Talk:Joe Lieberman/Archive 5

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

This archive includes threads from Talk:Joe Lieberman January 1st, 2009 until December 31st, 2012.

Archive 1 ← Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5

Liberman Kiss

The picture describing the event reports that Bush kissed Lieberman. But, as reported in the article, the "kiss" has been disputed. So why are we reporting it as fact in the caption? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.48.173.79 (talk) 06:03, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree. Until someone disagrees, I'm going to modify the section. It just seems like the whole thing is written by someone who doesn't like him. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.81.137.234 (talk) 22:57, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Religious observance

The article goes into a lot of detail about he and his wife's religious practices. This is interesting. However I don't think Christian politicians would want the same kind of coverage on their lives to see if they are really practicing the Christian religion. :-) Borock (talk) 15:05, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Health related information in wrong sub section

"Lieberman voted in favor of the Early Treatment for HIV Act of 2003, which provided Medicaid treatment for people with HIV.[57]"

I believe this should not reside under Gay Rights - as it is clearly a health care related issue, not specifically a gay related issue.

Badstyle (talk) 22:45, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Healthy Americans Act

{{editsemiprotected}}

Please add the following sentence to the bottom of Joe Lieberman#Health care:

Lieberman is a cosponsor of the Healthy Americans Act.

Thanks. 67.101.6.112 (talk) 08:19, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Done Thanks. Celestra (talk) 14:28, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

"Bipartisanship" is poor title and POV

Joe Lieberman kissing President Bush and stridently defending Republican policies is not a sign of "Bipartisanship". This characterization is ludicrously POV. It's much more accurate and less POV to simply describe Lieberman as catering to Republican interests. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Greg Comlish (talk • contribs) 18:23, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Lieberman's popularity

Lieberman's approval rating is so low it constitutes a historical anomaly. His status as the least popular senator in the senate should to be succinctly acknowledged in the lead. Greg Comlish (talk) 19:33, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

38% approval ratings is definitely not a "historical anomaly." Even if it was, I still believe it doesn't belong in the lead. You really should attempt to be non-partisan while editing, your edits should also be factual and well-sourced. Quinnipiac's Polling Institute has only sampled 10 different states since their inception, so referring to Lieberman as "the least popular sitting Senator of any state" is not only intellectually dishonest, but also patently false. I'm going to remove that from the lead, and hopefully we can reach an agreement on other edits. ThinkEnemies (talk) 03:27, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Premature lede additions

Nonetheless, on proposed legislation such as health care reform, Lieberman has said he is willing to join a Republican filibuster to block any Senate bill containing the public option".[1] Lieberman has also suggested he will likely endorse some Republicans in 2010, as he stated to ABC News, "I'm going to call them as I see them." [2]

...all fair points and properly sourced, but do they really belong in the lede? A little too current for me, even if you are trying to illustrate his "maverick-ness." SchutteGod (talk) 23:49, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

This definitely belongs in the lead now. It is currently the most important policy position Lieberman is taking. It affects his relationship to the Democratic party, and it bears on his campaign contributions. This definitely belongs in the lede. The discussion under "Health care" in teh body is buried and should be emphasized and expanded. I see Lieberman's fans have also eliminated the refernece to Lieberman's campaign contributions from the pharmaceutical industry, which also belong. --Nbauman (talk) 03:05, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

U.S. Senators edit wikipedia?

IP address 156.33.14.165 removed unsourced material about Joe Lieberman's wife, Hadassah[1]. Using Geolocate, it traced back to a D.C. domain, SENATE.GOV. Tell me that ain't a trip. ThinkEnemies (talk) 21:29, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm more inclined to think it was a Senate staffer, tasked with monitoring his boss's web presence. But it is also amusing to picture Joe, alone in his dark office after hours, hunched in front of his computer, editing Wikipedia. --SquidSK (1MC•log) 13:31, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, and while people are dying because of lack of health care, he's worried about his Wikipedia entry. 97.187.104.241 (talk) 07:19, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Lieberman excommunicated

This is ridiculous. The source for this is the WorldNetDaily.com, a far-right conservative publication, and their source -- their only source -- is the website of "Jews For Morality" http://www.jewsformorality.org/ which is now a dead link. I've never heard of the "New York Torah Court," and more significantly, I can't find it in a Google search. As WP:RS says, anybody can put up a web site.

