This is why I still believe Joe Lieberman is a democrat!!

"I don't have any hesitation to be part of a filibuster," said Senator Joseph I. Lieberman Democrat of Connecticut, who is a military hawk and a longtime foe of the Arctic drilling plan. "This is a tough fight," he added. "But it is a fight worth waging."

Yeah, he's really supporting Bush now with this filibuster against Bush & the Repukes pet project of stripping ANWR and drilling it dry

He's not my favorite democrat but he is one. Thank you Joe for proving that not all is bad with you.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/20/national/20cong.html?ex=1292734800&en=2b8cc37e916f2895&ei=5089&partner=rssyahoo&emc=rss

he will side with us on most important votes.

He is on our side sometimes, so that makes it all OK.

And who is to judge what officially is our side? I mean, what I think is the best progressive causes might not be equal to what you think they should be or any other poster here at DU.

People on DU claim that Lieberman backs Bush all the time. Here isn't and this cause is not only important because of the destruction of ANWR but the filibuster would hold up defense spending needed for the war that he DOES support.

He's a democrat, a moderate one but with Choice & Environment we can count on him!

So, this particular vote doesn't mean much to me in the scheme of things.

He's sold us out and hurt the party and its candidates around the country so many times before, that I'd just as soon see a Republican in his seat.

which means that 75% of the time he supported the democratic side.

And ANWR means a hell of alot to many of us. Thanks for treating it as a non-issue. I guess you and have different yardsticks for what is important so what, are you going to boot me out of the party now too?

I'd like to see the Dems the majority party again- and as long as guys like Lieberman are out there with his profile- and side with the Republicans on many major issues- while undercutting the Dem,s positions- that's not going to happen. We're not going to win with Republican lite- andymore than we have the last 6 times.

They have control of the flow of legisilation
They have control of the committees
They have control of these dumbass 'Nuclear Option' threats
THEY HAVE CONTROL

A democratic majority will NOT be perfect but at least we have a fighting chance of getting our soldiers home and pushing impeachment. Even if we lose we still get a debate and maybe enough pressure from the voters for a favorable term.

But hell - if you want our soldiers to continue coming home in body bags go ahead and support this cleansing of the party. You have a primary, get him out there but when he wins again then support the democratic majority

I have written about this extensivly on this board. All ADA does is highlight and amplify differences between Republicans and Democrats. As an example, ADA ranks Barbara Boxer (95%) lower than Feinstein (100%). We really do throw these numbers around too much without knowing where they come from.

Read the methodology....the parameters are arbitrary (20 issies no matter how active/inactive the legislative session) and the chosen issues are mostly strict party-line votes on amendments and cloture votes PLUS ADA states clearly that the votes are NOT th ones covered well in the media, intrducing a sampling bias.

According to my system, Leiberman is around 30%....which is better than 7-8 of his fellow Democrats, but certain not 75% a progressive. The highest ranking Democrat is Harkin at 89% and the lowest is Ben Nelson with 0%, which has only voted on bill passage with Democrats ONCE in the last legislative session.

if the Dems are ever going to speak with a unified enough voice to nationalize the elections.

Fortunately, Nelson's not got Lieberman's high profile.

Good enough for me!

If Lieberman were to lose in the primaries, Connecticut is liberal enough to help the new democratic candidate to win. But Nelson is popular in Florida and is our best chance to prevent Harris from winning. She has the electorial process in her favor (just think Election 2000)

you are talking about Nelson from Florida. We are taling about the one from Nebraska. Surely if you know enough about the Senate to make extensive commentary in defense of some senators, you would be aware that there are two Dem Senators named Nelson.

But both Nelsons have been ridiculed here at DU for being "DINOs" and getting them replaced. But as for Nelson of Nebraska, that state is so fricking conservative that I almost just want to keep him in the seat. As long as he supports Harry Reid as the Majority leader then maybe we can his counterpart Chuck Hagal to cross

This is the Republicrat from Nebraska- which, btw- before Chuck Hagel stole an election with his voting machine company in what the Washington Post called the biggest upset of the year- hadn't had a Republican Senator in over 25 years.

so getting elected to the Senate in Nebraska means you almost *have* to be a D. Maybe Nebraska isn;t as "conservative" as many of us thought...maybe they still remember those old populist years from 1880-1935.

acting like Dems. Incidently, that was also the year Hagel defeated Ben Nelson for his current Senate seat. No one knew at the time that he had a huge interest in ES&S, which manufactured a large number of Nebraska's voting machines.

And Bob Kerry, who held Nelson's current seat until 2001, wasn't a DINO- and about as far from Zell Miller and you can get.

