Lieberman Gets Testy and Dishonest

It was a rather uneventful debate.  Lieberman kept interrupting and rebutting, but really didn't make any effective points.  He started off angry, and ended angry. He didn't thank Lamont for showing up, which is sort of one of those little courtesies you show people in debates. Lamont of course did thank Lieberman.

The most significant lies were his assertions that he stood strong against Social Security from the first day Bush proposed privatization, and that he doesn't support an open-ended commitment in Iraq (he does in fact supports permanent military bases).

February 18, 2005:

Sen. Joseph Lieberman, D-Conn., is undecided about the concept of using payroll taxes to fund private Social Security accounts, bringing to three the known number of Senate Democrats who have yet to publicly rule out the idea. President Bush has made the accounts the centerpiece of his domestic agenda. But other than Rep. Allen Boyd of Florida, no congressional Democrats have formally signed on. While Lieberman has concerns about the idea, he is continuing to study it while hoping for more details on Social Security from the president, a Lieberman aide said today. "He's still in a listening and learning stage and is keeping an open mind, but he does have concerns about private accounts as carve-outs that would potentially undermine the guaranteed minimum benefit and worsen our fiscal health and debt load," a Lieberman aide said today.

Lieberman, 4/20/03:

"We may, over the long term, with the consent of the new Iraqi government, establish some permanent bases in Iraq. And wouldn't that be a dramatic change, where we have an allied government there in Iraq, at the center of the Middle East, where we may have not a permanent police presence, but one or another military base that's working in cooperation with the government there?"

Tags: Connecticut, Joe Lieberman, Ned Lamont (all tags)

Comments

5 Comments

Re: Lieberman Gets Testy and Dishonest

I dedicated months of my life to saving Social Security and Joe Lieberman is a complete piece of crap.

by Bob Brigham 2006-07-06 04:11PM | 0 recs
Re: Lieberman Gets Testy and Dishonest

I didn't see the debate. Did Lamont bring up this fact? I get the feeling he didn't since you didn't say so in this post. Josh Marshall brought this point up a few weeks ago and it seems like if Lamont didn't mention this fact then the campaign did a seriously poor job of debate prep. Especially for an insanely netroots connected campaign.

Same thing goes for universal health care.  

by adamterando 2006-07-06 04:47PM | 0 recs
In my opinion...

... Lamont's weakest moment in the debate.  Within one answer, Lamont brought up Social Security as an issue (among others listed by Lamont)in which Lieberman had not advocated for the interests of Democratic voters.  Lieberman came back with a blistering defense, describing the chronology of his position against Soc Sec privatization in a way that runs counter to the article cited above by Stoller, and basically saying that Lamont was lying about Lieberman's position.  Lamont never responded to that.

by looking italian 2006-07-06 05:05PM | 0 recs
Re: Lieberman Gets Testy and Dishonest

I am particularly concerned about Lieberman's misrepresentation of himself as a defender of civil liberties and issues of choice.  From the Yale Daily News:

Earlier this year, U.S. Sen. Joseph Lieberman '64 LAW '67 (D-Conn.) was quoted in the Hartford Courant as telling rape victims that, "in Connecticut, it shouldn't take more than a short ride to get to another hospital." Planned Parenthood issued a eulogy for the bill that called it "a setback for all women." And backed into a corner by the defenders of reproductive rights and religion, legislators chose to run out the clock, introducing the bill with 17 minutes left to get it out of committee. Unpassed and tabled for a full year, the bill became something short of victory for the alliance of Catholic hospitals and pro-life activists that fought the measure, and a heartbreaker for the women's rights organizers, both on the Yale campus and off, who supported it.

Connecticut Choice Voice also elaborates on the utterance in question.

Joe Lieberman is on record as opposing the proposed legislation in Connecticut that would require all Connecticut hospitals to offer emergency contraceptives to rape victims. According to the New Haven Register, "Lieberman believes hospitals that refuse to give contraceptives to rape victims for `principled reasons' shouldn't be forced to do so."

"In Connecticut, it shouldn't take more than a short ride to get to another hospital."--Joe Lieberman, interview, New Haven Register, March 13, 2006

Lieberman is not a supporter of a woman's right to choose.

