webodec3ARCHIVEPreview
Open in TheBrain

Lieberman, J

-=-=

AN 8 26 MATT R

When my phone rang and I heard my father tell me to sit down, I knew terrible news would soon follow. He hadn't uttered a word of bad news yet, but I could just tell.

It was March 27, 2024, and as I soon learned, my dear friend had suffered a devastatingly serious fall. Sen. Joe Lieberman (D-CT) had died.

To understand why I believe so strongly in the importance of Americans coming together despite their political differences, I need to describe Lieberman's career, because more than any other single individual he inspired me to feel this way. Indeed, typing those words about his death is still emotionally difficult for me, and not merely because Lieberman was one of the kindest celebrities I ever met in my decade-and-a-half long career as a journalist. When Lieberman passed away, an important spirit in American politics — the idea that people must learn to disagree without being disagreeable, and ultimately come together to solve our country's problems — suffered a mortal blow along with him.

I say this as someone who is much to the left of Lieberman on many issues and individuals, from health care reform and the war in Iraq to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's policies and the economic ideology of Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY). As I wrote in my Salon obituary for Lieberman, our disagreements were not a bug in our friendship, but a feature.

To quote Lieberman's comments in the 2024 Jonathan Gruber documentary about his life, "Centered," he was a center-leftist friends with two conservatives, Sens. John McCain (R-AZ) and Lindsey Graham (R-SC), because what united them as Americans mattered more than what divided them as senators.

“It was so classically American," Lieberman said. "If you looked at our biographies, the three of us couldn’t be more different. Really, I mean, religiously, geographically, our own experience. Yet there we were in the U.S. Senate together, and we became just the fastest of friends.”

Friendships like these weren't merely personally gratifying; they were politically important. Everyone in America, indeed the world, leads a different life because of Lieberman's ability to work across the aisle, even if one doesn't agree with aspects of his legacy. He was a key figure in repealing the military's ban on allowing gay members to openly serve, to protect the LGBTQ community through hate crimes legislation, to require video game manufacturers to provide ratings for parents, to open up free trade with other nations, in pushing environmental legislation to address climate change, to create the Department of Homeland Security, to convince President George W. Bush (a Republican) to declare war against Iraq, to oppose a public option in the health care reform bill passed by President Barack Obama (a Democrat). When the 2000 Democratic presidential nominee, Vice President Al Gore, chose Lieberman as his vice presidential running mate, he became the first (and to date only Jew) to appear on a national ticket.

It isn't a coincidence that the above list contains a mix of liberal and conservative positions. Lieberman didn't fit into a neat ideological box, and that's precisely why he was able to achieve so much.

The death of a great dream.

Perhaps the greatest tragedy of Lieberman's career — and, in my opinion, all American history — was the Lieberman achievement that never was. During the 2008 presidential election, McCain nearly chose Lieberman as his vice presidential running mate. Had he done so, it would have been only the second time in American history that a Republican and Democrat sought the presidency for a major party on the same ticket, with the other being President Abraham Lincoln's decision to run with a Democratic senator, Tennessee's Andrew Johnson, during the thick of the Civil War in 1864. I was fortunate to write about the Lincoln-Johnson ticket with Lieberman for a scholarly journal shortly before his passing, as well as about the possible McCain-Lieberman ticket for Salon Magazine shortly after McCain's death in 2018.

More important than this trivia point, though, it could have put the Republican Party on a more moderate path than the one it is currently on. Imagine how the GOP would be different if, less than two decades ago, a pro-choice and pro-LGBTQ Democrat had been its vice presidential candidate. For one thing, it wouldn't have experienced the far right shift that occurred by McCain ultimately selecting Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, a MAGA Republican before President Donald Trump transformed that party through his MAGA movement. Palin normalized extremism in the Republican brand in a way that even the presidencies of the very conservative Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush had not yet done. Moreover, a McCain-Lieberman ticket could have conceivably defeated the Democratic slate of Obama of Illinois and Sen. Joe Biden of Delaware... and even if it had not, would have at least drawn a generation of moderate conservatives instead of extremists into positions of influence within that organization.

When I spoke with Lieberman, he didn't share my optimism, predicting that the Democrats would have won regardless of who the Republicans nominated because of the unpopular Iraq war and growing Great Recession. McCain, who wrote in his book "The Restless Wave" (which I highly recommend) that he wanted Lieberman because it "would be an emphatic statement that I intended to govern collaboratively with an emphasis on problem solving not politics," admitted that his advisers eventually convinced him "a pro-choice pick" would "fatally divide the Republican Party." Yet I suspect McCain's original instinct, namely that being bipartisan "would have been very good politics" as well as good government, may have actually been the correct one.

Or as Lieberman recalled McCain telling him in his book "The Centrist Solution" (which I also highly recommend), "That's the point Joey. People are fed up with all the partisanship in our government. Maybe a bipartisan national ticket is exactly what the people want and need."

Introducing Clarine Nardi Riddle.

This brings me to Clarine Nardi Riddle. When it comes to resumes, hers is one of the most impressive I've encountered among a political figure who isn't also a national celebrity. She is the only woman to have served as Connecticut attorney general (1989-1991), was a judge on the Connecticut Superior Court, became Senior Vice President and General Counsel of the National Multi Housing Council and acted as Lieberman's chief of staff during key moments in American history. She co-founded No Labels, an organization that encourages politicians from all parties to work together, and is currently senior counsel at the premiere law firm Kasowitz LLP.

And that is just a short list.

For this AlterNet exclusive, I spoke with Riddle both about Lieberman's legacy and about why bipartisanship in the modern era sometimes feels as mythical as unicorns. To this day, as Riddle's Kasowitz profile explains, she is instrumental in representing "defense, aerospace, technology, telecommunications, education, and government clients, as well as individuals, in developing relationships with key decision makers on both sides of the aisle on Capitol Hill; advocating for legislative, regulatory and policy changes; creating and executing complex government strategies; conducting outreach efforts to various think tanks; and building coalitions to ensure her clients’ government affairs and public policy objectives are achieved."

In short, if there is anyone whose biography and current experiences make her poised to shed light on these subjects, it is Riddle. And personally, I'm grateful to stay in touch with her because she remains one of the last connections I have to my late friend, who I miss every day.

