Talk:Connecticut United States Senate election, 2006/June 2006 - August 2006

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Contents

To 69.209....

Can anyone prove JL repeats Republican talking points? It is a charge against him, one that I agree with, but is inherently unprovable because of its fuzzy definition.

If you look at my edit struggle with FRCP before he left Wikipedia, you can see that I was trying to fight what I saw as FRCP's pro-Lieberman bias. I personally want to see Lamont win. If I had a blog I'd likely have posted by now that JL repeats Republican talking points.

However, it is inherently unprovable, and if you look at Wiki policy on NPOV and related issues you'll see that you cannot present opinion as fact. I mean, is someone going to add to the list of objections that "Joe Lieberman eats babies"?

The other things cited can be proven. I also personally believe that it is fair to say that JL repeats Republican talking points, but it simply isn't provable. It's still POV. It's my POV as well as yours; but that doesn't make it fact. What can be done then is you say who has said it (Paul Krugman and Ari Melber, as far as I know; there are probably others). Not posting who said it is not as good.

I also think it's good-- in terms of its believability-- for people to know who said it. Paul Krugman is known to be very liberal but also quite credible. Ari Melber worked for John Kerry, and thus shows establishment Dems, not just some on the fringe as JL claims, can oppose JL. But that's quite different than presenting an unproven point as fact. -KP 18:53, 23 June 2006 (UTC)


Absolutely. There has been no evidence that JL receives a fax from Karl Rove every morning and reads off of it when he appears on TV.
My point was the following. The paragraph is about what JL critics don't like about JL. The paragraph begins "Many of Lieberman's critics also object to...." It is a fact, not POV, that significant numbers of JL critics believe that JL repeats Republican talking points. And that is one of the important reasons that JL has received criticism.
The AEI page starts as follows
"The American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research is a conservative think tank founded in 1943 whose stated mission is to support the "foundations of freedom ..."
Is it POV to quote from the the AEI's mission? (Certainly not everyone thinks the AEI has so directly been interested in "freedom")
Why not similarly quote (or paraphrase) JL opponents in a paragraph specifically about their criticism of JL?
If criticism of JL is POV, then why not remove all reference to all political views from every article in Wikipedia?

--69.209.56.159 16:50, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Stephen Colbert

Not a citation issue, but is it really of general interest to have a section about Stephen Colbert? As I read the article for the first time it gave the article a distinctly amateurish feel. C'mon, is it necessary to mention that there's an empty chair in the audience? Why not mention what Leno or Lettermen have said? Is there a good joke on ebaumsworld? I'll take my response off-air. 72.24.182.238 13:06, 16 August 2006 (UTC)menk

I took out the additional information about Colbert and the cocoa puffs, and so on. Honestly, is there really a need to have a subheading referencing the humorous aspects of the november 2006 campaign? Does it strike anyone as particularly hillarious? 72.24.182.238 04:01, 17 August 2006 (UTC)menk

Feingold for Lamont?

Russ Feingold made it clear on MSNBC's "Meet the Press" that he is steering clear of this race altogether, and will endorse the winner of the Democratic primary. It is misleading to categorize Feingold as a "Democrat supporting Lamont" when Lamont has not yet won the primary, so I deleted that sentence.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13484195/

66.188.222.224 22:24, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

MoveOn

As the MoveOn article shows, there's nothing "moderate" about that site and any characterization to the contrary is Lamont propaganda. It's also not true that it was started as an anti-war site. -- FRCP11 04:42, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

It's true that Moveon.org was begun and I'm sure is still run by people on the far left. It is true however that its constituency has grown as mainstream Democrats (people left of center, but not way far left), including myself, have allied with it as we share the interest of fighting against Bush. It may be more of an alliance against a common enemy (Bush) than a movement of the site-- but the site's constituency has grown and is no longer only a far left constituency. This may change when we lack a common enemy.
Its issues have moved closer to the Democratic mainstream as its audience has. Look at the list of ten issues it has people voting on for the "three big ideas" it will promote:
Verifiable, accurate elections (Comment: Theoretically not even ideological, although based on the belief that Republicans might be cheating).
Global leadership through diplomacy (Comment: This is a "peacenik" position that I disagree with them on, but a good number of Democrats would agree).
Balanced federal budget (Comment: It would be hard to find a Democrat opposed to this, at least in principle.)
Health care for all (Comment: Mainstream Democratic position that moderate Democrat Bill Clinton tried hard to accomplish.)
Restored constitutional rights (Comment: Hard to say, but the Patriot Act has many critics, including some libertarian Republicans).
Preserve our natural resources (Comment: Mainstream American voters tend to be pro-environmentalism).
A living wage for all (Comment: This is a pretty far left, but populist, position-- although raising the minimum wage to some extent is very popular and mainstream).
High quality education for all (Comment: Few Democrats would oppose more education spending-- basically what this is saying).
Energy independence: clean, renewable sources (Comment: Most Democrats would agree with the need for this.)
Publicly funded elections (Comment: Yes, this one is very far left out of the mainstream.)
KP 05:15, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, that's phrased so neutrally, you can find Bush State-of-the-Union speeches supporting nine out of ten of those. It isn't a meaningful description of MoveOn's positions.
Big surprise: an anti-war group supports an anti-war candidate over a pro-war candidate. To the extent moderates are joining MoveOn, that's reflected in the fact that Lieberman got as high as 15% of the vote from an organization that voted Dean first and Kucinich second in 2004. -- FRCP11 05:23, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
Right...and back then I refused to have anything to do with them. I became somewhat active with them as they seemed to be as strong a force as I could find to beat George W. Bush. It's possible for "moderate liberals" like me to be anti-Joe Lieberman because we feel the domestic enemy is Bush and Lieberman is pro-Bush. I just read the Moveon.org article and think it presents a fair view of the organization, one fairer than your edits provide. I hate the thought of real far left, like Kucinich, governing, but Kucinich isn't a political threat; he'll never be president. Bush is President, and is a huge threat to the good of the nation.
Lieberman isn't pro-Bush; he's just anti-use-of-partisan-politics-on-national-security-issues in the tradition of Scoop Jackson: "In matters of national security, the best politics is no politics." He understands the concept of incentives in foreign policy, and that American politicians criticizing Bush for not withdrawing troops in the face of insurgent attacks is the quickest way to encourage more insurgent attacks on American troops in the hopes of creating political pressure to end the war. For some strange reason, the MoveOn Democrats are insisting on a policy of showing that America doesn't have the willpower to defend itself or its democratic allies, which is a good way to guarantee that we'll never have democratic allies in the Middle East ever again. -- FRCP11 05:46, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
Again, other Democrats are pro-Iraq-war and strongly anti-Bush at the same time (I think Joe Biden is an example, and I like Biden). The big difference between Lieberman and Scoop Jackson is that Scoop was very consistently liberal on domestic issues, and while he backed Nixon on the Vietnam War, he attacked Nixon as harshly as anyone on Watergate. Lieberman may see himself as the new Scoop Jackson, but he isn't. Nixon would never have called Scoop his favorite Democrat, because every encroachment Nixon made on civil liberties, Jackson would fight with all he had.KP 06:05, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
Jackson opposed affirmative action, busing and abortion, so in many ways, he was to Lieberman's right. Nixon might not have called Scoop his favorite Democrat (in part because Jackson thought Nixon was too appeasement-oriented towards the Soviet Union), but Reagan sure did: he hired Scoop's foreign policy staff, many of whom are working for Bush today.
Not a single mainstream Democrat politician publicly supports gay marriage (or even gives it as strong an endorsement as Dick Cheney has), so the fact that the cited source criticizes Lieberman's opposition to gay marriage is not quite evidence of mainstream Democratic opposition to Lieberman.-- FRCP11 06:18, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
I didn't even list gay marriage in the article; it just happened to be on the list of problems the group I linked to had with Lieberman, and it is an issue on which Lieberman and Lamont disagree. I think you put gay marriage into the article. If you want to remove gay marriage from the article entirely, I won't object.KP 07:26, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
That misses the point. CVC/NOW opposes Lieberman -- but they've never supported Lieberman. To portray this as a new mainstream Democratic opposition to Lieberman is misleading. This is the far left wing of the party. There are no mainstream Democratic organizations who are rebelling against Lieberman. -- FRCP11 08:49, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
On the other issues you mentioned-- well, it needed a separate paragraph, as it made the paragraph very awkward as worded, and some (like a House vote on a Schiavo resolution with almost half the members not voting) were misleading.KP 07:26, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
Every issue that Lieberman is being criticized for is an issue that he's within the mainstream of the party or the DLC -- and remember than Clinton and Gore were DLC members. The context is important. -- FRCP11 08:49, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
You may see me as trying to smear Lieberman, but many of your edits look to me as they would appear on Fox News. I really don't want an "edit war," so let's both try to work toward presenting both sides fairly.KP 07:26, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
I'm all for presenting sides fairly. I'm adding facts, and you're seeking to put in opinion. The fact of the matter is that 47 out of 100 Democrats voted for the Schiavo bill, so Lieberman's position is within the range of normal Democratic behavior. The fact of the matter is that every Democrat opposes gay marriage officially. The fact of the matter is that a majority of Democrats supported the Iraq war. The fact of the matter is that nearly half of Senate Democrats voted for the Alito filibuster. And these are the four issues on which he's being singled out on, but it's being characterized as something other than the anti-war left in opposition. All I ask is adherence to NPOV and WP:NOR. If there's mainstream Democratic opposition to Lieberman, show it, but all that is cited are some hard-left and anti-war party activists, NOW, and a former Republican with a grudge against Lieberman. -- FRCP11 08:49, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
On Jackson and Reagan's foreign policy staff: One thing I ran across while reading things looking for sources was an indictment of neoconservatives' following Jackson on foreign policy but scrapping his strongly liberal domestic agenda. I didn't know Jackson was pro-life. You also forget that Jackson was a very harsh critic of Nixon's on scandals and civil liberties. If only Lieberman were as willing to harshly criticize Bush, who's much worse overall than Nixon, as Scoop Jackson was of Nixon, I wouldn't feel such a strong need to make sure that there is no pro-Lieberman bias in the articles regarding him.KP 07:26, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
Let's see, without looking very hard I see Lieberman criticizing Bush on the NSA scandal, environmental issues (with the Dems' favorite Republican, John McCain), again on the environment (with the headline "Lieberman Blasts Bush"), Medicare, Halliburton, the budget, and Katrina. He's called for subpoenas on the last issue, and there were a half-dozen other press releases criticizing specific parts of the Bush budget. The claim that Lieberman doesn't criticize Bush is pure propaganda from the hard left of the party that won't be satisfied until they're down to thirty pure-of-heart Senate seats and can rail against a forty-seat Republican majority. His "peril" speech was about tone and the nonsensical claim that Bush lied about WMDs when Bush was saying the same thing Clinton and Gore and the 1998 Congress were saying. -- FRCP11 08:49, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
I've seen Lieberman's web site, and the list of issues he's criticized Bush on. The thing is, all I ever see on the news is him backing Bush in one way or another. This is no doubt partially the "dog bites man isn't news but man bites dog is" factor, but it's also a factor of what Lieberman emphasizes.
The opposition to Lieberman isn't from people who won't accept non-ideologically-pure Democrats. They aren't trying to dump others who support the Iraq war (although you're again being misleading; Kerry and Edwards have positions on the war considerably different from Lieberman's, although there are true Iraq war supporters that no one wants to dump). No one wants to dump Clinton-style Democrats-- the hard left might prefer to if they could replace them with hard left guys, but they know that would leave the Democrats with 30 seats. But Lieberman is no Bill Clinton and no Al Gore. You've seen how Gore talks about Bush lately. Now, Gore (who voted to authorize the first Gulf War) opposes the current one, but that isn't the key difference: The key difference is that Gore is willing to attack Bush hard and strongly, and make news attacking him. I have not once seen Gore make news defending Bush. Lieberman could do so as well, if that was what he chose to emphasize. But when it comes down to it, he likes Bush. He believes that if we tear down Bush on character and integrity too much we weaken his perception overseas and that's bad for the nation. I believe that if we don't we make it easier for Bush to get his odious domestic policies passed.
There's a reason that the Right supported Lieberman in his victory over Weicker, and liberal groups supported Weicker. There's a reason that Bush and Hannity love him. There's a reason that Lieberman is so disliked by many Democrats who don't feel the same way about the more conservative Evan Bayh or other war supporters. I don't doubt, by the way, that the poll of Lieberman's approval in Connecticut that you cited is accurate, but you do need to cite a statistic like that.


