Any good things to say about Holy Joe?

[Dr Fate]

On EDIT: I changed my thread title (neat new trick- huh?)

Well, he said this:

“The Court did the right thing in overturning a law that is invasive, unfair, and un-American. Americans don’t lose their right to privacy just because they are gay or lesbian,” said Lieberman. “The Texas sodomy law was an expression of intolerance, an affront to gay Americans, and an insult to the better values of our nation. By striking it down, the Court moved us a step closer to giving gays and lesbians a full, fair place in our society. And it reminded us of the vital importance of appointing justices who will respect and protect the rights of all Americans.”

http://www.txtriangle.com/archive/1139/topstories.htm

Any other good things to say about Holy Joe?

ON EDIT: Could you provide a link as well? Thanks!

[pmbryant]

1. His is fabulous on environmental issues

:thumbsup:

--Peter

[Dr Fate]

6. really? Do you have an example?

I dont doubt it- but do you have a good example?

[pmbryant]

13. Just about any

His ratings from the League of Conservations Voters (www.lcv.org):

107th Congress (2001-2002): 88%
106th Congress (1999-2000): 94%
105th Congress (1997-1998): 100%

In particular, he is very good on energy issues and clean water recently, looking at the LCV scorecard. But his environmental record is so good that it is hardly confined to a small number of issues.

--Peter

[phillybri]

2. He's asking tough questions about 9/11....

Outside of that, I'm at a loss....

Oooooh, he not George W. Bush. At least I don't think he is.

[blm]

3. His environmental record is the

third best in the race. He's just behind Kerry and Kucinich.

[mdmc]

4. People know who he is

and that he is running for President.

[KamaAina]

5. He's from Connecticut.

Where I grew up.

And, he's not Bush*!

[dsc]

7. He is terrific

on a whole host of issues that people here supposedly care about. He gets nearly 100 ratings from civil rights, women's rights, gay and lesbian rights, and enviromental groups. His overtly religious nature actually makes his support of both gay and lesbian rights and abortion much more important as he helps put the lie to the idea that religious people must be on the other side of those issues.

[blm]

16. That's a great point.

.

[TheBigGuy]

42. That point about religion and gays is good.

"His overtly religious nature actually makes his support of both gay and lesbian rights and abortion much more important as he helps put the lie to the idea that religious people must be on the other side of those issues."

This is a very good observation!

[Orangepeel]

8. He has an excellent voting record

on reproductive rights, civil rights, and senior issues. He has a good record on environmental issues, gay and lesbian rights and labor issues.

[karlschneider]

9. He just said this morning he fully supports Chimpy's Iraqi invasion.

Oh, wait...you said GOOD things.

I can't think of any.
Fuck Holy Joe.
:grr:

[Dr Fate]

11. Yeah- I disagree with him on that issue...

But other posters did have some good points- do you have any rebutal besides "Fuck Holy Joe" for those issues they brought up?

[karlschneider]

23. No, I just don't like him in general. I did vote for him and

would again IF he were nominated to run against the idiot chimp...

[Dr Fate]

25. Okay- thanks...

..sorry for getting cross, I'm just trying to keep the thread informative- I'm no big fan either, really, but he is a Democrat and I'm not for tearing him down without evidence that he is "corrupt" or whatever...

[quinnox]

10. As others have said, he is excellent on the

environment. Also, I have to admit he strikes me as a very intelligent individual.

[sangh0]

12. He's not Bush*

.

[JCMach1]

70. Beat me to it!!!!

:)

[plurality]

14. he does an excellent rendition of Kermit the Frog

n/t

[Dr Fate]

15. Yeah- and Kerry has "funny" hair!

Yuk! Yuk!

[TheBigGuy]

44. Kerry DOES have funy hair...

and Kucinch looks like Dondi-meets-garden-gnome.

[LondonReign2]

17. I've said it before...

..he appears to still have his own hair.

That's about it.

[Dr Fate]

18. But do you agree with him on these issues brought up in this thread?

Or do you have a rebutal for those posts?