And anybody can appoint themselves a Torah Court, which seems to be what they've done. But they don't represent any significant organization.

Lieberman is on the board of directors of Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America, which is the largest Orthodox organization.

I can't find one WP:RS to support this claim.

The only value of keeping this in the entry is to give The Onion another opportunity to make fun of Wikipedia.

(According to The Forward, which is a real Jewish newspaper, a group of Rabbis has condemned Lieberman for his vote against health care reform, but I don't think it's reached enough WP:WEIGHT significance to go into the article.) --Nbauman (talk) 00:01, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

He has been excommunicated from what, exactly? I never heard of "Judaism" excommunicating people. Only the Roman Catholic Church does that. I'm not an expert on the matter, but I don't believe that even Orthodox Judaism has a strict hierarchy that filters down to the local synagogues. Midtempo-abg (talk) 18:22, 16 December 2009 (UTC)


"Lieberman Killing Santa Claus" cartoon

The cartoon which depicts one of the most visible and powerful Jews in the U.S. (and one who is very open about his Orthodox Jewish traditions and practices) murdering Santa Claus on Christmas Eve (see: http://blogs.courant.com/bob_englehart/2009/12/december-16-2009.html) is certainly worthy of mention here. And better than 95% of the Hartford Courant readers (I suspect, as a long-time state resident) immediately identify Sen. Lieberman as Jewish (no "Star of David" pendant is necessary....)

The cartoon is also entirely relevant where it is included - in the "Health Care" section of the article - as it graphically depicts the level of animosity some CT residents appear to now feel towards Mr. Lieberman's actions regarding health care reform. Removing it would thus detract from the quality and comprehensiveness of the article.

Please respond to the content of my comments and follow Wikipedia etiquette. No angry accusations are necessary. Thank you.

Danieldis47 (talk) 04:58, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Judging by your comments and backwards rationale, you understand this fringe comic doesn't belong in this article. Please WP:AGF before you attempt to paint editors as angry at you, or unruly due to your edits. Thanks 71.239.179.12 (talk) 06:30, 17 December 2009 (UTC)


Thanks for the feedback!

Although, calling something "backwards rational" doesn't really give me much meat to chew on, now does it? Like, what specifically are you referring to?

And just how did you judge the cartoon to be "fringe?" Please share.

About my "portrayal of angry editors": Now, I'm no therapist, but when someone writes comments to me (with all those darn exclamation points) like "Incendiery!" and "Stop it!!" -- Well, I guess I read a TEENY bit of hostility there.... I suppose I could wrong (but I don't think so!)

ALSO - I see that my edit has now been collectively reverted three times by you and two other editors.

As I understand it, that is a violation of WP:3RR.

So please revert yourself before you get blocked.

Be well...

Danieldis47 (talk) 07:23, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Danieldis47 has been blocked for edit warring on AntiSemitism. --BozMo talk 11:54, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Campaign Contributions

I recently removed this new section from the article mostly due to erroneous, if not egregious errors.[2] My edit was reverted.[3] I have now removed what doesn't belong,[4][5] and corrected the errors.[6][7] I would like to know where this section goes from here. My vote would be removal of the career contributions, and merge the "since 2005" healthcare figure in the proper subsection.[8] ThinkEnemies (talk) 21:16, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Just removed the "since 2005" healthcare figure from this section. It was already in the Health care subsection: "Since the beginning of 2005, Lieberman has received over $930,000 in campaign contributions from the health sector." ThinkEnemies (talk) 00:05, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Impopularity.

In the introduction, I found the following statement:

Lieberman's approval rating in a poll taken January 4–5, 2010, was 25% approve versus 67% who disapprove, making him one of the least popular Senators currently in office.[9]

This is clearly interesting information, at least if no later polls have been published. However, I checked the source, and I did not there find a comparison with the (im)popularity of other senators, except a remark that his impopularity among democrats was on par with the low marks usually reserved for republican senators in that subcategory of voters. I personally guess that the claim "...among the least popular..." was true; but it ought to be sourced.

