Talk:Joe Lieberman/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This archive includes threads from Talk:Joe Lieberman January 1st, 2007 until December 31st, 2007.

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5

We need to decide when "Democrat" leaves his party affiliation.

I removed Democrat from his party affiliation since he was elected as an Independent. 216.49.214.3 (talk) 22:12, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

QUERY -- "Lieberman has toyed with the idea of switching his affiliation to Republican,[15][16] however this would not cause the Republicans to become the majority party during the 110th session of Congress.[17]"

I checked the link marked as 17 and it seems like some unsourced blog entry to me; everyone knows that in the current circumstances a 50/50 Senate is constitutionally presided over by the President of the Senate ex officio Dick Cheney. Shall I delete the second half of this sentence? Or can someone verify that there is a, quote, "little known resolution", unquote which makes the Democrats the majority party irrespective of having (notice the unDemocratic irony) a majority. Constitutionally this notion is impossible, but I'll wait for some sort of verification. --- Kyle Allen --- 82.30.27.171 23:36, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

It is not constitutionally impossible, because the constitution says nothing about how the Senate is organized, only that it is up to the Senate to do it. (Section 5). If the Senate passed a resolution at the beginning of this Congress saying Democrats are in majority control regardless of future changes until the end of the session, that is a perfectly constitutional resolution. I agree that the source is not up to Wikipedia standards, but the resolution should be able to be found. (And although I don't have a source, I do remember reading that there is precedent for this (maybe in the 1940s?) - the majority party became the minority, but kept control). Simon12 02:53, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

This wasn't difficult. The resolution[1] states:

"To constitute the majority party's membership on certain committees for the One Hundred Tenth Congress, or until their successors are chosen."

That's for the full two years, regardless of what happens. (S. Res 28 has the minority members). While in theory, the GOP could try to pass overriding legislation if they had 50+ votes, it would pretty much grind the Senate to a halt, with a sure Democratic filibuster. In practice, I doubt the GOP would try it - I guess it's just not how things are done in the Senate. 2001 was very different.[2]. The resolution stated:

"the committees of the Senate, including Joint and Special Committees, for the 107th Congress shall be composed equally of members of both parties...That such committee ratios shall remain in effect for the remainder of the 107th Congress, except that if at any time during the 107th Congress either party attains a majority of the whole number of Senators, then each committee ratio shall be adjusted to reflect the ratio of the parties in the Senate, and the provisions of this resolution shall have no further effect".

New resolutions were passed in June 2001 when the Democrats took full control. I will update the reference in the article. Simon12 03:33, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

UPDATE:- Well of course a point of order needs to be passed to constitute the composition and chairs or the committees. For instance, if Senator Tim Johnson retired and Senator Lieberman joined the Republican caucus, a second resolution would be passed as Republican "successors" have been chosen during the present Congress. In a 50/50 Senate the nominal power resides with the President of the Senate, Dick Cheney, who will vote to confirm Republican successors to succeed the Democratic chairs and reverse the present point of order. Of course, as the point of order from the 107th notes, if "either party attains a majority of the whole number of Senators, then each committee ratio will be adjusted"; that includes chairmanships. I shall remove the passage as it relies on a fundamental misunderstanding of the Senate. -- Kyle Allen -- 82.30.27.171 20:49, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

The "successors" refers to the successors on the committee, not in the Senate. And the text from the 107th is specifically NOT in the current resolution. If the Republicans tried to redo the committees, the Democrats would clearly fillibuster, (and would have precedent on their side), and the committees would remain in Democratic control. Ultimately it becomes a political question, but the current resolutions do not allow for a change in committee control, and the article should reflect that. Simon12 21:13, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

More sources to support the current text that control of the Senate will not change if Lieberman switches parties. From the Washington Post:

Republican leaders decided not to seek special language spelling out the terms of a transition in case of a power shift -- say, if Johnson vacates his post and his state's GOP governor appoints a Republican to replace him. Under that scenario, power would effectively shift to Republicans, because Cheney would provide the tiebreaking 51st vote. But for Republicans to take parliamentary control, the Senate would have to vote for new organizational rules, a move Democrats could filibuster.

A similar scenario unfolded in January 2001, when a 50-50 Senate convened. In 2001, Democrats demanded a "kick-out clause" in organizing negotiations that would automatically scrap agreements on committee ratios and funding levels and force new organizational rules. But Republicans decided this month against a confrontation that would come from demanding a similar clause.

And the precedent was in 1953. Again from the Washington Post:

When the next session began in January 1954, the Democrats had become the majority, 48-47-1, but they did not assume control. At one point during that session, as various members died, the D's even had a two-vote lead, but they never challenged Republican control of the body. ... More important, there was "no way the Democrats could have claimed a majority," Ritchie said, "because the Republicans could have blocked them" with a filibuster, and in the Senate, most everything can be filibustered -- even by the minority.

