Joe Lieberman is the "perfect" politician...

[kentuck]

He will never lose an election in his state. Why? Because he is a Demopublican. He is smack dab in the middle of both Parties. He has allies on both sides of the aisle and he gets votes from both Party affiliations. He manages to get his Democratic constituency and just enough Republican votes so that it makes it near impossible for him to lose in his homestate.

Is that good or bad? Actually, it's neither. Because he is weak on all issues. He is ready to compromise one way or the other, according to which way the wind blows. Great for a politician, but devastating for his Party. Because he will never champion a progressive cause that faces an uphill battle. If he can't get bi-partisan support, then it's not worth his time.

That means he is has no strong political passions, one way or the other. He believes the best way to get things accomplished is to stand in the middle and take the least controversial solution. He gets a lot of attention but what we get is as weak as watered-down coffee. He weakens our Party.

[Bread and Circus]

1. Joementum is about as useful as a bent dick.

[burythehatchet]

2. EXCUSE me

a bent dick is far more useful than holy Joe.

[itzamirakul]

3. LOL! and so true!

That's why I would love for Bush to name him as head of Homeland Security. It would get him out of being involved in the DLC and DNC so much with his wish-washy, oatmeal mush brand of politics.

[Kolesar]

6. I saw friggin' Al From (Mr. DLC) on tv the other day

He was truly pathetic and without a speck of leadership or courage in his soul.

[itzamirakul]

10. Do you by any chance remember...

what he said about people "crawling out from under rocks?" I don't have cable so I was keeping up with his appearance by reading the comments posted here on the board and someone said From referred to those of us who were against the DLC as crawling out from under rocks or something like that. Did you hear anything like that?

[Kolesar]

30. does not ring a bell

He may have said it. I was pretty groggy

[itzamirakul]

33. Answering my own question...

I went back and re-read the posts and I was wrong. It was not From, although he was on the panel. According to the psot, it was a statement from a man named Stuart Rothenberg who said that the people demanding the vote recount crawled out from under rocks.

[Eric J in MN]

31. They're only thinking of naming a Democrat to head Homeland

Security so they can blame the Demcocrats after the next attack.

[Kolesar]

4. at least he mentions global warming on his home page

and he has his name on a bill w/ Sen Mccain. Now if he stormed the Sunday talk shows and made speeches promoting GW policy, I would be truly impressed.\

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
December 6, 2004
Contact: Rob Sawicki, 202-224-9965
Phone: [phone]


Lieberman Calls for Action to Reduce Oil Dependence and Curb Global Warming

Senator urges passage of climate change legislation at energy summit hosted by President Clinton

NEW YORK – In a speech today at an energy summit in New York hosted by former President Bill Clinton, Senator Joe Lieberman (D-CT) called for the United States to invest in innovative new energy sources to reduce our dependence on oil and to curb greenhouse emissions by passage of the Lieberman-McCain Climate Stewardship Act. Lieberman addressed a group of world energy experts during a panel discussion moderated by former Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Carol Browner. The panel discussion was part of the Clinton Foundation Forum entitled “New Thinking on Energy Policy: Meeting the Challenges of Security, Development, and Climate Change.”


"If the leadership of the United States does not come to grips with the facts about the need for a new energy policy – a policy that moves us away from oil – we are putting our nation’s security, economy and public health – the very future of our society – at risk as well," Lieberman said. “It’s time to think beyond oil and realize there are cleaner more efficient energy sources.”


The forum was held at the Jack H. Skirball Center for the Performing Arts at New York University and examined management of existing energy resources worldwide; innovative ideas to meet future energy needs; and the profound environmental, economic, security and political consequences energy policy has on developed and developing nations alike.


During the discussion, Lieberman urged Congress to take up and pass the Climate Stewardship Act, which he introduced along with Sen. John McCain (R-AZ). The Lieberman-McCain legislation would require a reduction in carbon dioxide emission levels to 2000 levels by the year 2010 by capping the overall greenhouse gas emissions from the electricity generation, transportation, industrial, and commercial economic sectors, and creating a market for individual companies to trade pollution credits. The bill was supported by 43 Senators in a vote in October 2003.


“From a purely economic analysis, the only reason our nation does not turn away from the unsustainable and environmentally damaging use of oil is that the full impacts of our usage are not included in the price of the oil,” said Lieberman. “By creating a market price for the damaging greenhouse emissions from oil, our bill would provide that pricing mechanism. That would drive private sector investment toward non-fossil, non-emitting technologies that are the solution to our challenge by simply restructuring the market to recognize their value.”



