Talk:Joe Lieberman/Archive 4

This archive includes threads from Talk:Joe Lieberman January 1st, 2008 until December 31st, 2008.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Iraq War section incomplete

In speaking about Lieberman's stance on the Iraq war, it seems odd to refrain from mentioning his Zionist persuasion and his personal crusade against Islam. In quote after quote, where others use the term "terrorist", Lieberman uses "Islamic Terrorist". Where others use the term "terrorism", he uses "Islamic terrorism".

http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/12434.html
http://www.securityconference.de/konferenzen/rede.php?id=83&sprache=en&
http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/politics/blog/2007/07/lieberman_us_needs_to_get_toug.html
Deproduction (talk) 02:12, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

We don't editorialize. To say that Lieberman is engaged in a "personal crusade against Islam" would violate WP:NPOV. That policy explains, however, that we can report facts about opinions. We can't report every criticism anyone has ever voiced about Lieberman, but if some prominent spokesperson has accused Lieberman of engaging in such a "crusade", and if you can present evidence that the criticism is a notable one, then we can consider including a report of it in the article. JamesMLane t c 06:12, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Depending on perspective, this article seems to be strongly violating WP:NPOV already. references to "solidarity with Israel in its constant efforts to fight against terror"... and the section on the Iraq war express the point of view that the US and Israel's acts of aggression are a defense against terrorism, whereas a Iraqi point of view is that the US is the aggressor and the terrorists. I realize its impossible to reflect ALL possible POV's. This month, for example, 21 US soldiers were killed in Iraq (at least 5 from internal accidents) and almost 1,000 Iraqis were killed. It seems that any reasonable unbiased article would refrain from labeling the side with more than 20 times the fatalities as "terrorists".

I realize this article is not a space for that kind of debate, but I would appreciate any guidance on how to truly maintain WP:NPOV when it appears this article reflects a limited, biased American, Judeo-Christian perspective as NPOV. Deproduction (talk) 17:07, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Your comment concerned me, because I agreed that the phrase "expressing solidarity with Israel in its constant efforts to fight against terror" was definitely POV, and I thought someone pushing that perspective had inserted the phrase in violation of the NPOV policy. Upon examination, however, I find that the phrase is in our article in quotation marks. It's a verbatim quotation from the bill (in fact, from its title). In context, therefore, it's clear that the phrase is Lieberman's characterization of his own position. We're not endorsing his opinion, just reporting it. The way to balance it would be to report criticism, as I explained above. JamesMLane t c 06:05, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Lieberman's status as superdelegate

The article incorrectly states that Lieberman lost his status as a Democratic superdelegate because he endorsed John McCain. (The link cited in support of that proposition is dead.)

Lieberman is not a superdelegate because he was not reelected as a Democrat -- his endorsement of McCain has nothing whatever to do with it.

Jmshoo (talk) 03:01, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

On the one hand, he was not re-elected as a Democrat. On the other hand, he is a Democrat in terms of his personal voter registration, and he caucuses with the Democrats in the Senate. On those facts, is he a Democratic Senator within the meaning of the superdelegate rule? There has been no definitive statement either way. The Chair of the Connecticut Democratic Party implied that those facts did entitle him to superdelegate status; that's the implication of her statement that he lost that status by endorsing McCain. She is a prominent spokesperson on this subject, so that view deserves to be presented.

There was detailed discussion of this at Talk:Superdelegate#Lieberman. The Superdelegate article currently covers the situation in more detail, by noting both points of view:

In 2008, Senator Joe Lieberman of Connecticut endorsed Republican John McCain, which, according to the chairwoman of the Connecticut State Democratic Party, resulted in his disqualification as a superdelegate. Lieberman's status had, however, previously been questioned because, although he is a registered Democratic voter and caucuses with the Democrats, he won re-election as the candidate of the Connecticut for Lieberman Party and is listed as an "Independent Democrat". The count for Connecticut's delegates in the state party's delegate selection plan, issued before his endorsement of McCain, appears to exclude Lieberman, and he was not included on at least one list of PLEO delegates prepared before his endorsement.