So we have multiple, verifiable, Wikipedia-standard sources supporting the current text that control of the Senate will not change if Lieberman switches parties. I fail to see any fundamental misunderstanding. Simon12 00:54, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I'd imagine he's still formally an elected Democrat until he's re-sworn? Could editors agree to hold off 'til then on the edit warring over the link to Democratic Party (United States). Italiavivi 12:36, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

support - I know this isn't a poll, but the number of changes and options is dizzying. Since he was unambiguously elected to this term as a Democrat, Democrat is accurate in the box. We can leave it and be accurate until the swearing in. Rather than re-editing the article we could use the time to 1) discuss on this page, and 2) follow developments, both what Lieberman does and says, and what the rest of the Senate does and says. Jd2718 17:38, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Someone edited Independent Democrat to Democrat. I don't think this is consistent with Lieberman's stated position. There was a comment about "Independent Democrat" being a neologism, though Wikipedia itself has an article with history on this terminology. IMO, NPOV calls for usage consistent with the senator's own preferred usage and with the official Senate usage (the latter is not yet determined). Avt tor 16:00, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
Lieberman is not a Democrat simply on a technicality. He has stated many times that he is a lifelong democrat and he will caucus with the party in the senate. While I agree that it should be mentioned that he won the recent election as an independent and he has called himself an "Independent Democrat", he should be listed as a Democrat. Let's not forget: at present he still is considered technically a Democrat as well. Mike 16:06, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
Some Democrats feel that he abandoned any claim to being a "lifelong Democrat" when he chose to run against the party's nominee in the election. That said: I agree with Jd2718's position: don't waste time futzing with the infobox. And if you read U.S. history, the article on Independent Democrat lists only a tiny fraction of the number of American politicians who have been estranged from the party but called themselves "Independent Democrat" over the decades. Remember Will Rogers' proud proclamation: "I am not a member of any organized political party; I am a Democrat." Democrats are a fractious bunch (and I say that as a delegate to the 2004 Democratic National Convention). --Orange Mike 16:15, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
I agree with you, but Independent Democrat is not a real political party. Plus, he is still a Democrat until January, so the userbox should reflect that fact. In January, it can be another story, but as of right now he is a Democratic senator. And I still think he should be listed as a Democrat in January because he is a registered member of the party. It doesn't matter that some Democrats don't like him. Lots of Republicans don't like Arlen Specter, but we're not calling him an Independent are we? The only reason Joe ran as an independent is, like you said, because he lost the primary.--Mike 16:26, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
I changed the infobox from "Connecticut for Lieberman" to "Independent Democrat" because the former seemed to be clearly not a political affiliation and the latter seemed to more accurately reflect consensus of editors. I did not change "Democrat" back to "Independent Democrat" because that is a smaller change not requiring immediate correction. I think a final determination requires an authoritative citation, either in the senator's own words or from other official source (e.g. senate.gov). Notwithstanding any of our personal views, the encyclopedia's purpose should be to inform readers with relevant information, not to promote a particular political view above others. Avt tor 17:36, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
See below - he is officially a Democrat in the Senate, so Democrat needs to be in his userbox. However, he officially ran as a candidate for the Connecticut for Lieberman party in the election, so that also should be in his infobox. The most recent, official statuses are the ones that should be elected. What he is officially going to be for the next Senate term will appear at www.senate.gov in the future, but presently he is officially an incumbent Democratic Senator and a successful Connecticut for Lieberman Senate Candidate. --Tim4christ17 talk 09:57, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Difference from running for the Senate and sitting as a Senator

1) Lieberman ran for the Senate as the "Connecticut for Lieberman" Party. There are many more parties other than the Democratic and Republican Party. For all charts and articles regarding the Senate Election of 2006, Lieberman was either elected as a "independent" (as opposed to the traditional parties such as the Democrat, Republican, Green, or Communist Party)

2) Lieberman will sit in the new Senate as whatever he wants to! If someone is elected as a Democrat, there is nothing that says they could not switch and sit as a Republican. It is the convention for someone to run and sit for the same Party, but no requirement that they do. Someday a group of Senators and Congressman will decide to create a new party and decide to switch to this new party and there is nothing the Democratic or Republican Party can do to stop it. (The new party better have a majority or else they would lose all their committee seats. By the way, what happens if no one party can get 51 votes to create the majority?) So, if Lieberman wants to call himself a "Independent Democrat", then that is what CSPAN will call him. I suspect Wikipedia will resolve this problem once CSPAN (and Senate.gov) define him on their web pages.