More problematic is the present tense. Popularity often has a tendency to go up and down. According to the analysis in the given source, the low figures was due to Lieberman's actions in the healthcare proposal, which were unpopular both among its adherents and its opponents. Also, the figures concern his popularity among Connecticut voters. Both these items might be worth to mention; unless there are other sources of other polls, or even better, some explicit statement in some reliable source about his long-term (im)popularity.

Anyone with access to such sources might impove the text. I don't know where to find them, and shall restrict my minor edit to changing the present to the past tense, as the given source is a poll over a half year old. IMHO, this source alone does not merit a stronger statement.

Actually, this leaves the unsourced comparison with his colleagues intact; but hopefully someone could find a source confirming this point. JoergenB (talk) 16:00, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

I removed an earlier poll as a WP:LEDE violation in earlier November. It was added by Greg Comlish, who appears to have also added this more recent one. The least popular senator text isn't supported by the source and it should also be removed from the lead, just like the prior.
  • Lieberman's embrace of certain conservative policies and in particular his endorsement of John McCain have been cited as factors for his low approval rating in Connecticut: 38 approval to 54 disapproval. "This is the highest disapproval rating in any Quinnipiac University poll in any state for a sitting U.S. Senator — except for New Jersey's Robert Torricelli, just before he resigned in 2002. Among those who say they voted for Sen. Lieberman in 2006, 30 percent now say they would vote for someone else if they could." [63]
Above is the older poll as it still appears in the article's body and may benefit from an update and wording tweak. †TE†Talk 17:08, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

When born?

At the moment, the date of his birth is given as February 24, 1842. I assume he was born in 1942. 64.85.225.235 (talk) 23:51, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

First line Incorrect?

"Lieberman was the Democratic nominee for Vice President, running with presidential nominee Al Gore, becoming the first Jewish candidate on a major American political party presidential ticket."


What about Barry Goldwater? in 1964 against LBJ. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.175.157.56 (talk) 02:26, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Our bio of Barry Goldwater states, "Goldwater's parents were married in an Episcopal church in Phoenix; for his entire life, Goldwater was an Episcopalian, though on rare occasions he referred to himself as 'Jewish'." That Goldwater had some Jewish ancestry isn't enough to make him Jewish. I'd say Lieberman qualifies as the first. JamesMLane t c 04:25, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Retired from Senate at the end of 2012.

Replaced by Chris Murphy, formerly representative of CT-5. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.162.217.154 (talk) 14:24, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Removal of text saying that Lieberman was responsible for Al Gore losing the 2000 election

Today I am removing text that is not supported by its source. Here is an explanation with links to the relevant Wikipedia policies:

I. Problem

A passage of text in the Joe Lieberman article:

  1. contains an unsupported attribution, as defined by WP:WEASEL, and
  2. states a claim that is not supported by the cited source.

II. Findings

  1. In the "2000 Vice Presidential candidacy" section of the Joe Lieberman article, the following sentence appears:

    "Polling also indicated that Lieberman had badly[editorializing] lost his televised debate against Dick Cheney,[55] leading some[weasel words] to suggest later that Gore had lost the election due to choosing Lieberman as his running mate.[56]"

  2. The second half of that sentence, which I've bolded here, will be referred to in this note as the questionable text.
  3. About a week ago, another editor tagged the phrase "leading some to suggest" with the WP:WEASEL tag, as the phrase used an unsupported attribution. The original editor who wrote the the questionable text has not addressed that tag, nor has any other editor.
  4. The questionable text points to a source, Citation #56, which is a December 22, 2009 article by Mark Shields called "SHIELDS: If You Could Change One Thing, Al Gore" published in the St. Louis Globe-Democrat. I will refer to that article in this note as the source. Note: The link to the source in the Lieberman article Reference section is incorrect. A simple Google search found the real link: http://www.creators.com/liberal/mark-shields/if-you-could-change-one-thing-al-gore.html
  5. I studied the source. It does not say that Gore lost the election because he chose Lieberman. The columnist talks about the possibility of winning if Gore had chosen the Florida Senator Bob Graham. The source is an opinion piece expressing the thoughts of the columnist.
  6. In the "Tagging a sentence, section, or article" section of the Wikipedia:Verifiability article, the following text appears (I've added bold for emphasis):

    "To request verification that a reference supports the text, tag it with [verification needed]. Material that fails verification may be tagged with [failed verification] or removed. . . Take special care with material about living people. Contentious material about living people that is unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed immediately, not tagged or moved to the talk page."