Reply:"Because when you DoS a domain, it takes down its associated server and all of the other domains pointing to it. For about $20-$40 more, Joe could’ve gotten his own private server"(Comment #17387 by Gruff on 8/08 at 4:27 pm;"Daily Kos: "Why Lieberman’s Web Site is Down", Posted on Aug 8, 2006(www.truthdig.com)). Whatever reason and cause of Joe Lieberman's server shutdown it was, may it be a singular or a distributed denial of service [D]DoS attack, it would have required only to restart the server after fixing the alledged distributed DoS. With other words exactly that what we must do daily in our precious private time and to our own( = NOT public tax payer's money as the jewish Lieberman lobby is since a long time used to) budget; and last but not least with our scientific[ = not jewish an christian] knowledge.

Reference:"l’email a été totalement perturbés et neutralisé" par Votez Ned Lamont, U.S. Sénateur, THE DEMOCRATS pour Connecticut ! (IP:xxx.x2.47.54) le 9 août 2006 à 01H44 "Pour les dernières 24 heures (..)l’email a été totalement perturbés et neutralisé", les amis du Juif Josef Lieberman, United States Sénateur pour Connecticut, disent."Nous croyons que c’est le résultat d’une attaque coordonnée par nos adversaires politiques," le sioniste Sean Smith, secrétaire de Presse du député Juif Josef Lieberman[THE DEMOCRATS] pour la campagne contre Ned Lamont[United States Sénateur-candidat et aussi THE DEMOCRATS pour Connecticut] a dit.

"a number of Democrats" oppose Lieberman

This is POV weasel language, in contravention of WP:WEASEL. Better to identify specific Democratic opposition. To date, that consists entirely of hard-left organizations or anti-war organizations that have never supported Lieberman under any circumstances, want to see all DLC members expelled from the party, and who oppose Lieberman because of criteria that no electable candidate could meet, and a very minor member of the Kennedy clan. Mainstream party leaders unanimously support Lieberman; even Howard Dean officially supports Lieberman, because he'd get kicked out of the DNC if he didn't. I'd like to see this language changed, and welcome alternative suggestions. -- FRCP11 09:18, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

You know Howard Dean would endorse Lamont if he could do so without losing his DNC chairmanship. That's why the organization that he established, run now by his brother, endorsed Lamont. Prominent mainstream Democrats don't because it's nearly unheard of for such people (in either party) to endorse a primary challenge to an incumbent. But do you really think that, say, John Kerry or Al Gore don't know that their positions would be better served by Lamont rather than Lieberman in the Senate? They can't say so, but I'm sure they do.
For the most part I like DLC Democrats. I think they are more electable in general. They take issues where the hard left is way out of the mainstream as with national defense, crime policy, and welfare reform off the table by taking similar positions to the Republicans. I generally agree with most of those decisions, as well. The death penalty was a big one there as well, but its support is now more around 60% than 70%. I still support the death penalty, although the issue is a very low priority for me.
The line Lieberman crosses is that I think he helps Bush. My belief is that he wants to, but there's no proof of that. There's not even proof that he helps Bush. But that's where I come from. And why do pro-choice organizations refuse to endorse Lieberman? Because they know that he'll tend to support Republican court nominations, and as in the Schiavo case take the side of the Religious Right.
Finally, electability of a liberal is not an issue in a solidly blue state like Connecticut. If the left tried to oust Nebraska's Ben Nelson, who Harry Reid has called the Senate's most conservative Democrat, I'd think that was nutty, as a liberal can't win in Nebraska. Bob Kerrey showed you can be somewhat liberal and win there, but the risk would be silly.
If John Kerry or Al Gore intend to run for president, they're better off with Lieberman than with Lamont in the Senate, because Lamont's presence in the Senate would be used as fundraising to keep moderate Democrats out of the Senate in red states and as a get-out-the-vote effort in the swing states. Ask Tom Carson, who was tarred with Hillary, of all people, how well a moderate can do once you have a neophyte in a powerful position pandering to the most unrealistic fantasies of the Kossites. Lamont is a Republican fundraiser's dream. It surprises me that there aren't Republicans giving him money the way they supported Ralph Nader's ballot efforts in 2004.
Lieberman loses the primary, and the Democratic Party loses a good chunk of its coalition: it needs more people like Lieberman, and driving them out for perceived ideological affronts is the same mistake the party made in 1972. I know lots of Democrats who were shaken by September 11, and are upset at what the Kossites are doing to the party, but stay Democrats because they can point to Joe Lieberman. They're deluding themselves, but won't be able to once Lieberman loses a Democratic nomination.
As Senators, the question is whether they're better off with Lamont or Lieberman getting the nomination. If Lieberman gets the nomination, the state stays blue; if Lamont gets the nomination, Lieberman is free to move to the right and become a reverse-Jeffords. (Not clear that he would, but, then, the only reason to vote against him is if you believe that he's really a DINO.) Most Republicans and independents vote for Lieberman, Lieberman gets 30%-40% of the Democratic vote regardless, and he beats Lamont in the general election, and then the Dems have to pray that he isn't so resentful that he accepts an offer to caucus with the Republican majority. Right now, Lieberman toes the party line when there's a whip count: the things people are complaining about are the things where twenty other Democrats wanted to vote with the majority, and they didn't use the whip.
Show me one case where Lieberman was the difference-making vote for the Republicans?
I know of none, but the harm Lieberman does to Democrats is not so much his votes but his rhetoric. By being the only Senate Democrat to prominently and often defend Bush, I think he helps Bush's credibility. I don't think Bush's popularity could go much lower (with a president of either major party, there's a 30%ish bloc that will not oppose you), but it is very important to the Democrats' chances in 2008 that Bush never manage to climb out of the hole.
A Lamont victory, by ousting Lieberman from the Senate (or at least forcing Lieberman to do a reverse-Jeffords) eliminates Bush's only Democratic Senate defender and makes it that much harder for Bush to climb out of the hole.
A poll I saw on TV a month ago showed that belief that Bush was honest and credible was still about 47%, and there is still room for that to drop. If it does, it's another boon for Democrats in 2008. Lieberman does not want it to drop, however, as "We undermine the President's credibility at our nation's peril".
You also argue from the premise that Lamont is a hard left fringe Democrat, while I'd say he's a strongly liberal Democrat but not fringe-- a Ted Kennedy or Howard Dean type. If Lieberman does not run as an Independent, I believe Lamont will win. Even if the moderate Republican running against the winner of the primary were to win, or if Lieberman runs and wins as an Independent, you then have someone speaking and voting like Lieberman but without the "D" by his name that makes Lieberman so valuable as a pro-Bush spokesman.
A Lamont win would not be a fundraising boost for the Republicans, any more than the presence of Ted Kennedy, Russ Feingold, or Barbara Boxer in the Senate is. At most, Lamont is equally far left as them. I'm not sure what those Senators' public views on gay marriage are, but they are overall as liberal as or more liberal than Lamont will be seen as.
If Lieberman runs as an Independent, I think he will likely win in 2006 (while becoming a less effective spokesman for Bush), but I think the seat will go to a true Democrat in 2012, as then the party regulars will look for a strong candidate to run against Lieberman and fully support him.KP 20:54, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
The only conceivable argument is the Gang of 14, and I find it fascinating to see that there are Democrats who don't realize how badly Lieberman and other Dems snookered the Republicans in that deal. Bush's approval rating is ten points higher if the Republicans exercised the nuclear option.
I think the Gang of 14 deal was overall pretty good for the Democrats (at least if they remain willing to use the extraordinary circumstances claim), but I think the nuclear option would have damaged Bush, not helped him. People are finally catching up to realizing Bush's abuses of power, and the nuclear option would have added to that perception.KP 20:54, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
All of this is off-topic: "a number of Democrats" is POV Weasel, and needs to be changed. Do you have suggestions? -- FRCP11 15:46, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
I'll think about it. I've argued on the POV:Weasel talk page, and others have supported this view, that sometimes "weasel words" are the only way to say something that is true. (e.g. "The vast majority of scientists believe that creationism is false.")KP 20:54, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
I attempted to be more specific and source some such groups, in my recent edit. KP 22:17, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
I don't think "The overwhelming majority of scientists reject creationism" is weasel, fwiw. But what civil libertarian group objects to Lieberman? -- FRCP11 00:34, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Explanation of some potentially controversial edits not discussed elsewhere

On finding the source for the Quinnipac polls, I saw (not surprisingly) that Lieberman's Connecticut approval was higher among Republicans than among Democrats, so I included that. I used "6 points higher" rather than specifics because the breakdowns seemed not to make sense: They showed 59% overall, 60% among Democrats, 66% among Republicans, and 58% among Independents. Somewhere the math is flawed. I thought this was far better than a confusing and mathematically impossible (unless 90% of those polled were Independents) "59% approval rating, including 60% of Democrats, 66% of Republicans, and 58% of Independents."

I took out the "18 Senators for cloture" from the list of reasons supporting Lierberman as mainstream because it was listed elsewhere in the article, and with the beginning of the article an explanation of why there is Democratic opposition to Lieberman it seemed more appropriate in the later spot.

I don't even like that section being more than a fairly short sentence such as I had in one of my previous edits (in which I said that some votes were consistent with many other Democrats, with the Iraq authorization vote as an example), so it's a big compromise for me to not delete almost the entire list. It makes about as much sense to go on about it as it would be for me to find several respected Senators that went directly to the Senate without holding even as much lower office as Lamont has-- John Glenn is one, as are several businessmen who financed their own campaigns; and if you include governors I can think of many off the top of my head, including both current-generation Bushes and Arnold Schwarzenegger.

On cloture and blocking the nomination: The failure of cloture would have blocked it (although Lieberman's vote alone would not have caused cloture to fail, but I don't think I ever implied that), and Gang of 14 Democrats could have cited as extreme circumstances Alito's extreme ideology as explicated in the "moderate liberal" magazine Slate[1].