By the way, where in the Constitution were Parties even mentioned? user:mnw2000 16:33, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

1) If no party has a majority, then major negotiations go on until 51 senators can agree on a Senate leadership. 2) The parties were not contemplated in the writing of the Constitution, and indeed such groups were fiercely deprecated by most of the Founding Fathers.--Orange Mike 18:13, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
I don't think this is true. All decisions (ignoring cloture, of course) in the Senate (and House) require only a majority of those voting. This has been discussed as to Tim Johnson - the Democrats can win a Senate vote on leadership 50-49. Simon12 04:34, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
Okay, good point; but I was assuming the normal full complement of 100 Senators. If there are vacancies, of course, the numbers shift. --Orange Mike 04:41, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
There would be no such problem in this case, as Lieberman will caucus with the Democrats, even if he isn't officially a Democrat. Also, while parties are not mentioned in the Constitution, the requirements for forming a party and benefits or restrictions related to being part of a party are listed in the law. With regards to the Lieberman issue, let's keep his "official" statuses for the time being - what he is serving as for his present term and what he ran as for his next term - and after the inauguration, the Senate website will be updated to reflect his official status for the '07 term and we'll be able to update Wikipedia accordingly. --Tim4christ17 talk 20:54, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
But: "the requirements for forming a party and benefits or restrictions related to being part of a party are listed" in 53 different sets of laws (50 states, D.C., Puerto Rico, and federal law).--Orange Mike 21:06, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Exactly - except that only the Federal and Conn. laws would apply to Lieberman. --Tim4christ17 talk 21:09, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
I agree completely with Tim4christ17. For the purposes of this article, Lieberman is a Democrat now, and we'll know on Jan 4 what he is then. However, for the 110th United States Congress, we have a verifiable source that he will, in fact, be listed officially as an Independent Democrat, and until another source (i.e, US Senate web site) says otherwise, the ID listing should stand based on that source. (Mentioned this here because of a reverted edit at 110th United States Congress. Simon12 04:43, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

And until January 4th, when a verifiable government source is released, he should be listed as a generic independent in all articles. Your source is a claim (one which is noted in the article), nothing more, nothing less. 66.211.32.50 12:46, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, there's now an official press release from Lieberman's office which refers to himself as "Senator Joe Lieberman (ID-CT)"[3] To me, that's a verifiable source for ID. I won't change it in the article because there are too many edit wars going on on this, but I think that should be good enough for everybody. Simon12 03:39, 26 December 2006 (UTC)


Lieberman's path leads to Mccain His official portrait sits in a closet at the Connecticut Democratic party headquaters in Hartford. Party elders have stripped him of his superdelegate cape. And he is so uninterested in the Democratic presidential candidates though he counts both a friends that he declined to vote in his state's primary. Senator Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut, not so long ago the Democratic nominee for vice president,has become chief endorser, campaign companion and all around champion for his buddy Senator Jhon McCain of Arizona , the presumptive Republican presidential standard bearer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.174.6.126 (talk) 01:14, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Page length

This article has become too long. It's time to split out the "political positions" section into a separate article. Some editors are obsessing about every little twitch of this subject's views, which looks non-neutral. Avt tor 00:20, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

As promised, I have separated out the political positions into Policy stands of Joe Lieberman, and provided a summary; it was easier than I thought. The page is still long-ish. I have reorganized this article to put related sections together, and I have removed a bit of redundant material. It may be useful to summarize the election section and put the detail into a separate article. (People just love arguing about this guy.) Avt tor 19:56, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

If the religion section wasn't in there twice, it would help... 68.34.126.70 (talk) 03:27, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

"Independent Democrat" is not a political party or party affiliation.

And to list it as such, especially linking Democratic Party (United States) within the phrase "Independent Democrat," is inaccurate. My compromise is to list Lieberman's party affiliation as Independent (which is true, he is a unpartied independent senator), but note that he caucuses with the Democratic Party, and lists himself for official purposes under the "ID" moniker. 66.211.32.50 05:03, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

The US Senate lists his Party Affiliation as "Independent Democrat". I believe that's how Wikipedia should refer to his party going forward. I'd like to see what others think so we can reach a consensus. (I have no opinion on whether to link Democrat within Independent Democrat. I purposely did not do that in my edits this evening, but instead linked to Independent Democrat). (FYI, this discussion is also taking place at Talk:110th United States Congress Simon12 05:27, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Cited US Senate reference describes Lieberman as "Independent Democrat". The Independent Democrat article provides a more informative and focused description of this than Democratic Party (United States), IMO. Avt tor 05:32, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Cited US Senate reference has changed, and now lists Lieberman as "Independent." Next? 66.211.32.50 00:59, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Okay. Cited US Senate reference is authoritative. (Be nice if they could get it straight, eh?) Avt tor 18:25, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
The U.S. Senate is the official, authoritative source - mention should be made of the fact that he has been a Democrat, will caucus with the Democrats, was elected on the "Connecticut for Lieberman" ticket, etc. but his official Senate listing is the proper source for his present party affiliation. And it lists him as an Independent Democrat. --Tim4christ17 talk 13:00, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Yes, he has a custom tag ("ID") for his independent status. This does not change that placing "Independent Democrat" within fields labeled "party" is inaccurate. Lieberman has no current party affiliation; are you disputing that Lieberman is, in fact, still an unpartied Senator? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 198.205.32.94 (talk) 17:21, 4 January 2007 (UTC).
"ID" would have been an appropriate and accurate tag, assuming it had been left up. But it's a moot point, as User:66.211.32.50 mentioned - the Senate site has changed his listing to "I". --Tim4christ17 talk 02:44, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Agreed, "ID" would have been an appropriate and accurate tag, just so we can all have this discussion again tomorrow when the web site changes back! Simon12 03:42, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

