Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Joseph Lieberman on Abortion

Posted on 08/15/2006 8:40:12 AM PDT by supa consrvative

Day 1: Repeal the Bush restrictions on stem cell research. (Jan 2004)

Keep abortion safe, rare and legal; with 24-week viability. (Dec 2003)

FDA’s RU-486 decision stands; it’s made properly by experts. (Oct 2000)

Leave abortion decision to a woman, her doctor, and her god. (Oct 2000)

Rejected partial-birth ban since it ignored maternal health. (Oct 2000)

Supports abortion rights within his faith, not despite it. (Sep 2000)

Parental consent with judicial override; Gore agrees. (Aug 2000)

Supported parental notification for minors; but pro-choice. (Aug 2000)

Voted YES on $100M to reduce teen pregnancy by education & contraceptives. (Mar 2005)

Voted NO on criminal penalty for harming unborn fetus during other crime. (Mar 2004)

Voted NO on banning partial birth abortions except for maternal life. (Mar 2003)

Voted NO on maintaining ban on Military Base Abortions. (Jun 2000)

Voted NO on banning partial birth abortions. (Oct 1999)

Voted NO on banning human cloning. (Feb 1998)

Rated 100% by NARAL, indicating a pro-choice voting record. (Dec 2003)

Expand embryonic stem cell research. (Jun 2004)


TOPICS: Politics/Elections; US: Connecticut
KEYWORDS: issues; isthatyoumrlamont; lieberman; proaborts; retreadtroll; suckabait; supatroll; troll; willtrollforfood; zot
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-149 next last

1 posted on 08/15/2006 8:40:12 AM PDT by supa consrvative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: supa consrvative

Thats why he is a rat but still go joe and beat lamont(sanford and son)


2 posted on 08/15/2006 8:47:58 AM PDT by italianquaker (Democrats and media can't win elections at least they can win their phony polls.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: supa consrvative

Yeah, but with the Republican candidate for Senate in CT polling at 6%, what can you do?


3 posted on 08/15/2006 8:48:54 AM PDT by D-Chivas
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: supa consrvative

Good post. It would be a plus for the Republican candidate to WIN.


4 posted on 08/15/2006 8:48:58 AM PDT by Dr. Scarpetta
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: supa consrvative

How can old Joe be a conservative Jew and still vote in favor of abortion?


5 posted on 08/15/2006 8:49:14 AM PDT by RexBeach ("There is no substitute for victory." - Douglas MacArthur)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: supa consrvative

Welcome to Free Republic!


6 posted on 08/15/2006 8:49:42 AM PDT by TChris (Banning DDT wasn't about birds. It was about power.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: supa consrvative

This is a moral dilemna for Conservatives:

For the sake of the greater good, Joe should get the nod over Ned; however, Ned winning the race only causes more people to run to our side. Should we stand up for the citizens of CT, or let the Liberals further implode?


7 posted on 08/15/2006 8:49:52 AM PDT by dynamite98
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Liz
Amazing, isn't it? How Republicans will discard any core values they may have for the sake of expediency.
8 posted on 08/15/2006 8:50:13 AM PDT by jla
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RexBeach

He used to try to pass himself off as "orthodox", then when he got called on that, he switched to calling himself "observant."


9 posted on 08/15/2006 8:52:23 AM PDT by nina0113
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: RexBeach

The same reason so many vote Dem in spite of their sellout of Israel. Liberalism and party trump religion and morals.


10 posted on 08/15/2006 8:56:12 AM PDT by ChildOfThe60s (If you can remember the 60s...you weren't really there.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: supa consrvative

LOL. You are correct of course, but I have a question. You a Lamont supporter?

Welcome to Free Republic.


11 posted on 08/15/2006 8:57:22 AM PDT by pollyannaish
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: supa consrvative

Liebermann is a liberal on everything but the war on terror.

His Democrat opponent is a liberal on EVERYTHING INCLUDING the war.

The Republican hasn't got a prayer due to "persoanl problems" (Sean Hannity).

So from a prgamatic perspecitve, is there any choice here?

I think not.

Vote for America. Vote for Liebermann.


12 posted on 08/15/2006 8:59:13 AM PDT by ZULU (Non nobis, non nobis, Domine, sed nomini tuo da gloriam. God, guts, and guns made America great.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RexBeach
"How can old Joe be a conservative Jew and still vote in favor of abortion?"