Seems to me that Dems have been running so scared and sold out so often, they no longer see the forest from all the trees.

Thanks for the regional info.....as a blogger in Ohio, I do not hear about these things, so it is refeshing to get a historical (even recent) perspective. Bob Kerry, I agree, is NOT Ben Nelson. All I can say is that Nelson is easy to score because I don't have any points to add up. He scores EXACTLY the same as the 40 or so Republicans who also share a "zero" score in fighting the Bush agenda (in fairness, Nelson did vote against one puke issue, class action lawsuit reform, but h lost ten points by voting for two of the freakish RW judges during the "compromise", so he lost those 10 points he earned).

Here is the thread with the scoring system I developed. Not popular, apparently, but it is my personal barometer in party loyalty and the willingness to fight the good fight when it counts.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2320835&mesg_id=2320835

I bumped it a few times with tepid interest. I agree, research is boring, but I stand by my numbers.

It's just that the few things he does decide to say "fuck you" to the party on, are rather important issues.

I'm no fan Joementum but I was pleasantly surprised to see him supporting Russ's filibsuter.

he's with us on most every other issue, especially the environment.

also Leiberman was on board for Bush's push to restrict class action lawsuits.

He voted to confirm Condi
He voted to confirm Negroponte
He voted FOR the Cheney energy bill
He voted FOR CAFTA
He also was part of the "compromise 7" that give us three more Bush RW judges
And he voted to confirm Roberts' nomination

PLEASE, if you are going to say something about Leiberman's voting record, look it up first.

Too many DUers post without showing any research. I would like to see that change.

EDITED to include "most" to bring into accordance with the previous poster's original words.

PLEASE, if you are going to say something about my post, read it first.

because "most" isn't true, either. The intent was to cover up these indiscretions I have highlighted for you under the couchphase "most", no?

This does not, in the least, atone for Holy Joe's year-long ass-kissing of the * cabal. Fuck him.

Just pointing out an obvious that so many anti-Lieberman people fail to recognize. That Joe's voting record matches the republican agenda only 25% of the time.

There is a primary - want to get rid of him do it then. AFter that Joe is the man for Connecticut and in the end he's one of ours and will add to the democratic majority that we so desperately need!

A Dem who will consistantly stand up for civil rights, oppose immoral wars, and consistantly support citizens and workers over corporations.

Joe needs to be sent to pasture.

here is my rating system....I only countactual bill passage and confirmations because everything else is procedural and doesn;t affect the American people directly (as in becomes a law).

DEMOCRATIC SENATOR LIBERAL INDEX
-------------------------------------------
Harkin (Iowa) 89.2
Boxer (California) 85.7
Lautenberg (New Jersey) 85.7
Akaka (Hawaii) 78.6
Durbin (Illinois) 78.6
Kennedy (Massacheusetts) 78.6
Kerry (Massacheusetts) - DLC 78.6
Corzine (New Jersey) 71.4
Dayton (Minnesota) 71.4
Feingold (Wisconsin) 71.4
Levin (Michigan) 71.4
Mikulski (Maryland) 71.4
Reed (Rhode Island) 71.4
Sarbanes (Maryland) 71.4
Obama (Illinois) 67.9
Dodd (Connecticut) - DLC 64.3
Leahy (Vermont) 64.3
Shumer (New York) 64.3
Wyden (Oregon) 64.3
Bayh (Indiana) - DLC 64.3
Biden (Deleware) 64.3
Clinton (New York) - DLC 60.7
Dorgan (North Dakota) - DLC 57.1
Stabenow (Michigan) - DLC 57.1
Inouye (Hawaii) 57.1
Reid (Nevada) 57.1
Byrd (West Virginia) 50
Murray (Washington) 50
Rockefeller (West Virgnia) 50
Bingaman (New Mexico) 42.9
Cantwell (Washington) - DLC 42.9
Johnson (South Dakota) - DLC 42.9
Kohl (Wisconsin) - DLC 42.9
Baucus (Montana) - DLC 39.3
Conrad (North Dakota) - DLC 39.3
Feinstein (California) 39.3
Leiberman (Connecticut) - DLC 35.7
Carper (Deleware) - DLC 28.6
Lincoln (Arkansas) - DLC 21.4
Nelson (Florida) - DLC 21.4
Salazar (Colorado) - DLC 21.4
Pryor (Arkansas) - DLC 17.9
Landrieu (Louisianna) - DLC 14.3
Nelson (Nebraska) - DLC 0.0

Here are the issues (14 so far this legislative session):