III. Conclusion

Joe Lieberman is a living person. He is famous. The questionable text on his Wikipedia article states that Lieberman responsible for Al Gore losing the election; such a passage qualifies as "contentious material".

The source does not support the questionable text. Therefore, the questionable text should be removed immediately. I am removing it today. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trendyrandy7290 (talk • contribs) 16:04, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Lead contradiction

The lead contradicts itself. The opening sentence says he is a former democrat/current independent, uncited. In the middle paragraph, it states that is an "registered democrat", cited. Is the former true, meaning the latter must be rewritten to reflect current conditions? --Zfish118 (talk) 04:17, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Civil rights hero

Added 4 sources concurring with opinion that Joe Lieberman was hailed by many as a civil rights hero for repealing dadt someone keeps changing it which I think is uncalled for If I'm mistaken let me knowCotton Rogers (talk) 01:34, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

If four people calling him something means "many" people called him that, I'm willing to bet we can add that many call his lots of often contradictory things. The problem is that "many" is a weasel word. Did nearly everyone call him that? 1% of people? Who knows? Heck "many people believe the Apollo Moon landings were faked"[Jimmy, a 7 year old in rural Kansas][some paranoid guy who needs medication][a liberal arts major who misunderstood the question][some guy selling a book] Right? No, not right. We can certainly find four sources saying his leadership on this issue was a shallow, politically motivated move. That's not "many" either. It's a divisive issue. Personally, I'm thrilled it happened and I think Lieberman was well situated to take the reins on this issue. Many people agree with me. Many people do not. Neither statement says anything of any substance and both hide the truth of the issue. - SummerPhD (talk) 02:06, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Source 10 clearly states "that many Liberals hail Joe Lieberman as a Civil Rights Hero" also I don't think you can find four reliable and unbias sources that state "his leadership on this issue was a shallow, politically motivated move" since Joe Lieberman voted against the original dadt law back in 1993 has continually been against the ban and has always advocated it's repeal also he was not well situated to take the reins since the senate had pretty much given up on the issue also he lead other efforts to repeal back when it was not a popular thing to do. how can anyone say with any merit that it was shallow and politcally motivated while he is not even running for re-election anyone who wants to spin this major acomplishment to diminsh it is not doing a fair and neutral job; also they ignoring Liebermans history on the issue in order to be iconclastic quite frankly anyone that says joe Lieberman was shallowly politically motivated to do this is doing out of bias with no evidence to the contrary but Hearsy while all the historical facts tell us otherwise as an encylopedia we cannot base our assertions on hearsay but facts and the facts say Lieberman did this geniunelyCotton Rogers (talk) 03:04, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

You seem to be missing my point. One source says "many Liberals" and you've translated that to "many". Do you honestly think we can/should say "many" any time we find four sources that agree? Again, "many say that George W. Bush and the British royal family are lizardman/human hybrids" or "many believe the Earth is hollow and the inside is populated by Nazis who escaped Germany at the end of WWII" or "many believe that humans do not need vitamin B12 and should eat absolutely nothing but raw fruit" or "many Catholics say every so-called 'Pope" since the Vatican II reforms are not legitimate" and so on. "Many" is a weasel word. As sourced, it means "at least four people", which is meaningless. - SummerPhD (talk) 03:15, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Again source 10 clearly states many liberals hail Joe Lieberman as a civil rights hero meaning it is definately more than four so yes Ive translated the word many to "many" that seems perfectly reasonable since they are the same word also I've sourced many legitimate and unbias news outlets while you argument is species since it would be absolutley impossible to find even one legitmate and unbias source claiming "many say that George W. Bush and the British royal family are lizardman/human hybrids" while they are more sources that say Lieberman is a civil rights hero there is even a whole google search devoted to Joe Lieberman Civil Rights Hero However the fact is I've have had to add four sources claiming the same fact to alleviate your concerns if I keep adding sources the article it will look ridiculus and I should not have to. The fact many call Joe Lieberman a civil rights hero is a fact as sourced 4 times by me while those claims you made to prove a point up above are fiction as an enclyopedia we must report the facts not fiction also the article should state what the referanced sources say not what people think it should say.Cotton Rogers (talk) 15:00, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

