In defense of the sanctimonious women's studies set || First feminist blog on the internet

Why Not Lieberman?

Jill

Why have so many mean lefty bloggers abandoned establishment Democrat Joe Lieberman, opting to support his opponent, Ned Lamont, instead? Well, there’s his position on the Iraq war, for one. But that’s hardly the nail in his coffin. Check out, for example, his ideas about women’s rights.

Unfortunately, the establishment democrats are turning out to campaign for Joe, despite the fact that his opponent’s views are much closer to the ideals of the Democratic party and progressives in general. Joe Biden, Ken Salazar, and Barbara Boxer (!) are all heading to Connecticut to lend Joe their support.

And right here, my friends, is the trouble with the Democratic party.

Support Ned Lamont.

17 thoughts on Why Not Lieberman?

  1. Interesting to contemplate that, but for Katherine Harris, Lieberman would be Vice-President of the United States.

  2. I’d still take that over Dick Cheney any day of the week. As for Salazar, I think he was the first to announce that he’d support Lieberman regardless of who won the primary, closely followed by Ben Nelson. Now, Nelson may be the only Democrat who can actually win a statewide seat in deep-red Nebraska, but the non-insane Democrats in Colorado may want to start thinking of a successful replacement for Salazar.

  3. Senator Mark Pryor of Arkansas has also said he will support Lieberman even if CT voters don’t elect him as their nominee.

    You’re right, though. Lamont wasn’t tapped because he’s an anti-war candidate, that’s just a Lieberman campaign slur on him. He’s a solid progressive who wants to provide answers to problems Lieberman has pointedly ignored, such as universal healthcare and protecting reproductive rights. Lieberman’s position on Iraq is annoying and damaging to the Democratic Party, but his position on Plan B for rape victims are damning to all women.

  4. I liked Joe Lieberman for his willingess to talk openly about his faith; I’m one of those lefties who is hungry for more, not less, “God talk” from our side on the campaign trail. I was glad when he was among the first to go after Clinton post-Monica. But a zealous faith and a commitment to women’s rights are not mutually exclusive. Lieberman has been a repeated disappointment on too many issues; it’s time for Ned Lamont indeed.

  5. Well, I just dropped Boxer an email cos she’s my senator and all. Dunno if it will make a difference, but hey I did what I could 😛

  6. I hate Lieberman. He may as well be a republican as far as I’m concerned. Besides his stands on the issues, one of the reasons I so disliked him personally is his willingness to talk about his faith. I think the religious faith is a strictly personal issue and should not be mentioned by politicians on the campaign trail. I hate that it is virtually a prerequisite for a politian who wants to win to discuss matters of faith. I don’t think that being religious is a matter of character like so many do, it is a personal, private issue that has nothing to do with character and should have nothing to do with whether a person is an effective representative.

  8. Lieberman is very in touch with the American people. I’d say 50%of American is Independent. Lieberman knows that in order to successfully run for president you have to place yourself as a centrist to win most of that 50%. Only probably 15% of America identify themselves as far left leaning. So running with far left views alienates the Americans in the middle as with running far right. I think it would be a wise idea for any liberal to run as a centrist and then when they get elected cater to their base more.

  10. “Lieberman is very in touch with the American people.”

    I’ve always thought that middle America has just been waiting for the day an elderly Orthodox Jew from Connecticut would bring his social conservatism to the Democratic Party.

  11. Liberman may be in touch with America (not really), but not with the Democratic Party (who have abandoned him). Unless you believe that everyone in the Democratic Party except Liberman is in touch with America, I don’t see how you can make sense (or not call yourself a Republican).

  12. I think the issue is that (according to some posts at Obsidian Wings), current polls show that if
    a) Lamont wins the Democratic nomination and
    b) Lieberman runs as an independant
    then Liberman will win by a landslide.

    I suspect everyone’s playing it safe– sticking with the expected winner, no matter his politics. I’m sorry it’s so, but at least it’s explicable.

  13. problems Lieberman has pointedly ignored, such as universal healthcare and protecting reproductive rights.

    a zealous faith and a commitment to women’s rights are not mutually exclusive.

    You’re grossly misrepresenting Lieberman’s position as “anti-choice”. There’s absolutely no indication that he opposes abortion rights. All you can point to is that he doesn’t supports forcing Catholic hosptials to offer contraception. You’re welcome to disagree but it’s dishonest to paint him with the same broad stroke as Dobson.

    one of the reasons I so disliked him personally is his willingness to talk about his faith. I think the religious faith is a strictly personal issue and should not be mentioned by politicians on the campaign trail.

    It amazes me that someone feels comfortable expressing their utter hatred of religion so openly. Why exactly is religion “a strictly personal issue”? Why should a religious person not talk openly and publicly about something so central to his life? It’s incredibly offensive to suggest that public life must a God-free. That’s just one step short of saying, “You’re ideas and values are just do ridiculous to talk about in public.”

  14. It amazes me that someone feels comfortable expressing their utter hatred of religion so openly. Why exactly is religion “a strictly personal issue”? Why should a religious person not talk openly and publicly about something so central to his life? It’s incredibly offensive to suggest that public life must a God-free. That’s just one step short of saying, “You’re ideas and values are just do ridiculous to talk about in public.”

    It amazes me that someone could miss the point so completely. There’s a difference between public life as in, “what we do in public,” and public life as in, “what we do as public servants.” The guy in the White House right now is a good example of just how creepy and dangerous it can be to conflate a political duty with a religious one.

  15. He also supports parental-consent laws, incidentally, and objects to partial-birth abortion bans only insofar as they contain no maternal health exemption.

    So it’s not just the birth-control thing.

  16. Let’s remember, it’s not standard contraception, but emergency contraception provided at the emergency rooms of hospitals that receive public funding.

    For rape victims.

    Read the links to see how callous his attitude was.

    Why exactly is religion “a strictly personal issue”? Why should a religious person not talk openly and publicly about something so central to his life?

    You know why? Because it’s Connecticut, and it’s frankly considered embarrassing to talk about religion publicly there. Especially when one is running for public office. It’s tacky.

    And let’s all remember the real issue here: we have the Democratic Party establishment lining up to support Lieberman even if the Democratic voters in Connecticut decide that they do not want him to be the Democratic nominee. It’s not *his* seat, and Schumer and Salazar and Boxer should just stand right the hell back and state unequivocally that they support him in the primary, but if the voters decide they don’t want him, then they will support the choice of the voters.

    Hillary Clinton’s figured this out, why can’t they?

  17. It amazes me that someone could miss the point so completely. There’s a difference between public life as in, “what we do in public,” and public life as in, “what we do as public servants.”

    A public servant brings his personal values and life experience to the office. You can’t separate the two and, aside of from religion, nobody is ever asked to. It’s absurd to suggest that a religious person should simply set aside his way of life and way of thinking when he gets to Congress.

    Don’t vote for a religious person if you really believe that’s it’s dangerous. (Although, blaming religion for Bush makes about as much sense as praising religion for Martin Luther King, Jr.) But don’t patronize religion by saying “it’s fine as long as you leave it behind when you get to power”. Do you not realize what kind of insult that is?

Comments are currently closed.