[Jack The Tab]

19. I had no idea about his environmental record..

But the man's blind obedience to Rumsfeld and Bush on this insane world vision of theirs is absolutely unacceptable, and he will only get my vote because I have to get Bush out of office.

[GOPBasher]

20. I love all of his domestic policy.

It's just his foreign policy that scares me away. I'd still vote for him is he got the nomination.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

21. He's helped unite the left

against he and his fellow Bush collaborators the DLC wants us to vote for.

Other than that..??? Gimme a minute...I know there must be something...hmmmmm...I'll get back to you on that.

[Pastiche423]

22. He looked lovely in his Rose Garden photo

[Dr Fate]

24. But what about Lieberman on the ISSUES?

The ones mentioned on this thread- if we are to tear the man down, lets do it with the facts...

DU can be about hard politics when we try- commom- play along here...

[Pastiche423]

26. The title you created for this thread

asked: Any good things to say about Holy Joe?

So, as to not nasty up this thread, I said the only good thing I could about him.

This is not a thread to say bad things about him, right?

[Dr Fate]

40. No, as long as you back it up...

...I dont mind criticisms of DEMS- but just try and post a link so we can judge for ourselves..

[Pastiche423]

46. Why would I need a link

when a picture is worth a thousand words?

[Dr Fate]

48. right- so no comment on his stances...

...on the various issues brought up in this thread. Good enough- I guess I have no reason to support him after that articulate deconstruction of his voting record.

[Pastiche423]

52. I don't care if you vote for him or not

But there's no way in hell I ever will.

His "stances" have been brought up here time and time again. IMHO, his "good" stances will never outweigh his "bad".

[Dr Fate]

53. Cool-vote for the "alternative" who has done more...

...and is guranteed to do more for the environment, civil rights, etc- whoever this phantom candidate may be.

[Dr Fate]

54. Pastiche-Your favorite pic of Holy Joe:

"Holy Joe-about to engage in fisticuffs with Dubya!!!"

[Pastiche423]

58. Why are you egging me on?

I thought you wanted this thread to be about "good" holy joe shit.

[TankLV]

74. At best - he's a conndrum (spelling?) and a paradox.

Not my first or 30th choice.

But he does say some remarkable intelligent things to offset his previous stupid things.

And, as you and others have pointed out, his record belies (is that the word) what I initially, knee-jerk, gut reaction have to him.

It gives me reason to pause and think about it.

Still prefer most of the others except the 2 weiner boys, Gebhardt, Bidden (and Daschle - OK, make that 3), but...

[dolstein]

27. Well, for starters . . . .

Over his 14 years in the U.S. Senate, he has compiled an impressive voting record on environmental legislation, civil rights legislation, abortion related legislation, consumer legislation and legislation of interest to organized labor. Sure, there are some votes DU'ers may disagree with here and there, but if you actually look at how liberal interest groups rate Lieberman, you'll find that he consistently gets high marks. Surely the League of Conservation Voters, NARAL, NAACP, the Human Rights Campaign, and the AFL-CIO can't all be wrong about this guy.

Second, Lieberman, despite his liberal voting record, is PERCEIVED as a moderate and relatively nonpartisan. I think this gives his criticisms of Bush (and don't kid yourself, he's criticized Bush plenty over the past few years, particularly on his economic and environmental policies and his social agenda) far greater weight among moderates and independents than Dean. Sure, Dean might talk louder than Lieberman, he might use harsher language, but voters outside of Dean's core base are much more likely to discount this remarks as coming from a partisan liberal Democrat. I think that given Lieberman's reputation, he's better positioned that a more liberal candidate is to make the case as to why Bush needs to be replaced.

Third, Lieberman's religious faith is a plus. For far too long, the Republican Party has portrayed itself as the party of God and morality, and the Democrats have allowed the Republicans to get away with it. Lieberman is far better positioned than other candidates to make the case for why it is the Democratic agenda that best reflects America's moral values.

