While sometimes the comments on some of these posts can get out of hand, occasionally they bring up good points. The debate last night featured a question about whether the campaign ads were 100% truthful or not. The reality is that campaign ads are not the best place to find objective "truthiness". So there are non partisan web sites out there that do a decent job on outlining the record of Joe Lieberman. The Lamont campaign will be surprised to find out that Senator Lieberman is a Moderate Liberal. Not that much different than Libertarian-Leaning Liberal Senator Dodd. Slightly more Libertarian than Populist-Leaning LiberalNed Lamont. And surprisingly about the same as Alan Schlesinger. It seems Mr. Schlesinger is one of those RINO's you keep hearing about.
In congress we have the Moderate Libertarian Liberal Chris Shays and the Moderate Libertarian Rob Simmons and the Moderate Libertarian Conservative Nancy Johnson along with the Populist-Leaning Liberals Rosa Delauro and John Larson. It's too bad that the congressional challengers weren't profiled. Perhaps that is something we should pursue as post election project.
Connecticut as a whole On the Issues. Great site, and be sure to check out the quiz to rate your political leanings here.
Update Wrong link above. Try this one
25 comments:
Slightly more Libertarian than Populist-Leaning LiberalNed Lamont.
Even if you accept the premise, which for reasons that I have repeatedly outlined I do not, "slightly more libertarian" went out the window when he voted for the End of Habeas Corpus and American Justice As We Knew It bill.
American justice has ended??? Why didn't anyone tell me? Are the secret police coming to get me???
Your assumptions are simply fabulism at its most creative.
You are using a bogus Libertarian metric that was developed specifically to convince independent voters who were disaffected Liberals and Democrats to split ranks - LINOs who eventually blindly vote Republican.
Now that Libertarianism has been tried in Iraq and Ann Coulter has decided to stay here instead one can only hope the Libertarian gambit is over.
The other metrics being applied to the "Liberalness" of candidates is also wholesale fraud. Counting votes on inconsequential bills that address issues in platitude only hardly constitute a liberal politician.
the sooner we stop pretending Lieberman and Simmons are anything more than self-serving neocons, the better.
Haha. Lieberman a libertarian? Since when are censorship and the end to habeas corpus libertarian values?
What definition of libertarian are you using to put Dodd, Shays, Simmons and Johnson even remotely into that category?
Only one of all those mentioned in this diary is still promoting the idea of preemptive war Turfy.
That would be Joe Lieberman.Of course his own kids are way to important to wear a US military uniform and fight them.
Brilliant diary TG. You ever thought about getting a paid gig?
Who cares who coined the phrase? It doesn't make it less laughable to call Joe Lieberman more libertarian than someone who would have voted against the Habeas Corpus Destruction Act...
The analysis offered by turfgrrl is sort of weird. Because the first thing is that Lieberman isn't libertarian. He is just less populist than Lamont. Lieberman is a centrist in every way and labeling him as more libertarian than Lamont isn't inaccurate, as much as it is a misreading of the On The Issues chart.
I find these charts to be a totally fascinating and informative tool. But they shouldn't be used: A) as a sole source for a broad reaching claim B) with total confidence in their objectivity, given that such categories are inherently determined by some form of subjectivity
But sure in some weird and irrelevent way, Lieberman is more libertarian than Lamont. But Lamont is a big time populist, which is why he won the primary and has a lot of grass roots support. The extent of Lamont's populism should be the criteria for a discussion of Lieberman's centrism, not Lieberman's libertarian leanings.
In what fantasyland is Lieberman a centrist?
Lieberman has defined much of his career as being an orthodox holy roller who is libertarian enough to swear at his competitor while running fraudulent ads of his own. In which case, Lieberman is central to the religious fundamentalists who at their most righteous are will ing to kill doctors to save fetuses and at their most corrupt launder money for political purposes. Okay, fair.