The official source for the US Senate, senate.gov, has Lieberman listed as ID, not I and not D. Therefore, all articles in Wikipedia should reflect this fact. The make up of the US Senate today is 49 Dems, 49 Reps, 1 independent and 1 Independent Democrat. That is simply a fact. Can someone please update all the relevant articles? user:mnw2000 18:45, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

And yet other .gov sources (and some other media sources) still simply identify him as an "I," which is still entirely accurate and appropriate regardless of his "ID" label. Lieberman is an unpartied "I" Senator, and while his "ID" label has received some recognition, it is much less POV to list him as having been elected (and sitting as) an Independent. 66.211.32.50 22:20, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
You are correct, sir. How nice it would be if the official source did not change three times in a week?? Avt tor 18:59, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
How long will it take until Lieberman leaves the Democrat caucus and becomes an Independent (or Republican)? user:mnw2000 19:05, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Not going to happen - he may waver as to his official designation (or maybe it's the webmaster over at the Senate website), but I doubt he'll leave the Democratic caucus. --Tim4christ17 talk 19:36, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
It may or may not happen. If he votes against the party too often, they may kick him out of caucus. Anything might happen. However, it's not Wikipedia's job to predict or speculate about the future. It is Wikipedia's job to reflect the present, though some editors seem to be stuck back in November. Avt tor 00:25, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

The term "Independent Democrat" is an oxymoron. Under Connecticut election law, he's not a Democrat, as you cannot run simultaneously as a Democrat and an independent. Calling himself an "Independent Democrat" was just campaign slogan. — Red XIV (talk) 22:46, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Liebernman ran under the Connecticut for Liebernman party label. Indepentent Democrat doesn't mean anything with respect to party affiliation, simply becuase it's not a party. Under party affiliation Lieberman should be listed as a Inpendent, Connecticut for Liebernmen, or a Democart, considering that they are either parties or void of party identification.- thank you Astuishin (talk) 19:18, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure if this is the case in the US, but in most parts of the world the term "Independent [Term for a Member of a Party]" is very commonly used to denote someone who generally subscribes to the principles of a party but for whatever reasons is formally detached from that party. In parliaments & councils it's often used for people who've either resigned or lost the whip (and sometimes if there are a few of them they'll even form an "Independent [Party Name]" grouping within the chamber) and it's also not uncommon to see the term used for someone contesting an election who for various reasons is unable to secure an official nomination. (Political scientists in particular often use it regardless of what party label the candidate actually has on the ballot paper but the handful who do get elected often use the term as well.) Here in the UK Clare Short now sits as "Independent Labour" having resigned the Labour whip about 15 months ago. So too did S. O. Davies who couldn't get renominated as a Labour MP in the 1970 election so he successfully ran as an independent. The double barrelled term seeks to distinguish such people from a more generic "Independent" and is commonly used regardless of whether or not people think it's an oxymoron. Timrollpickering (talk) 22:05, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
There is no such thing as an "Independent Democrat." Lieberman is an Independent, plain and simple, and one who wants to have his cake and eat it too. Remove the term from the article, or I'll do it myself. BobCubTAC (talk) 10:47, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
Consensus has been reached on this issue, and that is to go with what the official source states. Qqqqqq (talk) 16:42, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
Well, this is bullshit, plain and simple. I've never heard of this kind of crap before. Why is it that everybody, all of a sudden, wants to bow down to the Almighty Joe? It's pathetic, I tell you. BobCubTAC (talk) 11:58, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Can we have a decision on what Lieberman's party affiliation is?