And yes, in large part it is because he was very nice to me, regularly corresponding with a liberal journalist who he could have easily written off. But it was also because he was a centrist in the truest sense of the term. To use his own definition:

“It means, I think more broadly, that you’re willing to compromise, to come to the center, and meet with people of opposite points of view so that you can get something done.”

Interview — One man's legacy.

The following interview has been lightly edited for clarity and length.

ROZSA: What do you think made it possible for [Sen. Lieberman], who was obviously very passionate about his own views, to set aside that passion and develop bonds with people from different persuasions?

RIDDLE: I think it was — have you seen the documentary about him?

ROZSA: I did. I saw it after our first chat.

RIDDLE: Good. Great. I think it was both his religious upbringing, which urged him to be a listener — and I must admit, he did spend more time listening than talking, if you know what I mean — and I think also his legal training. I remember sitting across from him at his desk when he was Attorney General, and we were puzzling over a matter in the Connecticut legislature. The Democrat was saying one thing, and the Republican was saying another, and we were saying, "You know, the Republican really has a good point here." Of course, it wasn't as partisan back then — it was pre-'88. But it was like the facts mattered. The facts mattered and the arguments mattered.

And there's not always one side that's correct. It's like a lawyer has to line up the facts and then come to a conclusion. So I think it was both his religious background and his community involvement in things, but also his legal training, that made him balance things all the time. Because you learn arguments as a lawyer — when I was a judge, you'd hear one side and say, "Oh my gosh, how could you do that to him?" And then you'd listen to the other side say, "Oh, you didn't tell me about that." So the lawyer in him realized that all the facts had to be put on the table. I think he learned that as a state senate majority leader too, because he was a Democratic majority leader in Connecticut.

And that gave him even more appreciation for [Democratic former Senate Majority Leader] Harry Reid, from when he himself had been in the State Senate before going to the US Senate. He understood that role, because you do play roles when you're in these public servant positions. He understood that Harry could settle things many times, but other times he couldn't, because of the pressure. So Senator Lieberman had to do what he needed to do to get things done without Harry Reid going off the cliff. I hope that's clear.

I've told this to a few people. The memorial service — I'm certain you've watched the YouTube of that.

ROZSA: Mm-hmm.

RIDDLE: Before the memorial service, we brought the people who were going to speak, and some dignitaries, into the library next door — we called it the green room. Sen. [Mitch] McConnell [R-KY] was there with his wife. I went up to him and thanked him for coming. He wasn't well two years ago — he was already getting diminished then. His mind was sharp, but he was slow. And he said to me, "You know, Joe was the most centrist senator that I ever knew. Senators, or individuals, run for the Senate to either make a point or make a difference. And Joe Lieberman came to make a difference."

And he did.

It took him five minutes to say that. And I said, "You were so right." It brought a tear to my eye, and I even adjusted my own remarks to point to that — to say exactly, "make a difference." I mean, I knew that, but I hadn't put it in my remarks. I thought, let me leave that in at one point in my own remarks at the memorial service. He was a person who came to the table. Recently, when I'm working with some of my own clients and they want to take credit for something, I say, "You know, Senator Lieberman used to always say, you can do a lot of good things in Washington, D.C. if you don't worry about who's taking credit." That was another big thing about him — he was a worker.

Not that he wasn't a great communicator — he was — but he wasn't trying to communicate all the time. He could communicate what he was doing, but he was a worker bee, and he was a policy wonk. We did this when he was Attorney General. We did this when he was state senate majority leader. We were always looking at the front page of the paper, seeing what we could do — how we could make a difference, what role we could play to help move the ball forward — as a state senate majority leader, as the attorney general, and then as a senator. Because he was so committed to public service and to the country.

That was a long answer to a question, but it tells you the aura about him. That's what I remember about him.

ROZSA: When he ran for president in 2004, I told him this story: I volunteered to play him in a mock debate at Bard College, where I was an undergraduate. And then the day of the tryouts, he dropped out.

RIDDLE: Aww!

ROZSA: And I had to switch to [Sen] John Edwards [D-NC]. And he laughed at that because he did not care for John Edwards.

RIDDLE: Oh, that's funny. Yeah, that's really funny. He and I had not talked about John Edwards that much. He and I were pretty simpatico, so there were things we talked about, and things we just kind of let go, you know? We had worked together for so long, and I knew his inclinations on things. But yeah, that doesn't surprise me.

Interview — The decay of bipartisanship.

ROZSA: You've had a very extensive career in law and in politics. Why do you personally think, Ms. Riddle, that bipartisanship and tolerance for different perspectives has diminished so much since Lieberman's own Senate career?

RIDDLE: Good question, Matt. Why has it diminished so much? I've worked in local government; I've worked in state government; I've worked in the federal government; I've worked in the legislative branch; I've worked in the executive branch; and I've worked in the judicial branch. So I've been able to span all of the branches and all the levels. And I do think there are a number of things that have happened along the way.

One of them was [Republican former House Speaker Newt] Gingrich, in '92 or '94 — I can't remember which year, but I could pin it down — when he urged everybody not to move to D.C., but to stay in their districts and campaign so they could keep getting elected. I think that was a turning point in people not meeting other people here in DC and getting to know them. Because if they only come in on Monday night and leave on Thursday night, they're doing partisan stuff Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday, and they're not getting to know their colleagues. They're not getting involved in the community with their family. They're totally focused on partisan types of things.

When Joe moved here, when Joe came here in '89, he was told, "Move here. Bring your family. Get involved in the community, in the schools, in the synagogue. Go to dinner with your colleagues. Do those kinds of things." Because we all know it's easier to attack somebody you don't know than somebody you do know. When you know somebody, you're more sensitive about attacking them if you're going to differ with them.

So I think proximity here is important. Now granted, they have responsibilities in their states — I'm not saying they shouldn't go back for district duties — but they don't need to be there every weekend. They can be here to get the work done. Here, you see [Sen. John] Cornyn [R-TX] and [Sen. Thom] Tillis [R-NC] worked over the weekend on the issue with [Attorney General Todd] Blanche. There's no reason they couldn't. On the other end, if they only stay here all the time in the fishbowl of D.C. — I reflect many times on when I was the city's deputy corporation counsel. The city government is where the rubber meets the road. It's the potholes, it's the trash, it's the economic development — it's all those things.