KP 22:18, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

The failure of cloture would have resulted in the nuclear option, and then the nomination would have passed; if Reid kept his promise to retaliate, it would've had the same impact on public opinion as Gingrich's attempt to shut down the Clinton government in 1996, except that there wouldn't be any interns delivering pizza to Bush. In any event, if Lieberman had broke his word on the Gang of 14 Agreement, all that would've done is allow cloture to pass with 71 votes instead of 72 -- there were too many red-state Democrats who didn't dare look obstructionist on a well-qualified candidate, and too many other Democrats who were principled enough to believe that filibustering was inappropriate for a Supreme Court nominee. Alito was a mainstream conservative, and there was no basis in his record for a filibuster--public opinion supported Alito, and a filibuster would've been viewed as a dishonest breach of the earlier compromise, energizing a right-wing that looks pretty quiet for the mid-term elections right now. -- FRCP11 00:30, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
This is really off topic, but the Slate article had a lot of mistakes in it, and affirmatively misrepresented a number of Alito opinions. E.g., [2]. Slate does a generally poor job of legal coverage, and half that article was really about how Scalia is much more principled than the knee-jerk conservative caricature his opponents make him out to be, which isn't news to anyone who follows the Court. The article starts from the false premise "Scalia is a right-wing nutcase", and then shows Scalia reaching reasonable results, selectively misrepresents intermediate-court opinions by Alito, and then concludes "Alito is worse than a right-wing nutcase" rather than "Gee, Scalia isn't really a right-wing nutcase after all." -- FRCP11 00:53, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
The Gang of 14 agreement was good for Democrats if and only if Democrats were willing to exercise their right under the agreement to filibuster under "extreme circumstances." If it ended Democratic judicial filibusters without making Bush go nuclear, then it was a coup for Republicans. The Slate article is the one I remembered and could cite for you. I read others (I think including one in The New Republic-- a truly DLC publication that also made the case that Alito would be more consistently conservative than Scalia, and no one questions that Scalia is overall right wing. What the Slate article points out is that Scalia, at least, doesn't automatically take right wing positions; sometimes he gives in to principled thought that he can't. Alito, like Bork, shows no signs that he would do that, even if at least one of his apparently extreme votes was to uphold precedent.
Anyway, I'm happy to see that our differences are getting fewer, to the point I have hope we can reach some content that we can both find acceptable. I think the "47 of 100 Democratic represenatives" is highly misleading. You described on this page the shady circumstances of the vote, and it seems to have been calculated to get just enough votes to make a quorum while keeping opponents out of the room. What you stated on the main page implies that 47% of Democratic representatives agreed with Bush's position on Schiavo. While I'm sure that more than 47 of the entire 200+ Democrats would have voted for the resolution, I'd bet the proponents of the resolution tried to get all the supporters they could to the floor. I wonder if there were more than 10 or 15 Democrats who would have voted Yes but weren't there. Probably most absent Republicans would also have opposed the measure.
Explaining this in detail would be way too wordy, so I don't know the best truly fair language. I think saying "47 House Democrats voted for the resolution" is closer to describing actual views than your language, but neither is perfect. I'm reverting that for that reason. I'm willing to see "47 of of the 100 who voted" on there if there is a way that isn't overly wordy to explain the context of that, which is that many of those on the floor were there specifically because they supported the resolution (and it was intentionally presented when many opponents were away). I did the best I could, saying that it was 47 but pointing out it was a weekend session with low attendance.
I was counting the Connecticut choice group as a civil liberties group, in response to your other comments, as they are also concerned with such issues as gay marriage. Lieberman's support of the Patriot Act is hated by civil libertarians. The ACLU doesn't endorse, so I'll modify to 'civil libertarians offended by the Patriot Act.'
I have one other tweak I plan to make that I consider very minor, basically splitting the difference between our descriptions of anti-Lieberman forces.
I think our biggest disagreement on content right now is the Terri Schiavo vote language. The others are nuanced tweaks. I sincerely hope we can solve this, because I don't enjoy this fight. KP 02:36, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
If you're going to single out the Patriot Act, then you should mention that it passed the Senate 98-1 or 97-2 or whatever it was. Again, Lieberman's vote was in the mainstream of the Democratic Party, and what we have are activists who are far to the left of that mainstream.
And I wish you would provide original thought to the Supreme Court issues rather than parroting dishonest talking points that you haven't scrutinized. Alito's first Supreme Court opinion struck down a death penalty out of South Carolina, which directly falsifies your assertion that he unthinkingly votes for the right-wing result. There's not a single Republican nominee that wouldn't have been smeared the same way Alito was smeared by these groups, which can't raise funds if they don't proclaim the sky is falling. -- FRCP11 04:31, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
I've been meaning to respond to this for a while, off topic or not: "...not a single Republican nominee who wouldn't have been smeared...." Well, first of all, John Roberts was not. Secondly, those opposed to Alito included Slate and The New Republic, Slate being a moderate liberal, but definitely not far left, publication, and The New Republic usually pro-Democratic but almost centrist. Neither relies on fundraising, and had no financial incentive to say that Alito was awful. They believed it, and neither publication is at all far left. -KP 00:15, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Oh, Crap

"Mainstream" would be POV if I said he was not mainstream. I said his critics do not view him as mainstream among Democrats. They do not, or they'd oppose 20+ Democrats, not just him. KP 04:44, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Have you read these sites? They do oppose 20+ Democrats, including those who merely speak at the DLC, they've just singled out Lieberman because he's up for election and because anti-war sentiment is especially strong in the Connecticut Democratic party. And even that battle is quixotic. -- FRCP11 15:09, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
I've read several anti-Lieberman sites, and in general they give reasons for singling out Lieberman rather than others. One example is the site [3]. Now, it's overall a poorly written site, including typoes, but it does explain what a lot of Democrats feel about Lieberman and Lieberman alone. Actually, looking at the site, he's changed the content, which had included something like "This is not an attempt to purge the Democratic party of moderates. Do you see me going after Harry Reid? Reid would not have been my choice for minority leader, but he generally supports Democratic values." (Reid is a centrist Democrat, holding populist positions on economic issues but being pro-life, pro-gun, and conservative on some other social issues). The current site includes this page that states that Lieberman is no centrist: [4].
His page goes considerably farther than I would go, suggesting that Lieberman is not even close to the American political center rather than the Democratic political center. I think Lieberman in his overall positions, is close to the American political center (but still to the right of moderate Democrats like Clinton and Gore), but given his choice to emphasize his more conservative and pro-Bush views is slightly to the right of the overall American center. He is definitely well to the right of the Democratic political center, and I think his lack of support in the 2004 Democratic presidential primary showed that clearly.
What sets Lieberman apart from virtually all other Senate Democrats is his pro-Bush rhetoric, and his desire to work with Bush even when total victory over him is possible (as on Social Security). If Lieberman's only difference from moderate Democrat Al Gore were about the current Iraq war, I don't think you'd see the anger there from nearly as many sources. I'd have to check who among these Democrats is up for re-election this year, but I don't see a big movement to dump Ben Nelson, Max Baucus, Evan Bayh, Mark Prior, war supporters Joe Biden or Hillary Clinton, or other DLC Dems.
Many of those I mentioned have official voting records considerably to Lieberman's right, but those that do (Nelson, Bayh, Baucus, and Prior) are from red states and need to in order to win, and Lieberman's refusal to filibuster-- not only judicial nominations, but issues like the bankruptcy bill, makes the potential effects of his votes much more conservative than his voting record indicates.KP 23:31, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
Actually, the Ari Melber article you cite calls for dumping Evan Bayh also. And you can find plenty of Democracy-for-America/Daily-Kos/MyDD posts calling for DLC explusion.
The Melber article is impressive, because it criticizes Lieberman for refusing to demagogue on the Dubai ports issue. Which is exactly my point: left-wing Dems are criticizing Lieberman for being principled, rather than hyper-partisan. -- FRCP11 16:29, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
Actually I just left the Melber article in from an edit by someone else who is apparently anti-Lieberman, but....
You see, here's a point you may miss: I'm not left-wing, but I believe that Democrats have a duty to be hyper-partisan to limit the effectiveness of a president that I believe is odious and far right. Republicans were hyper-partisan against the moderate Democratic president Bill Clinton (whose positions I very much supported), impeaching him technically on perjury grounds but at bottom for having an affair and lying about it.
They largely didn't follow the bipartisanship on foreign policy idea, either-- accusing Clinton of "wagging the dog" when he bombed Al Qaeda targets.
All of this worked very well from a Republican perspective, severely limiting Clinton's second term effectiveness.
So, fine, I would say to Lieberman if I could personally confront him: Be principled and support Bush on issues where you agree with him. But, do not help him maintain his popularity, and in fact "demagogue" issues as much as possible where both you and most Americans disagree with him.
Damn right he should have jumped on the Dubai ports issue, and anything else he can use to bludgeon Bush.
I remember during the 2004 Democratic primaries, I told those I knew that I liked Dean's (hyperpartisan) style of giving Bush no quarter, but Dean's views on terrorism and foreign policy were way too far left for me and I strongly hoped Edwards, Kerry, or Clark would be the nominee. I think Dean is in the perfect position now as DNC chairman, in a position to influence Democratic rhetoric but not to influence policy much.
My view is the Democrats are the opposition party and will remain so unless they act like an opposition party and oppose. Lieberman, more than any other prominent Democrat, refuses to oppose. In the link regarding Ben Nelson, he showed how a Democratic senator on his own party's right flank can at least avoid helping Bush and avoid hurting other Democrats. Al Gore's rhetoric since his 2000 "defeat" (in quotes because even if you regard the Florida count as fair, Gore got the most votes nationally) has shown how a moderate Democrat can score some strong partisan points against Bush.
So, yes, I'm very much a believer in partisanship, and Lieberman's refusal to be partisan is a large reason that I feel that all true Democrats, from Kucinich Democrats to Clinton Democrats, should oppose Lieberman. -KP 22:32, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Wow! I don't even know who added this link; it might have been you. But if you wonder how moderately liberal Democrats who oppose the hard left could have huge problems with Lieberman, this link explains it perfectly![5]. -KP 10:56, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Just stumbled onto this thread, but I have to ask. If a strong majority of people in the US want to see us out of Iraq, how does Liebermann's position that being there is a good thing qualify him as mainstream? If a strong bi-partisan majority believe that the US needs National Health Care, how does Liebermann's efforts to support the Insurance Companies and not move in a Universal direction qualify him as mainstream? Pick almost any issue, and you'll find a majority of voters leaning one way, and Joe leaning the other. I don't consider that mainstream, I consider that to be fringe. And if Joe is leaning towards supporting Bush on a lot of things, then he is right wing fringe. I'm just looking at things as I see them, but that's my view. Chadlupkes 18:19, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Bush's Tax Cuts

Looking at an edit you reverted, I noted something I didn't even know-- that Lieberman had come out against repealing Bush's tax cuts. He's even worse than I thought, as I think Bush's tax cuts are the single worst act he has committed as president. Anyway, while modifying the other person's language might have been fair, and the charge of "repeating Republican talking points," while I believe it to be true, is basically impossible to prove, to completely remove an important fact about Lieberman sourced by, of all places, Fox News, was an unfair decision.