The official web site, senate.gov, states that Lieberman is an INDEPENDENT DEMOCRAT. However, we have been seeing on this and other pages, changes to list Lieberman as a INDEPENDENT similar to Sanders of VT. The makeup of the Senate is officially 49 Dems, 49 Rep, 1 ind and 1 Independent Democrat. Can someone in authority make an official decision? user:mnw2000 22:48, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

senate.gov is authoritative. In my view it is POV to claim conflicting sources; some editors are unhappy that Lieberman got away with losing the primary and winning the election, so they seek excuses to reject developments which the Democratic party itself (perhaps grudgingly) accepts. The fact is that politicians change their party affiliation over time, so it doesn't matter what someone happened to be at the time of election if their party has changed since. It's up to the party to decide who is in or associated with the party, not up to media or other sources. Avt tor 00:21, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Seconded, senate.gov (which as of this writing again says "ID") is the source that Wikipedia should reflect. The Secretary of the Senate is the ultimate authority on data about the current Congress; to her we absolutely should defer. Qqqqqq 01:36, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Absolutely. Also, among editors who have edited or commented on this issue over the last few weeks, there is a clear consensus that he should be listed as an ID if the official Senate web site say's he is an ID. Simon12 03:02, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Clearly Lieberman is not a Democrat in the sense that he wasn't elected on the Democratic Party ticket. The Senate says he's an ID, that should be good enough for anyone. --Lee Vonce 19:46, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I have requested from senate.gov the OFFICIAL listing for Joe Lieberman. One web site (a PDF dated 1/3) says it is I-CT and another web site (an dynamic page) says it is ID-CT. Let's wait for the response. user:mnw2000 02:35, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I have received the following reply:

Senator Lieberman's official listing is ID-CT (Independent Democrat). The pdf you list below only allowed for one letter parties. This problem is being corrected, and when the new phone list is generated in about a week Senator Lieberman's party will be listed as ID. We apologize for any confusion this may have caused.

Best Wishes, Liz Horrell, On behalf of the Senate Webmaster

I guess the case is closed on this one for now. user:mnw2000 01:32, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

24.5.182.91 20:08, 23 June 2007 (UTC)==Liberal??== Does anybody else think the label of "Liberal" is, unless it's specifically self-identified, kind of simplistic and POV? I don't mean just in terms of Lieberman; someone has created a new category without a clear purpose. Avt tor 07:44, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Especially because "liberal" is a label that is sometimes applied as a smear, so that moderately leftish politicians in red states have to run away saying "no, I'm not a liberal." If the category "American Liberals" exists in Wikipedia, then we will see endless debates and reverts about whether someone is or is not a liberal. Or, in the case of Lieberman, we'll have debates about whether someone who once was a liberal should be listed as one, even if s/he has become conservative in later life. Or the opposite, David Brock for example, who once was a conservative hitman (in his own famous words). "American Liberals" {as opposed to "British Liberals", which refers to members of an actual political party) is a bad category, and should be removed. Malangali 00:45, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

One editor seems determined to label Lieberman as a liberal. Here are eleven sources saying that he's not:

Here's the thing about the above sources: Many of them predate the 2006 controversy. And none of them are authoritative, just as the other editor's one source (which conflicts with the earlier source he found) is not authoritative. These are all matters of opinion. Terms like "liberal" and "conservative" only have two relevant contexts: in political analysis, and as an orientation of organizations. (That's why "conservative" is better defined, because there are more organizations calling themselves conservative.) In its analytical context, "liberal" is inherently POV, and as such as no place here. While one might say that a certain person considered someone else to be a liberal, even that comment would have to pass a notability/relevance filter.

On this basis, I am removing the other editor's footnote and restoring the fact tag. As this is an important point in the paragraph, it may become necessary to remove the entire paragraph, as the whole conclusion seems somewhat POV and not directly relevant here. This is certainly a point on which consensus should be involved, so I invite other opinions on this question. Avt tor 19:38, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Allow me to further clarify: I don't consider "moderate" (or "liberal") to be a bad word. Bill Clinton was a moderate, and thereby a great president; I am a moderate. However, this is a very contentious point among Connecticut Democrats. Wikipedia has an obligation to be accurate, not to inject slant into a contentious issue.
In addition, I'm realizing that the whole "November election" section has become fairly long relative to the article. I am strongly inclined to move content from this page to the subordinate page on the 2006 Connecticut Senate election page. Avt tor 19:44, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Senator Lieberman decided for himself when he registered as a Democrat in Stamford. See article in The Stamford Times. --Seraphim55 23:43, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

That doesn't make him an elected Democratic official. He wasn't elected as a Democrat for Senate. 216.49.214.3 (talk) 22:15, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism in opening paragraph

I removed some very un-Wikipedia like vandalism in the opening paragraph.

The pargraph stated that Lieberman was a "Jewish-American politician from Connecticut". The "Jewish-American" notation linked to the "Israel" article. Leaving the Israel link aside, his religious identity obviously doesn't deserve this kind of mention in the opening sentence. No other senator has this kind of identification.