So city officials are with the people regularly, on a daily basis, hearing from them at funerals, at christenings, at all kinds of events. People here get detached, even though they go back — or if they live there over the weekends, they get pulled into their own narrow things at home, and many times they're not in tune with what's happening more broadly.

So I'm not giving you a complete answer, because I think social media has played a role in this too — the water cooler being online, and people playing off of each other online, and anger personifying itself in that way, whereas it used to be whispered at the water cooler or at the diner. Now it's out there for anybody to see. And I think that's been part of what keeps us apart.

And he other thing — before Joe would agree to do the documentary, he said, "I want you all to put together a civics curriculum for high school kids," because he was seeing that they didn't understand the three branches of government, didn't understand the roles, what the purposes were. It wasn't getting taught. So now we've got the modules — you can look it up yourself, civics250.org. You can go see the modules we've created. But it's like pulling teeth to get teachers to agree to use it. In some states it's mandatory, but in others, that civics education is not mandatory. And he said any school that did do the program would get the documentary to show, so they could see the discussion about civility and bipartisanship and the importance of working together to solve problems. That's what the modules talk about too.

I think — and you can appreciate this — he, when he was on the ticket with [2000 Democratic presidential nominee Al] Gore, came back and said he did not experience antisemitism. He told me that in our interview. And I have to say, if he had run today, I think he would have experienced antisemitism.

ROZSA: Of course, because social media has revved up since then. Of course, there are other things going on too, but the point is that the internet and the media have personified it and amplified it.

RIDDLE: Oh, definitely, definitely. You see it with [Gov.] Josh Shapiro [D-PA]. You see —

ROZSA: [Sen.] Jon Ossoff [D-GA]

RIDDLE: Ossoff. You see it with others, for sure. So I guess I think — why I'm saying local, state, and federal — is that people get detached here from the problems of everyday citizens. Sn. Lieberman, I always said, had a sixth sense. He was amazing at tapping into the concerns of everyday citizens. He had an extra sense that a lot of politicians didn't have.

When I first interviewed with him in '78, it was so cute. I had worked for the Indiana legislature. Indiana is a tad bit more conservative than Connecticut, but I value a lot of the values of Indiana — good ethics, good people, decent people, kind people. Conservative, but good values. The legislature — I got a chuckle out of this. The Indiana legislature, at the time I left, was working on certification for social workers. They wanted to do it, but they went through a whole process before they made the decision to do it and pay for it. I come to Connecticut at the same time — Connecticut adopts it, saying they're going to require certification, but then they don't fund it for three years. That's the same time Indiana funded it — adopted it and funded it. So Connecticut said they were doing it, and then three years later, they funded it.

Whereas Indiana wouldn't announce it until they were ready — but once they said it, they funded it right away. It was the different cultures of the two bodies, and the two ethics of the two states.

And so when he interviewed me for the position, it was so cute. He said, "I'm working on a bill on condominium conversion. How many months should we give the elderly if their condos get converted and they have to move out? Nine months? 18 months? Three years? What do you think it should be?" And I said, "Well, this is for age 65 and older?" I don't know if it was 50 and older or 65 and older — I can't remember now. But coming from Indiana, I'm thinking, oh, they'll probably say nine months. And I said, "Well, maybe 18 months would make sense." He said, "I think I'm going to go with three years." We were just chewing the fat, in the sense of an interview — what would be reasonable for an elderly person to have to move out of a condominium that was being converted.

So, how shall I put it — he just had an extra sense about people that brought humanity to bear. It was like — you know, he didn't vote for Don't Ask, Don't Tell, because he had voted for gay rights when he was a state legislator.

ROZSA: And he was also instrumental in repealing Don't Ask, Don't Tell.

RIDDLE: I was a part of that. We worked on that. There is a book that the serviceman wrote about it — just so you know, you can get it. The serviceman we worked with wrote a book about it. And I guess why I say that is, people don't usually think of that with him, but he had staked that out when he was a state legislator — that he was for gay rights.

ROZSA: He was very much ahead of the curve on that.

RIDDLE: Yeah. And then when it happened with [Democratic President Bill] Clinton, his own personal ethics were, "You can't have a person be something that they're not." And for them not to be able to talk about it, not to be able to be asked about it, was just an anathema to him as a person.

Anyway, there's just so — I guess I don't have a full answer to why we are where we are. It was interesting — I went up to Dana Bash at the memorial service for [Sen.] Lindsey [Graham R-SC] at the cathedral, because we had to wait to leave. We were all standing around, and I reintroduced myself and talked about the three amigos and bipartisanship. She immediately said, "We're never going back to that, are we?" And I said, "Well, I certainly hope so." And she talked about the confluence of things right now.

And of course, I'm with No Labels, and I'm still going to be working hard on it. I see today that [Sen.] Markwayne Mullin [R-OK] is being attacked for trying to be bipartisan, and I certainly hope people will start to stand up for him for that. Compromise is not a dirty word. Listening to other people is a good thing. I feel like the public, at some point — I do believe that the extremes, with the primary system, have too much control, or too much weight... At No Labels, we've talked about having one primary date every year, just like one election date every year, so that it gets into everybody's brain that that's the date of the primary, and you should come out for it — across the country, everybody does it the same day. Whether it's an open primary or a closed primary, it's the zealots who come out. I vote in a primary — I don't consider myself a zealot, but I'm a dedicated citizen. But the people who get motivated to come out in August — this is what Connecticut has, an August primary, which is kind of crazy. Anyway, there are so many fixes that need to be made to rejigger this. I think ranked-choice voting is helpful.

It can be helpful. Of course, it can potentially be gamed, but it's helpful because it tries to force people to appeal to more than just a narrow group.

ROZSA: Everything you've said reminds me of an anecdote that Lieberman shared, about when he campaigned with Mayor Ed Koch. I love this story — [New York City Mayor Ed] Koch [D] would go to voters who'd say, "I like what you stand for on these issues, but I really disagree with you on this one." And he'd say, "Listen, if you agree with me on eight out of ten issues, you should vote for me. If you agree with me on ten out of ten, you should get your head examined."

