CQ came out with the list of Democrats who supported George Bush with their votes during the year in the Senate. Bush supported 60 of the 263 votes rendered in the Senate. All in all, 23 Democrats supported Bush half the time or more. They are;
1, Ben Nelson, 73% support for Bush
2, Mary Landrieu, 69%
3, Mark Pryor, 63%
4, Tom Carper, 60%
5, Ken Salazar, 60%
6, Tim Johnson, 60%
7, Bill Nelson, 59%
8, Max Baucus, 59%
9, Blanche Lincoln, 58%
10, Joe Lieberman, 57%
11, Patty Murray, 55%
12, Harry Reid, 55%
13, Evan Bayh, 54%
14, Kent Conrad, 54%
15, Dianne Feinstein, 53%
16, Jeff Bingaman, 53%
17, Maria Cantwell, 53%
18, Herb Kohl, 51%
19, Robert Byrd, 51%
20, Daniel Akaka, 50%
21, Carl Levin, 50%
22, Bob Menendez, 50%
23, Jack Reed, 50%
Sen, Joe Biden was the least supportive of the president, only voting with him 27% of the time. In fact, Biden and Sen, Jay Rockefeller were the only ones that were under 45%. This just goes to show that the Democrats went along with Pres. Bush a lot of the time, and weren’t the opposition party many of you had figured.
This also goes to show that Joe Lieberman isn’t nearly the neo-con many of you are making him out to be. 9 Democratic Senators voted the way Bush wanted them to vote more than Lieberman did. But that won’t stop many of you in here from smearing the man will it??
eastcoastmoderate – I have followed your postings on Mr. Lieberman.
What I would like to know is your opinion on torture.
Here we are in a brand new century and a brand new millenium in a country that began with such ideals. And I am asking a fellow citizen what they think about torture – this is where we are now.
What do you think about habeas corpus?
Now that has been around for about 900 years, but just a few weeks ago it was taken away from non-citizens anywhere in the world, though it is written so vaguely, who knows who is still protected? No surprise if non-Americans stop posting on U.S. blogs with U.S. servers – it isn’t safe any more.
Your Mr. Lieberman voted for this travesty. Does that make a difference to you?
These are the Democrats who also voted for this legislation that takes us back to the dark ages:
Carper
Johnson
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Menendez
Nelson (Fla.)
Nelson (Neb.)
Pryor
Rockefeller
Salazar
Stabenow
I believe they should all be removed from office. I do not care how “progressive” or “liberal” or “moderate” or “centrist” they are on any other issue.
Torture is wrong. Habeas corpus is sacrosanct.
What is “America” all about? The answer to that question changed on September 28th with one set of votes.
So, eastcoastmoderate – where do you stand on this?
Since you seem to be a person who actually wants to know, and not someone who I can’t have a civil conversation with, I’ll tell you. I am against torture. I don’t abide by an eye for an eye, but a lot of people do. To them, torture is a necessary part of the war on terror. Joe Lieberman does not support torture, but he does support ending habeus corpus. That I am also against. The unchecked power that George Bush has, is in my eyes a travesty. We simply cannot allow one branch of government to have all the power. Joe and I strongly disagree on this issue. That being said, he and I agree on a lot more than we disagree on.
I don’t know of any candidate that I agree with 100% of the time. My support for Lieberman is many faceted. His strong stand on homeland security, working across party lines to get things done. His environemntal stances, his strong civil rights record. His wroking to raise the minimun wage, his health care plan, his senior prescription plan, the same plan as Bill Clinton, his video games alliance with Republicans to make games less violent, strong on national defense, just to name a few.
But the number one reason I back Lieberman is his 18 years of experience in the Senate. We need his kind of leadership with the world the way it is right now. He is a strong backer of Israel, like me. His foreign policy knowledge is quite extensive. He puts results first, and party second. That the way it should be. He realizes the Democratic party just cannot say no to everything. To me, that’s not a plan. He has core principles that he stands behind. Even when in my opinion, he is wrong, once he makes his decision, he sticks by it. Others who have backed the war when it first happened, have flipped on the issue simply because of political expediency. Joe hasn’t, and while that has cost him dearly in some cases, he hasn’t waivered.
Lastly, George Bush is the man we must fight, not Joe Lieberman. He agrees with the Democrats a lot more than he does the Republicans. His record with liberal groups is 83%. He ran in 2000 as a presidential candidate, and was Al Gore’s running mate in 2004. He is a man with the leadership qualities we need, he is willing to work with Republicans without violating his core principles, and he has the experience this country needs. Is he perfect? No, but in my eyes, he’s the best of the three candidates running in Ct.