Two sentences down, the paragraph described Lieberman as "the leading anti-Palestinian candidate" in the 2000 presidential campaign. I'm not sure what this means (that year Lieberman was nominated for vice president, and I'm not sure who he's being compared to.) Furthermore, he certainly has never labeled himself "anti-Palestinian" and a thorough discussion of his views on Israel can be found later in the article. To describe opposition to Palestinians as the primary (or even ""a"" primary) political issue backed by Lieberman is baseless and uncited.

It seems that a previous editor of this page has a fixation with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and seems determined to draw Lieberman in with disregard for the factual, fair-minded, and NPOV standards of this encyclopedia. Wikipedia is not the place for their juvenile and amateurish name-calling. Again, I consider this to be vandalism with no place in an encyclopeida such as ours.

Jules1236 04:05, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

It's happening again today. I'm trying to revert it but a couple of people keep adding it back. Avt tor 22:45, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Someone put Benedict Arnold on the profession on the side panel which is a blatant vandalism!!!! 02:56, 25 August 2008 (UTC)Bobby Hall —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rhall4 (talk • contribs)

Senator Lieberman did a great interview this morning.

Just encouraging everyone here to check out the transcript [4] if you didn't get to see it! Italiavivi 23:05, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Survey: Placing snippets of political views within the lead.

I don't support this addition [5] at all. It inevitably risks placing undue weight on certain issues if too specific. Italiavivi 03:31, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

WP:Lead opens with: The lead should be capable of standing alone as a concise overview of the article, establishing context, explaining why the subject is interesting or notable, and describing its notable controversies, if there are any. Further on, they suggest (but it is not policy) that articles over 30k characters (this has 37k) should have 3 or 4 paragraphs in the lead. It's worth reading the whole guideline, closely; it seems to support a slightly expanded lead. Lieberman is more notable than many other sitting senators.
Finally, if these seem like snippets, then I have written/compromised badly. 1. Support of Israel. 2. Support of Iraq War. 3. Moralism (or whatever the NPOV way of saying that is) 4. Cooperation/Closeness/Flirtation with (again, whatever the NPOV way of saying that is) the Republicans. Jd2718 04:20, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
I guess we'll just have to wait for other editors to chime in, and see where consensus stands, then. Italiavivi 04:48, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
OK. In the meantime, I've been reading the tops of the articles about other Senators (I will go back to former Senators as well), to see the variety of ways this is handled. Jd2718 04:52, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
WP:LEAD is a guideline which is uniquely inapplicable to this particular article; the subject is sufficiently controversial that any selection of issues tends to violate WP:NPOV, which takes precedence. Several editors (mostly anonymous) have injected slants of opinion into this article, and one way of injecting bias is simply to overstate the importance of certain facts compared to other details. Four different issues is surely too many and will certainly invite other editors to add their own interests to the list, or to inject wording to slant the interpretation of various issues. Balance (i.e. length) is much easier to add in later sections or subordinate pages. The problems of bias and editorial argument has caused problems with WP:SIZE in the past, and will again if this isn't kept in check.
This guy pisses me off again and again. But if the article only confirms the biases of one side of the arguments, it won't actually inform anybody. Avt tor 06:09, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Joe or Joseph?

There have been continuing attempts to create this article at Joseph Lieberman - even though the move was not attempted properly, it does suggest a demand that this article is renamed. Is there a consensus on this issue? -- zzuuzz(talk) 15:04, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Please see official web site. Public name is not the same as legal name. Some people are unclear on this. Avt tor 16:42, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Thank you, you at least sound fairly decided. I would appreciate it if you could add Joseph Lieberman to your watchlist to prevent a duplicate article appearing there. Thanks. -- zzuuzz(talk) 21:59, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Done, I'll keep an eye out, thanks for the suggestion. I am "decided" on the basis of past discussion and consensus here. Avt tor 01:18, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Religious Observance

I've struck the part about Mr. Lieberman being Shomer Shabbos ( Sabbath Observant ) because no one who was would have gone to work on Saturday February 17th, where he is on record as attending and voting. Mikelieman 04:45, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Well I'm no expert here. (My wife's grandfather was a Conservative rabbi.) It's my understanding that one is allowed to save a life on the Sabbath. Senator Lieberman appears to interpret the war in Iraq as necessary to the defense of civilians in the region (including Israeli Jews). (I would not agree with this interpretation, but it does seem to be his view.) He may have seen this as a life-and-death situation. I accept that he voted on that day, but I don't accept that Orthodox Jewry has objected to him defending Israel unless I see a reliable source saying so. Avt tor 22:16, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

It is a well-publicized fact that his decision to vote on Shabbos has rabbinical sanction. See, for example, this article:

http://ohr.edu/ask_db/ask_main.php/286/Q1/

One word of advice, Mikelieman: avoid making changes on subjects you know little about. marbeh raglaim 22:48, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

On domestic issues, he holds liberal views on some economic issues, though he is a supporter of free trade.

this is a very confusing sentence. "he holds liberal views on some economic issues, though he is a supporter of free trade." doesnt holding liberal economic views mean free trade, low taxes, no corporate restrictions? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.142.82.222 (talk) 22:58, 14 March 2007 (UTC).