In recent years, he claims his Vichy Democrat collaborations with the Bush administration represent bi-partisanism. Yet there is not a single example of Lieberman successfully introducing a Democratic piece of legislation that the Republicans gave even the slightest consideration to.
On the other hand, Lieberman's passive compliance to and eager promotion of the Bush agenda scuttled any unified Democratic party resistance in the Senate. This isn't centrist. And citizens of Connecticut can attest to the fact that it isn't even profitable unless you're a Lieberman.
So exactly what desirable political center does Lieberman represent to you ...the wholesale submittal of the Connecticut Democrats to neocon militaristic visions of Mideast democracy?
And when did the adoption of torture and the elimination of Habeas Corpus become family values?
Lieberman is a centrist in hell occupying the space btween the 4th and 5th rings.
Scorecards are marginally useful as a starting point of discussion, but if they indicate (along with Alan Schlessinger, Turfgrrl and other persons of dubious perspicacity) that Lieberman is thisclose to Chris Dodd, a serious thinker on foreign policy who spoke out eloquently against that repulsive torture bill that Lieberman voted for, that just underlines the limits of their usefulness.
But if y'all are waiting for some substantial analysis from teh Turfmonster, I hope you brought a sandwich, maybe one of those campchairs, 'cause it's gonna be a while. I've been trying to get her to answer a rather simple question for the better part of three months.
Anonymous,
First off, being a centrist doesn't prohibit being corrupt and lying.
Secondly, abortion as an issue doesn't preclude other progressive stances.
And third, I'm all for Lamont being a populist progressive, and I think it is exactly what the Democratic party needs.
If you think centrism is synomous with ethicality or being a good leader, you should go look up your ass for a dictionary.
I blame the Bush administration for pushing the bill in the first place. That's why supporting McCaskill and Ford are more strategically important to the checks and balances of the Senate than what happens in the senate race in CT.
Joe Lieberman voted for the bill. Joe Lieberman is the leader of the "moderates" in the Democratic caucus. His wholly undeserved stature with the Beltway media establishment gives cover to weasels like Salzar and Pryor, to say nothing of Republican "moderates" like Specter and Snowe. Again, what part of this don't you get?
Lieberman is the ANTI-libertarian; you can't support the most pro-goverment administration in history, undo 200 years of Constitutional protections, and be expected to be called a libertarian. (Maybe a Liebertarian, but not a libertarian, perhaps the close spelling threw you off; you know, Genghis Conn is a librarian, maybe that means he's libertarian, too).
Seriously though, turfgrrl, I honestly don't see where you're getting some of this stuff sometimes, except from your own unwavering support for Lieberman.
Your point about the Senate races is much more reasonable, on the other hand - but I still disagree. If Lieberman wins and stays a Democrat, he will constantly attempt to pull the party in Bush's direction (something the party has done far too much of in the last five years); if Lieberman wins and switches to Republican, then CT Democrats will be in the position of having lost the Senate for the entire national party. Either way, a Lieberman victory would be terrible for moderation, let alone progressivism; after all, if the past six years have taught us anything, we clearly need someone constantly challenging the Bush administration just to yank them away from pure neo-con extremism, let alone get them to a moderate position. That person is not Joe Lieberman.
On the election analysis, Lamont will win CT before Ford wins TN. In fact, Webb will win VA, McCaskill win win MO, and even Pederson will win AZ before Ford wins TN. Tennessee is the real uphill battle for those who understand all the different regions of the political landscape, and despite the fact that Harold Ford Jr. is an outstanding candidate who has run a flawless campaign, Tennessee is most likely to be the disappointment on election night for those wanting Democratic control of the Senate, and Connecticut is most likely to be the most pleasant surprise. The fact that people are going around predicting that Democrats have a better shot winning in Tennessee than in Connecicut is utterly divorced from political reality.
Thank you Turfgrrl for a posting that, with the comments above, makes an air-tight argument for why political labels are just as foolish as those who attempt to pin them on others.