You are turning the phrase "many liberals" into the word "many". "Source 10" seems to have changed since you edited. At the moment, "source 10"([10]) is a blog, not a reliable source. I have restored the tag, as it clearly applies, "If a Wikipedia article links to this page, it is because someone is concerned that the article contains inaccurate statement(s)." I am concerned that this particular statement is inaccurate.
At the moment, there are five sources cited for that one sentence: "As Senator he was hailed by many[dubious – discuss] as a "civil rights hero" for leading the historic and ultimately successful effort to repeal the Don't Ask Don't Tell military policy that barred homosexuals from openly serving in the military, by introducing and championing the Don't Ask, Don't Tell Repeal Act of 2010."
The first source, Huffington Post, states that Lieberman "will be the lead sponsor of legislation". This says he planned to sponsor the legislation, supporting nothing in the sentance.
The second source, Howard Kurtz at The Daily Beast, says that a blogger called him a "civil rights hero". Not "many", "a blogger". It also states that "some lefties" gave him "grudging credit", far different from being "hailed by many as a civil rights hero".
The third source is the aforementioned blogger. Yes, the blogger calls him a civil rights hero. If you read the article blog post, he doesn't argue that "many" called him a civil rights hero. In fact, it seems pretty clear he used the blaring headline as an attention grabber and barely mentioned Lieberman after that.
The fourth source, is another blog. It says "hailed as a civil rights hero by liberal Democrats". Again, we have something other than "many". Not "many liberals" or "many Democrats" but "liberal Democrats".
Finally, we have a non-blog source! Time's "Swampland". They blare: "Joe Lieberman, Hero of the Democratic Base"! Great! Still not that elusive "many", but hey...oops...wait... they take it back in the first sentence: "Well, not exactly."
From these sources -- your sources -- you've distilled that many hailed him as a civil rights hero? I mean, I get that you added a claim, the claim was challenged and you're trying to support it. But your sources lead to, perhaps, something far more limited. - SummerPhD (talk) 03:53, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
as i see this the use of Hero is subjective, the real definition reserved for people who save lives at great risk to, or even the loss of, their own life...
yet you are further qualifying by not only saying many, but liberals also. even if you could prove "most liberals call him a hero" you wouldn't have a consensus... infact, if all Dems favored and all Republicans opposed, i believe you will find that the consensus would oppose (republicans are not voting in the numbers that dems do but if they did every republican would win)
and even though it would be a paper tiger if you could find one, I doubt there is any actual award of great repute that has been given for his heroism. (even Al Gore has a Nobel Prize while the subject is often shown to be fake science)
in short, you can write it as far as facts will allow, he DID support, he likely had opposition so you could research and cite that opposition, and i assume it passed (or you wouldn't think him a hero) after all, not too many losers are called heros. so stick to listing and supporting each point without editorializing as to the ramifications Qazwiz (talk) 22:17, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Joe Lieberman. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

☒N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 20:13, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 18 external links on Joe Lieberman. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:01, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Personal Life (1964 Presidential candidate Barry Goldwater's father was repudiated by his Jewish relatives when he married an Episcopalian; the son was raised in that faith.)

the qualifying parentheses to discount goldwater qualifying as a jew (1964 Presidential candidate Barry Goldwater's father was repudiated by his Jewish relatives when he married an Episcopalian; the son was raised in that faith.) is not properly stated.... it is obvious to me that it is trying to claim that his parents were mixed religions(unequally yoked) thus they were shunned thus their son was not raised as a jew but is is too convoluted to immediately see the expected meaning. it should name him (not "their son") so i suggest the following instead: (1964 Presidential candidate Barry Goldwater's father was repudiated by his Jewish relatives for being "unequally yoked" when he married an Episcopalian; so Goldwater was raised Episcopalian.)

but I am not sure the distinction is fair since no geneticist would consider him less than half Jewish and Obama is only half black yet touted as a Black president. although this would make him a non-practicing Jew.... also I think repudiated is wrong to use though i got no replacement shunned isnt a jewish word but atm the correct term eludes me (disowned perhaps? but that only refers to inheritance not being put out of the religion) Qazwiz (talk) 22:44, 19 July 2015 (UTC) found list of possible words