Fourth, Lieberman commitment to civil rights goes back 40 years. He's the only candidate who marched on Washington with Martin Luther King in 1963. He's the only candidate who registered blacks to vote in the South in the mid-60's (and believe me, the South at the time wasn't a safe place for Jewish civil rights workers). His commitment to gay rights goes back to at least the 1970's, when he worked to push gay rights legislation through the Connecticut state senate. Whatever you may think about Lieberman, it's hard to question his commitment to civil rights and gay rights.

[ilpostino]

29. Thanks

Very nicely done...makes it easier for me to keep him in the 4th spot in my batting order.

[loyalsister]

35. Joe's right

as in correct, on most things. I'm not as hard core of a Joe hater as others, I don't think.
I disagree about his religious faith. I think if he told us he was devout in his observance, then that was the end of it I would be more comfortable. But the religion\morality stuff NEVER stops! His projects for the moral reform of the U.S. never stop either. He seems to have all the answers when it comes to morality. It's very distasteful to me.
I agree with him on most issues, however he gives the benefit of the doubt to people with religious inclinations all too often. The idea that religion must be injected into social services for them to be reformed adequately, and for those of us who are on the receiving end of this and feel no need for religion, it is condescending and offensive.
So, my objections are mostly personal, however that overmoralizing personality always concerns me when the decisions require an ability to step back and evaluate things with some objectivity. All in all I think he's decent guy but not the right guy for the presidency. ALTHOUGH he very much IS, much much more the right guy for the job than Bush!!!!!

[TheBigGuy]

47. time to seriously consider Lieberman.

Good post Dolstein. I am going to seriously consider Lieberman if he should sill be on the ballot in time for the Ohio primary.

[KG]

28. he would never wear brown shoes with a blue suit.

or blue shoes with a brown suit.

[plurality]

30. The problem is

there are plenty who have records similar to his on civil rights, environment, and choice, but few who have had such a blatant disregard for civil liberties, which to me, especially in this time are bar none the most important issues.

Instances:
-Sponsored PATRIOT Act
-McCartheyesque outting of 'unpatriotic' professors
-support of Stasi flashback Operation TIPS
-desire to legislate morals

He can work to create a world where the environment is clean, abortions are plentiful, and blacks/gays/latinos are all equal, but it won't mean shit to me if I'm in a fucking gulag because I don't think in his accepted way. In fact if that's the way the world is going to be, I'd prefer Bush's version because it doesn't try to hide the fact that it'd be hell.

[dsc]

39. Just how many times

does one have to post the facts on the American Council of Trustees and Alumni before people will stop falsely saying that Lieberman "outted liberal professors" and other such crap? Sadly all of my threads and the original source (itself a DU1 thread) are unavailable at this time. But as posted and backed up several times (3 by me and at least 1 other) is the following.

Lieberman was on the board of an orginization with Lyne Cheney and several other people that was supposed to encourage academic freedom. When in the aftermath of 9/11 it instead started blacklisting liberal professors Lieberman quit (12/20/01). In short, you are 180 degrees wrong on this. He did the exact and precise opposite of what you proport him to have done. You have every right to hate Lieberman or love him or whatever. But please get your facts straight.

[mdmc]

43. let me try in du terms

He got into bed with a bunch of assholes, and then got fucked. And he regrets it.

[dsc]

49. That doesn't give people licence to tell stories they like

By those standards every Democratic Senator who voted for stem cell research should be able to be associated with Thurmond until the end of time (he was the one of the first conservative Republicans to vote for that). The fact Lyne Cheney was supporting academic freedom doesn't make academic freedom bad. If she happens to stumble on the cure for cancer are we not to take it since she discovered it? There are losts of words to describe the notion that Lieberman was black listing liberals. None of those words are synanyms of honest.

[plurality]

50. what about his other unfriendly to liberty stances?