1. Rice confirmation (inept) 2.7
2. Gonzales confirmation (torturer) 8.3
3. Class action lawsuit bill 5.91
4. Bankruptcy bill 5.7
5. Negroponte confirmation (criminal and murderer) (0.5)
6. Cheney's Energy Bill (1.6)
7. CAFTA I (7.8)
8. CAFTA II (two votes for it (votes changed), + important issue) (7.5)
9. Election Reform (object to Ohio vote, 5 pts for speaking out, 10 for voting with a conscious) (0.6)
10. Confirmation of radical RW judges (0 pts for voting for one of the three judges, 5 pts for being one of the 7 senators in the compromise, -10 pts for voting for TWO of these judges) (8.5)
11. Firearm manufacturer immunity from legal liability (6.7)
12. Cutting Medicaid (6.7)
13. More tax cuts for the rich (9.4)
14. Roberts Confirmation (5)

The number that follows th issue is how the Democrats AS A WHOLE agree with liberal blogger types. The closer to ten, the higher the agreement.

If we're going to label certain Dems as RINOs, it would be interesting to know how they compare to actual repubs.

onenote

second.....if you would like to see how Repukes score, I have those, too. However, fo the sake of simplicity, I have not included 0%ers (those that have never voted against Bush). Sufficed to say, if a puke doesn't show up on this list, that Repukes voted 100% with Bush's agenda.

chafee 40/140 = 28.5%
snowe 30/140 = 21.4%
deWine 30/140 = 21.4%
voinovich 20/140 = 14.4%
sununu 20/140 = 14.4%
colins 20/140 = 14.4%
craig 20/140 = 14.4%
kyl 10/140 = 7.3%
mccain 10/140 = 7.3%
martinez 10/140 = 7.3%
gregg 10/140 = 7.3%
burr 10/140 = 7.3%
Murkowski 10/140 = 7.3%
frist 10/140 = 7.3%
hagel 10/140 = 7.3%

I have not given Republicans credit for abstaining like I have the Dems, so the methodology is a little different. However, including that method for pukes would only make their numbers higher than reported here.

Funny how when I posted my entire methodology with all of the scores in its own thread(many hours of work, I might add), only a couple of DUers made comment. Oh well....that is life.

Because it's when we're united that we have an opportunity to remind voters of all the issues that Democrats fight for, that often don't get through the noise of the right.

We've always been here....it's Holy Joe that gets off the reservation. Whether it's TELLING MEMBERS OF HIS OWN FUCKING PARTY to sit down and shut up about his hero, *, or wasting valuable time and energy on video-game legislation? Oy!

:thumbsup:

bankruptcy bill. Joe knew that by terminating debate he stopped the Democrats only way to stop the bankruptcy bill. Joe voted FOR cloture on debate on the bankruptcy bill to support his corporate donors. Then he voted against the bankruptcy bill to "prove" to Dems in CT that he is progressive. Lieberman is a viper!!!

Joe knows he's starting to get heat in CT over his stance on the Iraq War, so he's got to counter or at least appear to counter progressive criticism at home.

he's not appeasing anyone because of a tough race. This is how he's always voted. League of Conservation Voters & NARAL both give him 100% ratings.

But I hope it's a good race. It's unimportant to me because I don't live in Connecticut and would rather give my time & money to ousting real republicans - the ones with the "R" next to their name!

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

get rid of Zell LIEberman and replace him with a progressive dem or independent candidate

on the DOD approps?

onenote

His voting record rivaled Lieberman's. I'm glad we didn't oust him right away.

more representative of a symbolistic milestone in the Iraq debate. I don't necessarily think that Murtha's "plan" is the best....because considering how "wrong" he was about Iraq in the first place, the fact that he finally saw the light doesn't make him a hero in my book. However, the press did allow him to be the one to actually make a splash representing Democrats speaking out loud and clear that there has got to be another way than the Bush way. In other words, he brought the debate to the masses.....but please don't misunderstand....I don't wear his pic in my sig because I am "enthralled" by him as an individual....at all.

so like I said originally..which goes for Murtha as well....even a broken clock is right twice a day.

version of the Patriot Act, which was won by our side. No cloture.

And it doesn't matter how bad Iraq goes, the environment affects everyone. Even the rich and the politicians cannot dodge the effects of the environment like they can military service.

But he did vote against the Patriot Act cloture and has a 76.13% rating from Progressive Punch. It's his constant support for the war that drives me batty and will support a certain independent anti-war candidate if that candidate comes along.

He's a liberal on the environment and civil rights. He's a moderate on economic matters (he opposed all of the Bush tax cuts, but is still pro business on matters like expensing options). And he's a hawk on foreign policy.

