Wednesday, July 26, 2006

Real Clear Record on Abortion/Gay Rights

The Real Clear Politics blog offered an excellent breakdown of Joe Lieberman's rock-solid record on abortion rights and gay and lesbian rights to counter the latest misinformation campaign by the Nedheds. The whole post is worth reading, so here it is:


When 95% Perfect Isn't Perfect Enough

Last week I discussed Joe Lieberman's near-perfect voting record on "women's choice" issues, as determined by liberal interest groups like NARAL and Planned Parenthood who are backing his campaign. The Hartford Courant reports that Lamont supporters gathered yesterday to attack Lieberman on the issue of abortion and gay rights to try and demonstrate that their guy is more than a single-issue candidate opposed to the war in Iraq:

By national standards, Lieberman has a stellar record on gay rights and abortion issues. He is endorsed by Planned Parenthood Federal PAC and the Human Rights Campaign, a gay rights group.

"Joe Lieberman works in Washington with the leaders of these organizations every day. They know how difficult it is to get things done in a Republican town, and he's proud to get their support," said Sean Smith, manager of the Lieberman campaign.

When the Human Rights Campaign endorsed him earlier this year, the organization said, "Sen. Lieberman's strong support of fairness for all Americans, gay or straight, dates back three decades to a time when few of his peers were standing by his side."

But that is no longer enough for some activists in Connecticut, where the gay rights movement is eyeing the next prize, gay marriage - a step Lieberman is unwilling to endorse.

And while the abortion-rights group NARAL says Lieberman votes with it 95 percent of the time, some activists cannot forgive Lieberman for refusing to support a filibuster in opposition to the confirmation of U.S. Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito, an abortion opponent. Lieberman did vote against confirmation.

"The bar is higher here," Jepsen said, surveying the Pond House, where dozens of women, and a few men, mingled as they waited for Lamont.


The bar is higher? The bar can't get any higher than demanding absolute ideological purity. Even in deep blue Connecticut the issue of gay marriage is a close call, and Lieberman may be slightly outside of state Democrats on the issue - but not by much. A Quinnipiac poll from last April showed that a slight majority (53%) of Connecticut Democrats supported gay marriage while 42% opposed the idea. Independent voters, by the way, opposed gay marriage by a margin of 52-42, which is identical to the opinion of voters statewide (53 opposed - 42 in favor).

Again, look at Lieberman's voting record as determined by the largest gay & lesbian interest group, the Human Rights Campaign. Out of the seven votes they deemed most important last year, Lieberman voted for the HRC-supported position on six of them. Only eight Democrats in the Senate voted for all seven, putting Lieberman in the same company with Russ Feingold, Barbara Boxer, Hillary Clinton and Chuck Schumer, and ahead of Senators like Jim Jeffords, Tom Harkin, Dianne Feinstein and, oh yeah, Chris Dodd.

I understand the desire of the Lamont folks to try and make their candidate out to be more than a suit stuffed with antiwar anger and a resentment against Lieberman for not hating George Bush as much as they do, but the effort to attack Lieberman on other issues where he has a solidly progressive voting record makes them look even more like a group of hardcore ideological purists. With the amount of attention this race is getting nationally, I don't think that works to the benefit of the Democratic Party as a whole at all.

25 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Lord Lieberman is the Dean Scream of 2006

7/26/2006 3:03 PM  
Blogger pro-joe progressive said...

Excellent post. I think Lamont is a good man, but he shouldn't stoop to the level of the Kos and a couple of other weirdos by attacking Joe somewhere where he is extremely strong.

7/26/2006 3:38 PM  
Anonymous Vote4Joe said...

Great post!

Man, if Lieberman isn't reelected, Rove wins again. He may not be involved in this race, but DailyKos has adopted his tactics in trying to defeat Lieberman. Kos is quick to say that Lieberman is selfish, but really it's Kos who is: he couldn't muster the troops to defeat Republicans, so in order to prove his strength, he's going after a Democrat - all by trying to make others believe he's going after a Republican. What does Kos get from this? Book sales, consulting fees, speaking fees, and influence. I feel sorry for Ned Lamont. He seems nice enough, but he doesn't know how to separate himself from lunacy, and while many of his supporters are sincere, it's scary that he attracts so many cliquish kooks who are intent to define "Democrat" based upon purity, using a definition of "purity" based upon how Kos defines "Democrat." It's a big an echo chamber on DailyKos - something is true because a blogger has said it, and if a blogger has said it, then it must be true.

7/26/2006 3:49 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Whereas this is a very small and very loud echo chamber. There seems to be a great deal more diversity of opinion on DailyKos.