-30-

[itzamirakul]

5. Agree. What about McCain?

Doesn't he sort of fit the same kind of general description?

[JI7]

7. he doesn't compromise according to the way the wind blows

he has always had the views he has now. he has always been hawkish on foreign policy/military/national security type issues. but many democrats don't vote on those issues. he has always been openly religious also and morals was always a big thing for him. remember he was one of the first if not the first democratic senator to condemn clinton on the senate floor on the monica lewinsky thing. and of course his whole thing with entertainment industry.

but he also has a good consistent record on things like civil rights, abortion rights, environment protection, even things like taxes. so the democrats can support him on those things.

if anything lieberman is one of the few politicians who are least likely to compromise on anything. he stuck by his unpopular views no matter what. the democratic primary where voters are more liberal than in the general election didn't get him to even change the way he spoke about the issues to try to get their support. in fact he was open about where he stood.

[BlueWolff]

8. Liberman is a quasi Repug

He needs to get lost and switch parties...It is time we really get a DEMOCRATIC message to the people of the country..the confusing rhetoric of JoJo needs to be pushed aside and we need to get the real message to the people..NOW

[WyLoochka]

9. "no strong political passions?"

"he is has no strong political passions, one way or the other. He believes the best way to get things accomplished is to stand in the middle and take the least controversial solution."

Disagree here. Lieberman has two very strong "political passions."

1) Anything Israel wants - Israel gets.

2) Anything the insurance/financial services industries want - the insurance/financial services industries get.

[catgirl]

11. Lieberman is a hypocrat

Did you see how quickly he jumped beside Bush for PRO IRAQ WAR photo ops? He makes me sick. I'm sure Gore was thrilled about that. Can you imagine Edwards doing that?

[itzamirakul]

12. Israel-firsters...

We do have some politicians who put Israel's interests ahead of the United States' interests. I know it is considered politically incorrect and sometimes even dangerous to even mention Israel in political discussions - but their interests are not always the best for ours.

This is one of the problems I find with allowing people to keep "dual citizenship." If they come to the U.S. and seek citizenship, I think they should be forced to give up citizenship in their native land, otherwise it leads to decisions that are not always beneficial to native-born American citizens. A touchy subject, I know.

[catgirl]

14. Couldn't disagree more

The US has a very ugly climate for many immigrants these days (thanks to Bush). Dual citizenship allows people to flee. The american dream is a nightmare to many. Remember what happened to japanese immigrants during WWII?

[itzamirakul]

17. Yes, but once they get here and

do all required to become American citizens and they are sworn in - I seriously believe they should give up their citzenship in their native country. BTW, one of my parents immigrated here from another country so I am truly not being biased. It's just that I believe dual citizenship leads to divided loyalties.

[catgirl]

21. Re: loyalties

But what if one isn't loyal? If someone is being discriminated against, like some middle eastern immigrants today, shouldn't they have the opportunity to return to their original country? Maybe there could be a 20 year dual citizenship period, then a choice must be made after that.

I do see your point, however, regarding the problems with influencing politics. The solution to the Palestinian-Israeli crisis could have been simple and peaceful if diplomacy had been used. The US gov certainly screwed up big time there.

[mairceridwen]

26. there are plenty of people

who don't need "dual" citizenship to have divided loyalties.


If we had sound, foreign policy that made sense, it wouldn't be an issue...at least not a large-scale issue. There would always be divided loyalties among individuals


I could see instituting that kind of law for public servants, like politicians where divded loyalties would actually reflect foreign policy.



That kind of logic smacks of freeper..."if you're in this country SPEAK 'MERICAN"

I know that's not what you mean, but again. I don't think dual citizenship is the problem, but of foreign policy.

I think the bigger problem is divided loylaties between oil/defense corporations and the rest of America. I know that it gets translated into a culture-religious issue, but I seriously doubt that it is REALLY about that for the people writing and instituting foreign policy

[itzamirakul]

29. I'm glad that you can see that...

I am not a "freeper" cause I am a 40+ year straigh ticket voting Democrat. My loyalties through this election have been totally Democrat.

I knew that I would be stepping into "deep doo-doo" when I mentioned the dual citizenship thing, but let me try to explain where my concerns lie.