Perhaps something like that would be appropriate here, although it might be more detail than is necessary. JamesMLane t c 19:12, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Religion

How was lieberman "less observant" in marrying his first wife? The article does state that he has been less observant in the past, but doesn't qualify this statement. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Phreed100 (talk • contribs) 19:23, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

It's probably difficult for someone married to a Reform Jew to be observant; Reform Jews reject the validity of the Torah as [Orthodox Judaism|Orthodoxy]] views it. A Reform Jew would not be dedicated to halacha, which could pose a problem for a spouse (such as in terms of taharat hamishpacha). DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 18:33, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Lieberman's Iran policy

There is currently no mention of Lieberman's policy toward Iran (an important issue which he is spear-heading). I suggest the following (I don't seem to be able to edit the page myself):

Iran

Lieberman has been Congress's most vocal supporter of U.S. aerial attacks on Iran justifying such action both for Iran's alleged support of anti-American forces in Iraq as well as for its nuclear program.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Tcolgan001 (talk • contribs) 18:03, 25 June 2008

We can't add that without a citation. See WP:RS for guidelines. I think what you write is true, and if you post an acceptable source here I'll add it. JamesMLane t c 18:54, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Just dig up some youtube videos. You can find him saying his usual stupid stuff.

-G —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.24.149.72 (talk) 00:09, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but there's no video that could, by itself, show him to be the "most vocal supporter" of this position. In Congress, the competition to see who can say the most stupid stuff about Iran is absolutely fierce. JamesMLane t c 03:03, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

How about this:

Iran

Lieberman has been a vocal supporter in Congress for U.S. aerial attacks on Iran justifying such action both for Iran's alleged support of anti-American forces in Iraq as well as for its nuclear program. Jpost Sep 10, 2007. Tcolgan001 (talk) 20:30, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Lieberman's proposed Orthodoxy

If Lieberman himself refers to himself as 'observant' rather than 'Orthodox,' why is it appropriate for the article to refer to him as 'Orthodox'? DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 18:36, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I've always thought that Lieberman was self-described as an Orthodox Jew. A search quickly turned up confirmation, for example this article from The Jewish Press in which Lieberman stated, "I`m an Orthodox Jew...." That's from 2003. If he has since changed his self-description, then I agree with you that the more up-to-date reference should be used, but until such is found, I think "Orthodox" is correct. I'll restore that language with the citation. JamesMLane t c 21:39, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

But Lieberman himself states that he is 'observant' rather than 'Orthodox'. How can you take a writer writing about Lieberman over Lieberman himself -- isn't Lieberman the one who decides what he is; he can't be accused of POV, whereas the Jewish Press journalist can. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 05:04, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Just curious, I am completely ignorant of Lieberman's level of observance, but where do you see a difference between "observant" and "orthodox", DRosenbach? -- Avi (talk) 05:06, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Ignoring for the moment the current generalized misappropriation of the term "Orthodox" among members of the Jewish community, the term Orthodox is an established objective term with a definition, whereas "observant" is merely an adjective -- this is analogous to the difference between "really bad headache" and "migraine headache", the latter of which is a clinical term with an objective definition, the former of which is merely a subjective, adverb-modified adjective-modifed noun that anyone can use to describe pretty much any pain in their head if they perceive it as being "really bad." Again, the term "Orthodox" means many things to many people, but in its essence, it is an applied term, not just an adjective. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 17:13, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

The link I gave you is not "a writer writing about Lieberman" -- it's an article containing what purports to be a direct, verbatim quotation from Lieberman himself. Are you contending that he didn't say what The Jewish Press says he said? Do you have a citation supporting a statement that he's denied being Orthodox? JamesMLane t c 06:03, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Lieberman's suspending his Shabbat observance to campaign is a violation at least the rabbinical prohibitions regarding forbidden acts, assuming he made all of the concessions required to avoid any biblical prohibitions, if that is even possible. Even thus, violation of rabbinical Shabbat prohibitions is a violation that is not compatible with Orthodox Judaism. The Jewish Press article may have made its assertions based upon Lieberman's synagogue affiliations, which might very well be to an Orthodox synagogue -- that doesn't make him Orthodox anymore than affiliation to a Gay rights group makes one a homosexual. If Lieberman's press secretary releases a statement stating: "Liberman refers to himself as observant, rather than Orthodox...", it is improper for others to label him as Orthodox, regardless of what any book or newspaper says about him. Orthodoxy is more than Shabbat and kosher. This is because he is assigning himself a lower level than the publication. Obviously, if he were to call himself "observant" and every publication gives evidence that he is not observant, things would be different. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 17:30, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Please read the linked article! The Jewish Press did not, as you speculate, make its assertion based on his synagogue affiliation. It quoted Lieberman verbatim. On other occasions, he may well have referred to himself as "observant", but in this particular instance he said, "I'm an Orthodox Jew...."