And here is an interesting summary of his equivocating stance on gay marriage from Issues 2000:

For gay equal employment; against gay marriage
Lieberman has had a mixed record on gay rights. He has opposed gay marriages and was a backer of the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act, which allows states to disregard gay marriages recognized by other states. Still, Lieberman did support the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, which prohibits job discrimination against gays.
Source: Susan Milligan, Boston Globe, p. A1 Aug 10, 2000

Such an equivocating stance dovetails with the following, which was articulated during the 2000 Vice Presidential debate:

The question you pose is a difficult one, for this reason: It confronts or challenges the traditional notion of marriage as being limited to a heterosexual couple, which I support.

But I must say, I'm thinking about this because I have friends who are in gay and lesbian partnerships who have said to me, "Isn't it unfair that we don't have similar legal rights to inheritance, to visitation when one of the partners is ill, to health care benefits?" And that's why I'm thinking about it. And my mind is open to taking some action that will address those elements of unfairness while respecting the traditional religious and civil institution of marriage.

And here is the roll call vote for the Defense of Marriage Act (HR 3396) of 1996:

YEAs ---85
Abraham (R-MI)
Ashcroft (R-MO)
Baucus (D-MT)
Bennett (R-UT)
Biden (D-DE)
Bingaman (D-NM)
Bond (R-MO)
Bradley (D-NJ)
Breaux (D-LA)
Brown (R-CO)
Bryan (D-NV)
Bumpers (D-AR)
Burns (R-MT)
Byrd (D-WV)
Campbell (R-CO)
Chafee (R-RI)
Coats (R-IN)
Cochran (R-MS)
Cohen (R-ME)
Conrad (D-ND)
Coverdell (R-GA)
Craig (R-ID)
D'Amato (R-NY)
Daschle (D-SD)
DeWine (R-OH)
Dodd (D-CT)
Domenici (R-NM)
Dorgan (D-ND)
Exon (D-NE)
 Faircloth (R-NC)
Ford (D-KY)
Frahm (R-KS)
Frist (R-TN)
Glenn (D-OH)
Gorton (R-WA)
Graham (D-FL)
Gramm (R-TX)
Grams (R-MN)
Grassley (R-IA)
Gregg (R-NH)
Harkin (D-IA)
Hatch (R-UT)
Hatfield (R-OR)
Heflin (D-AL)
Helms (R-NC)
Hollings (D-SC)
Hutchison (R-TX)
Inhofe (R-OK)
Jeffords (R-VT)
Johnston (D-LA)
Kassebaum (R-KS)
Kempthorne (R-ID)
Kohl (D-WI)
Kyl (R-AZ)
Lautenberg (D-NJ)
Leahy (D-VT)
Levin (D-MI)
Lieberman (D-CT)
 Lott (R-MS)
Lugar (R-IN)
Mack (R-FL)
McCain (R-AZ)
McConnell (R-KY)
Mikulski (D-MD)
Murkowski (R-AK)
Murray (D-WA)
Nickles (R-OK)
Nunn (D-GA)
Pressler (R-SD)
Reid (D-NV)
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Roth (R-DE)
Santorum (R-PA)
Sarbanes (D-MD)
Shelby (R-AL)
Simpson (R-WY)
Smith (R-NH)
Snowe (R-ME)
Specter (R-PA)
Stevens (R-AK)
Thomas (R-WY)
Thompson (R-TN)
Thurmond (R-SC)
Warner (R-VA)
Wellstone (D-MN)

NAYs ---14
Akaka (D-HI)
Boxer (D-CA)
Feingold (D-WI)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Inouye (D-HI)
 Kennedy (D-MA)
Kerrey (D-NE)
Kerry (D-MA)
Moseley-Braun (D-IL)
Moynihan (D-NY)
 Pell (D-RI)
Robb (D-VA)
Simon (D-IL)
Wyden (D-OR)

Not Voting - 1
Pryor (D-AR)

Lieberman is not the staunch supporter of gay rights as he claimed during the debate.

by illinois062006 2006-07-06 04:58PM | 0 recs
Re: Lieberman Gets Testy and Dishonest

How many times did Lieberman say "Who is Ned Lamont"? -- I bet that line came right from a focus group.

by howardpark 2006-07-06 05:11PM | 0 recs

Diaries

Advertise Blogads