RIDDLE: Yes, you should go see a psychiatrist. Exactly.

ROZSA: And there's wisdom in that, because if you agree with a politician on every single issue, it suggests you're not thinking for yourself.

RIDDLE: Totally, totally.

ROZSA: And that makes it harder to compromise. It means you're very rigid in your thinking.

RIDDLE: Right, right, right.

ROZSA: So is there anything else you'd like to say before we part ways?

RIDDLE: No, but I hope that gives you a sense of where both of us stand, because we were pretty simpatico on this. When No Labels got started, Joe asked me to sit and help Nancy [Jacobson] at the beginning, and I kept saying, "Get everybody around the table, get everybody around the table, get everybody around the table" — because until you do that... And we did. That's how we started it, and that's what ultimately created the Problem Solvers Caucus. It took steps to get there, but that's what did it. [Republican President Donald] Trump has just made it very hard for Republicans.

ROZSA: I think it has a lot to do with his style.

RIDDLE: Yes, totally his style. Everything he says, with his policies — there's always a kernel of truth in them. It's like Clinton had the Lincoln Bedroom for things, but now Trump has grown that a hundred times beyond the Clinton Bedroom, with the donors. It's a style — it's his whole approach, everything.

-=-=

wiki post senate

A survey in October 2010 showed that Lieberman had an approval rating of 31% and that just 24% of Connecticut voters felt he deserved re-election.[99] Lieberman announced on January 19, 2011 that he would retire from the Senate at the end of his fourth term.[100][101]Lieberman gave his farewell address on December 12, 2012.[102]He was succeeded by Democratic representativeChris Murphy.

Following his retirement from the Senate, Lieberman became senior counsel of the white collar criminal defense and investigations practice atKasowitz, Benson, Torres & Friedman, a law firm in New York City whose notable clients include Donald Trump.[103]

In March 2013, it was announced that Lieberman would be joining the conservativeAmerican Enterprise Institutethink tank as co-chairman of their American Internationalism Project, alongside former Republican SenatorJon Kyl.[104]In February 2014, Lieberman was named as Counselor at theNational Bureau of Asian Research.[105]Additionally, he serves as the Lieberman Chair of Public Policy and Public Service atYeshiva University, where he teaches an undergraduate course in political science....

 August 2015, Lieberman became chairman of the advocacy group United Against Nuclear Iran (UANI).[107]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Joe_Lieberman.png

Lieberman testifying in front of Congress in support of DC statehood in 2021

In March 2016, Lieberman was hired by theSchaghticoke Tribal Nation to assist the group in challenging Connecticut laws giving exemptions to only the top two state gaming tribes to build casinos.[108][109]

In 2016, Lieberman joined the Muslim-Jewish Advisory Council, an organization founded to address anti-Muslim and anti-Jewish bigotry in the United States.[110] Lieberman is also on the advisory board of the Counter Extremism Project (CEP).[111]

In early 2017, Lieberman introduced President elect Donald Trump's nominee as Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos to the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pension committee. One report on Lieberman's involvement was critical of him for failing to disclose in his testimony the extensive legal work his Kasowitz, Benson, Torres & Friedman law firm had done for Donald Trump since at least as long ago as 2001.The work included bankrupt casino restructuring and, during the 2016 campaign, threatening the New York Times over publication of a few 1995 Trump tax documents.[112]

On May 17, 2017, Lieberman was interviewed by President Donald Trump for the position of FBI Director, to replace recently fired James Comey.[113] The interview took place against the background of the appointment of Special Counsel Robert Mueller to investigate issues connected to Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections.[114] Speaking to reporters while meeting with Colombian President Juan Manuel Santos, Trump said he was "very close" to choosing a new FBI director to replace James Comey, and when asked if Lieberman was his top pick, Trump said yes.[115] The President also stated that the odds were "better than 50-50" that his pick for FBI director would be made before he departs for his first trip abroad on Friday.[116] However, no announcement was made publicly on Friday.[116] On May 25, 2017, Lieberman officially withdrew his name from consideration.[117]

On July 17, 2018, Lieberman published an opinion piece in The Wall Street Journal imploring people to vote for Joe Crowley, who was defeated in the Democratic primary by Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.Crowley would run on theWorking Families Partyline, without support of a major party, similar to how Lieberman defeated Lamont in 2006. Lieberman has continued to remain critical of Ocasio-Cortez, stating that “With all respect, I certainly hope she’s not the future, and I don’t believe she is.”[118]

In January 2019 Lieberman officially registered as a lobbyist working for ZTE [china tech] but has stated that his work for the corporation will be limited to assess national security concerns and will not include actual lobbying.[119]

...

Since March 2005, Hadassah Lieberman has worked for Hill & Knowlton,a lobbying firm based in New York City, as a senior counselor in its health and pharmaceuticals practice. She has held senior positions at theHospital of Saint RaphaelinNew Haven, theAmerican Committee for Shaare Zedek Medical CenterinJerusalem,Association of Public-Safety Communications Officials-International (APCO NOPE NOT THAT ONE]),Pfizer,National Research Council,Hoffmann-La Roche, andLehman Brothers.[122]

12/21

https://www.eenews.net/articles/qa-lieberman-on-reconciliation-manchin-clean-air-act/

Former Sen. Joe Lieberman, the four-term centrist lawmaker, jokes that he can feel Joe Manchin’s pain these days.

Like the West Virginia Democrat, the onetime running mate to former Vice President Al Gore routinely frustrated his party by bucking its priorities. And he hasn’t stopped.

The former Connecticut lawmaker, a Democrat-turned-independent, said he favors Manchin’s cautious approach to the $1.7 trillion climate and social spending package and worries that it might spike inflation and increase partisanship.

"I support his idea of pausing on this,” Lieberman, now 79 and almost a decade retired from the Senate, told E&E News in an interview this week from a New York City law office where he spends his time when not in Washington.

“I appreciate the fact that he hasn’t said, ‘Kill it,’ because there are some good parts of this, including the climate change investments, but it needs more time. And it needs more time to develop, hopefully according to the so-called regular order with bipartisan discussions.”