I'm sure Lieberman voted against at least one of Bush's tax cut bills. Unless he voted against them all, I would see removing the reference or pointing out a Bush tax bill or two he voted against to provide "context" would be unfair, as would picking out the Bush tax cut bill that got the most Democratic support and saying something like "He was joined by 20 other Democrats in supporting X bill." He said what he said, as reported by Fox News. Conservatives knowing of this would undoubtedly like him even better; liberals would like him even less. KP 00:34, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Edits by 69.211.50.40

I just removed some of them and softened others. I don't know if he reads this page, but he went too far. The cited articles about Lieberman criticizing other Democrats were from the 2004 presidential primary. Many Democrats criticized their opponents in that primary, and specific issues, such as Bush's tax cuts (mentioned above) and opposition to strong criticism of Bush, are mentioned in the same paragraph. The "repeating Republican talking points," while I believe it is a true charge, is POV. I tried to name the sources of the complaints he cites and state more neutrally what they claim.KP 04:22, 4 June 2006 (UTC) - - I simply don't know if the BUSH(s) are working for some unseen vultures. Everything these guys have touched has turned into a dirt, NOT to exclude the tax cuts.....foreign policies is at an all time low....you really have to look out the window when these vultures tell you 'Good Morning'. What a shame! Hope Americans will send them a clear message on Nov 7 2006.

undermine Presidential credibility at our nation's peril

I think the context for the speech is important as an NPOV matter, since the use of the out-of-context quote shows just how unfair Lieberman's opponents have been to him:

“To me, bipartisan foreign policy means a mutual effort under our indispensable two-party system, to unite our official voice at the water’s edge so that America speaks with maximum authority against those who would divide and conquer us and the free world. ...
"It is time that America’s leaders, in the White House and Congress, Republicans and Democrats, who agree on our goals in Iraq but disagree on tactics to start trusting each other again so that we can work together again. The distrust is deep and I know it will be difficult to overcome, but history will judge us harshly if we do not stretch across the divide of distrust and join together to complete our mission successfully in Iraq.
"It is time for Democrats who distrust President Bush to acknowledge that he will be commander-in-chief for three more critical years, and that in matters of war we undermine Presidential credibility at our nation's peril. It is time for Republicans in the White House and Congress who distrust Democrats to acknowledge that greater Democratic involvement and support in the war in Iraq is critical to rebuilding the support of the American people that is essential to our success in that war."[6]

This is simply a restatement of the ancient maxim "In matters of national security, the best politics is no politics." It's improper for the article to imply that Lieberman meant something else; the NPOV thing to do is to acknowledge that the accusations are being made that Lieberman meant something else, provide the original source, and let readers judge for themselves. Neutral reporting of facts, rather than subjective characterizations, are what belong in Wikipedia. -- FRCP11 06:54, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I have no problem with your providing the context of "...at our nation's peril" speech and giving both sides. That edit looks fair to me. -- KP 10:15, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
Okay, when I made that comment I had missed your sentence about his criticizing Bush. I wonder how many of the criticisms he lists on his web site were made before, say, as big an audience as the "...at our nation's peril" speech. He has never criticized Bush in such a way to truly do damage to him.- KP 10:32, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
I'm alright with your compromise edit. -- FRCP11 15:41, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

"one Daily Kos article criticizing Tom Carper identifies sixteen Democratic senators, including several from "blue" states, with worse party unity records than Lieberman."

Please source this. I'm guessing this is based on voting record, and not rhetorical record, which is where Lieberman is more Republican-friendly than probably any other Senate Democrat.

Until it's sourced, such that I can read the source and provide accurate context, I am reverting it. -KP 23:57, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

One other thing that recently occurred to me is that your link is to more of an anti-Nelson rant than anything else. Since it does not call for Democrats to dump Nelson, it doesn't even seem very relevant. I still won't remove it, but I do plan to take a more careful look at the language.

Some links you may see as showing contempt for many moderate Democrats express anger toward a particular vote or decision of certain Democratic Senators. One I found listed angrily the Democrats who voted for cloture on the bankruptcy bill. That doesn't mean that the writer wants to see all those senators ousted.

I know there are sites that condemn the entire DLC, and probably somewhere out there is a site that actually advocates primary challenges to all or most DLC members. I don't think such a site would be at all representative of the anger at Lieberman, though.

You hit the nail on the head elsewhere when you said it had to do with Lieberman's refusal to be partisan.-KP 03:56, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Chait's article, Moveon and DFA, etc.

The one thing I've posted (recently) without a citation is that Moveon and DFA have endorsed primary opponents to no other Democratic Senator than Lieberman. While I am on Moveon's mailing list (as I noted, I joined their site to attempt to help them help Kerry defeat Bush). I can't prove a negative, although while on their list I've seen endorsements of no Democrat primary opponents besides Lieberman's and the opponent of a Bush-supported Hispanic Texas Democratic congressman (by another Hispanic Texas Democrat). I'd have gladly listed his name as an exception if I had remembered it.

I can't cite anything, as I can't prove a negative; but if the statement is inaccurate that should be easy for you to prove.

On Chait's article, I've read it (weeks ago) and even with my edit the flavor is not captured. He actually lists a large number of reasons that Democrats might specifically oppose Lieberman. That he at the end says he "can't quite root" for them seems a strange conclusion-- although he does make it-- given what else he says in the article. I also plan to read more on chait to see if it's accurate to call him a 'liberal,' or whether 'Democrat' is more accurate. I am not changing it now, as right now I have too little information to warrant changing it.

I dislike your removing factual, sourced information from the article-- such as the 'Hartford Courant' article and the fact that there really are a lot of sites that are against only Lieberman (with examples), when you criticize me anytime I do so.KP 22:06, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

"You mean anti-Lieberman websites oppose Lieberman? That's tautological as opposed to evidentiary," you wrote. That they oppose only Lieberman in evidentiary. -KP 22:09, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

The DFA claim is false. DFA activists are looking for challengers to Feinstein and Clinton.[7] MoveOn has several Dem officeholders they're classifying as "wrong" that they're deciding whether they have the money and opposition that's worth supporting a challenge. If Lamont weren't a millionaire, MoveOn wouldn't back him, either. [8]
KP, left-wing Democrats mounting a primary challenge to Feinstein are not going to do it at a domain-name associated with Lieberman. It's POV-loading to including multiple references to the same non-notable two-bit website run by a guy in his underwear who can't even spell "centrist," but if you really insist upon burying the article with references to this loon, be my guest. -- FRCP11 22:23, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
Okay, by all means then the DFA listing (which I knew you would prove false if it was) should be removed, and I'll do it if you have not. I know the timetogojoe.com site isn't what you would call professionally run, and I probably would do well to remove some references to it. In this particular case, it is relevant, although perhaps I should find a different site that is exclusively anti-Lieberman to put in its place.
Oh, and about the timetogojoe.com site, I'd say that whoever runs it is poor with English and grammar (which certainly harms his credibility), and probably is not as educated as either of us, Chait, the Dailykos writer, or many others cited on either side. One thing that was noteworthy about his site, though, was that although in his new format this has been omitted, he was very, very clear that he did not want to take down other moderate Democrats, that he thought Lieberman was uniquely bad for the party. -KP 22:36, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
The point is: Who cares what timetogojoe thinks? There are 30 million Democrats out there, of course you can find one who supports a given configuration of support. I'm sure one can find a Dem who thinks only Lieberman should be supported, and the others kicked to the curb.
The "MoveOn" factoid should be deleted also, because it reflects solely the presence of a perceived viable challenger, rather than MoveOn's opinion. If a millionaire challenged Carper or Nelson, they'd support those guys, too. -- FRCP11 23:14, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
That's speculative. I think they are pragmatic enough not to support a primary challenge to Nelson. I'm not sure about Carper; but I think they, and I, can see that Lieberman uniquely hurts the Democratic party. They didn't join the DFA in looking for a primary challenge to Feinstein, because Feinstein is definitely no DINO, and definitely is not helpful to Bush. The Moveon fact is true, and there are other Democrats with the particular configuration of support such as timetogojoe's, including myself. Chait's logic in the article in a lot of ways mirrors mine, even if he reaches a different conclusion (one that may have been encouraged from within the pro-Lieberman New Republic.

changes I just made to the article

First, I'm new to Wikipedia, so forgive me if I've trespassed on any conventions.

I made some changes I wanted to explain; I think this is the right spot to do that. I did two main things. First, I replaced what I took to be loaded language with non-loaded language. For instance, I changed the first sentence from a characterization of Leiberman's opponents as "anti-war, feminist...", which conservative readers will read negatively, to just "Leiberman's detractors", which reads neutrally from both sides. Or, again, I deleted the gloss on the Terry Schiavo case regarding her not having a living will, because it's one-sided (the other side might gloss it, e.g., as her legal guardian's request that her privacy right to forego treatment be respected). Better just to state that Leiberman supported her continuing treatment, since this article is not about the Schiavo case per se.

Second, I moved around the pieces of the article so that it read as point, counterpoint, and reply. I found I had to do that for myself as I read it, to make sense of it. I thought others might benefit from the arrangement, too.

I found that the discussion at the end (under the ***'s) did not add much content. I'd recommend deleting it, but didn't want to do that without others agreeing.

Yours, MurphdillMurphdill

Some of Murphdill's points have merit. He's noting the POV of the language. The point on the Schiavo case is one that I hadn't even considered: It is one sided to point out the lack of the living will and not that her legal guardian requested the removal of the feeding tube. That point I'm bringing back right now (by removing the living will language), as well as the overstatement of Daily Kos' views on unrelated topics.
I'm not sure of the characterization of the groups, and he was wrong to bring up Reid's opposition to the constitutional amendment, as Lieberman, from all I can see, also opposes that amendment.
Some of the tightening up of other language might be worth doing, but probably can't be done in a fair way.
I do think that since he did post here, you owed him an explanation here of the revert.-KP 05:19, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
He didn't post here until after I made the revert.
Murph, I reverted, because your edit (1) left the article in a sort of sandbox draft mode and (2) had a lot of misspellings.
The article even under the reversion stands as a mess because of POV-loading, which, to make NPOV, requires lengthy responses, burying the substance. I'd be thrilled to see someone take a machete to it and reduce it to a fair essence (that whole section really shouldn't be longer than a paragraph), but I'm not going to be the one to do it because, frankly, I don't need the tsuris of policing it.
The recent changes make it even worse, because the deletions were one-sided and add to the unbalance of an article that was already in questionable compliance with NPOV. I'm adding a cleanup tag.-- FRCP11 05:11, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
What I just did was to remove the living will reference, as MurphDill's point that it's one sided strikes me as accurate (and the alternative of listing both sides just clutters up the article further). I also tried to remove what I could: both the objection to and the defense of Lieberman's position on gay marriage, for example.
You're right that to a point it's always going to be unwieldy. Nobody can make an edit we'll both accept that will fix it. I tried to improve it a little in that regard, anyway.-KP 05:18, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