Same way Bloomberg is, and I still voted for Bloomberg for mayor of New York City.
The alternative? A moonbat Bush-hating Fernand Ferrer.
Same with Lieberman and Lamont.
No mater what Lieberman's position on abotion is, Lamont's is worse.
Lamont is a hard core NARAL, NOW, Kos/DU/moveon type abortion supporter.
Plus the guy is about the worst on the WOT as you can get, and a cut and run John Murtha/Nevile Chamberlain clone .
Its not even close.
It's Liberman by far.
He's gonna clobber Lamont.
13 posted on 08/15/2006 8:59:27 AM PDT by Jameison
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: D-Chivas

---"Yeah, but with the Republican candidate for Senate in CT polling at 6%, what can you do?"---

I have that problem, too. The GOP needs to put a better name on that ticket -- same problem in Florida.


14 posted on 08/15/2006 9:00:10 AM PDT by TitansAFC ("Life is just one crushing defeat after another until you just wish Flanders was dead.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: ZULU
"His Democrat opponent is a liberal on EVERYTHING INCLUDING the war.

The Republican hasn't got a prayer due to "persoanl problems" (Sean Hannity).

So from a prgamatic perspecitve, is there any choice here?

I think not.

Vote for America. Vote for Liebermann."


Yep.
Pretty much sums it up.
15 posted on 08/15/2006 9:00:41 AM PDT by Jameison
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: RexBeach

I recall reading a very insightful post on FR a few months ago (maybe longer ago than that) about various religions and their stances on abortion. At least according to that source, in Judaism a fetus is not considered a life. Of course, it could be different for an Orthodox like Lieberman, so who knows.


16 posted on 08/15/2006 9:01:32 AM PDT by MinnesotaLibertarian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: jla

It's not a question of abandoning principles at all. Some thoughtful dedicated pro-life conservatives can tell the difference between short-term expediency versus long-term, big picture expediency, that's all. What good does it do to naively "stand on principle" & win a battle if it causes you to lose the war?


17 posted on 08/15/2006 9:02:37 AM PDT by leilani
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: TitansAFC
"I have that problem, too. The GOP needs to put a better name on that ticket "

After the primaries have already been held?
Are these not the same RATS who ae fighting tooth and nail to PEVENT Tom Delay's name from being removed from the ballot in Texas, because he won the primaries already?
18 posted on 08/15/2006 9:03:21 AM PDT by Jameison
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: supa consrvative

Hiya Ned.


19 posted on 08/15/2006 9:04:17 AM PDT by dighton
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Scarpetta
Good post. It would be a plus for the Republican candidate to WIN.

I wish. The Republican candidate (Schlessinger) is allegedly pro-choice (infantcide).

This is a GRAND opportunity for the Constitution Party to gain recognition (and get 15-20% of the vote). A state that is nearly 50% Catholic and with no pro-life candidates to vote for.

20 posted on 08/15/2006 9:04:59 AM PDT by kidd
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: supa consrvative
Voted YES on $100M to reduce teen pregnancy by education & contraceptives. (Mar 2005)

Okay, I feel a rant coming on. Because I've been thinking about adolescence and sexual pressure of late.

How about all parents tell their teenagers the following: "DON'T DO IT"?

Now I can hear the rebuttals. "Man, you can't tell teenagers not to do it. That's just not practical."

So okay, let's take a poll. How many adults, and by "adults" I mean well past the lust of adolescence, would actually agree that teenage sex- and by "teenage sex" I'll stipulate during high school-is a good thing?

Would any adult with two IQ cells shake their head positive and say..."sure, teenagers in high school have sexual needs; why shouldn't they expand their lust just so long as they avoid pregnancy?"

Well I'm thinking not many adults would take that position, correct me if I'm wrong.

Why on earth can't teenagers just not have sex until they are out of high school? Nobody's freaking died of such a thing?

But I'm not done yet. I know they get in the back seats of cars (I was a teenager once) and get all hot and bothered and things get out of hand. In this event, well better to use a condom than not.

Sheesh, anybody can buy a condom anywhere, heck they give them out free everywhere. I don't see why parents should have to warn their teenagers to use condoms. I think that to do so is to implicitly give permission for teenage sex. I DO think a parent could, after a warning to JUST NOT DO IT, warn a teenage child that there are plenty of condoms everywhere, perhaps as an aside. "Because to do it without using birth control is way worse than doing it WITH birth control, but in either case, don't do it at all and if I find out that you did I'm going to be mad."

The above is a mythical conversation and it's been many years since I myself had a teenager so maybe I'm out of touch.

But doesn't it seem that every facet of society anymore is practically BEGGING teenagers to have sex; some kind of sex? I get frustrated and think what happened to good old fashioned morals? Why can't we tell teenagers NOT to do it, especially if that's the way we feel?