  • blackball
  • blacklist,
  • exclude,
  • excommunicate,
  • expel,
  • shun and
  • snub

but none of them are specifically Jewish actions and something tells me that there is a term or ritual that can be cited.... Any practicing Jews that can help please? Qazwiz (talk) 23:05, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

I do not understand why there is SO much discussion included here and in the article itself about his religion / Judaism, and how anything beyond a few sentences could be important. No other politicians include so much text about their religious backgrounds, beliefs, etc. Heck, the entire section about Goldwater should be deleted as completely irrelevant to this article. It has no bearing on the subject. There are no similar diatribes about John F Kennedy's religion (for example), and he was actually ELECTED president. In this case, we have a former senator being treated as if he were the first Jew ever elected to congress. I'm sorry, but it is WAY over the top, and far out of scope for this article. Too much non essential information. 98.194.39.86 (talk) 00:34, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
How about 'Joe Lieberman was the second Jew to ...' in light of:

He was the first observant Jew to run on a major party Presidential ticket.[citation needed] (1964 Presidential candidate Barry Goldwater's father was repudiated by his Jewish relatives when he married an Episcopalian; the son was raised in that faith.)

Well, Joe Lieberman was the first RELIGIOUSLY OBSERVANT Jew to run for any major party's US Presidential ticket, since Barry Goldwater wasn't religiously observing Judaism. I think that the claim deserves some unpacking; others don't. MaynardClark (talk) 03:31, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Joe Lieberman. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:08, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

"...he remains closely associated with the Democratic Party"

This is part of the third sentence in the article. Is this correct? Can it be better qualified? sourced? Or can it be omitted - and addressed in the body of the article? Jd2718 (talk) 13:28, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

I just looked up his voter registration. He is registered to vote as a Democrat in the Bronx, NY, where he now lives. 13 October 2020 Charliehall (talk) 21:46, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Dates

There are numerous mistakes and incorrect dates in this entry, e.g. the date of the biography of John M. Bailey written by Lieberman is off by 15 years Aarongoode (talk) 16:20, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Was Sen Lieberman a freedom rider?

Schwerner, Goodman, Lieberman, and Chaney The veep nominee's record as a civil rights warrior can help the Dems keep the black vote. [11] Geo8rge (talk) 02:28, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

The more salient question would be what did Lieberman do about the draft and Vietnam after he graduated right in the middle of that. The draft was THE biggest issue facing a healthy young man in 1967, as those of us who were healthy young males back then knew. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.49.27.38 (talk) 15:27, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

Mistake

In the Article under post Senate Career in this paragraph. In July 2022, Liberman became one of the founding members of a group of U.S. business and policy leaders which shares the goal of engaging constructively with China and improving U.S.-China relations. Lieberman is mistakingly spelt Liberman instead of the usual Lieberman 68.13.201.117 (talk) 01:42, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Lieberman is a very conservative Democrat, not a moderate

While it's true that Lieberman is a semi-Democrat, there is nothing moderate or centrist about his opinions. When he lost the 2006 Democrat Primary, he ran as an Independent against (and beat) the Dem candidate.

As the article describes in detail, Lieberman has always received strong support and endorsements from the GOP.

Lieberman endorsed the GOP candidate, John McCain, for president in 2008.

He is strongly anti-gay, pro-Iraq war, and anti-Bill of Rights.

Lieberman is currently working to help third-party candidates split off the Independent vote from the Dems to support the election of the ultra-right GOP candidate for president in 2024. https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/opinion-the-2024-presidential-alternative-many-voters-will-want/ar-AA1a0D3D

Please cite whatever facts you find about his career, but never describe right-wing Lieberman as any kind of moderate. Irelandkm (talk) 20:03, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

  1. ^ "Joe Lieberman: I'll block vote on Harry Reid's plan". Politico. October 27, 2009. {{cite news}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
  2. ^ "Lieberman: I'll Probably Back Some Republicans In 2010 (VIDEO)". Huffington Post. October 30, 2009. {{cite news}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Joe_Lieberman/Archive_5&oldid=1219719436"