Good Day!

7/26/2006 5:03 PM  
Blogger SeedFreak said...

The Lamontistas are victims. They have been subjected to Pursuasive Cooercian. It's is a tactic used by extremists to obtain and maintain a following. It has also been used by the far right wing of the republican party.

It's sad, but all these minds have been used wasted, they are disposable to the cause. Kos and Lamont should be held accountable for this crime.

7/26/2006 5:32 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Lord Lieberman is the Dean Scream of 2006

7/26/2006 6:04 PM  
Anonymous Leksah said...

Joe got the big mo.

you CAN triumph over hate and lying!

this blog shows: netroots don't have to be nutroots.

7/26/2006 6:42 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Lord Lieberman is the Dean Scream of 2006

7/26/2006 6:58 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Lieberman Rebounds in Waterbury

Can you feel the Joemenutum building? Catch it while you can!

7/26/2006 7:16 PM  
Blogger LiebermanForLieberman said...

Can Robo-Clinton Really Save Joe?

What have things come to when a recorded Bill Clinton message is required to keep Connecticut voters from hanging up on Joe Lieberman? Where has the message gone?

Fortunately, some enterprising people on the Internets have made an effort to answer a question that many voters must have - Who is Joe Lieberman?

Debunk Joe Lieberman's many twisted lies

Learn how Republicans are financing his campaign

Examine Lieberman's strong support from Supreme Leader Bush and a gaggle of TV/talk radio wackjobs

This message paid for by Lieberman for Lieberman

7/26/2006 8:02 PM  
Blogger Jimbo said...

As my first post on this site let me start off by saying how surprised I was to see one of my direct quotes ripped off from another blog. The posting from "anonymous" above titled "Lieberman Rebounds in Waterbury" is from a post I made on a blog called My Left Nutmeg (or My Left Nut as I like so say). I would like to think we could be a bit more original in these conversations. Reading through the comment sections it appears that anonymous and Liebermanforlieberman have way too much time on their hands since they produce a continuous barrage of babble here day and night. (and probably other places as well). Maybe it's time for them to find a girlfriend or boyfriend (whatever their gender is) or just get a life in general

7/26/2006 8:09 PM  
Blogger LiebermanForLieberman said...

Thank you for your support!

7/26/2006 8:10 PM  
Anonymous Vote4Joe! said...

There seems to be a great deal more diversity of opinion on DailyKos.

Funny...that's not how I see it. Go post a pro-Lieberman comment - I guarantee you'll be trolled into oblivion. As annoying as Lie4Lie is, he's still allowed to post here (just as we're allowed to tell him that he's misguided and dishonest).

7/26/2006 8:52 PM  
Blogger SeedFreak said...

I just made a post on the other side--lets see how fast they find it and how many think its over the top--when actually it isn't, and it's really the truth.

Let's see what happens.

7/26/2006 9:05 PM  
Blogger CMBurns said...

Funny...that's not how I see it. Go post a pro-Lieberman comment - I guarantee you'll be trolled into oblivion. As annoying as Lie4Lie is, he's still allowed to post here (just as we're allowed to tell him that he's misguided and dishonest).

I used to be a member of Daily Kos. I have posted messages at Kos supporting Joe Lieberman, and I also expressed moderate views on issues such as the Iraq War and Gay Marraige. I have been trolled by the Kos's because of my post. What is also offensive to me is that head of Kos allows his trusted bloggers to be on troll patrol. Allowing them to block any post they don't agree with.

7/27/2006 7:50 AM  
Anonymous cfaller96 said...

Once again, let me remind folks here that a primary challenge is not an "attack" on Joe Lieberman. It's an effort to insert a more liberal politician into the body Senate. Showing up to an event to ask Lieberman tough questions isn't an "attack" on Joe Lieberman. It's an effort to make public Joe Lieberman's positions on some issues. Jesus...

I think the issue of gay marriage and cloture votes on anti-choice judicial nominees are significant points of differentiation. I think these points of differentiation have helped Ned Lamont and hurt Joe Lieberman. But I take exception to the idea that this is a "demand for ideological purity". I think it's simply a reflection of the will of the people.

Aren't women free to ignore NARAL's endorsement and 95% voting record crap, and vote for Ned Lamont because he'll fight lunatic Supreme Court nominees to the bitter end? Or is that "demanding ideological purity"?

Aren't gays free to ignore the HRC endorsement, and vote for Ned Lamont because he unequivocally supports gay marriage? Or is that "demanding ideological purity"?