POV tag

I give up. The POV-loading is unbelievable, and now that K13060 is resorting to sanitizing by deleting the things that most Democrats agree with Lieberman on, but that Lamont supporters have singled out as one of the most important reasons for opposing Lieberman, I'm just not going to get into this fight any more. (Here's another article identifying gay marriage as a critical difference between the two.) Someone else needs to fix this. The reality is that it's the limosine left that opposes Lieberman, and the article buries this fact in a morass of POV-loading from blogs and marginal sources. -- FRCP11 05:25, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Is gay marriage a major reason that Lieberman's oppnonents oppose him, though? I know that Connecticut Choice Voice mentions it among their reasons, but as you wrote on something similar, can you find any pro-war, pro-euthanasia, pro-Bush-tax-cut people or groups that oppose Lieberman on gay marriage alone?
You have been holding me to a different standard than yourself in this regard.-KP 05:32, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
Yes, gay marriage is a major reason that Lieberman's opponents oppose him. CCV and NOW explicitly stated it. When Human Rights Campaign endorsed Lieberman (no mention of this in the article, by the way), they were castigated (if not especially coherently).[9] And I repeat my earlier link of a neutral analysis of the election critical of both candidates.[10]
And this is not analogous. You were using four adjectives to describe two groups to make it seem like there was this mass of anti-Lieberman activism, as opposed to a small fringe. (Your excessive citation to homegrown blogs also has the same problem. There's no reason to mention Timetogojoe in a Wikipedia article. It's not notable by any stretch of the imagination.)
In contrast, these are individual issues, and this one, out of all of the differences, is a big one, perhaps the second-biggest behind the war, because Lamont is being very two-faced about it, recognizing that he needs to support gay marriage to mobilize his far-left base, but has no chance of winning the election if it gets mentioned loudly. In contrast, Terri Schiavo is old old news. -- FRCP11 05:44, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
Okay, if you put gay marriage back in the article, removing the POV tag, I'll accept that as a stable compromise. However, to say there is only a "small fringe" of anti-Lieberman activism is inaccurate (and your belief that there is is POV in itself).
It is, however, POV of you to assume that it is a fringe that wishes to replace Lieberman. Established officeholders don't because you almost never see established officeholders oppose others within their party. Also, it is a reasonable argument to say that Democrats' resources should be devoted to defeating Republicans (in name as well as in fact). Finally, many mainstream Democratic groups assume that Lieberman will win anyway, and don't want to alienate him.
It is not because of his actions. It is impossible to be good by the standards of Bush and Hannity and also to be good by the standards of Gore and Kerry.
That is POV as well, but no more so than what you wrote about "fringe elements."
Again, though, I'm willing to settle upon including gay marriage in the article if that brings about a stable compromise.-KP 06:01, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Heck, I'll do just that (adding gay marriage while removing the tag). However, if that compromise is not enough for you, then please revert to the non-gay-marriage version rather than simply replacing the tag.-KP 06:11, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

June 8 POV tag

I object to this edit, which

  1. replaces up-to-date information with inaccurate out-of-date information;
  2. deletes a Lieberman endorsement;
  3. deletes the fact that the majority of Connecticut Democrats support Lieberman, think he's doing a good job, and deserves to be re-elected;
  4. POV-loads in favor of Lamont, including references to unsound sources.

My version was clean, and reflected all points of view without redundancy. The current version is a campaign document for Lamont. -- FRCP11 18:28, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Oh, where does it reflect the opposition to Lieberman? Where does it accurately reflect what Chait's article said, and the ambivalence within it? -KP 18:45, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
It reflects opposition in the section "Opposition to Lieberman". Chait's article was quoted as a description of the anti-Lieberman movement, and noted his criticism of Lieberman. Whether Chait supports or opposes the anti-Lieberman movement is irrelevant to the descriptive paragraph. A Wikipedia article is a summary, not a place to dump every single possible pro or con fact. -- FRCP11 18:35, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
True, if it is a fair summary, which your edits were not. You like to selectively quote Chait because that quote (rather than Chait's whole article) represents your POV. While your POV is reflected in your edit, my POV (that Lieberman is helpful to Bush in a way other conservative and/or pro-war Democrats are not) is not reflected. It becomes a Lieberman commercial, suggesting that you have to be a loony far-left-winger to oppose Lieberman.-KP 18:45, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
I quoted Chait because it is the only mainstream newspaper description of the anti-Lieberman movement. I could use a David Frum quote instead. I haven't seen any mainstream media describe the Lamont insurgency as anything other than a fringe movement, but if you have, you can add a sentence saying "Journalist Joe Schmo views the Lamont supporters as reflecting...". My version plainly isn't a Lieberman commercial, because my version reports both sides without burying one of them in POV-loading disclaimers.
I did not selectively quote Chait. I quoted the only paragraph he had describing the anti-Lieberman movement. And I acknowledged that he's critical of Lieberman. I did not include his endorsement of Lieberman, I did not include his lengthy back-and-forth reasoning. Both are irrelevant to a factual description of the anti-Lieberman movement. Again, Wikipedia is not a place to dump every op-ed. There's no reason to include the entire Jon Chait editorial. -- FRCP11 19:04, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
While I could search for, and probably could find, a more favorable characterization of the anti-Lieberman movement (probably from a strongly liberal but not fringe-- Ted Kennedy type-- publication such as The Nation or The Progressive), the question is since you were trimming the article why a charactrization is even necessary. An alternative would be to list the groups that oppose him (Moveon, NOW, DFA, ConnecticutChoiceVoice, etc.) with citations, allowing people to decide for themselves whether that constitutes a fringe movement or not.
Any statement about Lieberman's voting record being in line with other Democrats' must, to be balanced, cite the Hartford Courant piece and its view that Lieberman's voting record does not reflect his views.
The fact that NOW and CCV oppose Lieberman (and always have) suggest that they do not trust him to come down on the side of choice when it counts. Rightly or wrongly, it seems pretty clear to me that that is what they believe.
I also do think that if you were to cite a quote negatively characterizing the anti-Lieberman forces, it would be fairer if it came from the Frum article because, among other things, Frum cannot be characterized as a liberal. Frum is a centrist and would have to be characterized as such. However, such a quote would have to be balanced with an anti-Lieberman or pro-Lamont quote, and heck-- I could find some good ones even from Chait's article (although simply quoting that side of Chait's article would be my misrepresenting it as much as you had). -KP 19:58, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
Example from The Washington Monthly, which is overall not that far left, although is dovish, in response to Chait's characterization of the anti-Lieberman movement:

Chait calls the Kos/Atrios wing "left-wing activists." Marshall Wittman more colorfully calls them "McGovernites with modems." But this is a serious misreading. In fact, if I have a problem with the Kossite wing of the blogosphere, it's the fact that they aren't especially left wing. Markos in particular specifically prides himself on caring mostly about winning elections, not fighting ideological battles.

Now, there's no question that the left blogosphere is vaguely in favor of all the usual liberal goals: progressive taxation, decent healthcare for everyone, tolerance for minorities, and so forth. And, yes, they're loudly in favor of these things. But let's face it: with occasional exceptions here and there, these aren't the things that consistently get their blood boiling. What does is two things: the war in Iraq and the almost criminal negligence and incompetence of the Bush administration.

So is the liberal blogosphere liberal? Of course it is. But to compare it to the left-wing radicals of the early 70s is to misunderstand it completely. Netroots favorite Howard Dean is no lefty radical, and at a policy level most of the high-traffic liberal blogs are only modestly to the left of the DLC — except on Iraq.[11]

One such blog wrote, in response to 'national purge' indictment and the view it is all about the war:

What nonsense. 23 Democratic Senators voted for that resolution. One is the target of this “national purge.” The DLC, who’s President called for a purge of the “liberal” elements of the Party in December 2004, has got a lot of nerve preaching ideological tolerance. But of course ideology is not the issue with Lieberman - it is Party loyalty. He is a bad Democrat. And has been for some time.[12]

-KP 20:26, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I must admit that working within your framework has resulted in a cleaner, less cluttered article. I feel that I have now balanced it in terms of POV. You may not, and then there remains a problem. I don't think that, say, Chait himself, who is definitely a Democrat but supports Lieberman's re-election, would view the article as it now stands as biased, but judging from other comments I have to suppose you're a neocon and if not a Republican, certainly not a Democrat either. I actually share a significant amount of foreign policy common ground with neocons; I would have supported the vote to authorize the current Iraq war (although I wouldn't if I knew then what I know now), and I even think the Guantanamo detentions are justifiable-- even torture in Guantanamo is, if it helps us to prevent terrorism.

I think today's neocons are very much allied with Republicans, though; and in any event domestic policy overrides foreign policy as my chief concern.

But my point is that someone who is not a Democrat will find it hard to be neutral in this matter, as my objection to Lieberman is mostly that I feel he is, as I quoted someone saying, a "bad Democrat" in a partisan way. If someone doesn't care about that fact, he will find it hard to be neutral about any Democratic primary.-KP 22:29, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Preserving old version of overlong Lieberman opposition section

Opposition to Lieberman

Nevertheless, some anti-war, feminist, progressive, and other activists and groups object to Lieberman on a variety of issues[13][14][15][16][17], including but not limited to: Lieberman's hawkish stance in Iraq; his opposition to repealing Bush's tax cuts[18]; his opposition to gay marriage[19]; his opposition to removal of a feeding tube that was keeping Terri Schiavo artificially alive[20][21]; his membership in the Gang of 14[22]; his perceived attacks on other Democrats [23][24][25][26][27]; Lieberman's rhetoric, believed by such Democrats as Paul Krugman and former Kerry advisor Ari Melber to often support Republican talking points[28][29][30].

Some of these positions can be viewed as consistent with those of many other Democratic senators. Several, including Hillary Clinton, John Edwards, and John Kerry voted to authorize the use of force against Iraq, although many of them currently hold positions less supportive than Lieberman; nearly all Democratic Senators officially oppose gay marriage; and the Palm Sunday Compromise, which demanded federal intervention in the Terri Schiavo case in March 2005 before being struck down by federal courts, received 47 votes from Democrats along with 156 votes from Republicans (100 Democrats and 162 Republicans were present to vote); the Democratic whip took no official position on the bill, on which the vote was held after midnight on a weekend with many members absent.[31] [32][33]

Some Democrats are also upset at a speech Lieberman gave where he said:

“To me, bipartisan foreign policy means a mutual effort under our indispensable two-party system, to unite our official voice at the water’s edge so that America speaks with maximum authority against those who would divide and conquer us and the free world. ...
"It is time that America’s leaders, in the White House and Congress, Republicans and Democrats, who agree on our goals in Iraq but disagree on tactics to start trusting each other again so that we can work together again. The distrust is deep and I know it will be difficult to overcome, but history will judge us harshly if we do not stretch across the divide of distrust and join together to complete our mission successfully in Iraq.
"It is time for Democrats who distrust President Bush to acknowledge that he will be commander-in-chief for three more critical years, and that in matters of war we undermine Presidential credibility at our nation's peril. It is time for Republicans in the White House and Congress who distrust Democrats to acknowledge that greater Democratic involvement and support in the war in Iraq is critical to rebuilding the support of the American people that is essential to our success in that war."[34]

The "undermine Presidential credibility at our nation's peril" line of the speech was perceived by some as opposing criticism of Bush or at least Bush's integrity[35][36]; Lieberman has objected to that interpretation, saying he was simply calling for bipartisanship on matters of national security. Lieberman has in fact criticized Bush a number of times, although not as strongly or prominently as Lieberman's critics would like.[37].