Now, Lieberman's self-description(s) should be reported but that isn't the end of the matter. If he says he's Orthodox and there's a significant body of opinion that he isn't, we can report the facts about those conflicting opinions (see WP:NPOV on this subject). Our article already contains some allusion to that aspect. We are not, however, going to assert as a fact that he has violated rabbinical prohibitions and therefore doesn't qualify as Orthodox. For example, this article takes up the question and concludes that he's not violating the prohibitions:

According to two professors of Talmud at Yeshiva University, an Orthodox college, Lieberman's choice to perform his duties as a government official on the Sabbath when he's required to do so can be reconciled with the strictest construction of Jewish law. Lieberman is granted an exemption from the Sabbath's enforced idleness on the basis of two concepts: pikuach nefesh, roughly translated from Hebrew as "regard for human life," and tzorchei tzibbur, or "the needs of the community."

We really can't go anywhere with this unless and until you produce a citation to a reliable source to report facts, such as what he himself has said or done (or what his press secretary has said), and/or a citation to some prominent adherent of a contrary viewpoint. JamesMLane t c 18:18, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Folks, you can argue this point all you want, but this is an encyclopedia, find a blog to talk about it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.162.77.10 (talk) 18:54, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Hagee controversy

Lieberman gathered stern criticism for speaking at an event hosted by the controversial pastor John Hagee, who has suggested that God sent Hitler to bring the Jews to Israel.

Is the last half sentence really necessary? If people want to know why he's controversial, they can go to his wikipedia page where the reason for the controversy is quite clear. Anyone disagree? -Haruspex (talk) 18:36, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

A brief summary is appropriate for the user who doesn't want to wade through the whole article on Hagee. It's relevant to Lieberman's page to note the issue of Hagee's attitude toward Jews. The bare "controversial" might mean that he was accused of anything from pederasty to embezzlement. JamesMLane t c 21:46, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

No, it isn't - especially in it's current form, which implies that Hagee is a neo-Nazi. The bit in Barack Obama's entry on the Jeremiah Wright merely references 'racially and politically charged sermons'. Considering that the Obama article is extensively vetted, extremely high profile, and a past Featured Article it's pretty safe to say that's the preferred language to use.

It's also worth pointing out that the Wright bit in the Obama entry is quite short and doesn't earn its own Controversies section, despite being vastly higher profile. That in itself is a pretty solid argument that the Hagee bit should be moved or eliminated. The only other section in Controversies is an entry about Leiberman supporting the nomination of Sam Fox, which is so blatantly non-notable that it should probably be eliminated immediately as yet another of the politicized edits Lieberman seems to attract. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ghish (talk • contribs) 15:31, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Does the current wording imply that Hagee is neo-Nazi? That's irrelevant. The question is whether the current wording accurately summarizes Hagee's comment. It does. If some readers conclude that Hagee is indeed a neo-Nazi, that's not a basis for us to censor our report of what he actually said. The comparison to Wright and Obama is inapt, because that controversy is covered elsewhere. What you're overlooking is that the passage you cite in the Barack Obama article includes a wikilink to the Jeremiah Wright controversy article. Here, there's no separate article about Lieberman's ties to Hagee. JamesMLane t c 20:15, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Why is Leiberman's entry under the category 'Neoconservatism'?

...besides the obvious, of course. It's not referenced on the entry at all, and he isn't one by any reasonable definition of the term. Can someone fix this?