I say that of course as a moderately libertarian liberal with a history of marxist anti-communist opinions which occasionally conflict with my social-conservative upbringing among Kansas populists.
Nothing in those links overcomes supporting the most pro-government administration in history, and undoing 200 years of Constitutional protections. I don't care if Lieberman builds himself a shack on an obscure swamp and lives his life like Henry David Thoreau; it's not enough to erase those two defining facts and make him a libertarian.
Your argument is like saying someone is a vegetarian, despite the fact that they eat steak every night, because look at all the vegetables he ate on this day and this day.
I'm with Jim on this - I agree with you that it was an aweful bill, I disagree though on the compromise - they destroyed the Geneva Convention in order to save it. Sure, it still exists in American law, but now what is or is not considered torture is up to the interpretation of one person; one person who, incidently, seems comfortable with interrogation metods that make the other signees to the Geneva convention uncomfortable. There is a reason why the military was against the bill.
And Joe Lieberman voted for it. If I had no other reason (and I do - see my previous writings on the Bankruptcy bill, Social Security, Plan B, or his Republican GOTV efforts), this would be enough for me.
The Military Commissions Act will be challenged all the way to the United States Supreme Court and very likely be thrown out. And then back to square one again on prosecuting the terrorists becasue Bush is pigheaded and politicians have bad backbones. McCain caved on this and he was wrong. Again, Moussaui was tried in Federal Court and convicted.
I agree that it would have passed with or without Lieberman. I just don't understand how that gets him a pass for voting for it. I don't get to judge Warner, McCain, or Graham at the polls. I do get to judge Lieberman.
I'd rather have someone who can talk to them and negotiate changes to bills, instead of someone who will be excluded from the conversation. ... Do you really think Republican leadership will be swayed by what Ned Lamont has to say?
Where is the evidence that Lieberman has had any success at all in being a moderating influence on Republican bills? Should I vote to send him to the Seante to continue to get rolled?
In other words, do you really believe that the Republican leadership has been swayed by what Joe Lieberman has to say?
Please feel free to give specific examples...
Gabe is right.
Check out this Tom Tomorrow cartoon, it illustrates why Lieberman neutrality is actually dangerous.
http://www.myleftnutmeg.com/showDiary.do;jsessionid=8FE917F455BDAFFE19B8503A991762B5?diaryId=404
turfgrrl said...
Gabe: He shouldn't get a pass for the bill. However, assuming the Republicans maintain a majority, I'd rather have someone who can talk to them and negotiate changes to bills
You've certainly gone out of your way to give him a pass. As for his ability to negotiate with the other side:
Where's your evidence? Name. One. Single. Instance.... where he has done this with any other result than to provide "bipartisan" cover to Republicans and the Salazar-Prior caucus.
Since this ties into my other question that you seem to be afraid to answer (I guess because you know you can't without admitting Lieberman's utter uselessness in the Senate), feel free to ignore this one, too. I know facts is inconvenient for Lieberman supporters.
Again, they destroyed the filibuster in order to save it. Sure, he joined the gang of 14. Result? One of the members of the gang preps a SCOTUS justice nominee in how not to get in hot water with the gang, the filibuster fails, and a SCOTUS justice that belives differently from all of Lieberman's supposed positions is on the court for life.
I've got news for you, the way the Senate currently is, a filibuster of a judicial nominee would either fail or still lead to the nuclear option...
And as for the centris coalition, following the link provided, I couldn't care less if he joins, being as how they have not actually accomplished anything. The only accomplishment on that page is campaign finance reform, a bill co-sponsered by the most unabashed liberal in the Senate.
The point I am making, and we will never convince each other, is that Liebermna's "working" with Republicans has not accomplished anything at all. Ever. With the Senate or the House.
Except that he makes really bad bills "bipartisan" without moderating them.
Post a Comment