Some critics contrast Lieberman's style with that of conservative Nebraska Democrat Ben Nelson, who represents a much more conservative state than Lieberman and is considered very conservative for a Democrat, but nevertheless appears to many Democrats as much more interested than Lieberman in helping the Democratic party.[38] However, some of these Lieberman opponents also have at times expressed anger at Nelson's conservative tendencies;[39]; one Daily Kos article identifies sixteen Democratic senators, including several from "blue" states, with worse party unity voting records than Lieberman, and calls Tom Carper the "worst blue state Democratic Senator" in terms of voting record, although the beginning of the article states that the worst blue state Senator "in terms of causing damage to the party and party loyalty, (is) clearly Joe Lieberman."[40]. Lieberman's critics also question the usefulness of voting records (the basis for the condemnation of Carper), as opposed to that which does not show up on the voting record, in evaluating Lieberman's Democratic credentials.[41] Moveon.org has supported a primary challenge only to Lieberman among Democratic Senators, not to any others. Many other sites oppose Lieberman and no other Democratic Senators.[42][43]

Because they viewed Lieberman's overall positions and actions as inconsistent with their view of Democratic ideals, activists and groups such as those listed above began considering getting another candidate to run in the Democratic primary.[44][45][46] [47][48]

New Republic senior editor, "liberal hawk" Jonathan Chait, writes:

"[The] anti-Lieberman campaign has come to stand for much more than Lieberman's sins. It's a test of strength for the new breed of left-wing activists who are flexing their muscles within the party. These are exactly the sorts of fanatics who tore the party apart in the late 1960s and early 1970s. They think in simple slogans and refuse to tolerate any ideological dissent."[49]

However, Chait in the same article is quite critical of Lieberman citing his uniqueness among Democrats:

"Lots of Democrats supported the Iraq war initially and believe now that we can and must win. Moderates such as Joe Biden and Hillary Clinton say this all the time. But you don't see anybody trying to oust them. The difference is that Lieberman, unlike other Democratic hawks, musters little passion for exposing and correcting the massive blunders the Bush administration has committed. When the Abu Ghraib scandal broke, Lieberman noted, in Bush's defense, 'Those who were responsible for killing 3,000 Americans on Sept. 11, 2001, never apologized.'"[50]

(Lieberman, however, contrary to his statement that Chait quotes, also criticized Abu Ghraib, saying "Americans will not tolerate such inhumanity," and demanded an investigation to hold accountable everyone responsible, while still defending Bush and defense secretary Donald Rumsfeld.[51])

Chait also expresses some ambivalence over the race, while saying "can't quite root" for Lieberman's defeat for the reasons cited above and because he feels it would be viewed, correctly or not, as an admonition of all pro-war Democrats.

You seemed to make sure to remove all context for anything pro-Lieberman. Citing Chait's article without noting the points he made against Lieberman within it is unfair beyond belief. Reverted to "The Pollster's" version.


"Lieberman's Independent Candidacy" edits

I have removed the "Benedict Lieberman" statements. This nickname predates this current election cycle, thus making its presence in this article superfluous. Furthermore, I feel that this substantially compromises this article's ability to conform to an NPOV. Including specific insults directed at Lieberman are totally unnecessary. I personally despise the man, but he is entitled to a fair shake on Wikipedia. It is important that we maintain very high standards for EVERY article. I am furthermore having qualms about the "liberal critics" part of the Independent Candidacy section, but I also feel that an inclusion of how people perceive Lieberman's petitioning is important. Please follow up with thoughts. --Neocarpetbagger 05:37, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Update the polls

I'm writing this on July 8th but the most recent polls cited are dated June 14. I'd really like to see some updated polls. By the way, Sean Hannity endorsed Lieberman on his radio during an interview with lierberman liberman apears on hanity's radio show every month.

Weicker in possible indep. candidate list

I'm going to remove Weicker's name from the possible independent candidate list, unless there's some verifiable evidence that he still might run. He was apparently thinking of running before Lamont entered the race, and might reasonably have been on the list at that time, but he's since endorsed Lamont and I think he no longer has any interest in running himself. Phr (talk) 01:32, 16 July 2006 (UTC)


Weicker's Out man. Take it out.

Are there any real independents running?

Are there any real independent or Green Party folks running for the seat? And if there are how are they polling?

They're on teh page, though maybe they weren't when this question was asked: A Green, a true Independent and a Republican running on an anti-war platform. My guess is that they would poll less than 1% all together. —Cuiviénen
And update should be made on independent and Green party candidates. Some candidates listed may not have receieved enough signatures to get on the ballot so this should be researched and updated.

Lieberman's Independent Candidacy

The following sentence seems out of place: "Before the 3rd there was large speculation that this would happen. It now becomes a large issue especially in dealing with endorsements from the party's elite.". I can only assume it's referring to Lieberman's independent candidacy, but given the structure of the section, this sentence is not in the right place to have that meaning. Venknat 20:18, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

WSJ Editorial

Can someone produce a link to the Wall Street Journal article in which Lieberman said "we undermine presidential credibility...?" I can't find that article, though he did write a similar one on 11/29/05 expressing optimism about the war effort and disappointment in both congressional parties.

http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110007611

The only place I can find the language in question is here: http://lieberman.senate.gov/newsroom/release.cfm?id=249522

69.37.115.98 14:56, 2 August 2006 (UTC)frb63

Here is a video clip with him saying as much--Jred 16:19, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Also mentioned here: [52]. This article is pretty POV, but interesting: [53] Phr (talk) 07:38, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Separate endorsements page

We've been arguing a bit about this over at the Joe Lieberman page, but I think it would be beneficial to make separate articles detailing endorsements each candidate has received. These articles would be linked to under the endorsements section of this page. This would make the article easier to read, more concise, and shorter. In the midst of confusion, I took the liberty of creating List of Endorsements for Joe Lieberman in the 2006 Connecticut Senate Race but I need help detailing who has endorsed Joe for the primary while supporting the eventual nominee, and who has endorsed joe for the general. What do you think of this? Smedley Hirkum 03:35, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Please join us

Over at the Lieberman page, we are arguing as to whether a separate section should be devoted to criticism of the candidate, and whether the section should be in the Lieberman article or in this article. Smedley Hirkum 03:42, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

endorsements

Is it significant that the Democratic National Committee didn't make an endorsement? I'd think they'd be required to stay neutral. Have they ever endorsed one Dem primary candidate over another? Phr (talk) 07:41, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Prior endorsements from newspapers

I'd like to revert this edit: [54]. The endorsements are relevant because they express the POV's of the endorsers, so those POV's are also relevant, and in the case of newspapers, the previous endorsements express the POV's succintly. I don't see any "real left vs. fake left" stuff going on, since neither of these candidates is "left". However, Bush is far more conservative than either of them, so a prior Bush endorsement would correlate with supporting the more conservative of the two Dem candidates. Thoughts? Phr (talk) 01:17, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Non Wiki Related

Hello, I don't have basic cable. Does C-Span or any media carry a live feed so I can watch the votes results come in, in real time on the Internet? And if there is a site, please provide link. :) Pete Peters 21:23, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

http://www.cspan.org - There's a live feed on the top page of the website.--The lorax 21:33, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
Thanx, is there template that says watch something like "this article is subject of an ongoing event, watch here."?? Pete Peters 21:41, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure.
In terms of a running tally, I believe that Ned Lamont is currently leading by four points with 84% of the precincts reporting.
Some of the returns from the bigger municipalities in CT still haven't come in yet.
That's according to WNYC.


Ruthfulbarbarity 02:21, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Over

At least, the Democratic primary for this particular race.
Senator Lieberman is delivering a concession speech at the moment, and-it seems-preparing the ground for an independent bid for re-election.

Ruthfulbarbarity 03:06, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Narrowly?

He won by more than the 2.5 point "mandate" that Bush won by in 2004. This "narrowly" sounds biased.

First of all, the two situations are in no way comparable.
A presidential race, with a few rare exceptions, will always have a closer outcome than the vast majority of Senate races across the country.
Secondly, one was a party primary-with extremely low voter turnout-while the other was a general election, with moderate voter turnout.
Finally, it was a "narrow," victory insofar as the Lamont supporters were trumpeting ludicrously inaccurate polls that showed him to be ahead by more than fourteen points.
In comparison to the numbers his campaign had been touting his victory was extremely narrow.

Ruthfulbarbarity 05:02, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Ruthfulbarbarity, I think it's time you take your POV somewhere else. "Extremely low voter turnout" my rear! Hyperbole and fiction have no place on Wikipedia. -- 128.135.96.212 20:09, 9 August 2006 (UTC)


"extremely low voter turnout"?

LOL!

"Voter turnout across the state was projected at twice the norm for a primary. NBGPWS 08:03, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Anti-semitism

I have a hard time believing the Lieberman article, this race article, and this discussion page do not mention the role Lieberman's religion has played or alleged to have played in the primary. It is worth note that Jews, who tend to be or lean to the left, have been accused of (as neoconservatives) supporting the Iraq War and lately the war in Lebanon, and the hard left has been making anti-semitism remarks and jokes about Lieberman, an Orthodox Jew, and his wife. This is not just about the race card or sympathy but also division within the Democratic Party, in which some seem willing to disenfrachise Jews to bring down President Bush. As close as this race was, with a no-name millionaire displacing a three-term former vice presidential candidate senator in the past couple of months, and crazies on both sides of the political spectrum, it seems the hard left was willing to pull out some odious tricks. Certainly the blogosphere is tracking this. Could anyone clarify whether any prominent individuals have made anti-semitic remarks? Regardless, blogs, which have growing political influence, have been mentioned on Wikipedia. Does anyone else think the politics of Lieberman's being Jewish is worth mention? Minutiaman 06:06, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

The "anti-semitic conspiracy" against Lieberman is a crock, made up by Lieberman. There's a reason there aren't any sources available - it doesn't exist. Lieberman and his supporters have no concrete examples of anti-semitism as a widespread problem amongst his opponents. It's mudslinging, pure and simple, and unless you have reliable sources with concrete examples of anti-semitism leveled against Joe Lieberman by the left wing during this race, I think it best we allow this discussion to die. Captainktainer * Talk 07:25, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
I don't know how much of a role anti-Semitism played in this race, although the campaign tactics employed against Lieberman scraped the bottom of the barrel in many respects, in stark contrast to the above-board Lieberman campaign.
The blackface photoshop posted by Lamont supporters on Huffingtonpost.com, the "Connecticut For Lieberman" smear web-page-which asserted that Lieberman didn't have any right to seek re-election as an independent-and the lingering questions of whether or not Lamont's campaign was involved in hacking Lieberman's official website.
Even if these people weren't specifically on the Lamont payroll, they were unambiguous Lamont supporters.
I don't think it's an issue of anti-Semitism so much as the Democratic Party pandering to its base, which is-on balance-much more hostile to Israel than that of the Republican Party.

Ruthfulbarbarity 07:29, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

There was no hack of Lieberman's website. He just had a crappy web host. Captainktainer * Talk 07:34, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
True, but I don't think that absolves them of culpability for all of the other dirty tricks they utilized over the course of this campaign.
They employed a consistent campaign of defamation and character assassination against a distinguished, long-serving senator who has a eighty percent rating from the ADA, and tried to portray a pragmatic, sensible liberal as conservative Republican.
Compare that to the Lieberman campaign, whose only critiques of the Lamont campaign occurred in defense of its own candidate.

Ruthfulbarbarity 07:45, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Surely you jest!
"A flyer questioning Ned Lamont's record on race which was produced by the Joe Lieberman campaign has now been obtained by Election Central NBGPWS 08:32, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
What exactly does that prove?
Joseph Lieberman has fought for civil rights legislation since he was in his teens, while his opponent has-to the best of my knowledge-never evinced any concern for the civil rights of African-Americans.
Plus, he belonged to an all-white country club, his suppporters in the blathersphere defamed Lieberman by accusing him of not supporting civil rights-projection anyone-and this whole campaign has had ugly undertones of old-fashioned, WASP, Ivy League-style anti-Semitism to it.

