Is your opinion of Joseph Lieberman...

[LoZoccolo]

Poll question: Is your opinion of Joseph Lieberman...

...favorable, unfavorable, mixed, or haven't you heard enough about him?

Poll result (174 votes)
favorable	(15 votes, 9%)	Vote
unfavorable	(136 votes, 78%)	Vote
mixed	(23 votes, 13%)	Vote
haven't heard enough	(0 votes, 0%)	Vote

[SteppingRazor]

1. I haven't heard enough...

who is this guy again?

[Atman]

2. "Are you in favor of kicking puppies?"

"Should children drink gasoline?"

"Are Hummers the ideal family vehicle?"

Sponsored by: ObviousPolling.com

[wyldwolf]

3. mixed

I'm generally not in favor of most of the things he's been criticized the most for. However, I don't like what the movement to oust him represents, mainly, an adherence to idealogical litmus tests and the potential far reaching effects of it.

[rhett o rick]

6. Yes, and the litmus test is "Do you support democracy????"

Lieberman supports the Neocon move toward fascism. He fails the litmus test.

[wyldwolf]

9. you've given a good example of my point.

[rhett o rick]

15. Glad to help. In a democracy, if your representative fails to represent

you (fail your litmus test) then you oust them.

[calico1]

7. The issue CT voters have with him

is not just about the war. It's a lot of things. It's his disregard for the constituents. Despite little support for the war in this State he ignores that. It's the fact that you often never get an answer from his office when you call for help with something, as several ltte's have indicted. It's the fact that many people in CT never see him. He is rarely in the State. It's the way he undermines his own party while being all chummy with a president and administration that is very unpopular in this state. It's the fact that he has shown contempt for Democrats by declaring to not respect the outcome of the primary and run as an Indy if he loses. And it's many other things. This is not some kind of witch hunt against poor Joe Lieberman. He has done this to himself.

[Pale Blue Dot]

10. So I'm sure you feel the same way about the movement to oust

Cynthia McKinney.

Right?

[wyldwolf]

12. no, and here's why

The movement to oust McKinney is not part of a plan to oust people a small subset of the electorate disagrees with.

The movement to oust Lieberman extends to Hillary Clinton, Maria Cantwell, Evan Bayh, Mary Landrieu, Joe Biden, and a host of others that don't meet certain criteria.

Do see Democrats calling for the defeat of John Lewis or other members of the CBC? Of other progressives like Kucinich?

[ulysses]

17. see, I don't understand this.

Since 2000, we've heard neverending demands that no progressive ever run against a more centrist Dem in the general election. We have to do it in the primaries..."if you can" is usually added with a snicker.

So...they're doing just that. Now, predictably, *that* procedure is being attacked. Oh, wait, I get it! You'd rather we just left conservative Dems alone and not bother them...

[wyldwolf]

20. umm...

I don't understand your point.

Yes, it is my opinion that a "progressive" shouldn't run against ANY Democrat in a general election.

But neither the McKinney/Johnson or Lieberman/Lamont race is a general election.

Further, I have never once said incumbents shouldn't be challenged, but a movement by a small chunk of the Democratic electorate to extract centrist Democrats is a bit different than a primary challenge here and there.

[ulysses]

21. well, sure.

but a movement by a small chunk of the Democratic electorate to extract centrist Democrats is a bit different than a primary challenge here and there.

Seems to me that if it's a "small chunk", then you have nothing to worry about. If it's a big enough chunk to achieve its goals, then the effort seems legitimate to me.

[wyldwolf]

22. well, sure...

..but momentum builds.

An extreme example, look at how many votes Bush got twice despite the majority of the country disagreeing with his ideology and or methods.

In fact, it is a pretty accurate comparison between the far right riding a wave of single-issue vitriol to power and the far left attempting the same.

[ulysses]

30. well, I'll tell you what.

Get back to me when the "far" left is threatening hegemony.

[TechBear_Seattle]

13. With Democrats like Lieberman...

Who needs Republicons?

[Bretttido]

28. That this year will possibly LOWER the 98% incumbency rate

in congress is nothing to be sad about. What's bad for democracy is 98% incumbency.

[southpaw]

4. Mixed...

I respect his noble past... especially in regard to civil rights...

but what has he done for us lately?

[w13rd0]

5. I voted unfavorable...

...but I'll take a moment to explain why. I wasn't thrilled with Gore's choice of Lieberman for VP, but I understood the reasoning behind it. The problem with Joe is that the reasons Gore selected him as his running mate are the very same reasons he is no longer suitable to serve in the Senate. We don't need someone who is going to play footsie with the Republicans on issues, wedge issues, that they use to divide us. We don't need someone who is always going to try to find the gentleman's compromise, because the GOP knows that game. They always stake the goalpost 50 yards to the right of what they want, knowing that the DLC centrist sorts will scramble to meet them halfway. Joe likes drawing lines in the sand, and it's gotten us nowhere.

Joe Lieberman is a nice man for the most part, and he's been, as he and people like Will Marshall are so quick to point out, "with us 90% of the time". But the issues upon which he chooses not to be with us are also the issues he chooses to go on Fox News and have lovefests with Hannity about. They are the issues that the cable news networks elect to have a far-right conservative and Lieberman on as representing "balanced coverage". As with much of the DLC, Lieberman has become more accustomed to viewing the "left" as more worthy of spending energy to fight than those who are now in power and ruining our country.

So Joe has got to go...

[LynneSin]

8. 5.) Trying not to think about it

There is good in Joe Lieberman but it's damn tough to defend it in light of everything. But if I lived in Connecticut and he was the democratic nominee we have to support him even if it's just encouraging people in Connecticut to hold their damn noses and pull the damn lever

[Champion Jack]

11. Holy Joe must go!

Buh Bye joe, I'm sure your republican pals can arrange a nice fat lobby job for you.
Fuck you Joe, I don't think Tom DeLays endorsement will help

[TSIAS]

14. Mixed

I don't think he's quite as bad as some people here think, but I would still support Lamont over Lieberman in the CT primary election.