No, since the 20th century, "liberal" is commonly interpreted as more leftist, pro-government, pro-regulation. pro-labor, in other words, protectionist. Avt tor 12:33, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps it would be better to say that "in U.S. politics, since the 20th century, "liberal" is commonly interpreted as more leftist, pro-government, pro-regulation. pro-labor, sometimes verging on social democracy. Outside the U.S., the meaning is different," and then refer the reader to the articles on liberalism, American liberalism, etc. --Orange Mike 14:10, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Or we could just take the whole paragraph out. It attracts detail that belongs elsewhere; everyone wants to jam their personal hobby-horse right to the top. As previously discussed, I don't like the word "liberal" because it is ambiguous and, in some circles, pejorative; it's certainly subjective. Avt tor 14:47, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
This paragraph in the lead has attracted almost no attention since it was added, despite the warning that it might. This was, ISTR, one of your prime reasons for wanting it removed. The question about the word "liberal" is a good one, and would apply wherever in the article the word were used. In fact it is a legitimate question for many articles about US politics, since the word carries a different meaning here from most of the rest of the world. Jd2718 01:38, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Recent revelations about the Senator's true positions on important issues seem to show a decent into Totalitarianism and fear mongering, where he expounds the merits of the surrender of our core values of civil liberties, in practice trading Freedom for order, a poor choice in any circumstance as Freedom is hard fought and order will always restore itself. I do not see how this is liberal or democratic. Alexanderum 14:02, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

On "Donor Controversy"

This doesn't belong here. Although many may believe that the tactics used by Swift Boat Veterans for Truth during the 2004 campaign were misleading and negative, I disagree with the implicit suggestion that it is a scandal when a Swift Boat donor is nominated for a federal office. The "reports" that this Swift Boat donor also contributed an unspecified amount to Lieberman's 2006 campaign (well before, not after or during, Lieberman's support of his nomination) is not important enough to merit mention.

If nobody objects, I will soon delete this paragraph. Jules1236 03:32, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I strongly object. The fact of Lieberman supporting the nomination of a Swift Boat donor (and accepting his money) implies that he is tacitly supportive of the Swift Boat organization and their tactics, and that they approve of him. In a Republican, this would not be noteworthy. In a nominal Democrat, this is suggestive of a certain disconnect from the ideals of the Democratic Party. --Orange Mike 13:49, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
I wouldn't have phrased it as Mike did, but I agree that the support (even tacit support) of the Swift Boat smear by a Democrat/former-Democrat is quite noteworthy. --Lee Vonce 15:46, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
I think it is somewhat noteworthy, and a short mention is appropriate. It's not a complete surprise that Republicans supported Lieberman in 2006. Avt tor 21:05, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Fair enough. I slightly rephrased it though, to reflect the fact that Fox is a donor to a broad range of Republican (or independent, in the case of Lieberman) issues and candidates, not just the Swift Boat Vets. Jules1236 02:44, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
if no one comments on the controversial nature of the relationship between Liberman and the donor, it should be remov

ed. If no one is able to find a source commenting on the fact that this is a controversy, then it will go. DJ CreamityOh Yeah! 20:23, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

You've been warned about blanking on the ANI board. I suggest you heed the warning. --Eleemosynary (talk) 20:31, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
You are more than welcome to contribute to this debate, and if you have a sound reason to preserv this material, please present it, otherwise, I'd suggest you stop following me, last warning. DJ CreamityOh Yeah! 20:32, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
You're on record as a disruptive editor, who unilaterally blanks large sections of political articles, then explains it away with bogus policy justifications. I'll respond to any nonsense you post on the Talk pages that I see fit, in accordance with Wikipedia policy. "Playing the victim" is not gonna work. --Eleemosynary (talk) 20:34, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Me, disruptive, I dont know how you took that away from the comments at ANI, but for the record how many times have you been blocked? DJ CreamityOh Yeah! 20:38, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Not nearly as many as you have, under your former Wiki identities.  :) --Eleemosynary (talk) 20:50, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

On "Jewishness" and Presidential Election

Let's by-pass any rhetoric here of debate about prejudice and religion. All of the previous Presidents have had a religious background and controversy has always included their "faith". Leiberman has always backed anything Pro-Isreal and is fair fodder for suggestions that his "faith" may trump his political responsibilities for American interests throughout the middle east. Even Romney is being attacked for his "Mormonism" as Kennedy was for being Catholic. Why is it wrong to state that Leiberman, with all his pro-Isreal views, may not be able to keep the Church-State issues separate? Plese don't turn this into an Anti-Semetic issue.