Guess what, folks. Back when the Democratic Party was the dominant political party in this country (1932-1968), there were plenty of foreign policy hawks. The party split over Vietnam in 1968, and in 1972 the national party cast its lot with the anti-war movement and many hawks left the party and never came back. A lot of you may applaud the departure of the hawks, but the fact is that the Democratic Party has never recovered from being branded the anti-war party. We continue to be perceived as weak on national security matters -- so much so that even an unpopular president waging an unpopular war was able to win reelection against a veteran.

if I forget for a moment his support lately of Bush's war. He's a Democrat, and he's solid on some issues, but his suppport of the war DESTROYS his credibility. I'll never support him and I'll always hold him accountable for his looney position on Iraq. Someone here called him a "neodem" and I agree.

Not like you have to vote for the guy. But if we keep that seat then we have another "D" in our column. And I think Russ Feingold would love to see a senate majority. He's getting some senority and might make some major pushes in the Senate to make this country a better place.

I have to admit I sometimes let my anger cloud my judgement. As much as I don't care for Lieberman we're better off keeping a D in the column. I just have a hard time getting beyond his position on the war.

But consider this - Murtha was probably just as pro-war and even more conservative than Joe Lieberman and even he changed.

There were 109 democrats who voted for those Iraq resolutions. We just need to keep pounding away at one democrat at a time. Maybe Joe will just take more work than others. I suspect with Israel's close proximately to this mess it'll be a tough package to sell. Let's face it - Joe is for the war because of his connect to Israel and support of that country

the DU flow and not backing down. I admit I have a hard time getting past the "pro-war" stance of any of these politicians but I DO live in CT and have to vote for Lieberman or not. I would NEVER EVER EVER vote for the republican no matter if he/she were the most leftwing person on the planet because he/she would add to the republican majority body count. So, I don't know :shrug: but I appreciate your posts on this issue though my initial reaction is to bristle in kneejerk disagreement.

I try not to be a single issue voter but ending this war is so important to me (as it is to others) and I make no apologies for that.

and I will vote for Tom Carper who is high in the DLC leadership. (Biden doesn't run again on 2010 but you can bookmark my words here - I don't want Biden as my presidental candidate but would vote for him if he was the nomination)

But I vote him knowing that I'm helping out Barbara Boxer, Harry Reid, Russ Feingold (who I still hold a grudge against because of the Ashcroft/Roberts votes) and other democratic leaders who have earned my trust. Why would I punish these leaders of the democratic party who have given me hope that if they had just a little more control over the senate they might be able to make a difference in DC.

So when I pull that lever for Tom Carper I'm not really voting for him. I'm voting for Reid & Boxer - two democrats I wish represented me even though I live in lil ole Delaware.

I'm not taking away the rights of the primary. I'm just trying not to be the website where we are advocating NOT voting at all for democrats even in November simply because we don't agree on a few issues

Holy Joe has always been a big supporter of civil rights and the environment. That's why I take his comments about the defense bill seriously. He's definitely no Zell Miller, but he's also not what I want to see in a Democratic senator either. Still, give credit where credit is due.

Also, and this is one of the recurring things I've said in my meager posts on DU, please refer to it as the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, or just the Refuge! The ANWR acronym robs the Refuge of its special value. I can speak from experience -- I've been there -- and it's a truly remarkable place and worth every effort to save.

:hi::toast:

Now don't get me wrong. I am no friend of the DLC. Mr. Benchley and Mr. Wyldwolf will vouch for me on that. Nor am I a fan of Joe Lieberman. I particularly resent some of Sen. Lieberman's recent absurd comments about the War in Iraq and Democrats who oppose Bush's war policy. I also have deep philosophic conflicts with Sen. Lieberman especially on foreign policy, military spending, corporate power and issues of trade.

Nonetheless, I think his voting record reasonably qualifies him as a Democrat.

This is a comparison of interest group ratings. I compared Sen. Lieberman with Sen McCain who is highly regarded as a "moderate" Republican and Sen. Susan Collins of Maine who is regarded by many as a "liberal" pro-choice Republican and probably the most liberal Republican in the Senate.

This is courtesy of project vote smart - link:

http://www.vote-smart.org/index.htm
_____________________

2004 Senator Lieberman supported the interests of the National Abortion Reproductive Rights Action League 100 percent in 2004.

2004 Senator McCain supported the interests of the National Abortion Reproductive Rights Action League 0 percent in 2004.

2004 Senator Collins supported the interests of the National Abortion Reproductive Rights Action League 20 percent in 2004.

__________________

2003-2004 Senator Lieberman supported the interests of the American Civil Liberties Union 83 percent in 2003-2004.