I went ahead and removed this. For the most part Lieberman's foreign policy views can be described as neoconservative, but it is highly debatable whether or not this label applies to him overall. In any case, as the previous comment points out, there is no discussion of Lieberman's supposed neoconservatism in the article and thus it is inappropriate as a category (the cat "Jewish-American conservatism" is problematic as well but I'm leaving that for now). Lieberman has some fairly traditional liberal views as well, so to only apply conservative categories to him is a bit odd.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 15:21, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Pro-Choice

I could be missing something, but it seems there is no mention of the fact that Lieberman is pro-choice. That would fit in nicely in the section on health care and reproductive rights (as of a few years ago he had a 100% rating with NARAL, which might be a good way to demonstrate his pro-choice record). Obviously this is a key issue and we should explain Lieberman's view. Amid the rising rumors that McCain might pick Lieberman for his VP (which we are hearing a lot of from conservatives like Bill Kristol and Rich Lowry), the fact that he is pretty squarely in the Democratic camp on this issue is particularly relevant.

Is there any objection to adding a sentence or two about Lieberman's views on abortion to the reproductive rights section? If not I can work something up and drop it in.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 15:09, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

A reference or two here on the talk page, along with a proposed insertion to the article, would probably be the best way to go.  Frank  |  talk  15:15, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Here's some suggested language (I'll obviously format the references properly if it was put into the article):

Overall Lieberman has a pro-choice voting record, and in 2007 he received a grade of 100 from the abortion rights organization NARAL Pro-Choice America.[1] While running for president in the 2004 election, Lieberman said he would "follow a policy that makes abortion safe, rare and legal" if elected.[2]

I think that or something similar would work. I believe the "safe, rare and legal" formulation is taken directly from the Democratic party platform of the time which may or may not be worth mentioning. Thoughts?--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 20:44, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Not seeing any objections, I'll be a bit bold and stick this bit into the article. I don't think it should be too controversial anyway - obviously abortion is a key issue and obviously it's good to know where Lieberman stands on it. Of course we can tweak it, add other info, etc. in the future - this is basically just a starting point.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 16:51, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I think the wording might generate some controversy. How about avoiding the first part, which draws a conclusion? ("Overall Lieberman has a pro-choice voting record").  Frank  |  talk  16:56, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I went ahead and added before seeing your comment. I think it is basically a statement of fact that Lieberman has a pro-choice voting record, though I'm certainly open to different wordings. Perhaps the solution is to add more references to demonstrate that fact. The reference cited for that sentence, here, does however make his position fairly clear I think. In recent years Lieberman has usually supported the interests of groups like NARAL and Planned Parenthood 100% of the time (75% seems to be about the lowest percentage) while supporting pro-life groups 0% of the time. That seems to demonstrate his voting record fairly conclusively.

But we could add a couple of references to bolster that. One thing we could link to, though it gets a little bit original researchy, is this page from Project Vote Smart that simply lists out Lieberman's vote on abortion related bills (he's voted against partial birth abortion bans and efforts to cut funding for abortions, though the purpose of some of the other bills is not immediately clear). We could couple this with a link to a news source (or maybe an abortion rights group) that says that Lieberman generally votes in a pro-choice manner, and then I don't think we'd have to change the wording. Would something like that work? Another possibility is to add the qualifier "generally has a pro-choice voting record" since there are some exceptions.

I'm all for avoiding OR and the of drawing conclusions not drawn in other sources, but it's pretty indisputable that the senator is pro-choice and that that's how he votes the vast majority of the time in the Senate. I do think we need to say that pretty directly.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 18:15, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Does it hurt anything to leave off the first phrase? I'm not discussing whether or not he is pro-choice; just what we have that says so. Keep in mind we are about verifiability, not truth. I think this is a fine statement: "In 2007 he received a grade of 100 from the abortion rights organization NARAL Pro-Choice America.[3] While running for president in the 2004 election, Lieberman said he would "follow a policy that makes abortion safe, rare and legal" if elected.[4]"  Frank  |  talk  18:22, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I know about WP:V, of course, but my point is precisely that Lieberman's pro-choice position and his history of voting that way is quite verifiable. I don't think we should shy away from saying something that is verifiable and true just because it is controversial. I think it does harm the article to not say that he has a pro-choice voting record, because he does and this is a section describing his take on issues of reproductive rights - the fact that he votes in the pro-choice camp could not be more germane. I would turn your question around and ask if it hurts anything to state the simple, verifiable truth that Lieberman usually votes pro-choice. I guess I'm a bit confused about the resistance here.