Ruthfulbarbarity 19:44, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Blathersphere... good one. You come up with that yourself? Does civil rights only include race, or does it include respecting women as well? Because I wouldn't exactly call his stance that women who want to purchase the Plan B pill from a hospital that "morally objects" can only drive 15 minutes to the next hospital. Maybe Rosa Parks should have just waited 15 minutes to get on another bus that would have been less full. Finally, don't pull the ethnicity card. Lieberman did plenty wrong to upset Democrats (i.e. "It's time for Democrats to realize that without having to reduce the cause of the outcome to anti-semitism. If you think Lamont and the "blathersphere" (...cough...) mis-represented him, then start here and say specifically how they mis-represented him. --kizzle 20:45, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I have to credit Alexander Cockburn with that witty turn of phrase.
Still, my point stands, regardless of whatever flackery you choose to marshal in defense of Lamont's fundamentally indefensible actions during the course of this campaign.
Your blatant mischaracterization of Lieberman's record is in keeping with the low-rent tactics employed by most of his supporters throughout this race.
Not that I'm all that surprised, to be honest.

Ruthfulbarbarity 21:09, 9 August 2006 (UTC) I wish I could respond, but blind accusations of mischaracterization without cites, sources, or even specifically disputed passages, transcripts, etc. are a little hard to refute. --kizzle 21:12, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't want this page to devolve into an unrelated tangent focusing on whether Ned Lamont is a better candidate than Joe Lieberman, or vice-versa.
Suffice it to say, I disagree with your views.
What I take issue with, specifically, is your contention that Lieberman is somehow opposed to women's rights, simply because he believes that states shouldn't be able to unilaterally revoke conscience clauses.
Also, I'm not even sure that Lieberman opposes the actions of AG Blumenthal, or if he does support the concept of conscience clauses.
Since he has been an advocate of freedom of religion I assume that he would, but your lack of cititations, sources, or any documentable evidence to demonstrate that he does leaves me underwhelmed.
Furthermore, your Rosa Parks analogy, in addition to being inapt, is a bit puzzling, since Joseph Lieberman-in stark contrast to Ned Lamont-has not only fought for the civil rights of black Americans since he was a teenager, but has also suffered negative consequences for his belief in racial equality.

Ruthfulbarbarity 21:31, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

My "lack of citations, sources, or any documentable evidence to demonstrate" that Lieberman "has been an advocate of freedom of religion" is because I made no such argument, hence the lack of evidence. I still await your evidence of faulty claims by the Lamont campaign against Lieberman. --kizzle 21:53, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
I was actually referring to your assertions, not making a circular reference to my own.
The mischaracterization of Lieberman's political beliefs and his history as an incumbent is a matter of public record, so I'm not going to rehash it for the purposes of this discussion.
If you want to know the ones that I think were particularly inaccurate I would say that the constant mantra that Lieberman was "Bush Lite" or a "Republican," in spite of the fact that he has a doctrinaire liberal voting record, is one source of this criticism.
You can find them by going to any far-left blog, such as DailyKos, FireDogLake, or any of a number of weblogs, which were beating the drums for the election of Ned Lamont.
I don't feel the need to recapitulate arguments that I'm sure you are already familiar with.

Ruthfulbarbarity 22:01, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Removed sentence

I have removed the following sentence from the "For Lieberman" section:

* Chemical Industry lobbyist[55] and Fox News commentor Richard Goodstein has campaigned for Lieberman[56] and played a leading role in disrupting Lamont campaign events.
To begin with, the source for this information is a blog. Secondly, the blog itself just shows a picture of the person and says "you decide" if it's really the lobbyist. User:Zoe|(talk) 17:54, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Goodstein is definitely a lobbyist.[57] I saw some mention that he'd confirmed being the person in the picture, but of course we'd need a cite for that. Phr (talk) 01:03, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I also added a weasel word para at the top of the section since it's unlikely that most Democratic politicans will support an independent against a Democratic candidate in the general election. They may lukewarmly announce their support and not campaign for Lamont, but it's unlikely that more than a few would actively endorse and campaign for Lieberman since he's running against a Democrat. User:Zoe|(talk) 17:57, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Exactly.
Hillary Clinton has just announced that she would support Lamont, and-according to her staff-has already sent his campaign a check.

Ruthfulbarbarity 19:45, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

A lot of text here is cited to unreliable sources. Editors should familiarize themselves with WP:BLP. I will begin deletions, but there appear to be many; I may miss some. Sandy 22:14, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

DailyKos citation

Please tell me where a post by Kos on DailyKos.com violates WP:RS, please copy and paste the specific passage you are referring to. --kizzle 22:16, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Same with Wonkette. --kizzle 22:17, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Please Stop Sandy!

Your unilateral deletion of blogs is unwarranted and not justified by either WP:BLP or what it's "no discussion" clause relies upon, WP:RS. Blogs by the NYDailyNews.com, Andrew Sullivan, Markos Zuniga, Spazeboy (arguably), and ABCNews.com (how the f can you justify removing a post by George Stephanopolous?), do indeed meet the criteria specified in WP:RS, as they are not self-published nor personal websites or blogs. If we can publish links from Drudge, we sure as hell can publish from these guys. --kizzle 22:40, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

WP:BLP "Articles about living persons require a degree of sensitivity and must adhere strictly to Wikipedia's content policies. Be very firm about high-quality references, particularly about details of personal lives."
"Unsourced or poorly sourced negative material about living persons should be removed immediately from both the article and the talk page."
"Editors should remove any negative material that is either unsourced or relies upon sources that do not meet standards specified in Wikipedia:Reliable sources from biographies of living persons and their talk pages, and may do so without discussion; this is also listed as an exception to the three-revert rule. This principle also applies to biographical material about living persons found anywhere in Wikipedia."
WP:RS "At the other end of the reliability scale lie personal websites, blogs, bulletin boards, and Usenet posts, which are typically not acceptable as sources."
Stephanopolous? Thinking of him as reliable just makes me smile :-) If any of these things on blogs are true, the hard print media will report them soon enough. What's the hurry? BLPs must be held to the highest standard.
There are 3 months to go to the election: let's get the standards set correctly on sources now, not a month before the election. These series of articles are a sloppy mess. Now is the time to clean them up, copy edit, and reference them correctly. Sandy 22:51, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
By the way, Kizzle, when you revert, it is customary to indicate to what version you reverted. Thanks, Sandy 22:53, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
WP:RS: "At the other end of the reliability scale lie personal websites, blogs, bulletin boards, and Usenet posts, which are typically not acceptable as sources." [emphasis mine]. A post by George Stephanopolous on ABCNews.com is not a "personal blog", nor with the readership of Daily Kos does it become a "personal blog". Citing to some random user's blog on Daily Kos is unacceptable, but Kos's posts are slightly different, just as we accept Sullivan (see South Park Republican), Drudge (see a whole shitload of articles) and LGF (see Dan Rather and Killian documents), as well as Wonkette (see Jessica Cutler). We must be very selective as to what blogs are included, I agree, but your blanket removal of anything that is a blog is not adherent to Wikipedia policy. BTW, not trying to jump on you, lets just discuss a bit before massive changes :) --kizzle 23:31, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
The DailyKos is a weblog.
The fact that it has an extensive readership does not have any bearing on its utility as a reliable source.

Ruthfulbarbarity 23:39, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

And what about Drudge? Wonkette? George Stephanopolous's blog on ABCNews.com? Chris Matthew's blog on MSNBC.com? Keith Olbermann's blog on MSNBC.com? Lamont's own blog? What about the examples I have provided above? You are reading policy incorrect: Neither DailyKos nor Drudge are personal blogs, which is what WP:RS refers to. --kizzle 23:45, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Drudge is essentially a portal to news and commentary published on other websites, with the occasional "scoop," which-depending upon the reliability of the source-might make its way into the next news cycle.
If the report is on Drudge it most likely has appeared on another news portal or online newspaper.

Ruthfulbarbarity 00:45, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

And the others I have mentioned? And what do you think of the site www.Rawstory.com meeting WP:RS? --kizzle 00:57, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
The question of reliability goes to whether they have any editorial review, or if they are individual opinions. BLPs must use the highest standards for reliable sources, and this is clear policy on Wiki. In BLPs, it's safer to wait for a reliable source report, rather than adding content based on one person's blog interpretation. If it's newsworthy, it will make the hard print media soon enough. Sandy 01:02, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
The standards expressed in WP:BLP are the exact same as other pages, in that they both rely upon WP:RS for inclusion. The only difference is that on BLPs, they can be removed without discussion whereas on other pages they must be discussed first. From policy:
Editors should remove any negative material that is either unsourced or relies upon sources that do not meet standards specified in Wikipedia:Reliable sources from biographies of living persons and their talk pages, and may do so without discussion; this is also listed as an exception to the three-revert rule. This principle also applies to biographical material about living persons found anywhere in Wikipedia. Administrators may enforce the removal of unsourced material with page protection and blocks, even if they have been editing the article themselves. Editors who re-insert the material may be warned and blocked.
Nowhere in WP:BLP does it state that there are two different sets of criteria for source inclusion. Your assertion simply is not backed up by policy. This also does not answer my point that apparently, to the both of you, anything considered a "blog" is not welcome on Wikipedia, be it Chris Matthews or George Stephanopolous or other traditional journalists who maintain blogs, or even other websites such as Daily Kos and Andrew Sullivan, of which both generally satisfy reliability, verifiability, and notability. The assertion that all blogs are not welcome on Wikipedia, and especially on BLPs, simply cannot be justified through any policy and is wrong in the face of these sources satisfying WP:RS. --kizzle 01:11, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Reliable sources and BLP

I wasn't able to check all of them, and I may have missed some, but this is a list of inline citations that appear to be blogs and may need to be replaced with reliable sources, per WP:BLP and WP:RS

There are probably more. While I was converting the refs, I saw a number of statements that are probably not backed by the source, and need to be checked. Also, please remember to format ref punctuation correctly, per WP:FN. Sandy 02:18, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Sandy -- all respect due, think about this for a sec. You recommended, with the very first link you give, deleting a story by the chief political correspondent of WashingtonPost.com — one of the papers of record in American politics. How does that make sense? Does Chris Cillizza somehow have credibility when editors publish him in the paper, but lose all credibility when the same editors publish him on a blog?
If you think so, say so -- but otherwise, I have a hard time seeing the point here. Same w/ the Forward, probably the longest-standing Jewish newspaper of note in the United States. --GGreeneVa 02:51, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
As I mentioned, I probably missed some: I pulled out everything that looked like a blog. A blog is a blog: the question is one of editorial review. I didn't recommened deleting anything: I said they may need to be replaced. I don't have time to read through such a messy article and check every reference; this is a starting point. Sandy 02:54, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Right -- but as WP:RS itself states,

Publications with teams of fact-checkers, reporters, editors, lawyers, and managers — like the New York Times or The Times of London — are likely to be reliable, and are regarded as reputable sources for the purposes of Wikipedia.