Take a man like Rupert Murdoch, who immigrated here from Australia. With lots of money he is now one of the foremost newspaper and tv station owners. Almost single-handedly, this man has managed to turn the media from being fair and balanced into a right wing organ. I can't help but think that people who were not born in America, often do NOT have the same loyalty to our laws and traditions and like many immigrants do, they often (and many times quite rightly) see a "better way" of doing things. Except, in his case, it is leading us into a one-party state with fascist-like media. That is just ONE case.

I tried to explain my concerns briefly without a lot of detail, but this has been a major sore-spot for me for quite awhile.
And again, I am the child of an immigrant, and my alien parent arrived here with some ideas that he thought could make America better, also. None were earth-shaking, but he certainly did see a lot of room for improvement, although he came from a repressive, third-world country.

[mairceridwen]

38. yeah, you don't seem too freeperish

the problem is that the United States could have produced an individual who did what Murdoch did...and we have produced plenty of CEO's and politicians whose loyalties remain firmly with shareholders and the like, and not with the general public. the fact that laws really don't stop these people means that the people in charge of enforcing and writing relevant legislation and policy aren't really concerned either.

Murdoch is only part of the problem. And the people who are engineeering contemporary american facism are non-dual citizens.

I mean, it could work the other way, what if we had some fantastic individual with dual canadian citizenship "in charge" of writing marriage legislation and implementing health care...not that I am arguing for a socially liberal facist state, only that I think citizenship status has little to do with our problems and more about corporate greed and so forth.

[itzamirakul]

39. I'm really passionate about my point of view but

I have to admit that I don't really have many other good arguments for it other than what I wrote. I think it is just a gut feeling. If it is ok with most Americans then, I won't raise a stink about it, but I doubt that I will ever change my mind.

[kentuck]

15. In all fairness, I do not think Lieberman has "dual" citizenship....

:)

[itzamirakul]

19. You are correct as far as I know...

I got a bit carried away in my response and drifted into another thought. Lieberman has nothing to do with dual citizenship.

[FightinNewDem]

36. Funny thing...

This canard only seems to come up when we are talking about Lieberman. Nobody ever peeps about pols who are eligible for dual citizenship from countries other than Israel...

[DemocratSinceBirth]

13. Connecticut Is A Progressive State...

Joe would be free to take a more progressive path if he wanted....


That leads me to believe Joe believes in the things he advances...


I'll bet there are at least a half a dozen or more Senate Democrats who swing both ways by your definition...

Do you think we would be better off without them?

[kentuck]

16. "Do you think we would be better off without them?"

Possibly, yes. Because they inhibit the needed opposition to the fascists in power as they seek compromise and bi-partisanship. We should not seek compromise and bi-partisanship with fascists. We should oppose them - not seek some common ground. So, yes, in that respect, the Party and the nation would be better off without them, in my opinion.

[Me.]

28. I Agree

Has there been a ***H initiative that Lieberman hasn't supported?

[JohnKleeb]

18. Dodd is to his left

so yes, he's much like Feingold in not exactly toeing the party line.

[Anarcho-Socialist]

20. It's tempting to designate Lieberman as a repug, but the GOP of 2004

is far too extreme and right-wing for Lieberman if he wished to join them. Joe is pro-choice and that simple fact is enough for them to exclude him.

[catgirl]

22. Bush to tap Lieberman

Didn't I just hear this on mainstren media news last night? I was groggy, so I might be wrong.

[catgirl]

23. I meant mainstream

[SOS]

32. His name is being floated

to replace Kerik as Fatherland Security chief nominee.

[tjdee]

24. He has NO personality! How can that be perfect?

I still can't understand why someone as boring as he keeps winning...it must be at least in part because of what you say.

If he's the perfect politician, why didn't "Joementum" catch on?

[kentuck]

25. Because he appeals to both Parties....

and is loyal to neither. Meaning he will win as long as he can keep the Democratic base in his corner. So far, he has been very succesful.

[bush_is_wacko]

34. You know

it's funny you should say this. According to some "beliefs" test I took Lieberman is supposed to be close to my political/economic belief system. Truth be told, I can't stand the guy. He sounds like he's whining all the time and because of that annoying habit, I can't seem to bear listening to him. I don't feel so bad now that someone else has mentioned his "lack of personality." I also am more liberal than Gandhi, so I can't imagine this guy would match my political beliefs closer than some of the other more liberal Dems.

[Forkboy]

27. You are correct sir!

[w4rma]

35. He should be defeated in the 2006 primary. And this is why his corporatist

pro-war actions will hurt him.

[Guns Aximbo]

37. He's on Israels payrole

nuph said...