The author of the last major climate legislation proposed in the Senate,Lieberman remains eager to see progress on reducing carbon emissions and talked up the potential for the parties to work together.

In his new book, "The Centrist Solution," and this interview, the former lawmaker recalled how bipartisanship and awillingness to compromise were vital to passing the Clean Air Act update of 1990.

What would you like to see happen on "Build Back Better"?

If left to my own druthers, I’d just do the climate change parts and put the others on hold, on pause. There’s a lot of appealing stuff in that [larger] bill. But my question is, has it been adequately gone over? Is there a way we can build a bipartisan basis [of] support for it?

This Congress might pass some of that stuff, but when the Republicans take over Congress, perhaps as early as 2023, they’ll move to terminate those programs, and that’s just not the way it should happen. I think there’s a possibility of building a bipartisan consensus in both chambers for a good climate change bill.

How would you do that?

I would separate out the climate change provisions and initiate a bipartisan negotiating process. Maybe I would work with theNo Labels-supported groups in the House and Senate — the House Problem Solvers Caucusand the group of 10 or the group of 20 in the Senate that played such an important part in the infrastructure reform [bill]. They’d begin to work on it, and the goal would be that by working with the Biden administration, to get something passed in 2022.

Have you pitched this idea to any senators?

This is my first public statement on the idea. I have been thinking about it based on the urgency of the climate threat and the need to reduce this spending now in the "Build Back Better" bill.

I think it’s worth focusing on one critical problem around which you can build a bipartisan consensus in Congress and with the White House. And I think that’s the climate change provisions of this bill.

As a former centrist [lawmaker] yourself, do you have much sympathy for Joe Manchin these days and what he’s going through as the man in the middle of the Senate?

As [former President] Bill Clinton might have said, I feel his pain. You do get to a point — and I think Joe’s sincerely there, and I was on a couple of different issues — where you say, "OK, I was elected as a Democrat. I am a Democrat. I generally vote with the Democrats, but on this one, I just don’t agree with most members of my caucus. So am I to go along, even though I think it’s wrong, or have the courage to stand up and disagree because I think what I’m advocating is better for our country and my constituents?" I think that’s exactly what Joe Manchin is doing now.

He’s not showboating; this is quite sincere. You look at his record, back to West Virginia as governor particularly, and his record in the Senate, and he is genuinely a centrist, and he’s genuinely fiscally responsible. I believe he’s genuinely concerned.

Are you surprised no major climate legislation has moved over the past decade since you made the last bipartisan push in the Senate?

It would have been hard for me to believe that it would take basically a decade for anything significant to happen by government as opposed to the private sector. What you might say tempered my hope that something would happen sooner rather than later from Congress on climate change was what was obvious, which is that the federal government was growing deeply and dangerously partisan.

The Republican Party, generally, was still either denying the science or opposing what at the time seemed to be the most effective and acceptable way to deal with the problem, which was by imposing a declining cap and initiating a carbon trading system.

Has there been any progress over the past decade?

The most progress in America to dealing with climate change has come as a result of private-sector initiatives. Obviously, the most significant is the rapid development of electric vehicles, but there have been other changes and other advances, as well, like renewable energy.

The most significant governmental action since the last time we tried on climate change was the recently passedbipartisan infrastructure reform bill. [The legislation] has significant funding programs for upgrading transmission lines to accommodate renewable energy, more research on nuclear power and carbon capture, a big injection of funding for a nationwide network of charging stations for electric vehicles, support for electric school buses and ferries, and then a chunk of money that we used to call mitigation, which is to fight the effects of climate change.

It’s quite a significant step forward, and to me, the encouraging part of it — and we’ll see whether it lasts — is that it was bipartisan.

What lessons or ideas from your past cap-and-trade climate proposals do you think made it into "BBB"?

I don’t say it directly came from our work, but they embrace, you might say, the second half of our proposal. After the fundamental cap-and-trade foundation, [our] proposal was going to raise a lot of money. We allocated that money to many of the same things that are supported by the federal funding in the enacted infrastructure bill and the proposed "Build Back Better" bill. I’m talking about the incentives for renewable energy, better nuclear power and carbon capture, etc.

So I hope that that had an effect. I also hope that we were part of a series of bills [that] helped to educate our colleagues in Congress about the urgency of getting something done, even though a lot of them at that point just didn’t want to hear the facts.

And some Republicans turned it into a tax fight?

[GOP opponents] changed quite effectively the title of the bill, which was cap and trade, to cap and tax. I think that remains, for want of a more appropriate metaphor, a third rail here, either a carbon tax or cap and trade.

The big change seems to be at least in the infrastructure. Some number of Republicans are [now] acknowledging that there is a real climate problem and are willing to support federal funding to deal with it, even if they’re not going to support cap and trade or taxes.

Do you still talk to your former partners, White House climate envoy John Kerry and Sen. Lindsey Graham [R-S.C.], on your last climate push anymore?

A little bit. I’m really glad Kerry’s involved. He seriously is concerned about this. He’s also very knowledgeable. I mean, he was at Rio back in the early ’90s. We were there in Kyoto together at the really pivotal moment when the protocol was adopted, which the [latest U.N. climate conferences] have advanced or considered every time since then.

I talk to Lindsey about once a month. Every now and then, I have asked him about climate change. He’s still interested in it. I really have urged him to be engaged, because I think it’s a real urgent national security, economic and, of course, environmental problem, and you can see it’s getting worse all the time.

You have a new book out, "The Centrist Solution," about bipartisan legislating that cites the 1990 update of the Clean Air Act. What made it successful?

There were a lot of compromises [between Senate negotiators and the George H.W. Bush administration]. On a matter as big and complicated as clean air, no side or no individual can get everything they want.

The question is, will you be happy with 50 percent or maybe 60 percent of what you want? And that’s what happened [to get a bill]. And then we all made an agreement, there’d be [floor] amendments that probably one or another of us would find appealing, but we could not vote for any proposed amendments, because they ran the risk of undoing the whole agreement. Those are not easy conditions to recreate, but they’re possible.

http://www.**sourcewatch.**org/index.php/Joseph_Lieberman

Joseph Isadore Lieberman, an Independent, has represented Connecticut in the United States Senate since 1988. He is most well-known as Al Gore's running mate in 2000 and as a 2004 presidential candidate. Democrat Richard Blumenthal is the junior Senator for the state.[1]

Record and controversies

General information about important bills and votes for can be found in Congresspedia's articles on legislation. You can add information you find on how Joseph Lieberman voted by clicking the "[edit]" link to the right and typing it in. Remember to cite your sources!

