Is Lieberman much more courageous than we give him credit for?

[Northwind]

I can already her the outraged screaming, but please put it aside and think for a moment.

Lieberman has, in the minds of many here (including myself), abrogated his duty as a Senator by giving in to Bush's demands for more power (ie the Iraq War Resolution). He is certainly not alone in this, as he was joined by many high-profile Dem Senators, in fact he was joined by all the other Dem Senators running for President. He is called a host of names, "Holy Joe", "Liarman", "Bush-lite", etc. He is viewed, perhaps justly, as having capitulated to the Bush cabal and being far too ready to accommodate them.

But some things I have seen from Lieberman in recent weeks impress me.

Consistency and courage.

In a couple of recent candidate forums and events, he has stated a position that has earned him the boos and jeering of the crowd. Some here have postulated that he is clueless as to the reaction his positions would evoke. I disagree. I think he knows that supporting school vouchers at a Union forum would not be popular. I think he knows that calling Iraq a "just war" while speaking to a crowd made up of many anti-war people will earn him jeers. I think he does it anyway because it is what he believes to be right. Whether you or I think it is right is not the point, the point is that HE does, and he is speaking up for it.

Contrast this with other candidates, who change their positions suddenly or alter their messages slightly depending on what is popular at the moment or what crowd they are addressing. Do we want a guy who speaks his mind, or a guy who tells us what he thinks we want to hear?

I agree with him on almost nothing. I will not support him. I think it a near-impossibility that he will win the nomination, and therefore I will be spared the indignity of having to vote for him or stay home.

But he is courageous in this respect. He maintains his message and his stance even if it is not popular. That is something to respect, even if you disagree with his side of the issue.

[tom_paine]

Interesting point

Sorry, dupe.

[tom_paine]

1. Interesting point

I might agree, except for his spineless conduct and constant "white flagging" during the Bloodless Coup of 2000.

Courageous men do not behave like that.

[mjb4]

3. or the fact that he never gave up seat

during campaign...that was the sorriest. I don't know if it were him or gore or the fact that I vote in TX that I voted for Nader.

[LEFTofLEFT]

27. I was a voter in texas in 2000

I know that he is the reason that i voted green.

I would not have done it in a critical state but, in texas it was the correct thing to do.

[Northwind]

5. Perhaps

he believed that taking the election to court would only damage the electoral process and give the Bushies a way to circumvent it? In that case, he would be right.

The problem lies in assigning a motivation to his actions that we cannot be sure of. I might be wrong on his whole "courage thing". He might really be clueless, but i do not personally get that impression. The problem I see around here is too many people willing to quickly assign an "evil" motive for anything they do not agree with.

[tom_paine]

21. Except that it was the Buseviks who first took it to court

Look it up...and so the quetsion is moot.

Gore was follwoing FLA election law, which mandated a recount. The Busheviks went to court to stop them.

The Busheviks paid a mob and sent them down to intimidate the Miami Vote Count.

I cannot believe that a Jew (I am Jewish before you flame me for an anti-Semite) would remain silent in the face of that "whiff of fascism" as Jerrold Nadler (D-FLA) called.

More than a whiff, baby. More than a whiff.

[w4rma]

36. Yup. The case was Bush v. Gore. The plaintiff is listed first. (n/t)

[quinnox]

2. Lieberman is consistent

He doesn't back down when it comes to his core positions on issues. He is also very bright, and you can disagree with him but you never doubt where he stands.

[Ellen Forradalom]

4. Courageous might be an overstatement

but he does state his position respectfully.

Joe has taken more than his share of abuse, I think. Joe is an educated, decent, civilized person, and that right there is a 1000% improvement over Bush.

[quinnox]

7. Yea

Here on DU, he is the anti-christ, but so much of that is overstated and to be frank, ignorance about where he stands on the issues. I'm no supporter of him, but I do believe in looking at things with a smidgen of objectivity.

[redeye]

33. Actually, you're right

I think a lot of Democrats are spineless for voting for the war - Hillary, Daschle, Kerry, Edwards, etc. Lieberman, however, is not one of them; he voted to allow Bush to murder Iraqis not because of spinelessness but because that's what he believes; he voted to keep the status atheists have as second-class citizens not because bashing Newdow vs. Congress was popular but because he really is a religious zealot. You won't call Pat Robertson spineless for supporting the war and promoting a second Dark Age, will you?

[Kamika]

6. well ill give him some credit

He is consistent, he doesnt back down from what he says or does. And hes not afraid to say what he stands for.


Too bad he looks like a gnome

[stopbush]

8. There's such a fine line

between courage and stupidity, isn't there?

Lieberman has, IMO, the courage to stick to only ONE position, and that is as a shill for the Lukidnik wing of American politics. It explains his championing of religion-initiated measures like school vouchers, his unwavering support for the illegal war in Iraq, his berating of President Clinton, etc etc.