Regarding gay marriage, there are more recent polls to use than one from a year and a half ago, although the one cited already shows an 11% gap in support of gay marriage. That's sizable, but keep in mind that poll is old.

I believe there was a national poll that came out a month or two ago that showed a 12% gap in support of gay marriage. One can only imagine what the gap is for Connecticut Democrats now, since it was already at 11% over a year ago. I'd be willing to bet the gap is at least 15-16%, but maybe LieberDem could do some research on that.

Considering that nationwide polls showed a 5-6% gap in opposition of gay marriage back in 2004, it's easy to see where this issue is headed, and what position is (and will be) more representative of the will of the people.

I think it's simply the progression of public opinion towards supporting gay marriage. Perhaps Lieberman and his supporters are unwilling to change their mind on an issue they're wrong about, but let's call that "being wrong", not "resisting the demand for ideological purity".

The endorsements are nice for Joe Lieberman, but I question how meaningful they are. Clearly interest groups are divided on Joe Lieberman. He's gotten an endorsement from NARAL, but the Connecticut chapter of NARAL and Connecticut Choice Voice endorsed Ned Lamont. He's gotten an endorsement from Planned Parenthood, but the National Organization for Women endorsed Ned Lamont. He's gotten an endorsement from Human Rights Campaign, but that actually upset many in the gay community and caused some financial pain for HRC, considering Lamont is more liberal on the issue of gay marriage.

I'm not sure what the point of this post is. Joe Lieberman votes the right way, because he's gotten these endorsements? Not according to the polls he hasn't, and the voters will be the ultimate judge of whether Joe Lieberman has voted the right way over the years.

(and CentristDem, if you're out here, I responded to your last comment)

7/27/2006 9:12 AM  
Blogger CMBurns said...

cfaller96 said...
Once again, let me remind folks here that a primary challenge is not an "attack" on Joe Lieberman. It's an effort to insert a more liberal politician into the body Senate. Showing up to an event to ask Lieberman tough questions isn't an "attack" on Joe Lieberman. It's an effort to make public Joe Lieberman's positions on some issues. Jesus...

Going on to traditional blogsites like Daily Kos and MYDD. Most of these post I have read on Blogs are about badmouthing Joe Lieberman. They show photos of Lieberman tongue Kissing Bush. They also label Lieberman as Holy Joe.
With regards to electing Progressives in the US Senate. That is fine and dandy but we should support Progressive Candidate who are running in open Seats or running against Republican Incumbents. Challenging Democratic Incumbents in Primary is not an effective way to send more Progressives to the US Senate. Bloggers could have been effective in helping a sacrificial lamb candidate Defeat the establishment had they worked help Jean Hay Bright defeat Olympia Snowe. Helping a low level candidate unseat a Popular Republican Senator would have received greater praises from the Democratic Party Establishment.

With regards to the Gay Marraige Issue. Connecticut was the first state to pass a Civil Unions Amendment without the Courts getting involved. Lieberman is a strong supporter of Civil Unions.

7/27/2006 9:53 AM  
Anonymous cfaller96 said...

CMBurns said:
Challenging Democratic Incumbents in Primary is not an effective way to send more Progressives to the US Senate.

So it sounds like you never want a challenger in a Democratic primary. Apparently electing Joe Lieberman in 1988 was a lifetime appointment. You and I plainly disagree on this.

CMBurns said:
Most of these post I have read on Blogs are about badmouthing Joe Lieberman. They show photos of Lieberman tongue Kissing Bush. They also label Lieberman as Holy Joe.

The kiss is inescapable. It happened, and it happened for a reason (the sole Democrat giving a standing ovation). Deal with it.

As for the namecalling, there are labels and smears on both sides, or do you not see calling Lamont supporters like myself "liars", "nutcases", "Lamontistas", "extremists", etc. as an insult? If calling Joe Lieberman "Holy Joe" constitutes an "attack", then how many times have I and other Lamont supporters been "attacked" on this blog?

CMBurns said:
Lieberman is a strong supporter of Civil Unions.

But he won't support gay marriage, and Ned Lamont will. I never accused Joe Lieberman of being anti-gay, I merely pointed out that Ned Lamont is more liberal on gay marriage than Joe Lieberman.

The polls are starting to show that this issue is less about "ideological purity", as LieberDem believes, and more about "representing the will of the people". Or at least that's my opinion.

7/27/2006 10:59 AM  
Blogger CMBurns said...

The attacks on LaMont occured after the bloggers have repeatedly attacked Lieberman.