Notice please, I am not espousing parental advice to not have sex until marriage. Although, hey, no one ever died of being a virgin on their wedding night either. But getting an education, courtships, dreams and goals, sometimes postpone marriage until late in the twenties or early thirties. I am not so stupid to think that sexual contact would likely be postponed for thirty years or whatever.

But a teenager in high school? Tell them NO. And if they do it anyway, and I know a lot of them do, then so be it. At least as parents good advice would have been handed out.

21 posted on 08/15/2006 9:05:49 AM PDT by Fishtalk (http://patfish.blogspot.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: supa consrvative
You first post, after joining today, and you are busy trying to get Lamont elected, by trashing Lieberman huh?
Not gonna work.
22 posted on 08/15/2006 9:06:30 AM PDT by Jameison
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jameison

You know, something just occured to me. There's a been a lot of talk of people urging Schlesigner to drop out, and there has been for several weeks - BEFORE the August 8th primary! Naturally the Dem primary got all the attention, but the GOP primary must've been the same day - why didn't a candidate jump in to replace him then? They could have legitimately won the primary and become the party's candidate.


23 posted on 08/15/2006 9:07:05 AM PDT by MinnesotaLibertarian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: dighton
"Hiya Ned."

I know.
An obvious troll.
24 posted on 08/15/2006 9:07:40 AM PDT by Jameison
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: jla
Amazing, isn't it? How Republicans will discard any core values they may have for the sake of expediency.

LOL. Scoff----Republicans? That's a laugh. More like prostitutes---they'll do just about anything, depending on the rewards to be had.

25 posted on 08/15/2006 9:07:48 AM PDT by Liz (The US Constitution is intended to protect the people from the government.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: D-Chivas

Both a .22 caliber and a .45 caliber bullet can kill you equally dead.Lamont is the .45 and Lieberman is the .22, and in all probability so is the Republican.

It looks to me lik you are screwed either way. One just may be quicker than the other.


26 posted on 08/15/2006 9:08:37 AM PDT by sport
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: supa consrvative

Encourage Orchulli or a popular state senator to enter the race. We CAN win this race with a good candidate. A choice between Lieberman and Lamont is not a choice. Supporting Lieberman may piss off the Dems, but it keeps a winnable seat liberal.


27 posted on 08/15/2006 9:08:54 AM PDT by Alter Kaker ("Whatever tears one sheds, in the end one always blows one's nose." - Heine)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MinnesotaLibertarian
"why didn't a candidate jump in to replace him then? "

Because I don't think our guysat the RNC want Lieberman to lose.
Which is a good thing in IMHO.
28 posted on 08/15/2006 9:09:40 AM PDT by Jameison
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Jameison

IBTZ


29 posted on 08/15/2006 9:10:15 AM PDT by MinnesotaLibertarian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: supa consrvative

Welcome to FR. it is considered polite to comment on what you post. Do you agree, dis-agree, with what you posted? Or are you as suggested, a LeMount supporter?


30 posted on 08/15/2006 9:10:53 AM PDT by dynachrome ("Where am I? Where am I going? Why am I in a handbasket?")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ZULU

No, don't vote for Lieberman. Encourage Jack Orchulli, Sen. McKinney, or Sen. O'Connor to enter the race. Any of them COULD win, especially with the Dims split between Lieb and Lamo.


31 posted on 08/15/2006 9:11:00 AM PDT by Alter Kaker ("Whatever tears one sheds, in the end one always blows one's nose." - Heine)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: supa consrvative

First Day here at FR I see. Welcome!


32 posted on 08/15/2006 9:11:46 AM PDT by Halls (One Proud Texas Momma!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: supa consrvative

The Republican candidate is pro-choice also, and in any case has no chance to win unless Lamont and Lieberman are BOTH caught with either a live boy or a dead girl.

Any candidate running statewide in Connecticut on a pro-life platform would get creamed about as badly as Box-O-Rox if she ran for Senator from Alabama.

So your worthless vanity is a tranparent attack on Joe Lieberman which amount to pro-Lamont. That makes you a troll and Zot-bait.

IBTZ!!


33 posted on 08/15/2006 9:14:26 AM PDT by You Dirty Rats (I Love Free Republic!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: pollyannaish

Oops. I replied to this post without checking the sign up date. You're right of course, this is obviously another post from the Divide & Conquer Office at the DNC. LOL!


34 posted on 08/15/2006 9:14:39 AM PDT by leilani
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: All

How different from Lieberman would Lamont vote in the Senate?

Not much.