2003-2004 Senator McCain supported the interests of the American Civil Liberties Union 22 percent in 2003-2004.

2003-2004 Senator Collins supported the interests of the American Civil Liberties Union 56 percent in 2003-2004.
_____________________________

2004 Senator Lieberman supported the interests of the Americans for Democratic Action 75 percent in 2004.

2004 Senator McCain supported the interests of the Americans for Democratic Action 35 percent in 2004.

2004 Senator Collins supported the interests of the Americans for Democratic Action 45 percent in 2004.
__________________________

2004 Senator Lieberman supported the interests of the AFL-CIO 83 percent in 2004.

2004 Senator McCain supported the interests of the AFL-CIO 33 percent in 2004.

2004 Senator Collins supported the interests of the AFL-CIO 50 percent in 2004.
_________________________

2004 Senator Lieberman supported the interests of the United Auto Workers 92 percent in 2004.

2004 Senator McCain supported the interests of the United Auto Workers 9 percent in 2004.

2004 Senator Collins supported the interests of the United Auto Workers 18 percent in 2004.
__________________________

2003-2004 Senator Lieberman supported the interests of the National Education Association 88 percent in 2003-2004.

2003-2004 Senator McCain supported the interests of the National Education Association 35 percent in 2003-2004.

2003-2004 Senator Collins supported the interests of the National Education Association 55 percent in 2003-2004.
______________________

2003-2004 Senator Lieberman supported the interests of the Human Rights Campaign 88 percent in 2003-2004.

2003-2004 Senator McCain supported the interests of the Human Rights Campaign 25 percent in 2003-2004.

2003-2004 Senator Collins supported the interests of the Human Rights Campaign 88 percent in 2003-2004.
_____________________________________

2001-2002 Senator Lieberman supported the interests of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People 94 percent in 2001-2002.(for some reason 2003-2004 was not available for Sen Lieberman)

2003-2004 Senator McCain supported the interests of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People 15 percent in 2003-2004.

2003-2004 Senator Collins supported the interests of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People 42 percent in 2003-2004
___________________

2003-2004 Senator Lieberman supported the interests of the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights 95 percent in 2003-2004.

2003-2004 Senator McCain supported the interests of the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights 14 percent in 2003-2004.

2003-2004 Senator Collins supported the interests of the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights 32 percent in 2003-2004.
_____________________________

2004 Senator Lieberman supported the interests of the Arab American Institute 50 percent in 2004

2004 Senator McCain supported the interests of the Arab American Institute 0 percent in 2004.

2004 Senator Collins supported the interests of the Arab American Institute 40 percent in 2004.
__________________________


2004 Senator Lieberman supported the interests of the Family Research Council 0 percent in 2004.

2004 Senator McCain supported the interests of the Family Research Council 67 percent in 2004.

2004 Senator Collins supported the interests of the Family Research Council 17 percent in 2004.
____________________________

2004 Senator Lieberman supported the interests of the Christian Coalition 0 percent in 2004.

2004 Senator McCain supported the interests of the Christian Coalition 83 percent in 2004.

2004 Senator Collins supported the interests of the Christian Coalition 66 percent in 2004
_____________________________

2004 Senator Lieberman supported the interests of the American Conservative Union 0 percent in 2004

2004 Senator McCain supported the interests of the American Conservative Union 72 percent in 2004.

2004 Senator Collins supported the interests of the American Conservative Union 68 percent in 2004.

People don't get it - he's a democrat and he's more democrat then what they'll give credit for. That's amazing research you've done and you should start your own thread with it. Let their heads explode over that one expecially the "I Love McCain" people here at DU who haven't grasped the concept that McCain is much more conservative that Lieberman!

Edit Note:

I don't think that you or I are here in support of the DLC. I guess my basic mantra is simple:

Primaries: Fight to get rid of bad democrats
General Election: Fight to get rid of republicans

Republican & Democrat titles aren't decided based our our own judgement of what is good & bad in DC. It's decided because the candidate made a pledge and agreed to have that name stuck next to them.

Since we do not have proportional representation in America like most of Europe has and we NEVER will -- primaries and caucuses are our opportunity to promote the most progressive candidates and agenda. But when people say, "I will NEVER vote for so and so even in a general election" I think they should keep in mind that their pure and unblemished principles are hurting the country. There is nothing high principled about that.

:yourock:

:toast: to you. I love it when DU-ers think outside the "DU Box!"

...a deluded, rightwing corporatist Democrat, but yes, still a registered Dem.

But then, so was Zell Miller (though I concede he was far worse than Lieberman).