[Arugula Latte]

16. We need another category:

Very Very Very Very Very Very Very Very Very Very Unfavorable

We're in the fight of our lives against the most destructive force this country has seen in decades, and that asshole Lieberman, who is supposed to be standing up for us, is aiding and abetting the enemy at every turn. I have insufficient words for my loathing of him.

[TheVirginian]

25. "At every turn". Truly laughable.

[Arugula Latte]

27. I don't find it funny that he's done so much damage to our goals.

I find it enraging.

[TheVirginian]

31. I find it funny that disagreement on one issue is characterized as

opposing you at every turn.

This has just gotten absurd.

[Arugula Latte]

32. He's supposed to be a Democrat.

He has expressed much more enthusiasm for the Neo-Con (emphasis on the "con") positions than he has for sticking up for liberal ideals. He basically told us all to shut up and support Bush because it's a time of war (yeah, a war based on lies that we opposed from the start). I will never forgive him for that.

[SaveElmer]

18. Mixed...he has done some admirable things in his life...

It took guts for a Jewish person to participate in the freedom rides during the sixties...and he has stood up for many environmnetal causes...

I disapprove of his excessive bootlicking of Bush, and his blinders on the War...

But most of all I dsapprove of his making the decision to run as an independent if he should lose Tuesday...smacks of egotism and self-importance...and the belief that he is more importan than a Democratic majority.

[sandnsea]

19. Generally unfavorable, but still mixed

He's good on a few traditional issues like the environment, but mostly he's a hindrance and gets in the way of even the more centrist Democrats. I've never really liked him anyway, but I do remember older people liked his "sense of decency" back in 2000.

[zann725]

23. Since he "kissed" Chimpy at SOTU address last yr., his "position"

has been "sealed in stone" in my opinion, at least. A 'Corleone-type' gesture I still find deeply disturbing.

[Bryan]

24. Becoming more unfavorable by the day

Even, say, a year ago, my opinion of Lieberman was very low; I disliked his coziness with the Regime and his gleeful tendency to undercut our party to anyone with a microphone, but I figured it wasn't worth getting worked up about a safe, popular Senator who could be brought around on many issues (fortunately, the people who disagreed with me have done great things and proved that Lieberman's support was softer than expected).

More than, that, though, the behavior Lieberman has shown in this primary campaign has further diminished my opinion of him. From his haughty, argumentative debate performance to his craven fallback indy run to his ever more desperate clinging to party veterans who feel obligated to support him, I think we can say that the struggle has not ennobled him.

[Arugula Latte]

26. For those of you who have the stomach, please watch this:

http://www.myleftnutmeg.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=2458

[Bretttido]

29. Unfavorable

I was mixed until he decided JOE is more import than who he is supposed to represent.

[MrSlayer]

33. Extremely unfavorable.

I flat out hate this guy now, whereas before the Lamont debate I was sort of mixed but leaning to unfavorable.

[madmunchie]

34. I didn't care for Lieberman during the Democratic Primaries and

I watched him on the debates. To me, he was snarly, petty and pompous. Since then his steadfast support of Bush and his war has turned me totally against him. When I see Liberman on stage with Bush and I see Lieberman in pictures "kissing" the chimp, - - -well - - - Lieberman should be GONE!

[Crunchy Frog]

35. Are you trying to torture yourself with this poll?

Or are you just fishing for reasons to wag your finger at all of us "far lefties" on DU?

[saltpoint]

36. If Joe loses the primary, he plans to drop out of politics and

will star as Pa in the BONANZA remake.

[adwon]

37. Unfavorable

I don't find Joe to be the worst possible senator. I was represented by Jesse Helms for 20 years of my life.

I really don't care what he thinks about the war. What the senate thinks about war and foreign policy doesn't matter much, no matter how much they yell and shout. They're essentially irrelevant because they have chosen to be irrelevant. If they actually gave a damn, I'm sure I would have had heard of proposals to set up a Truman committee for this war. Even a resolution, you know?

Joe fails for me because he waffled, if only for an instant, on Social Security. As I recall, his initial response was "No no but hell no will it be privatized" but "Well, I'll give the president a fair hearing." Quite frankly, I can't understand what the fuck he was thinking. I'm an advocate of compromise when it results in decent results. I'm not an advocate of compromise for the sake of compromise. Social Security is a no-compromise issue. Period. You simply don't waffle on it. If you compromise on that, you tear out the bedrock of old-school liberalism, not post-60s liberalism, but FDR-Truman-Kennedy-Johnson liberalism. What in the bloody hell can you campaign on then? Will you claim to be somewhat more compassionate than the GOP? What credibility would you have?

Sorry to rant. I guess we all have a litmus test in our heart of hearts, and Joey tripped mine.

[JI7]

38. a lot of the unfavorable has to do with the way he is handling the

election and how he would run as an independent if he loses the primary.

i'm not all that impressed with Lamont. and i think Lieberman beat him in the debate. with Clinton campaigning for him and if he had just focused on the areas he is good on then i think he might have been ahead in the polls . but all the threats of running as an independent and continuing to criticize Dems when he is running in a DEM PRIMARY hurts him.

i was never a big fan of his but i never really hated him as many on here do. even now i don't think i could say i hate him or feel anger towards him. i think he really is doing what he believes with his position on foreign policy. but i always knew he was this way so i can't say i was disappointed ,surprised,let down.

i really hope he will not run as third party if he loses the primary. if he backs Lamont i might think higher of him.