Health care reform flip flop

Joseph Lieberman has long been a strong advocate for universal health care.[2] In August, 2000 he signed on to the Hyde Park Declaration, a policy agenda that promoted Americans' universal access to health care. As recently as September 2009, Lieberman gave aninterview to a Connecticut newspaper in which he clearly said he supported allowing Americans 55-64 years old to buy into Medicare and Medicaid programs. Despite this history of advocating health care reform, Senator Lieberman worked hard in 2009 to block health care reform legislation which included the very same policies he has so strongly supported in the past. Observers considered that one of his motives for doing this might include revenge against Connecticut Democrats for rejecting him in 2006 (after which time he gained re-election as an Independent). Some think he may trying to appeal to Republicans, who could prove key to his re-election bid in 2012. But the main reason could be that, over his political career, Senator Lieberman has accepted more than $1 million from large, Connectucut-based health insurance companies, a figure that led the New York Times to dub him the "Million Dollar Man." In his 2006 re-election campaign, Lieberman ranked second in the Senate in accepting insurance industry contributions.[3]

It should also be noted that in recent articles, the New York Times quoted Lieberman saying the public option would “add to the deficit” without mentioning the fact that the Congressional Budget Office says it will reduce the deficit.[4] The same reporters (David Herszenhorn and Robert Pear) previously reported:

"According to the Congressional Budget Office, the cost of the legislation would be more than offset by new taxes and fees and reductions in government spending, so that the bill would reduce future federal budget deficits by $130 billion through 2019."[2]

Steve Benen, a contributing writer to the Washington Monthly, has been tracing Lieberman’s opposition to the public option and has a piece that constructs a timeline of his varying positions since June 2009.

Iraq War

Lieberman voted for the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq in Oct. 2002.

During the 2002 debate over the resolution giving President Bush the authority to use force against Iraq, Lieberman sponsored an amendment (S.AMDT.4856) declaring that the authorization to use force allows for unprovoked U.S. attacks against Iraq, and brought the measure to a cloture vote. Many opponents of the resolution opposed ending debate, for they were not interested in having the bill come onto the floor. Ultimately, this call for cloture passed overwhelmingly 75-25.

In January 2007, Sen. Lieberman promised to pass a version of the House bill (H.R.1) intended to implement the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission, "that will take steps forward to adopt some of the unadopted, unimplemented or inadequately implemented parts” of the commission's recommendations, despite concerns in the Senate over the measure's costs. On March 13, the Senate approved the bill containing the remaining provisions of the 9/11 panel as well as expanded labor rights for more than 45,000 airport screeners. Lieberman stated that "this bill will make the people of America, in an age of terrorism, safer yet than they have been before."

For more information see the chart of U.S. Senate votes on the Iraq War.

Suggests switching parties over war-funding vote

Lieberman told The Politico on February 22, 2007, that "he has no immediate plans to switch parties but suggested that Democratic opposition to funding the war in Iraq might change his mind." [3]

Statements on progress in Iraq

"I have just returned from my fourth trip to Iraq in the past 17 months and can report real progress there... Progress is visible and practical... Does America have a good plan for doing this, a strategy for victory in Iraq? Yes we do... The administration's recent use of the banner "clear, hold and build" accurately describes the strategy as I saw it being implemented last week. We are now embedding a core of coalition forces in every Iraqi fighting unit, which makes each unit more effective and acts as a multiplier of our forces. Progress in "clearing" and "holding" is being made... American military forces could begin a drawdown in numbers proportional to the increasing self-sufficiency of the Iraqi forces in 2006. If all goes well, I believe we can have a much smaller American military presence there by the end of 2006 or in 2007, but it is also likely that our presence will need to be significant in Iraq or nearby for years to come."[4]

"After a Thanksgiving meal with a great group of Marines at Camp Fallujah in western Iraq, I asked their commander whether the morale of his troops had been hurt by the growing public dissent in America over the war in Iraq. His answer was insightful, instructive and inspirational: 'I would guess that if the opposition and division at home go on a lot longer and get a lot deeper it might have some effect, but, Senator, my Marines are motivated by their devotion to each other and the cause, not by political debates.'"[5]

"Because of the bravery of many Iraqi and coalition military personnel and the recent coming together of moderate political forces in Baghdad, the war is winnable... The American people are justifiably frustrated by the lack of progress, and the price paid by our heroic troops and their families has been heavy... I saw firsthand evidence in Iraq of the development of a multiethnic, moderate coalition against the extremists of al-Qaeda and against the Mahdi Army, which is sponsored and armed by Iran and has inflamed the sectarian violence... The daily scenes of death and destruction are heartbreaking and infuriating. But there is no better strategic and moral alternative for America than standing with the moderate Iraqis until the country is stable and they can take over their security. Rather than engaging in hand-wringing, carping or calls for withdrawal, we must summon the vision, will and courage to take the difficult and decisive steps needed for success and, yes, victory in Iraq."[6]

"I appeal to my colleagues in Congress to step back and think carefully about what to do next. Instead of undermining Gen. Petraeus before he has been in Iraq for even a month, let us give him and his troops the time and support they need to succeed... Gen. Petraeus says he will be able to see whether progress is occurring by the end of the summer, so let us declare a truce in the Washington political war over Iraq until then... We are at a critical moment in Iraq--at the beginning of a key battle." ^[6]^

Support for increased troop levels

In the December 29, 2006 Washington Post op-ed, Lieberman also expressed support for the plan reportedly being considered by President George W. Bush for a "surge" of troop levels in Iraq. Notably, Lieberman wrote in the op-ed that in a recent visit to Iraq he had "found that it was the American colonels, even more than the generals, who were asking for more troops." [7] The op-ed was published during a PR offensive by the Bush administration to counteract statements by senior U.S. generals that they did not support the "surge" plan. On February 5 adn 17, 2007, Lieberman voted with Republicans in blocking a cloture votes on resolutions opposing the troop "surge."