With regards to your statement of representing the will of the people. That statement is very offensive. This is to intimide people into supporting your ideology belief.
On the issue of gay marraige- The state legislature in Connecticut- the voters Joe Lieberman is supposed to be representating passed a civil unions legislations and defined marriage as a union between a man and a woman. Are the CT state legislature not representing the will of the people. A poll in Connecticut shows that the CT voters are equally divided on Gay marraige but overwhelmingly support Civil Unions.

7/27/2006 11:33 AM  
Anonymous cfaller96 said...

CMBurns said:
The attacks on LaMont occured after the bloggers have repeatedly attacked Lieberman.

Again, I don't consider criticism and name-calling to be "attacks", regardless of who's doing the "attacking". Smears and name-calling are present on both sides, and claiming "he started it" doesn't mean much to me, or, for that matter, a first grade teacher.

You complained about the smears on Lieberman, and pointed out "the Kiss" and "Holy Joe" as examples of "attacks". I don't defend the names, I merely point out that neither side has been clean on this, and in any case I don't consider these to be examples of "attacks".

The Kiss, as I said before, happened, and happened for a reason. It's not an "attack" to point that out. Accept it. Senator Lieberman was kissed by the Worst. President. Ever, and he was kissed because he was the only Democrat to give a standing ovation to the Worst. President. Ever. Deal with it.

CMBurns said:
With regards to your statement of representing the will of the people. That statement is very offensive. This is to intimide people into supporting your ideology belief...The state legislature in Connecticut...defined marriage as a union between a man and a woman. Are the CT state legislature not representing the will of the people?

What the ...? Maybe the CT state legislature is representing the will of the people, maybe they're not- time will tell. I pointed out some polls that can shed some light on the will of the people, and how it's trending, and you consider that to be offensive and a form of intimidation? What the hell is so offensive and intimidating about analyzing trends in polls?

Just out of curiosity, CMBurns, do you support gay marriage?

CMBurns said:
A poll in Connecticut shows that the CT voters are equally divided on Gay marraige but overwhelmingly support Civil Unions.

Well, actually, no the poll cited in the post (from over a year and a half ago) shows CT Dems 53%/42% in support of gay marriage. An 11% lead is not a narrow lead, and an 11% lead does not show Dem voters are "equally divided" on gay marriage.

If Ned Lamont won the primary 53%/42%, would you consider that to be a narrow victory, with Connecticut Democrats being "equally divided"? Wait, let me rephrase- if Joe Lieberman won the primary 53%/42%, would you consider that to be a narrow victory, with Democrats being "equally divided"?

Somehow I think you'd call that a "resounding victory" showing "solid support" for Joe Lieberman. But you won't use that same interpretation for the same numbers on the issue of gay marriage. Why?

I'm sorry, am I being too "intimidating" by throwing all these poll numbers at you?

7/27/2006 2:21 PM  
Blogger CMBurns said...

It depends on what the definition of marriage is? Marriages are sanctioned by individual states. They have restricted marraige between a man and a woman. Polygamy and marrying biological relatives of the opposite gender are not allowed. My opinion on gay marraige is that it should be outlawed. Civil Unions is good enought.
With regards to your poll that shows CT Democrats supporting gay marraige by 53-42 margin. I consider that equally divided because you ignored the 5% of the electorate who is are undecided. and their is a 3% margin of error. CT Democrats are more liberal than rest of the CT Electorate which includes Independents and Republicans. You also forget to mention what percentage of all CT voters including Democrats,Republican,and Independents support gay marriage. Whoever wins will be the United States Senator from Connecticut. Not United States Senator for Connecticut Democrats.
Getting off topic- SD passed a law banning abortions. A poll conducted by LATimes Bloomberg on April showed that All adults in the United states opposed the SD abortion Law by a 58-34 margin.
Among Democrats- the vote was 69-24 disapproving the SD abortion law. Among Independents- the vote was 67-27 disapproving the SD abortion law . Among Republicans the vote was 52-42 approving the SD abortion law. Democrats and Independents are overwhelmingly pro choice. Republicans are divided on the abortion issue. Getting back on topic of Gay Marriage- While 52% of CT Democrats support Gay Marraige. The overwhelming majority 60% of Independents and Republicans oppose Gay Marraige. Gay Marriage is not a winning issue to campaign on. FOX News Opinion Dynamics conducted a poll on April on the Gay marraige issues should that all register voters oppose gay marriage by a 55-33 margin. Among Democrats it was 45-43 in favor of gay marriage. Among Independents it was 47-38 against gay marriage and among Republicans it was 77-16 against gay marriage.
Look at the Pew Research poll taken on March. The asked voters of gay issues such as gays in the military, gay adoption and gay marriages.
20% of the American public strongly favor allowing gays to serve in the military. 40% somewhat favor allowing gays to serve in the military. 19% somewhat oppose allowing gays to serve in the military and 13% Strongly oppose allowing gays to serve in the military. If you combine the Strongly and Somewhat numbers you will see that 60% of the american public favor allowing gays to serve in the military- while 32% oppose allowing gays to serve in the military. With regards to allowing Gays to adopt. 14% strongly favor, 32% somewhat favor, 22% somewhat oppose, and 26% strongly oppose. Combine the Strongly and somewhat numbers you will see that 46% of the American public favor Gay adoptions while 48% oppose Gay adoptions.
With regards to gay marriage- 10% strongly support gay marriage, 29% some what support gay marriage, 23% somewhat oppose gay marriage and 28% strongly oppose gay marriage. Combine the strongly and somewhat numbers- you will see that 39% of the public support gay marriage while 51% oppose gay marriage.