President Bush.... famously hugged and kissed Lieberman on the House floor after delivering the 2005 State of the Union Address.

But Lieberman gave GWB the back of his hand on significant issues.


Aside from voting for Iraq----which Lieberman is now shoving under the rug after his primary loss----it has been unrequited love with Lieberman consistently denying Bush needed votes.

In key votes of the last Congress selected by the Almanac of American Politics, Lieberman followed the straight liberal line in opposing oil drilling in ANWR, Bush tax cuts, overtime pay reform, the energy bill, and bans on partial birth abortion and same-sex marriage.

Similarly, Lieberman voted in support of Roe v. Wade, and for banning assault weapons and bunker buster bombs. Lieberman rebuffed attempts to compromise Social Security reform.

Lieberman had a perfect record, seven for seven, backing filibusters that blocked Bush judicial nominees. He voted for cloture on three judicial nominations only after a compromise by the bipartisan Gang of 14 (which included Lieberman). He voted against confirming Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito.


35 posted on 08/15/2006 9:15:54 AM PDT by Liz (The US Constitution is intended to protect the people from the government.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: supa consrvative

Ned! Is this really you - or one of your comrades?


36 posted on 08/15/2006 9:16:13 AM PDT by SelmaLee (Woof!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: supa consrvative
Shows you just how stupid the Democrats of Connecticut are for supporting Lamont.

Lieberman is a SOLID and RELIABLE Liberal and nobody has any idea if Lamont is even really a man (I have my suspicions.)
37 posted on 08/15/2006 9:16:55 AM PDT by msnimje ("Beware the F/A - 22 Raptor with open doors" -- Unknown US NAVY Raptor Pilot)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Alter Kaker

Its now the middle of August.

That leaves only 2 1/2 months.

Can they do it? Can they legally oust the guy the Repubs are running now? Is the Republican primary over in that state? Do these people have the name recognition in Connecticut? Are they real Republicans or RINOs like McCain - who is, in my opinion, waffling on the war on terror.


38 posted on 08/15/2006 9:17:22 AM PDT by ZULU (Non nobis, non nobis, Domine, sed nomini tuo da gloriam. God, guts, and guns made America great.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: ZULU
Can they do it? Can they legally oust the guy the Repubs are running now?

Only if he drops out. McKinney and O'Connor are probably the best candidates, but Orchulli is a fashion mogul who can self-finance and doesn't need to fundraise. Remember, in a four way race (Lieb, Lamo and Green Party), our candidate only needs 35% of the vote to win.

39 posted on 08/15/2006 9:19:35 AM PDT by Alter Kaker ("Whatever tears one sheds, in the end one always blows one's nose." - Heine)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: supa consrvative; jla

Lieberman's biggest scam was getting into the Senate seat on the backs of the unborn. This craven individual, Lieberman, ruthlessly used the unborn to get into office.

As a 1988 Senate candidate, Lieberman made many, many pro-life pledges to Connecticut Catholic leaders as Atty General running for pro-abort Sen Weicker's seat.

Based on an internal Lieberman poll indicating pro-life votes were there for the taking, Lieberman assiduously courted Catholics, and made pro-life promises that he had no intention of keeping. Lieberman got into the Senate----with pro-life votes.

Lieberman musta laughed all the way to Washington thinking of the con job he pulled off.

Once in office, Lieberman turned tail and became an unwavering abortion rights supporter----as your list suggests----voting consistently pro-abortion, and even voting to uphold partial-birth abortion on six separate occasions.


40 posted on 08/15/2006 9:21:10 AM PDT by Liz (The US Constitution is intended to protect the people from the government.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: leilani
LOL. It was just a smidge too transparent. : D. There are very few around this place that will really have any bearing on that race. But it's interesting to watch everyone freak out.

The divide and conquer brigade are certainty out around here in with full force. They think we're a lot less practical than we really are.

The one main lesson for me: Always put up a strong, solid candidate because politics are really, really unpredictable.
41 posted on 08/15/2006 9:25:07 AM PDT by pollyannaish
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Alter Kaker

From a realistic perspective will this happen?

If it doesn't, what will you do?

Personally, I like Loserman, but his politics sucks - excpet for supporting Bush on the war on terror - and that so critical right now that I woudl vote for him unless I was sure the Repub had a good chance of getting in, and I knew the Repub wouldn't turn out to be a Chuckie Hegel or John McCain.


42 posted on 08/15/2006 9:26:31 AM PDT by ZULU (Non nobis, non nobis, Domine, sed nomini tuo da gloriam. God, guts, and guns made America great.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: RexBeach

"How can old Joe be a conservative Jew and still vote in favor of abortion?"