Did he change his mind about encouraging Americans to turn informer on each other? Has he decided that maybe he shouldn't have sponsored the PATRIOT Act? Has he decided that people do have the right to 'be free from religion.'? Has he decided that freedom of speech actually means that people can make whatever movies/video games/music they want to regardless of whether some might find it offensive? So maybe he didn't want in on that, but he still has plenty of other stances that prove to me that he thinks he knows what the right type of American thinks and he's going to legislate it so that everyone become 'his' type of American, still unacceptable.

[dsc]

55. The fact you disagree with him

and on the list you supplied I do too, doesn't give you the right to make up stories about him. The fact he did those other things is irrelevant as to whether he did this. That, and only that, is what I said.

[veganwitch]

56. I didn't make up a story about him

Your debunking of that I missed and whatever source you used for it must have been obscure because I never saw it, yet the publication of the group he was a part of and it's intentions with his name on it was widely reported. Why didn't he publicly renounce the group and it's tactic when they came out. I notice you say he quit that group in December of 2001 when this group decided it was going to 'out' liberal professors in mid-September. Why'd it take him so long to quit if this was so repugnant to him? I never made up any stories, I posted the facts as I knew them, you refuted (sort of) one of those facts, the others still give me ample reason to think that personal freedoms (the things that make this country great mind you) are not his biggest priority. Which I believe makes my priority of not voting for him perfectly valid.

[plurality]

57. damnit, my girlfriend forgot to log off

the previous post should be from me.

[dsc]

59. The first list of this came out

on Dec 15, 2001. It did include comments from earlier of course but it was reelased on that date. It took him five days.

[plurality]

61. I remeber getting a memo about this in my poli sci class

and it was within weeks of 9/11.

[dsc]

64. December 15

is 64 days after 9/11 or some 9 weeks later. You need to be more specific. That is within weeks. The report I saw contained several quotes from mid to late November. Unless they were psychics it is unlikely it was authored before then.

[plurality]

67. ok

I'll accept that, I'm not certain of the exact date so I'll buy that, and if he disavowed the group then I'll give him that. But I'd still have to hear about how I'm wrong on those other issues before I could vote for him. I like to base my votes on facts so if I'm wrong about those issues I could vote for him, but from what I've seen in the media without anything to tell me other wise he is currently unacceptible in the civil liberties arena.

[dsc]

72. I never said you were

and in point of fact I think I said I agreed with you (but my system is so poorly attuned to DU2 I may not have said that to the correct post). If I didn't before I will say it now. On many if not all of those other things you are likely right (I can't see them now so I don't remember what they are). Of course you can vote for whomever you like. I just a tired of seeing the same old story time and again after debunking it. That was my only point.

[Orangepeel]

60. Lieberman's name was NOT on that report

It was written by two people who worked for that foundation. Lynn Cheney wrote the forward for it. His name appeared no where on that report. After the report came out, he did renounce the group and asked that it stop listing his name as a member.

Why didn't you ever see this renunciation? I don't know. Perhaps because it wasn't widely reported in the media. I am an academic, so I took particular notice of the events as they were happening.

Dsc is exactly right. There is plenty of things to disagree with Lieberman about, but this isn't one of them. He did the right thing here.

[plurality]

62. yes it was

Because when my poli sci professor passed out the report in class I saw his named on it. It was at that time that I realized I needed to seriously reconsider everything I had previously thought about the man, and since then he's only made a bad impression worse.

[Orangepeel]

65. It wasn't on the pdf file posted on the Internet

perhaps the organization removed his name before they posted it.

[plurality]

68. it could be

But it was definitely on the memo given to college professors at my school, one of whom rightly passed it on to his students.

[wellstone_democrat]

63. lucky you,

obviously you didn't get inquired about did you? I did.

When Lynne Cheney and her ilk start a group touting "excellence" in education, anyone over the age of 15 who follows conservative rhetoric over the past 20 years ought to see the coding immediately.

But, gee whiz, I've sure enjoyed the parsing of when Lieberman finally disavowed membership and how he must have thought it was all actually about simply quality education.