The Forward and WashingtonPost.com meet that standard, in every format in which they publish. --GGreeneVa 02:59, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

CT Local Politics is rapidly becoming the breaking political news source in CT. And questioning the relevancy of Kos, RCP and other national blogs seems archaic. Part of the situation is many blogs are cited for expressing what partisan arguments are being advanced. The rapidly shrinking news hole of dead tree publications mean often inadequate and bland coverage is offerred

Karl Rove called Joe on Primary Day

If anyone wants to add it, here's a reliable source: http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx?type=politicsNews&storyid=2006-08-10T164937Z_01_N10461049_RTRUKOC_0_US-REPUBLICANS.xml&src=rss&rpc=22

I'm too lazy to do it now, maybe I'll do it later. --Smedley Hirkum 05:08, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Other Democratic leaders opinions on a Lieberman independent run

I've added a subsection with regards to the other Democratic leaders' opinions on a Lieberman independent run. After all, there already is a similar one for Senators, so it's only equitable to provide one for the other notable Democratic leaders, like Governors or presidential candidates(Warner, Edwards, Richardson,...) -- fdewaele, 11 August 2006, 16:16 (CET)

Pulling out the Primary Race into its Own Section

I would like to propose that we move the primary coverage to its own article, and provide a brief summary of the primary for this senate election article. I know the distinction is somewhat fuzzy, since the primary bleeds into the election, but the article is dense enough to warrant it (unlike other primary races). - anonymous, August 11th

Agreed, good plan. MikeHobday 20:47, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
I agree with moving the primary coverage to its own article. I do not agree with providing a brief summary of it because many over-eager contributors will probably turn it into a very long section like it already is. Instead, just refer readers directly to the article about the primary. JHP 03:17, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
I have removed the Democratic Party primary section and placed a tag at the top of this article referring readers to the new article. JHP 04:20, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
JHP, Good job.72.82.161.204 14:51, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

rewrite

I went bold and re-organized the article, hope you guys like it. --kizzle 19:14, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Recent News

What about the RNC's decision not to back Schlessinger, and the threats by high-ranking Dem. Party officials to strip Lieberman of his seniority?
From the Hartford Courant,
President Bush's press secretary, Tony Snow, told reporters Tuesday: "The Republican Party of Connecticut has suggested that we not make an endorsement in that race, and so we're not."
Two days earlier, Republican National Committee Chairman Ken Mehlman refused to say if he supports Schlesinger on Sunday's NBC news show "Meet the Press." Mehlman said he consults "our leadership in the states" - which, in this case, has told him: "You ought to stay out of this one." So he said he is focusing on U.S. House races and the governor's race in Connecticut.
Connecticut GOP Chairman George Gallo, when asked Wednesday what he's told the national GOP, said he told the Republican National Committee political director 1½ weeks ago that the Schlesinger campaign "isn't one of our top priorities."
http://www.courant.com/news/local/hc-senate0817.artaug17,0,2859516.story?coll=hc-headlines-local
Snow's comments should be included, IMO.
Also, shouldn't Governor Jodi Rell's request that the Republican candidate, Schlessinger, drop out of the race be mentioned?

Ruthfulbarbarity 06:09, 18 August 2006 (UTC)


Reorganization

This article is way too long and rather disorganized, badly needing an editor. The result is that it is basically inpenetrable to anybody without a pretty firm grasp of Connecticut politics. I'll be looking at editing options, but could we at least move the "Post Primary" section to the top? It explains the current situation, which is liekly of most interest to the greatest number of readers.

Right now, readers have to get past miles of once-important ephemera (e.g. Lieberman's bear cub ad) to get a current picture of the race. That said, the move would be a small fix to a big problem and a major post-primary editing job is definitely in order. Any opposition to a move?Francisx 15:29, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. This article seems like it was written entirely by Democrats for Democrats. No matter what the political persuasion of the authors, it should be written for readers of all political persuasions, per WP:NPOV. The article's emphasis seems to be on the Democratic primary, rather than the general election. I suggest reorganizing this article so it's in reverse chronological order so the general election comes first, followed by the primaries. Either that or strip out the Democratic primary stuff and create a separate article for it. I also suggest deleting the long lists of who supports who. I do like seeing the opinion poll data, though. JHP 03:11, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
I have removed the Democratic Party primary section and placed a tag at the top of this article referring readers to the new article. JHP 04:21, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Use of the word independent

Since there is an actual Independent Party in Connecticut with a candidate, there are some problems with the article. It would be fair to qualify Lieberman as an independent with a lower case 'i' if he hadn't created the Connecticut for Lieberman party to run under. I think the article should be changed to replace "independent" with "third party" in a few cases and Connecticut for Lieberman in all the rest. There is the matter of the when he is listed as Lieberman (I) and it would probably be better to use something like Lieberman (C), but I'm not sure.

I was going to make all of these changes on my own, but there are so many instances and types of them, that it's hard to do in one pass. --waffle iron talk 17:37, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

How about (CFL) instead of (C)? Just a thought.--Bobblehead 22:18, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
That works better than just (C). I wouldn't want people thinking he is running under the Communist party, which is probably better known. --waffle iron talk 22:52, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
The only large party in the Northeast that is known by that initial is the Conservative Party, which is the fourth largest party in this state, but-as far as I know-is unique to New York. Ruthfulbarbarity 01:30, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

vets for freedom and chickenhawks

If it is ok for nonveterans to criticise a veterans group that expresses a political opinion, then I suggest the various "chickenhawk" material in the Lieberman bio ought to be stricken, since it is based on the same theory. You can;t choose to wear the uniform selectively —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.107.245.70 (talkcontribs) 13:06, August 18, 2006.

Which paragraphs are you referring to?

Ruthfulbarbarity 21:38, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Primary article

I started working on moving the primary section into it's own article and discovered it is rather lacking in prose. Basically started an article here, so if y'all want to help actually adding some actual sentences instead of lists before I lop off the primary section in this article and leave behind a quick summary, I'd be greatly appreciative. --Bobblehead 06:23, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

I have removed the Democratic Party primary section and placed a tag at the top of this article referring readers to the new article. JHP 04:22, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

relative importance

Call me a Nutmeg homer, but why is some blather from Chris Matthews expressing a personal opinion more relevant than a story from a Hartford Courant columnist pointing out the operational difficulties the Lieberman candidacy poses for local candidates?

It's not too notable, I added it because of all the Coulter, Hannity, etc. media figures' "endorsements"... but it is only one line and shouldn't be any more. The passage you cite is indeed relevant to this page and probably deserves more space than Matthews' quote. --kizzle 02:05, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

References

There are almost 150 sources. I think the sources should be beside the sentence they are citing. It is such a pain to click the number and then click the website. Byrdin2006 01:57, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Joe Lieberman is not an Independent

I'm way late, I know, just providing a justification in case of future reverts:

Joe is not an 'Independent', Joe is the candidate of the Connecticut for Lieberman (CT4L) party. The Independent Party is a registered entity in Connecticut that has no association with Holy Joe. One can view their website here, where one can plainly see Joe is not mentioned anywhere. Instead, he belongs to the Connecticut for Lieberman party, which is clearly a distinct entity from the Independent party, thus he is not an "Independent". --kizzle 20:51, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I brought that up a few sections up under Talk:Connecticut United States Senate election, 2006#Use of the word independent. There are a lot of changes to be made, and your help would be appreciated. --waffle iron talk 22:50, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
Kizzle, since Joe Lieberman created his own party he is certainly not an independent. However, don't assume you have to be a member of the Independent Party to be an independent. The word 'independent' (with a lowercase 'i') is the proper term for people who are not affiliated with any political party. The word 'Independent' (with a capital 'i') refers to people who are members of the Independent Party. There are far more independents in America than there are Independents. JHP 00:51, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

More External Links?

I think we should have slightly more links in the EL section... now that the primary is done with, we should take a sample of 3-6 articles that say something extremely interesting both pro-Lieberman and pro-Lamont. --kizzle 19:01, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

In order to avoid having the external links section get out of control, I suggest just limiting it to each candidate's official campaign web site. By the way, your pro-Lieberman and pro-Lamont idea would violate WP:NPOV because there are other candidates running. JHP 05:25, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
So include those articles as well, obviously. --kizzle 00:05, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Redundancy

This article is very long and could use some cleanup. There are two sections for endorsements (during the primary then during the general) that can be consolidated. Also, is polling data leading up to the primary really relevant given that the election took place? Doctofunk 21:49, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, I did start a Democratic Party primary, Connecticut United States Senate election, 2006 article a week or so ago. I just haven't had the time of late to go back and actually make the article more than a copy and paste of the primary section of this article so I hadn't linked the article to this one and removed the redundancy. If someone has the opportunity and time, could take advantage of the primary article I started. --Bobblehead 03:19, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
I removed the primary stuff from this article. It is a general-election-only article now. I also resorted the article to move the less-useful stuff to the bottom. JHP 05:30, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. I added a summary section, so should be good to go. Well, until people start to add stuff to the summary section. --Bobblehead 15:52, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Endorsement vs. "Voting for.."

We must not extrapolate an endorsement from a statement of an intension to vote for someone.

If this was logical, then we would have to assume that all voters of a candidate are endorsing that candidate, when quite plainly that is not the case.

In 2004, many liberals had to "hold their nose" while voting for John Kerry due to his close ties to the W.T.O. and big business. They certainly did not endorse Kerry; they only voted for him because the alternative was worse (the evil of two lessers).

And I presume that on the republican side, the same thing holds true (see above RE: lessers)

72.82.184.123 07:12, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Personally, I think the whole "Endorsements" section should be deleted. It seems to me to be a game of one-upsmanship between Lamont and Lieberman supporters, and a substitute for actually content. (Are we really to believe that nobody endorses Schlesinger?) There are 100 senators, 435 congressmen, 50 governors, and many more former office-holders in the U.S. This list has the potential to grow extremely long, and is already too long in my opinion. As the saying goes, "Less is more." Good editing requires removing the junk. How do others feel about removing the "Endorsements" section? JHP 05:04, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
In terms of endorsements from notable people, Schlesinger really is lacking in them. He's one of the most embarrassing candidates in decades in Connecticut. I think it's worthwhile to keep endorsements from major players who currently hold office or very recently held office and maintain a very active political role - for instance, John Edwards. Such a list would help Wikipedians compare Lamont supporters and Lieberman supporters vis-a-vis social issues and foreign policy, should they so desire. Captainktainer * Talk 09:23, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Inouye Endorses Lamont?

There is no report in any online news source that Inouye has withdrawn his endorsement of Lieberman and endorsed Lamont, except for the David Shapiro blog at the Honolulu Advertiser, which was posted on Monday 28AUG2006 at 11:58:13AM Hawaii time (about 24 hours ago).

Here is the link to the blog entry:

http://blogs.honoluluadvertiser.com/index.php?blog=10&title=inouye_reverses_course_on_lieberman

We must make sure that this is actualy true. In other words, get a news story that says it's true or a statement from Inouye himself.

72.82.208.18 20:45, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I just called Inouye's DC office and asked them. The unidentified female who I spoke to said that she did not know and that the office had received many press calls regarding this matter. She said that there should be some sort of announcement (press release, statement, etc.) shortly.
72.82.208.18 21:15, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Well, guess the press release will answer the question as soon as it is released. Good call on questioning it though, especially contacting Inouye's DC office. --Bobblehead 21:17, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
I second the "good call;" we should tread lightly and make sure everything is properly backed up. My bet is that Inouye will be coming out for Lamont, but we shouldn't jump the gun; you're right on that. Captainktainer * Talk 21:25, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
It does also show why blogs are generally not considered a reliable source. Something many of the cites and quotes in this article and the Democratic Primary article could benefit from. --Bobblehead 21:30, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
The Associated Press is now reporting that this is true; from the article: "After the primary, Senator Inouye was most disappointed and unhappy when Senator Lieberman remarked that the Democratic Party no longer represented the mainstream of America, and that the Democratic Party had lost its values."--The lorax 23:57, 29 August 2006 (UTC)