On March 15, 2007, Lieberman also voted with Republicans, and with only two Democrats, against a joint resolution to revise U.S. policy in Iraq. The measure failed 48-50. Later on March 27, Lieberman also voted with Republicans in favor an amendment to the Iraq supplemental spending bill that would have stripped the measure of its troop withdrawal deadline. The amendment was narrowly defeated 48-50. He also voted with Republicans against the final bill, which passed the Senate 51-47 on March 29. On April 26, Lieberman voted again with the GOP against the final conference version of the bill, which passed both chambers but was vetoed by the President.

Criticism of Democrats

Lieberman has staunchly supported the Iraq War. In a November 29, 2005 op-ed piece for The Wall Street Journal, Lieberman praised the efforts of the U.S. military in the occupation of Iraq and criticized both parties:

Democratic Party leadership rebuked Lieberman. On December 9, Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid claimed to be troubled by Lieberman's comments, "I've talked to Senator Lieberman, and unfortunately he is at a different place on Iraq than the majority of the American people." House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi added, "I completely disagree with Lieberman. I believe that we have a responsibility to speak out if we think that the course of action that our country is not making the American people safer, making our military stronger and making the region more stable." [9]

Lieberman refused to recant his position, stating "I've had this position for a long time — that we need to finish the job." [10]

Iran

In a December 29, 2006 Washington Post op-ed, Lieberman identified Iran as the America's enemy in the "War on Terror":

"While we are naturally focused on Iraq, a larger war is emerging. On one side are extremists and terrorists led and sponsored by Iran, on the other moderates and democrats supported by the United States... This bloodshed, moreover, is not the inevitable product of ancient hatreds. It is the predictable consequence of a failure to ensure basic security and, equally important, of a conscious strategy by al-Qaeda and Iran, which have systematically aimed to undermine Iraq's fragile political center... On this point, let there be no doubt: If Iraq descends into full-scale civil war, it will be a tremendous battlefield victory for al-Qaeda and Iran... One moderate Palestinian leader told me that a premature U.S. exit from Iraq would be a victory for Iran and the groups it is supporting in the region."[7]

On June 10, 2007, Lieberman said that the United States must be prepared to take military action to respond to Iran's training of anti-U.S. forces to be deployed in Iraq. He argued that the United States must send a strong message to Iran in order to curb aggression in Iraq, stating "If there’s any hope of the Iranians living according to the international rule of law and stopping, for instance, their nuclear weapons development, we can't just talk to them."[8] On June 12, 2007, John Orman, Chairman of the Connecticut for Lieberman party demanded that Lieberman resign over his saber rattling. Orman said: "He has crossed the line. His unilateral warmongering could lead to a new World War III."[9]

On September 20, 2007, Sens. Lieberman, Jon Kyl, Norman Coleman, and Lindsey Graham filed a "Sense of the Senate" resolution as Amendment No. 3017[10] to the FY 2008 Defense Authorization bill "that the U.S. should 'combat, contain, and roll back' Iran’s 'violent activities and destabilizing influence inside Iraq.' It counsels doing so 'through the prudent and calibrated use of all instruments of [U.S. power], including diplomatic, economic, intelligence, and military instruments.' It also urges the administration to designate the Revolutionary Guards a terrorist organization."[11]

On 16 February 2012, Lieberman together with Senators Lindsey Graham, Robert Casey and Richard Blumenthal, introduced Senate Resolution 380, requiring the US government to prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapons capability.[12] Philip Giraldi, a former CIA officer, states about this resolution:

MJ Rosenberg, the former AIPAC staffer and current commentator, states the same thing. The resolution amounts to the first step to a US war against Iran.[14]

Environmental record

For more information on environmental legislation, see the Energy and Environment Policy Portal

Climate Stewardship and Innovation Act

Lieberman sponsored the Climate Stewardship and Innovation Act (CSIA) of 2007(S.280) on January 12, 2007. It was referred to the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works. It is the Senate version of the House's Climate Stewardship Act (H.R.620). The bill would establish an emissions "cap and trade" system to go into effect in 2012, requiring a decrease in greenhouse gas emissions of 15 percent by 2020 and 65 percent by 2050.[15]

Censorship

Lieberman is a strong supporter of video game censorship and has also been vocal in supporting censorship of controversial musical artists. In the late 1990s, he lobbied for censorship of shock rocker Marilyn Manson, calling his group "one of the sickest" he had ever seen.

On November 29, 2005, Lieberman, together with Sens. Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.) and Evan Bayh (D-Ind.), introduced the Family Entertainment Protection Act. The act is intended to protect children from inappropriate content found in video games. [11]

"The Gang of Fourteen"

On May 23, 2005, Lieberman was one of fourteen moderate senators, dubbed the "Gang of 14," who forged a compromise on the Democrats' use of the judicial filibuster, thus avoiding the Republican leadership's implementation of the so-called "nuclear option," which would have changed the procedures of the Senate. Under the agreement, the Democrats agreed to exercise the power to filibuster a Bush judicial nominee only in an "extraordinary circumstance", and three of the filibustered Bush appellate court nominees (:{Janice Rogers Brown:(style="background-color:#fff200"):}:,:{Priscilla Owen:(style="background-color:#fff200"):}:and:{William H. Pryor, Jr.:(style="background-color:#fff200"):}:) would receive a vote by the full Senate.

Republican lobbyists sponsored fundraiser for "Independent" Senate race

President George W. Bush "moved a step closer to Democratic Sen. Joseph Lieberman's re-election bid in Connecticut as an independent candidate when Tom Kuhn, the president's college roommate and close friend, co-sponsored a Lieberman fund-raising luncheon ... in downtown Washington," Robert Novak reported in the October 1, 2006, Chicago Sun-Times. "Also among the Lieberman event's sponsors was Rick Shelby, a longtime Republican operative who is executive vice president of the American Gas Association.