[dsc]

66. That group ran for 6

count them not 1, not 2, not 3, not 4, not 5, but count them 6 years without doing this. Now oh swami you tell me how is one to know that 6 years later some planes are going to run into a building and people would go nuts. For the record this group was founded in 1995.

[wellstone_democrat]

69. And no one knew what LC and and concerned Alumni

who would become involved with her various "educational reform" schemes would be looking at in terms of "excellence?"

Sorry, I don't buy it. I don't think Lieberman is the anti-Christ of America or of the Democratic party but I do think that it wasn't terribly hard to figure out what sorts of things comprised the Cheney view of "excellence." I was in grad school when this first was reported in the Chronicle of Higher Ed (the NYT of the Univ set) and despite its bland reportage no one I knew was confused about their aims.
on edit (fast enter finger!) that September 11th or the Bush presidency gave them the moment to fully unleash their venom is not as germane as who the organizer was, what her previous activities were and that they formed during those "bad old standardless Clinton years" (not a quote, punctuation for emphasis and parody of conservative laments on the Clinton years.)

I lived through their purposelessly destructive troll through my life. We will have to agree to disagree on this one. I've done my research on this group and so has my attorney. I'm not reliving it past this point for anyone.

[dsc]

73. fair enough

and I am sorry for the swami comment.

[gottaB]

75. boy, that took some digging

December 18, 2001

Jerry Martin
President
American Council of Trustees and Alumni
1726 M Street NW, Suite 800
Washington, DC 20036-4525

Dear Jerry:

I am writing in regards to the Council's recent report, Defending Civilization: How Our Universities Are Failing America and What Can Be Done About It.

In the past, the Council has often sent me advanced copies of its publications before they have been released and asked for my support. In this case, though, I was never given the opportunity to review the Defending Civilization report before it was made public. I first learned of it through a call to my office from a reporter in Connecticut about a controversy the report had stirred at Wesleyan University.

If I had been given an advanced copy, I would have objected to its content and methodology and asked you either to revise it or make clear that I had no involvement with it. But because that did not happen, and because I have been incorrectly listed on your website as a co-founder of the Council, a number of news accounts and commentaries have associated me with the report and incorrectly asserted or implied that I endorse it.

This letter is meant to set the record straight about my disapproval of this report, which I consider unfair and inconsistent for an organization devoted to promoting academic freedom. To avoid any future confusion, I would ask you to remove any reference to me as a "co-founder" of ACTA from your website or other Council documents. And I would ask thatyou note in any future public statements that I do not support this specific report. Thank you.

Joe Lieberman


Joe's support of this group remains an issue for me. Sets of question:

• Is he sincere? Is he factual?
  
• What was he thinking when he got involved with this crew? Is he a poor judge of character? Does he not see how his moralistic approach to issues has this kind of danger? Is he politically naive?
  
• What took him so long? Why were he aides in the initial days of the controversy insisting that he generally agreed with the group and its aims?
  
• Does this disavowal fit a pattern, one that can be seen in his campaign-trail statements on Homeland Security or PATRIOT? What are the implications?
  
• How many times will he ask us to trust government and give it sweeping authorities, only to find that the public trust has been betrayed, that government and paragovernmnetal overseers cannot be trusted with our freedoms. Who's betraying whom here?

I actually like Joe, I think he's a nice guy and his nice-guy political style appeals to me. And in some ways, taking his time to come to the right conclusions is a good thing. However, the gentleman from Connecticut needs to wake up to the wisdom that even when he does not see enemies among his colleagues, the people he represents do have enemies in Washington.

[dsc]

78. thanks for finding that

Most of your questions are better directed toward him than to us here at DU. The only one I will even try is why it took some time. He probably, after reading false press accounts of the Gore/Lieberman race on a daily basis had a healthy distrust for anything a reporter said or did.