"Both men are Orthodox Jews who support Israel and military action on Iran, which would fuel further terrorism in the world, by establishing a Jewish Theocracy in the Whitehouse if elected." That is not just noting his faith and/or its influence on his views. That is saying that having Jews in the White House will further terrorism. This article isn't the proper place for it. - Sean Martin 19:52, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks Sean, that was what I was saying, however, consider the ramifications from the two religiously opposed enemies, the Jews and the Muslims, and since the US is the largest contributor to Isreal, i.e., the atom bomb, most favored status, etc., how can you not think that a Pro-Isreal State (The US), and an Orthodox Jew as the commander-in-chief, will not escalate terrorism in the world? Especially within the boundaries of the US.—Preceding unsigned comment added by [[Special:Contributions/{{{IP|{68.115.166.54 (talk · contribs)
And if that were the case (I'm adamantly not agreeing that it is) why would an escalation in terrorism be the Jews fault? You've said nothing to counter my original point. Indeed, you have supported it by even more clearly equating Jews in the White House to increased terrorism. At best you're arguing that we should eliminate an entire class of people from high office because you're afraid of what someone else might do.
You should check out the article on Neville Chamberlin. - Sean Martin (talk) 22:12, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
Also because the conclusion made constitutes original research. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, facts added to articles have to be verifiable by citing a reliable source and the wording has to adhere to the Neutral point of view policy. Thanks for your understanding. —Elipongo (Talk contribs) 20:54, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks Elipongo, I can do all that with my original inclusion. But will it stand.
I'm assuming you're the same person that was editing from 70.155.206.251 (talk · contribs) earlier. Nothing can be promised on the wiki because anyone can change pretty much anything. However if you can find a reliable, third party source to cite for your conclusion then it has a better chance. Please note that I'm specifying the conclusion because the No Original Research policy specifically disallows adding together cited facts to build to an uncited conclusion. Cheers! —Elipongo (Talk contribs) 22:53, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Trivia Section

I am going to cut out the trivia section, which is about him and Bernie Sanders. It is unsourced and has little, if anything, to do with this article. I'm also making the section on his religion a full section, rather than a subsection of trivia. Jayran 06:56, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Aggressive Interrogation or Torture

Should this sentence read as it is currently - Lieberman has been one of the Senate's most consistent supporters of Israel, an advocate of the Iraq War, and a defender of the United States' use of aggressive interrogation techniques against "enemy combatants". or should aggressive interrogation be replaced with torture? "Aggressive interrogation" is really nothing more than a euphemism for torture. Senators McCain, Warner, and Graham; Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, numerous religious leaders, and others have all characterized "aggressive interrogation" as torture, why shouldn't Wikipedia? It is far less POV than calling it by its euphemism and it is important to call a spade a spade. Jayran 23:21, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

The citation given for that sentence doesn't support either statement, as far as I can see. Perhaps a direct quote from some notable person could be included as such, but as it is, I think the whole sentence needs to be re-worked or removed. —Elipongo (Talk contribs) 23:34, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
The citation indeed did not support either formulation of the statement - the citation was to Lieberman's speech in support of the Gonzales nomination for AG, a speech in which he explicitly rejected the 2002 OLC torture memo. It is not generally assumed that all physical coercion is tantamount to torture. Lieberman voted for the Detainee Treatment Act, which explicitly banned torture. Though Lieberman may support some physically coercive interrogation for terrorism detainees (I have not found an explicit statement), clearly he draws a line between such techniques and actual torture - and clearly, as his rejection of the 2002 OLC memo indicates, he does not manipulate definitions to define torture so narrowly that plenty of brutality would remain permissible. We can be charitable enough not to characterize an opinion that lies well within the American mainstream in an inflammatory fashion - especially in the header. I have removed the sentence. –Komandorskiye 06:28, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Primary results?

Can anyone give a reason for including the results of the Lieberman/Lamont (2006) primary in "Electoral History" when no other primary results are posted?

I agree unless it is put in context. Which was they had a dupe Ned Lamont who was a Moveon.org stooge used to make an example of a moderate democrat.Kirin4 20:55, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Well for one thing, it marked the first time Lieberman was forced to run, and subsequently won re-election as an independent rather than a Democrat. Isnt't that significant in itself? After all, ever since he won re-election as an independent, news organisation has always referred to him as an independent rather than a Democrat. (I-CT) Ethereal 10:59, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Gorelieberman.jpg

Image:Gorelieberman.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 07:00, 7 November 2007 (UTC)


Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Joe_Lieberman/Archive_3&oldid=1136846460"