Lieberman gets perfect score from the ACLU...

way to go chuck and Hillary! Even with their seats locked up, they can't rep NY half as decent as moynahan.

isnt as liberal as you would think. he was a great senator and person, but he also advocated welfare reform, privatization of social security.

Senators Clinton and Schumer have done a great job IMO. although i dont agree with their positions on numbers 2&4, i do agree that raves should be banned, just not by the federal government. I think that is a matter for the states to handle. Raves can be extremely dangerous, are often held in places with inadequate if any sprinkler/fire detection equipment. can be dangerously overcrowded.


also i dont believe that 4 bills they voted on is an adequate representation of how liberal a representative is. It is a too small sample of their voting records.


peace
david

:hippie:

to make a phish show illegal. Moynihan was an intellectual, and represented NY well. Chuck and Hill are the epitome of 5th Ave Democrats; they are either the greatest, or are fake. The more I am represented by Hillary, the more I understand why she is so disliked.

do you have a link to the actual anti rave bill? i would like to see the full wording for myself. but from what i had heard, that would not be the case (anti phish)

peace
david
:hippie:

Didn't Moynihan work in the Nixon Administration?

He's a pro-Israel hawk, but on the whole, Joe is fairly progressive. Lord knows he'd be a VAST improvement over the current squatter in the People's House!

why most DUers are unwilling to admit how progressive he is on so many issues?

During his civil rights activism in the 1960's, Jews were very much at the forefront of the struggles: many Jews were murdered while trying to secure equal rights for African Americans.

Could it be the one issue, his support of Israel, that engenders such strong negativity toward him on DU? <rhetorical question>

but he needs to look after the arabs too.

I dont like his views on censorship and all, yes I am a gamer. He would be much better than Bush, I must say but I dont like him.

He doesn't thrill me, like some do, but I won't join in the "Bash JL at every opportunity" crowd; he's just simply NOT that bad of a guy, and would make a very capable, progressive President.

n/t

but I suspect it's mainly his hawkishness over Iraq that's got everyone's underwear knotted.

His environmental record is actually one of the better ones in a piss-poor Senate, and he's done a lot of work for low-income housing and small business promotion.

I haven't looked all that deeply into his record or positions on a lot of things, but it looks like I agree with him on maybe half of the important stuff.

Which makes him a lot better than the current occupant with whom I agree with just about nothing.

I strongly disagree with him on some issues more than I strongly disagree with most of the other candidates, but I'd still vote for him over the resident imposter, and hope for the best.

I dislike him intensly 'cause of his policies, such as threats of
government censorship if hollywood doesn't toe the line.
And his back stabbing of Gore even during the recount ordeal.
And his sanctimonious self righteous rhetoric...to come full circle
back to rhetorical questions.

PATRIOT did away with the Bill of Rights. What do you call that? Progressive Stalinism?

Nothing. Once upon a time, progressive were willing to stand up to tyranny around the globe.

lol

are Russ Feingold and Tom Harkin

Ted Kennedy do.

To get a better idea of civil liberties records check the votes from other years too. Russ Feingold is the best defender of civil liberties in the entire Senate, and Tom Harkin's record overall is also good. Also good: Barbara Boxer, Richard Durbin, Paul Sarbanes, Barbara Mikulski, Ted Kennedy, Carl Levin, Debbie Stabenow, Mark Dayton, Jon Corzine, Ron Wyden, Jim Jeffords, and Herbert Kohl.

Lieberman's record is more mixed: 40% in the 107th Senate, 57% in the 106th, 71% in the 105th.

John McCain defenders should take note that his ACLU ratings have been the absolute worst in the entire Senate: 14% in the 105th, 0% in the 106th, 0% in the 107th, 25% so far in the 108th. He was the only Senator to get a 0% rating in both the 106th and 107th Senates.

Feingold has so much integrity that he actually puts that over strategery...amazing guy!

True?

There are others who get a big zero from Iraq...we all know who they are.

Why did so many Republicans vote for the 4th one? I suspect that there were other factors contributing to why so many Democrats voted against it.

If the ACLU says to vote a certain way, it's the right way on every issues but Campaign Finance Reform. And while I despise most Republicans, it's unarguable that a broken clock is right 2 times a day.

"On July 16, 2003 the Senate rejected by 52-42 a measure to make public the names of persons detained at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba and provide for updated reporting on when and whether they would be charged or sent back to their home countries. The ACLU supported the amendment because it would have provided the public with additional oversight on the war on terrorism -- and therefore opposed the vote to table the motion."

I don't know why the Hell it got Republican support and Democratic opposition: It makes perfect sense.

The ACLU supported the amendment because it would have provided the public with additional oversight on the war on terrorism -- and therefore opposed the vote to table the motion.

https://ssl.capwiz.com/aclu/issues/votes/?chamber=S&congress=1081&votenum=279

So a yea vote on 279 was essentially a vote to not reveal the Guantanamo information.

nt

I was being sarcastic about this topic.