The same way Kennedy, Kerry and Rudy favor abortion and have been divorced and still consider themselves Catholic.


43 posted on 08/15/2006 9:30:44 AM PDT by BW2221
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: ZULU
From a realistic perspective will this happen?

If the grassroots GOP can get Schlesinger to drop out it will -- Orchulli is itching to run, and has said so publicly.

Personally, I like Loserman, but his politics sucks

That's not much of a reason for voting for a guy. I'm sure Ted Kennedy is a great raconteur, but we need every vote we can get in the Senate. This is the only chance we'll have to pick up a seat in Connecticut for the forseeable future. Orchulli will be way to the right of Lieberman, and he's very well-known. In a two-way race, he'd have no chance, but with the Dem vote split, now's our chance.

44 posted on 08/15/2006 9:31:37 AM PDT by Alter Kaker ("Whatever tears one sheds, in the end one always blows one's nose." - Heine)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: Alter Kaker

"I'm sure Ted Kennedy is a great raconteur"

I remember reading somewhere that Ted Kennedy is liar, an acoholic, a womanizer, at the least guilty of manslaughter and very possibly a rapist.

Losermann is at least personally unsullied.

But a good Republican beats a so-so Dem anyday IF HE CAN GET ELECTED.


45 posted on 08/15/2006 9:49:46 AM PDT by ZULU (Non nobis, non nobis, Domine, sed nomini tuo da gloriam. God, guts, and guns made America great.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: ZULU
But a good Republican beats a so-so Dem anyday IF HE CAN GET ELECTED.

Connecticut is 33% Democrat, 22% Republican and 44% Independent. A Republican like Orchulli will likely only have to win the Republican vote plus 1/4 of Independents to win. Given popular RINO Gov Jodi Rell at the top of the ticket, turning out Republicans and Republican-leaning independents shouldn't be hard. And of course, beating 33% would be great, but isn't necessary.

46 posted on 08/15/2006 10:12:37 AM PDT by Alter Kaker ("Whatever tears one sheds, in the end one always blows one's nose." - Heine)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: Alter Kaker
I lived in Connecticut until 2000. Who on earth is Orchulli??? If he is a worthwhile candidate, he can easily, ummmmm, hire Schlesinger as a tax lawyer (being sensible enough not to let him do any actual work, if you get my drift) and Schlesinger will (for enough money) regretfully announce that his personal workload and obligations make it impossible for him to continue his campaign. I suspect I would vote for Lieberman anyway but Orchulli is irrelevant unless and until Schlesinger drops out and the GOP State Central Committee has time to schedule a special meeting in its capacity as committee on vacancies.

Bear in mind that Lieberman was elected in 1988 over Weicker when Bill Buckley, Tom Scott and other principled conservatives decided it was time for Weicker to go. Lieberman's promise to the conservatives (which he has kept) was to be sound on foreign policy and defense. Weicker had gone scuba diving with Castro that year and had the film shown on Connecticut newscasts such as Eyewitless News. Lieberman copied the tapes, made a commercial showing the corpulent Weicker in swim trunks with Fidel and then showed wife Hadassah's parents' concentration camp tattoos, whereupon Joe said: In my family, we understand the evil of totalitarianism. If I am your Senator, I won't be scuba diving with or supporting anything resembling Castro.

47 posted on 08/15/2006 10:16:59 AM PDT by BlackElk (Dean of Discipline of the Tomas de Torquemada Gentlemen's Club)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: supa consrvative

A choice between the Devil or his helper.


48 posted on 08/15/2006 10:18:28 AM PDT by xzins (Retired Army Chaplain and Proud of It! Supporting the troops means praying for them to WIN!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dynamite98

Actually, I consider myself a conservative and I've no moral quandary.

Country trumps ideology.

I'm supporting Leiberman. He's earned it on the important issue.


49 posted on 08/15/2006 10:19:10 AM PDT by Soul Seeker (Kobach: Amnesty is going from an illegal to a legal position, without imposing the original penalty.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: BlackElk
Bear in mind that Lieberman was elected in 1988 over Weicker when Bill Buckley, Tom Scott and other principled conservatives decided it was time for Weicker to go. Lieberman's promise to the conservatives (which he has kept) was to be sound on foreign policy and defense.

I knew Buckley formed a group to toss Weicker, I didn't know Leiberman made that promise. Interesting.

50 posted on 08/15/2006 10:24:07 AM PDT by Soul Seeker (Kobach: Amnesty is going from an illegal to a legal position, without imposing the original penalty.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-149 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson