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)
FDAs RU-486 decision stands; its 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)
Thats why he is a rat but still go joe and beat lamont(sanford and son)
Yeah, but with the Republican candidate for Senate in CT polling at 6%, what can you do?
Good post. It would be a plus for the Republican candidate to WIN.
How can old Joe be a conservative Jew and still vote in favor of abortion?
Welcome to Free Republic!
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?
He used to try to pass himself off as "orthodox", then when he got called on that, he switched to calling himself "observant."
The same reason so many vote Dem in spite of their sellout of Israel. Liberalism and party trump religion and morals.
LOL. You are correct of course, but I have a question. You a Lamont supporter?
Welcome to Free Republic.
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.
---"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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
LOL. Scoff----Republicans? That's a laugh. More like prostitutes---they'll do just about anything, depending on the rewards to be had.
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.
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.
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?
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.
First Day here at FR I see. Welcome!
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.
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!
How different from Lieberman would Lamont vote in the Senate?
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.
Ned! Is this really you - or one of your comrades?
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.
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.
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.
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.
"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.
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.
"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.
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.
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.
A choice between the Devil or his helper.
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.
I knew Buckley formed a group to toss Weicker, I didn't know Leiberman made that promise. Interesting.