Naturally, he's going to rant that the left wing of the Dem party is courting disaster because guys like Dean put the lie to everything that "Dem" Lieberman has come to embrace (and Dean is no dove when it comes to his own support of Israel).

Look up "repig-Lite" in Webster's and you'll find Joe's picture.

He ain't called Holy Joe fer nothin'!

[Northwind]

9. Thanks for giving us the intolerant extremist party line.

I could have predicted this response while intoxicated, with one arm tied behind my back and both my eyes gouged out.

STOP THE RHETORIC AND USE YOUR BRAIN!

[tom_paine]

22. Speaking as one who uses a lot of rhetoric AND his brain

You are asking a lot. People are mad, man. There's a reason for that.

[stopbush]

29. Well, one of us here needed to state the obvious

in response to your original - and rather loaded - question.

There is one reason and only one reason why Joe is in this race - he was selected by Al Gore to be his running mate in 2000. Eliminate that fact, and Joe isn't even on the radar.

As others have pointed out in this thread, Joe has been a MAJOR enabler for the repigs and the bush agenda. I see NO popular support, enthusiasm or belief in Joe's candidacy in the Dem party faithful. I, for one, have had enough of scolding from jerks like Bill Bennett on why they're right and the rest of us are wrong, or worse, immoral. Joe seems to be taking on that particular mantle for himself. Sorry, I don't need HIM telling me how wrong I am, how wrong Dean is, how wrong those against bush's illegal war are, how wrong EVERYONE else is.

I already cut Joe his slack back in 2000. I had mixed feelings about Gore's selection of Joe, but I was more than willing to give it the benefit of the doubt. Like many others, my hopes were dashed in that disastrous VP debate. Joe was awful. He allowed that fat sow Cheney to walk all over him and get away with murder. It looked like Howdy Doody sitting down with Stalin - and agreeing with everything Stalin said!

Later, when Joe killed his Party's (MY Party's) chance in the bogus recount by whining in agreement with the repig thugs to allow illegal, bogus military votes be counted AGAINST HIM, I knew it was all over for Al.

Joe's old news. He oughta sit down and shut up - or better yet, drop out of the race before HE hurts the party any further than he has already.

Courageous? In Joe's case, the better part of valour would be to quit now and get out of the way of the juggernaut that is redefining the Dem party for the better. Joe can't even get it right when he's excited and using words like "dumb." I mean, really, the guy feels like he's got to apologize for using a word that's "not presidential." Dumb? Boy, there's some fire in the belly that's going to energize the Dem base and ignite the electorate!

Sorry about the rhetoric and not using my brain.

[newsguyatl]

no

[cprise]

10. When there are Connecticut bankers backing you

...what are some boos now and then?

What courage. Like Bush pushing through his unpopular tax cut. Big deal.

[Lastgasp]

11. Lieberman is delusional . . .

He, like many others, is blind to the depth of grassroot anger out here. Does he realize that he is known as Dubya's lapdog? Does he expect us to forget that in the voting booth?

[HFishbine]

12. Sure

It takes balls to say something you know you're going to get booed for. And, as far as I can tell, he's consistent.

Those qualitites would be much more attractive though if he were on the right side of the issues.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

13. Courageous

Maybe. But, he's wrong. Just taking a stand and sticking to it may be "courageous" but that doesn't make it right.

Orville Faubus "courageously" defied the power of the federal government, and was undoubtedly sincere in his beliefs, when he attempted to stop the desegregation of Cental High.

Judge Moore is considered "courageous" and "sincere" while defying the District Court.

Nathan Bedford Forrest was "courageous" and "sincere" when he formed the KKK.

Adolph Hitler was "courageous and sincere" in his aims to murder millions and enslave millions more.

Courage and Sincerity don't necessarily translate into wisdom any more than things like "Loyalty" and "Dedication" (Himmler, Goebbels, Heydrich all displayed those "qualities") translate into morality or humanity.

Lieberman's cheerleading for Bush's aggression may be "courageous and sincere" but it's cost thousands of lives.

[ThorsteinVeblen]

14. LIeberman simply agrees with Bush

He wanted Bush to win the 2000 election.

He wants Bush to remake the middle east.

He supports Likud.

He sees no need for coroporate reform.

He doesn't like social services.

He doesn't like "Big Government".

The only thing that differentiates Holy Joe from Bush is his environmental stance, but that is just cosmetic. He is no more for regluation of industry than Dick Cheney.

Joe Lieberman should leave the Democratic Party.

[Kamika]

15. what about gay rights and abortion

i thought he was pro that

[buddhamama]

16. i respect Lieberman for his honesty and consistency

he is not making popular decisions but he is being true to himself.

i can definitely give him credit for that.

[lkinsale]

17. For the record--Graham voted against Iraq resolution

in fact he was joined by all the other Dem Senators running for President.

Not. Graham is a senator from Florida. He voted against the Iraq resolution. He had the "consistency and courage" to insist on the CIA providing a report to Congress before the Iraq vote, and this report included caveats on the nuclear threat from Iraq. Senator Graham voted against the resolution on the basis that, while Saddam was a bad guy, going after Iraq was a dangerous diversion from the much greater threat from al Queda.

*****

Blog Graham! Join the original (b)logger at his new campaign blog.

Contribute to Graham For President (Enter "Laura Kinsale" as your BobCat if you want to give me credit toward my pledge to raise 1k for Bob.)

[Northwind]

19. Whoops! My bad.

Happily retracted. :)

[salin]

18. that is a generous assessment

he does get points for consistency.

By the way - his actions related to the war resolution were very different from all other candidates except Dick Gephardt. Beyond voting for the war resolution - these two and Evan Bayh (also with presidential aspirations) undercut various serious bipartisan efforts to craft amendments that would limit the scope of the rather open ended war resolution. Three republican senators (Hagel, Spector and Lugar) were in negotiations with verious democrats. But Bush calls a rose garden speech - trots out Gephardt, Lieberman and Bayh - to whip up public support, and within 24 all of the efforts to craft amendments to the resolution was dropped. Strategically he sided with Bush at the cost of his colleagues. Didn't even let the process work to see WHAT the amendments might have been and allow for a vote on them. Courageous? Perhaps by some interpretation. Betraying of colleagues working in earnest? Perhaps by some interpretation...

[StandWatie]

20. who gives a piss?

I can't imagine what FR would do if someone suggested Olympia Snowe was anything but a double agent and she bucks the party line less than Lieberman and I think they have it right as regards to ideological moles in their party.

[wheresthemind]

23. you rip Dennis a new one, and you praise Leiberman?

I'm getting suspicious of your motives....

you never answered this post of mine RE Dennis:

"you've done nothing but bash Dennis's record on abortion....

but I don't understand, if he "flip-floped" on abortion to pander to the left because he was planning in late 1999 and early 2000 to run for president, then why did he vote for what he believed on the Flag burning act even though he knew he'd get flammed for it?

Also, I'm wondering how man of the canidates right now have the same posistions they have always had with a voting record to back it up?"

[DagmarK]

24. OMG, he's the most courageous republican I ever saw!

showing up at dem events far and wide. Sheesh......that takes some gonads!

[Jacobin]

25. No.

He is LESS courageous than we give him credit for, unless of course there is a campaign contribution tied to the issue. Then he becomes very courageous in doing things like, for instance, enabling the CPA's to cook the books, or passing legislation to make nearly impossible to file bankruptcy unless you are rich.

[FredScuttle]

26. So....

if I get up in front of a group of African-Americans and say "Get over it! Slavery ended almost 150 years ago...stop your complaining!", would that make me:
a) courageous
b) incredibly insensitive
c) suicidal

The reason why I disagree that he's "courageous" is that he's taking a stand that he has deluded himself into thinking is popular and he's befuddled why the Democratic audiences are pissed off. Then, he compounds this by parroting the GOP crap that the party is veering off into McGovern country. All he needs to do is bash the Dixie Chicks and he could get his own show on Faux News, for Christ's sake! I don't call it courage - I call it pandering, plain and simple.

You want a real Democratic profile in courage? Try Rep. Barbara Lee after September 15, 2001 (to refresh the memory - that was the day of the vote to authorize force for President Gameboy..she was the lone dissenting vote in the entire Congress)

[redeye]

34. Courage doesnt' have to come from the left

I agree that Barbara Lee, Jim McDermott, Russ Feingold, and other lone dissidents are courageous. Howevr, you must realize that courage is not necessarily taking a left-wing position when the climate is very right-wing, but also taking a right-wing position when the climate is very left-wing. Bash Lieberman for being a fundie; bash him for being a bloody hawk; bash him for being a corporate whore; but don't bash him for being cowardly.

[John_H]

28. I can think of several hundred adjectives to describe Lieberman

and corageous isn't one of them.

[ibegurpard]

30. Sure I can give him props for that

Doesn't mean I want him as a presidential candidate, though.

[Myra]

31. Is Lieberman much more courageous than we give him credit for?

No.

[PretzelzRule]

32. He can remain true to his beliefs all he wants

I still don't agree with his positions, I think he's at best a total asshole, and he WILL NOT get my vote.

[stickdog]

35. I agree.

It's damn courageous to run for the Democratic Presidential nomination when you're a Republican.

[rman]

37. double standards

other candidates maintain their stance even though it's supposedly unpopular (aledgedly making these candidates unelectable), they'r being called stupid.
now when a moderate right-wing dem does the same, it's being called couragous.

[DemNoir]

38. No doubt he is brave

This is a guy who at the peak of the civil rights movement went to Mississippi to help register black voters, something that people were routinely being murdered for at the time. How big a target do you think a Jewish activist would have been doen there?

[greekspeak]

39. Courageous? Questionable. Consistant? No

I think it would be more consistant if he bolted the party and ran as the Republican he is. He is pro-gay? So are log cabin republicans. He is pro-choice? So are some Republicans. He is a Republican with a (d) next to his name.