I'm still wondering how you feel about the additional citations mentioned in my previous comment and the addition of the word "generally." I also hunted around a little bit (the googling around Lieberman-voting-record-abortion is a bit dicey actually) and found this piece in Human Events (not my cup of tea at all, but relatively reputable as publications go). The article includes the statement "Lieberman has consistently voted pro-abortion in his years in the Senate, even voting five times against a ban on partial-birth abortion" and also a quote from Douglas Johnson, the legislative director for the National Right to Life Committee, who said "He's never supported a restriction on abortion. He's never supported any restriction on federal funding of abortion." This article ran during the 2000 election, but Lieberman has kept the same voting pattern since then. If necessary we could couple it with a statement from someone in the pro-choice (since Human Events is staunchly pro-life) camp touting Lieberman's pro-choice record, but in point of fact we already have that in the form of ratings from NARAL and Planned Parenthood listed in the first footnote. I think the Human Events source and the others from Project Vote Smart establish his record pretty clearly so we shouldn't hesitate to label it for what it is.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 18:51, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it needs to be rehashed; as I indicated, I was late to the discussion that I had initially commented on and I don't think it's a big deal. The "resistance" you feel is based on use of the somewhat-WP:WEASEL word "generally" and that what we as editors can verify is not the same as a conclusion that someone else has drawn that we can verify. To that end, the quote you have above, beginning with "Lieberman has consistently voted pro-abortion..." is sufficient in my opinion to be used as a direct quote, which ends the discussion by using it instead. It is worth pointing out, however, that the terms "pro-life", "pro-abortion", and "pro-choice" have varying proponents and opponents and cannot be divided from the contexts in which they are used, which I guess is the reason that I am taking an interest in this. I may well be creating a problem where there is none, but if we add that quote instead of appearing that we are drawing a conclusion ourselves, I think we're on firmer ground.  Frank  |  talk  21:46, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Opening paragraph

The opening paragraph is too long, I think. --Austrian (talk) 18:30, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

"Lieberman continues to vote with the Democrats in the Senate most of the time."

What evidence is there of this? Looking at the article from which this statement is cited,

Lieberman continued to vote with his party most of the time, while the Democrats, clinging to a 51-49 majority, smiled tightly and tried to hold on to their flight-risk colleague.

That's an extremely vague statement, and I think it should be either deleted or revised to a more accurate statement about Lieberman's voting record compared with those of other Democrats. 99.139.64.176 (talk)

Lieberman's Iran Policy

How can any discussion of Joe Lieberman be complete without reference to his Iran policy. I suggest the following (under the subsection 5.2 Foreign policy after # 5.2.4 Israel). How do I get it added?:

Iran

Lieberman has been a vocal supporter in Congress for U.S. aerial attacks on Iran justifying such action both for Iran's alleged support of anti-American forces in Iraq as well as for its nuclear program. Jpost Sep 10, 2007. 64.194.250.99 (talk) 14:04, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Lieberman: Palin Will Win "With God's Help"

Oct 6, 2008 ... At a McCain campaign event in Clearwater, Fl., Sen. Joe Lieberman told the crowd that Sarah Palin would be elected vice president. http://www.drudge.com/news/113315/lieberman-palin-win-gods-help —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dga9y (talk • contribs) 00:01, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

What's with "No Party Affiliation"?

Senate.gov continues to list him as an "Independent Democrat" -- http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm. In the United States you get to have whatever party label you choose. Acsenray (talk) 16:25, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Barack Obama supported Lieberman

Should we mention that one reason Democrats are especially pissed with Lieberman is that Obama supported him previously in the 2006 Connecticut Senate Democratic primary? 202.40.139.164 (talk) 08:03, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Unrelated paragraph in Social Security section

{{editsemiprotected}} In the Social Security section, the third and fourth paragraphs are unrelated to the Social Security topic and should be moved elsewhere or deleted. Revcompgeek (talk) 03:23, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

 Done, you're right. I've moved both down to the "Other" section directly below it, which seems to work - there may be somewhere else they could be better integrated, I will leave that to those more familiar with the article. Thanks. ~ mazca ^t|c 20:18, 6 December 2008 (UTC)