I won't vote Lieberman, period...

[redeye]

...even if my single vote makes the difference between a Lieberman victory and a Bush victory.

Let's forget his hawkishness for a moment. I'll even forget his silence whenever it comes to criticizing the Shrub for three seconds.

The guy is a fundamentalist. He spoke vehemently against Newdow vs. Congress. He said "atheists have no morals." For Hank's sake, the guy doesn't drive his car on the Sabbath. That's the real reason I don't think he deserves to be elected dogcatcher; I'm not voting for anyone who thinks I have no morals, and screw everyone else, nor am I voting for anyone who views me as a class-B citizen (and that's exactly what the pledge with religious affirmation turns atheists to).

[Iverson]

1. sure, but ...

You must have noticed that the principled objections of atheists don't seem to count for anything. Atheism and obesity are the two main acceptable prejudices in our culture, and in that order, I think.

[Egnever]

50. you must live in the bible belt

come try Vegas we love the athiests out here :P

[Soloflecks]

2. And look at the damage he's doing!

http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/news/stories.nsf/News/A2FCF6BF56A589B986256D72001DAA11?OpenDocument&Headline=Lieberman+targets+Democratic+rivals+who+question+Iraq+war
But just as Democrats seemed poised to present a united front on an issue that sharply divided them in the lead-up to the war, Lieberman's remarks opened up a new rift.

His comments exposed the continuing chasm between centrist Democrats who want to project their party as strong on defense and liberal candidates who are courting party activists where anti-war sentiment runs strong.

In a Washington speech that seemed designed to solidify his position as the most hawkish candidate in the field, Lieberman suggested Monday that some of his rivals had gone too far.

While Bush's assertions were "either misleading or untrue," that misstep doesn't undermine the broader validity of the war, Lieberman said.

"Some in my party threaten to send a message that they don't know a just war when they see it," Lieberman said. "We have watched some opponents of the war seize upon this emerging scandal with a disquieting zeal, as though it offers proof that they were right all along."
----------------
I think he should go on over to the dark side. He does their work, doesn't he?

[QC]

3. even if returning Bush to office means more wars?

As it almost certainly does.

[Atlant]

5. Even if.

Electing Lieberman (electing him just because he's "not Bush") would
destroy what's left of the Democratic Party and ensure we wander in
the woods, messageless and meaningless, for at least 20 more years.

Atlant

[QC]

8. What about those who die in those wars?

Is their death a reasonable price to pay for preserving the Party and sparing us from voting for someone we find repugnant, which describes my own feelings toward Lieberman?

I'm not trying to pick a fight or anything. But there will surely be a high price to be paid if Bush manages to get back in office, and it's important to consider whether that price is worth it. It's also important to remember that much of that price will be paid by people who have no choice in the matter, like folks in the next countries on Perle's war list.

[Atlant]

10. I vote with some thought to the long term.

(Edite for spelling)

Voting for Lieberman might feel good in the short term, but
I truly believe it would destroy the Democratic Party for the
forseeable future. In that forseeable future, many, many more
people on this planet would die than during four more years
of the BushReich.

Atlant

[Monte Carlo]

20. Wars that Joe would personally push?

Joe Lieberman is not just any Democrat who supported and voted for the war resolution. He has given every indication that if given power he would pursue paths similiar to the one Bush took on Iraq. Joe is a Zionist and is dangerous to stability into that region, comparable to Bush.

[redeye]

21. Sorry, but...

...would you honestly expect a black to vote for Buchanan or Byrd just because of their opposition to wars?

[jiacinto]

31. Another Lieberman is Satan thread

What else is new?

[ErasureAcer]

35. There can never be enough...

because he is Satan!

Truly, Lieberman is on par with Bush on all the main issues. It makes me wonder if Michael Moore was right, if the Gore/Satan campaign would have made one different stance than Bush/Cheney in 2000(Moore mentions the death penalty)...that would have won over many greens for Gore/Satan in 2000 just because there would have been one issue on which they were different about.

Truly, the 2000 election showed just how much the same Bush and Satan are. Satan only has himself to blame for his 2000 loss and Satan will lose once again in 2004 shall he be the nominee. America will choose Bush over Satan any day(I'll choose the green candidate), because would you rather have nut job for some crazy ideas or satan for the same crazy ideas? I think America will choose the nut job over satan 99 out of 100 times.

Satan shouldn't be president of the USA.

[jiacinto]

39. The facts don't agree with you

But like the typical Lieberman hater you won't let the truth get in the way.

[Iverson]

51. Let's try evidence instead of knee-jerk dismissal.

Never mind that Lieberman's religious rhetoric amply justifies the reservations made by the original poster. The apologia, reading between the lines of insult, is that Lieberman is being singled out unfairly. Let's see.

http://www.au.org/churchstate/cs3021.htm

For Sen. Joseph Lieberman (D-Conn.), a compromise "faith-based"
proposal he has negotiated with President George W. Bush is as much
about theology as politics.

"I remember when we stood together last year over in Anacostia on the
day you announced your desire to have this faith-based initiative, I was proud to support you," Lieberman told Bush at a Feb. 7 White House
ceremony to tout the new deal. ...

http://www.au.org/press/pr82900.htm

In Chicago, Lieberman went on to compare the Democrats' prescription drug plan to the Fifth Commandment because, as he explained, it "honors thy mother and father."

...

Lieberman surprised many when he gave his first speech as Vice President Al Gore's running mate in Nashville earlier this month. In that speech, Lieberman began his remarks with a prayer and a recitation from the Book of Chronicles.

http://www.au.org/press/pr020702.htm

A "compromise" version of the "faith-based" initiative endorsed today by President George W. Bush and Sen. Joseph Lieberman (D-Conn.) poses
constitutional problems, according to Americans United for Separation of Church and State.

Earlier this week, White House officials reached an agreement with Senate negotiators on the framework of a new faith-based proposal. This
measure, which will be called the "CARE Act of 2002" (Charity Aid, Recovery and Empowerment), emphasizes tax incentives for greater donations to charities. ...

http://www.au.org/churchstate/cs7023.htm

Sen. Joe Lieberman (D-Conn.), who has expressed interest in joining the
2004 presidential race, wasn’t satisfied with resolutions that lacked the force of law, so he decided to take matters one step farther. Before the Senate adjourned June 26, Lieberman called for a constitutional amendment to maintain the religious language in the Pledge.

[jpgray]

4. I'm sure your reasons will be a comfort to those who suffer under Bush(nt)

.

[Atlant]

6. Those who suffer under Bush...

Those who suffer under Bush just might have to stop voting for Bush,
n'est ce pa? An awful lot of the "sufferers" think he's God's gift
to humanity.

Atlant

[jpgray]

7. As informed citizens, it's our responsibility to do what we can (n/t)

.

[Atlant]

11. But it isn't our job...

But it isn't our job to sacrifice our own long-term future just
to save some numb-nuts (who, BTW, hate our guts) from the
consequences of their own idiotic decisions.

Atlant

[molly]

9. You don't need to worry about it

he won't be the nominee. However, your reasons are extremely bigoted and short sighted.

I would vote for Snoopy the Dog if he were running. Anyone but Bush!!!

[Atlant]

12. The original poster was "bigoted"? I don't think so.

In fact, I believe I'll push "alert" on your post.

Atlant

[Walt Starr]

19. I hear the "don't worry" crap too often

Yet Lieberman still leads in every national poll.

After the DLC bullshit yesterday, I may leave my puke bucket at home and look to Greener pastures come november '04 if the DLC gets its way.

[redeye]

22. Bigoted?

Just like a gay man is bigoted for not voting for Santorum due to his "tolerance" to homosexuality.

[buddhamama]

25. but Joe's not bigoted right,

for his belief that atheists are immoral, and should not be given the same considerations as religious citizens?

[NNN0LHI]

13. And if he did win the nomination, who would you vote for next year? n/t

[Atlant]

14. I'm not the original poster, but...

If the Democrats are sufficiently willing to ignore progressives'
opinions by nominating Lieberman, I'll be voting at least "one step
left" of "Democratic".

I don't know who the other choices would be, but if the Greens
nominated Nader, I'd have to give them "a miss" too.

Atlant

[boblynn]

15. Holy Joe, Corporate Joe, G.I. Joe

http://www.laweekly.com/ink/03/34/news-ireland.php I think there is enough in this piece by Doug Ireland to not vote for him

[NNN0LHI]

18. Did you read the letters to the editor...

...concerning this "hit piece" from this source you provided? Don

http://www.laweekly.com/ink/03/36/letters.php

Letters to the Editor

A GUY NAMED JOE

I wanted to inform you of an error. You mistakenly slotted Doug Ireland’s story about Senator Joe Lieberman <“Holy Joe, Corporate Joe, G.I. Joe,” July 11–17> in your news section. Language such as “junk science for bigots,” “notorious homo-hater,” “notorious theocrat” and “anti-intellectual hysteria” clearly has its place in your columns section, where articles of opinion are published. (You probably want to publish this letter in your columns section as well.) For further reference, I recommend Associated Press Guide to Newswriting by Rene J. Cappon.

more

Doug Ireland’s recent article on Joe Lieberman — which asked “Will the real Senator Lieberman please stand up?” — was so filled with inaccuracies, distortions and smears that no one could recognize the progressive, pro–civil rights leader that I and many others know Joe Lieberman to be. I worked closely with Joe during my time in Congress, where I represented Los Angeles for 10 years and regularly compiled ADA ratings in the mid-’90s. I have also worked closely with the progressive community. So I am in a unique position to correct the most egregious errors in your piece — and stand up for the real Joe Lieberman.

It’s just plain laughable — and an outright lie — to suggest as Ireland does that Joe is or ever was a “fan” of the racist theories of The Bell Curve. Ireland does a similar job on the truth in portraying Joe’s record on affirmative action. The fact is that Joe Lieberman has always supported affirmative action as a means of realizing equal opportunity — from his days as a state senator in the early 1970s through to his strong defense of the University of Michigan admissions program this year. It’s true that in the mid-1990s Joe raised questions about some affirmative action programs that had become or were on the verge of becoming quotas — much as Bill Clinton, John Kerry, Dick Gephardt and many other Democrats did. But he never supported Prop. 209, as Ireland wrongly alleges: While he said that the literal language — on its face — might have been hard to disagree with, he has expressed his opposition to the initiative. More important, Joe supported President Clinton’s “Mend It, Don’t End It” reforms to federal affirmative-action programs, and he has voted against every Republican effort to dismantle them. If you have any doubt about where Joe stands, go to his Web site (www.joe2004.com) and read the unequivocal statements he has made lauding the Supreme Court’s decision on the Michigan case and denouncing the anti-affirmative-action initiative that Ward Connerly is trying to get on the ballot in Michigan. He has also strongly condemned Connerly’s “racial privacy” initiative here in California.

Ireland also grossly distorts Joe’s record on religion. Joe is a strong believer in the separation of church and state, and the fact that a Jewish-American leader could openly profess his faith in God during a presidential campaign is not a violation of that principle. Consistent with that belief, Joe opposes state-sponsored or coerced school prayer and, like Bill Clinton, supports the First Amendment rights of students to pray on their own. And, contrary to Ireland’s misreporting, Joe helped defeat George W. Bush’s right-wing version of the faith-based initiative, which would have eroded the church-state line and pre-empted state and local civil rights laws. Then he helped pass a compromise in the Senate that focused on helping all charities help more people in need, provided $1.3 billion in new funding for the Social Services Block Grant program (which supports critical local services like low-income day care and Meals on Wheels) — and won the support of Barbara Boxer, Hillary Clinton and every other Democrat in the Senate.

Ireland seriously exaggerates and twists Joe’s limited work with some conservatives. But his larger crime is engaging in guilt by association. In a Congress controlled by Republicans, if Democrats want to pass legislation, it is not uncommon for Democrats who strongly disagree with Republicans on most things to team up with them on single issues to garner a majority. Ted Kennedy worked with President Bush to craft the No Child Left Behind Act. Hillary Clinton teamed up with Tom DeLay to improve the nation’s foster care system. And the late Paul Wellstone collaborated with Pete Domenici on a mental health parity plan. But to suggest that this means they agree with these Republicans on broader philosophical issues is either naive or intentionally misleading.

more

[jiacinto]

32. A clearly biased piece

that is completely sophomoric.

But bashing Lieberman and lying about him is considered an acceptable practice here at DU.

[redeye]

24. the Greens if they run a decent candidate...

...or I will write in somebody, or I will just not vote for president but only for the state legislature and Congress.

[NNN0LHI]

28. I wouldn't have ever guessed. I am shocked. Shocked I tell you! n/t

[displacedtexan]

16. the committee to re-select bush thanks you.

eom

[redeye]

23. I don't give a fuck

I vote on what matters to me, not to Bush.

[Walt Starr]

27. From where I sit, the Committee to Re-Elect Bush = DLC

Not much difference if you ask me.

[Zero Gravitas]

17. Thank You

Signed,

George W. Bush and the Republican National Comittee

[GumboYaYa]

26. The point here is that the DLC needs to listen to us.

Regardless of how much some in the party may hate us for it, there are a large number of Democrats who will not vote for Lieberman, myself included. Personally, the First Amendment is sacred and IMO Lieberman is one of the greatest threats to the First Amendment in politics. He will never get my vote as President.

No matter how much I am vilified for my position it will not change. The DLC needs to get a clue that there is a significant part of the party that feels the same way (for a variety of different and valid reasons).

Lieberman should be pushed out of the race as soon as possible in order for the party to unite. We will not win if Lieberman is the candidate.

<ON EDIT> It is time for the DLC to stop taking the votes of liberals, including African Americans, for granted and offer us a candidate we can support. We have several in the field now.

[election_2004]

29. this could all be avoided if...

Everyone just works together to ensure that Lieberman doesn't get the Democratic nomination in the first place. Then it won't be an issue.

There are plenty of better candidates in the mix: Kerry, Dean, Gephardt, Edwards, Kucinich, Graham....so pick one, and forget about Joe Lieberman!

[redeye]

30. I hope so

Lieberman is falling in the polls whereas Dean is rising, so this probably won't be much of an issue. That was mainly as a warning in case Lieberman won; the moment it's clear that he'll be the Democratic nominee, I won't be able to bash him on this forum without getting banned.

[Atlant]

46. Workin' on it, boss!

I'll be voting in the New Hampshire Primary for sure, and I'll
be both providing positive support to the candidate I believe
in and challenging the several duffuses running.

Atlant

[oasis]

33. ABC...Anybody But Chimpy...........But I also loathe Lieberman

He should just get his GOP ass kissing carcass out of the race.

[jiacinto]

34. Another Lieberman bashing thread

what else is new?

[oasis]

37. Another Carlos deja vous post

what else is new? :-)

[Yentatelaventa]

36. What's wrong with Liberman?

He won't let Israel be overtaken and that is a good thing.

[jiacinto]

38. That's it in a nutshell

There is a lot of anti-Israeli sentiment here. And because Lieberman happens to be Jewish he gets singled out more even though almost every other Democrat running for president shares the same position. Not every Lieberman hater is like this, but I do think it is part of the reason why all too many of his critics here oppose him.

I defend Lieberman because I think he gets treated harshly and unfairly here on this board. Even though Edwards and Kerry voted for the Iraq resolution it is Lieberman who gets singled out. Even though the facts clearly show Lieberman not to be a Republican people continue to make that dishonest accusation. The facts matter little to the Lieberman haters here by and large.

[oasis]

40. A "one trick pony"?

;-)

[redeye]

45. What's wrong?

Look around the thread. I'm an atheist, and for me voting for Lieberman is like voting for Lott or Byrd for a black.

[Kanola]

41. I agree. He is too much of a Bush enabler

My prediction if he wins the nomination is that 49 states will be lost to Bush. He cannot motivate people to vote for him and his "message" is soo... Bush lite.

I am staying home if he is the nomination.

[w4rma]

42. Do not worry. Lieberman has no chance of winning the nomination (n/t)

[Forkboy]

43. I agree,and for basically the same reason

How many people would be up in arms if a politician said "Christians and Catholics have no morals."? A freaking ton,thats how many.The guy or gal would be raked over the coals from now until eternity.I wouldn't vote for such a person,and I wont vote for Joe because he's just the flip side of the same intolerant coin.

[sweetheart]

44. what kind of atheist cares?

Is not a-theism, just another religion in its own right... or is your real concern with this sort of religion: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=97584&mesg_id=97584

I understand your concern over scurrilous joe... he'll lose anyways...

I had greater issue with the proclamation of a crusade in a church full of presidents after september 11th.

My parents raised me attending a methodist church, and i used to feel like an atheist as i certainly don't buy martin luther's axiom "arbeit mach frei"... but that is the church of presidents, and indeed without the religion of running on a treadmill needlessly slaving 9-5... america is a different nation... but don't that harken back to what you mean by religion.

Joe is just a pawn in a greater game of religion to repress.. a more honest pawn, given that the rest of the religious right simply don't come out and say it... but you are a heathen and need to be saved... ;-)

As a living buddhist some decades now, what you believe is unimportant, rather what is the intent... is it to be free and to make free? Methinks your intent is to liberate... and that indeed is a sort of religion, is it not? One where the intent remains endemic, yet in giving air to the voice of freedom (even of thought) are you not a more profoundly religious person that those who might enslave you?

[Liberal Veteran]

47. I have noticed that people critical of those against Lieberman...

....tend to have only one defense of Lieberman: He's not Bush.

That's one hell of a lousy campaign slogan if you ask me. "Vote for Lieberman! He's not Bush!".

Not that I am particularly concerned about him getting the nod either but I have to be honest here and say that more and more I am leaning toward casting a third party ballot if this DLC (whom I loathe with a passion that rivals my loathing and contempt of Bush) shill gets the nomination.

[Iverson]

48. There's another "defense."

It is to say that people concerned about religious freedom are merely calling Lieberman "Satan," and so they can be dismissed out of hand.

I believe that we've seen that happen in this thread.

[Liberal Veteran]

49. I tend to agree that anyone who says that athiests have no morals...

Cannot be trusted to deal fairly with people of differing or not faiths.

He also claimed that there America cannot be moral without being religious.

In my opinion if your faith is so strong that you cannot fathom that people of differing or no faiths have a value system that is as strong as yours, then you cannot have my vote. It's that simple.

And I am NOT an atheist, I am agnostic.