[ilpostino]

31. TNR

Aside from it being totally elitist in approach, TNR provides a very interesting, very un-DU-like take on the candidates. Here's today's grade of Lieberman by John Judis (co-author, BTW, of the most extensive and damning reporting job thus far on the Bushies dissembling on Iraq)
ON TRACK
by John B. Judis

Candidate: Joe Lieberman
Category: Foreign Policy
Grade: B

Senator Joe Lieberman's editorial statement, "Getting Back on Track in Postwar Iraq," gets the Democratic presidential candidates back into the debate over foreign policy, where they should have been all along. Most of what Lieberman proposes makes sense: Given the unalterable fact of an American invasion, the United States has an obligation to rebuild Iraq's economy and political structure. But as Lieberman notes, it can't do it alone. Lieberman wants to cede responsibilities for the occupation to NATO (I'd give them to a larger force that includes some of Iraq's Arab neighbors); and he wants to put Iraq's oil industry under a genuinely independent transitional authority. Anything less is folly, greed, and hubris. Where Lieberman remains disingenuous is in his continued defense of the invasion itself. Granted a case for invasion might be made, but not so obviously on grounds that it was "necessary to protect our security."

posted 10:49 a.m.
(go to New Republic Online for more)

[killbotfactory]

32. He agrees with Dean on how to rebuild Iraq

see this thread for info

[robbedvoter]

33. FERC invesrigation into Enron-Cali price gauging - his

credit. He started it when Dems were in the minority, but with Jeffords switching, it came to pass - and probably saved California from total bankrtuptcy.
Also, on the censorship of colledge professors (the Lynne Chenney thingy), he sent The Nation a letter dissassociating himself from that particular initiative. It seems little known since the censorship accusation is still peddled here richly.

[IndianaGreen]

34. Lieberman has a good record on gay and women's rights

I dislike his moral crusades of censorship that he embarked with that "virtuous" idiot, Bill Bennett.

His position on the Iraq war, while I disagree strongly with him, I have to give him credit for not WAFFLING on the issue as Senatory Kerry is fond of doing. It is because of that, that I respect Lieberman despite my opposition to his views.

[Pepperbelly]

36. He was a Freedom Rider in the days ...

when that could end up getting you killed. As a Southernor, he has my sincere and undying gratitude for that selfless, altruistic, moral and courageous act. Thank you, Joe.

What the fuck happened to you?

edited for a stupid typo

[mdmc]

45. kick

:dem:

[sendero]

37. Ok, OK!

Ok, he's not THAT bad :)

He sure would not be my first, second or even third choice for the nom, but make no mistake - if he gets it I'm voting with a smile !!!

[WindRavenX]

77. Yeah, he really isn't

...I'm not a big fan of his because of he uses religion every_damn_time he opens his mouth and because of his crusade against video game violence, but if he wins the Dem nominee, I'm voting for him without a doubt.
I just think he doesn't have a great chance at winning the election...country is still pretty anti-semetic :(

[CMT]

38. his record is generally liberal

85% liberal according to the latest ADA scores.

[Iverson]

41. grassroots appeal

His grassroots support here on DU, as measured by the presidential preference poll, is currently eclipsing both Carolyn Moseley-Braun's and Al Sharpton's.

[Dr Fate]

51. you can say good things about Gephardt here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=4401&mesg_id=4401&page=

[robbedvoter]

71. If Biden enters the race, Joe will look real good!

(There's a rumor going about Biden)

[fabius]

76. Good things about Joe

As compared to Bush he looks damn good.

Better name. (Can anybody imagine King Joe?)
Smarter.
More Honest.
Won't embarrass US in front of the world.

OK I've got a couple of candidates I prefer, but I'll take what I can get.

[MaverickX]

79. I'm a Lieberman supporter..

The best thing about him is his domestic issues and lack of hypocrisy on foreign policy. Other Dems say we have no business sending troops in for internal Iraqi political issues(Saddam's genocide against his people) yet supported sending troops to Kosovo to stop ethnic cleansing. I think it's silly for anyone to say we have no moral obligation to stop genocide and Lieberman believes we have this moral obligation.