7/27/2006 3:46 PM  
Anonymous cfaller96 said...

So you would consider a Lieberman victory of 53/42 to be a "narrow victory" with Democrats being "equally divided"? Interesting.

With all the polls you've cited, you've neglected to note the trend of the polling- I believe the trend tells a story too. Or perhaps I'm wrong- I'd be happy to take a look at those polls, if you'll provide the links. Thanks in advance.

My own opinion is that "separate but equal" hasn't worked for this country in the past, and segregating gay marriage from hetero marriage won't work this time either. You can call it "civil unions" or whatever you want, but if you consciously and legally distinguish one type of marriage from another based on a person's characteristics (i.e. what he/she was born with), you are engaging in discrimination.

And thus the real debate on gay marriage is whether you believe homosexuality is a human condition you are born with, or if it's a lifestyle choice. If you believe people are born gay, then it becomes a moral imperative to not discriminate based on that. If, on the other hand, you believe being gay is a lifestyle choice, then you would have no problem with "civil unions" or anything like that.

Do you believe homosexuality is a human condition people are born with, or a lifestyle choice? I think I already know the answer, so let me preemptively follow up: on what evidence do you base your belief that homosexuality is a lifestyle choice?

7/28/2006 10:02 AM  
Blogger CMBurns said...

A 53-42 vote margin is a narrow margin because-
1)Their is 5% of the people that are undecided or have no opinion

2)Their is also a margin of error.

3)In order for an issue to gain strong public support it has to reach the 60% mark.

4)On the issue of Homosexuality it is a lifestyle choice because their is no evidence that it is a genetic desiese.

5)Secondly- I don't beleive that Civil Rights Laws are intended to satisfy individual groups right to happiness. Gays wanting to get married is like Drug Addicts wanting to legalize Drugs.

7/28/2006 10:34 AM  
Anonymous cfaller96 said...

CMBurns said:
On the issue of Homosexuality it is a lifestyle choice because their is no evidence that it is a genetic desiese

I think you mean that you're not aware of any evidence. There's a big difference. See below:

Non-sex genes 'link to gay trait'

http://tinyurl.com/gkcoe

"...Our best guess is that multiple genes, potentially interacting with environmental influences, explain differences in sexual orientation..."

What Makes People Gay?

http://tinyurl.com/csc5p

"...The data suggest there is a very good chance Patrick will grow up to be homosexual. Not all homosexual men show this extremely feminine behavior as young boys. But the research indicates that, of the boys who do exhibit [Childhood Gender Nonconformity, or CGN], about 75 percent of them - perhaps more - turn out to be gay or bisexual..."

More Evidence that Homosexuality is Genetic

http://tinyurl.com/juvdg

"...The scientists say they transplanted a single gene into the flies that caused them to display homosexual behavior. And that's very interesting, they assert, because a related gene exists in human beings, although there is no evidence yet that the human gene has an effect on sexual preference..."

Don't call it a 'disease'. It implies that gays are 'sick' and need to be 'healed'. Now, that's offensive.

If you really believe gays wanting to get married is like drug addicts wanting to legalize drugs, then why do you support "civil unions"? Isn't that just a marriage by another name, in your mind?

Has the irony hit you that Dick Cheney is more progressive on this issue than you are? Why do you think that is?

7/28/2006 3:22 PM  
Blogger Ken Balbari said...

"5)Secondly- I don't beleive that Civil Rights Laws are intended to satisfy individual groups right to happiness. Gays wanting to get married is like Drug Addicts wanting to legalize Drugs."

I just hope Joe doesn't put this guy in any of his commercials.

7/28/2006 9:14 PM  

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home