]

86. You mean

Like Howard Dean?

[Ediacara]

90. yet another

post with zero content and zero facts from Nicholas_J. Shocking...

[Iluvleiberman]

83. Let me get this straight:

The main reasons most hate Joe are:

1) He doesnt' attack Bush enough

2) He supported the Iraq Oil War

3) He wants to impose some morals on society.

[GumboYaYa]

84. It looks that way,

but I would modify #3 to "He wants to impose his morals on society."

IMO they are all legitimate reasons some of which also apply to other candidates in the field.

[Iluvleiberman]

85. Got it. Thanks Gumbo