This is the first time you have outlined reasons for supporting Lieberman instead of just screaming at anyone who disagrees with those heretofore unknown reasons. But you had to launch it with a smear about not being able to have “civil” conversations. That’s pathetic. For what it’s worth, now that I see some of your reasons for supporting Lieberman, I can respect that you actually have some reasons.
You haven’t been able to have a “civil conversation” here because you yourself have refused to have one. Tactics like calling those here who support Lamont “Boomanistas” and suggesting psychiatric evaluations for those who disagree with you are not a good way to start or continue “civil” discussions. Those are only two examples of your history of screaming at and taunting and smearing anyone who has the audacity to disagree with you. If you’d like to have “civil” discussions around here, you can start by stopping the arrogant ridicule and taunting. You have been the uncivil one. As a matter of fact, the replies to your ugliest tactics have been rather restrained and have certainly not reached the level of your own invective.
As for the substance of your diary, or lack thereof, it is no mystery to most of us that lots of Dems haven’t done the right thing from time to time, or even most of the time. What you fail to recognize is that many of us have been and will be working hard to replace many of those top ten Dems in your list. Among other reasons for targetting him, Lieberman happened to be more vulnerable and more visible than some of those in the list. And he has a viable competitor that many folks see as being a better choice. So, we support Lamont, just as we will support alternative candidates in Democratic primaries across America in the future. So, your argument, that we should support Lieberman merely because he has not (according to this particular list) been the worst possible Democrat, falls far short of being convincing. If all you have to offer is that Joe’s not quite as bad as some of the worst Dems, that’s no argument at all. If you would post a diary that elaborates on your positive reasons for supporting Lieberman, and not taunt or ridicule anyone in it, you will find plenty of folks here who will willingly engage in civil conversation. You might also consider apologizing to those who you have offended with your past tactics.
blueneck, I love to have civil conversations, but I didn’t start this little flamewar, and I am not apologizing for nothing I have done here. If you treat me with respect, I will do the same, but this is a two way street. I give what is given back to me, pure and simple. Talk to some of your friends who have hurled insults my way. If you want to engage in a civil conversation, then fire away, if not, then I have no use for you or anybody else.
I disagree with you over who started it, as does most everyone you have flamed. You can continue to live in your own world if you like, but it does nothing to improve your argument. You can’t disrespect others first, then claim that they disrespected you and get a civil conversation.
Furthermore, the mature way to handle things in life is to try to de-escalate conflict, even when you think someone has flamed or disrespected you inappropriately. If you always give back what others give to you, then you can rest assured that you will eventually escalate every disagreement into a flame war. No one is perfect and to get along with folks you will have to forgive them from time to time. Instead, you have taken every opportunity to escalate every conflict you have participated in and you have gotten the flame wars that you evidently desired.
Thank you for your thoughtful reply.
I am a real novice when it comes to politics. I am still trying to understand how it all works, i.e., committees, procedures, etc. All seems a whole lot more complicated than the social studies book with the simple graphics showing “How a Bill Becomes Law.”
I’ve been learning more and more and I have been piecing things together in, striving to put together something that makes sense. The picture forming, at least in my mind, is terrifying.
I agree with you: “The unchecked power that George Bush has, is in my eyes a travesty.”
Here are some of the things forming the picture of my understanding:
Molly Ivins some years ago wrote about the “new” Republicans in Texas – they don’t want to govern, they want to rule. These “Republicans” are now in Washington doing the same.
The Alito appointment was of great concern to many. What had my alarm bells ringing was reading that Norman Ornstein at the American Enterprise Institute, a very conservative organization was opposed to Alito based on Alito’s court decisions that challenged the balance of power, particularly weakening the Congress and strengthening the presidency. Of additional concern to me and others were Alito’s decisions favoring corporations over individuals.
Mr. Lieberman voted against filibustering the Alito vote and voted for Alito. And now he has voted for this torture law which gives the President additional power.
What difference does it make what legislation congress approves on the environment or wages if the congress keeps giving the president more and more power and he can choose what legislation he wants to follow or not?
Ah well, I doubt if I can change your mind. I found this a good exercise to put some of my thoughts together. Thanks for the opportunity. 🙂
Sorry, he was Gore’s running mate in 2000.