"The luncheon's sponsors pressed fellow Republican lobbyists to pay a minimum of $1,000 a ticket." [12]

Wife works as lobbyist

In March 2005, Lieberman’s wife, Hadassah, joined the **Hill & Knowlton** lobbying firm. She stated as her reason: “I have had a life-long commitment to helping people gain better health care…I am excited about the opportunity to work with the talented team at Hill & Knowlton to counsel a terrific stable of clients toward that same goal.” She has been criticized for joining the firm, for it has spent a considerable amount of time as a defendant in tobacco class-action lawsuits for its role in distributing propaganda disputing the health risks of smoking.

In addition, one of the firm’s major clients is GlaxoSmithKline, the British pharmaceutical company. In April 2005, Lieberman introduced a bill that would award new government “incentives” to companies like GSK to produce more vaccines—notably patent extensions on existing products. [13]

Hiring of Republican/conservative activist Marshall Wittmann as spokesman in 2005

On November 21, Lieberman announced that he had hired Marshall Wittmann as his new spokesman. [14]

Code Pink member collapses in Lieberman’s office

A member of the anti-war group Code Pink collapsed in Lieberman's office on June 28, 2007, following a 15-day hunger strike in which she consumed only clear liquids to protest Lieberman's stance on Iran in the hopes of getting a meeting with him.[16]

DC voting rights

On January 26, 2005, Sen. Lieberman introduced the No Taxation Without Representation Act of 2005 (S. 195). The bill would provide District residents with two senators (similar to a state), as well as a voting member in the House. The bill collected fifteen cosponsors, but never reached the floor for a vote.

Three years prior, on October 3, 2002, Lieberman had introduced the same bill. On October 9, the Senate Committee on Homeland Security & Governmental Affairs, which Lieberman chaired at the time, approved the bill 9-0, with every Democrat on the Committee voting in favor of the bill and no Republicans attending the meeting. As in 2005, however, the bill never received a vote on the Senate floor.

On May 1, 2007 Lieberman introduced the District of Columbia Fair and Equal Voting Rights Act of 2007 with Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah). The bill passed the House the previous month.

Reparations for Japanese Latin Americans

Lieberman cosponsored The Commission on Wartime Relocation and Internment of Latin Americans of Japanese Descent Act in the 110th Congress which would establish a commission that would determine the facts and circumstances involving the relocation, internment and deportation of Japanese Latin Americans.[17]

Committee chairmanship vote

Following the 2008 congressional elections, Democrats enlarged their majority in the U.S. Senate. Many Democrats sought to punish Lieberman for his role in the 2008 presidential election -- Lieberman appeared as a speaker at the Republican National Convention, campaigned for Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and speaking out against President-Elect Barack Obama. Following a meeting with Lieberman on November 6, Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) indicated he was exploring all options regarding Lieberman's future in the Democratic caucus and as the chairman of the Senate Committee on Homeland Security & Governmental Affairs.[18]

On November 18, 2008, Democrats in the Senate voted by a 42-13 margin to allow Lieberman to retain his chairmanship of the homeland security committee. He was stripped, however, of his seat on the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, where he chaired a subcommittee on global warming.[19]

Bio

Lieberman was born in Stamford, Connecticut on February 24, 1942. He received his bachelor's degree from Yale University in 1964 and his law degree from Yale Law School in 1967, after which he worked at the prestigious New Haven law firm of Wiggin & Dana. Lieberman was elected to the Connecticut State Senate in 1970 and served there for 10 years, the last 6 as Majority Leader. From 1982 to 1988, he served as Connecticut's 21st Attorney General.

Lieberman is a religiously observant Jew. While the American public has been increasingly receptive to Jewish politicans in positions of leadership, no Jewish individual has yet been elected to either of the two high offices Lieberman has sought, the vice presidency and the presidency, although Lieberman, along with Gore, won the popular vote in 2000. Lieberman has called for a "a constitutional place for faith in our public life." [15]

Lieberman defeated liberal Republican Lowell Weicker to win election to the Senate in 1988. Lieberman was even endorsed by National Review and it was joked in many circles how the Democratic candidate was more conservative than the Republican one.

Lieberman is considered to be one of the most conservative of prominent Democratic politicians. He has been a strong supporter of the U.S.-led 2003 invasion of Iraq and criticized some of his opponents in the 2004 Primaries for their opposition to the war; he is also generally more sympathetic to the role of religion in public life than many within the Party, and he first achieved national notice for his public criticism of President Bill Clinton's ethical conduct during the Lewinsky scandal in 1998. On other issues, such as abortion, gun control and the environment, Lieberman's views more closely follow the positions of the Democratic party mainstream.

Lieberman supported the 2003 invasion of Iraq and supports "regime change" as U.S. policy toward Iran. [16] Those who contend that there is a War on Islam often cite the public statements of Lieberman regarding his support for Israel and accuse him of advocating that the U.S. launch wars on its behalf. Many who do not share these views do agree at least that his views are more like those of neo-conservatives, among which he is sometimes numbered.

In 1993 and 1994, Lieberman was the key senator in preventing the Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) from closing an accounting loophole that allowed companies to avoid recording stock options as an expense. Arthur Levitt, the Chairman of the SEC at the time, has said "There was no question in my mind that campaign contributions played the determinative role in that Senate activity."

Vice presidential and Presidential campaigns

In August 2000, the presumptive-Democratic nominee for president, Al Gore, tapped Lieberman to be his vice-presidential running mate. His selection marked the first time a Jewish candidate was part of major party's presidential ticket. Lieberman's Senate term was also due to expire in that election cycle and he decided to stage a run to maintain that seat as well.

On January 13, 2003, Lieberman announced his intention to seek the Democratic nomination as a candidate in the 2004 presidential election. Lieberman attempted to convey his hawkishness with frequent attacks on Howard Dean, the early front-runner and an Iraq war critic. On February 3, 2004, a few weeks after placing fifth in the New Hampshire primary, Lieberman withdrew his candidacy after failing to win any of the five primaries or two caucuses held that day.

Loses 2006 primary, wins general election

Lieberman was the presumed Democratic nominee for his Senate seat in the 2006 mid-term congressional election, but lost in a tough challenge from within the party by candidate Ned Lamont, who built his candidacy on his opposition to the war in Iraq, strong support of women's rights, support of gay marriage, support of universal healthcare and many other areas. [[17]](http://www.stamfordadvocate.com/news/local/state/hc-10120155.apds.m0240.bc-ct--liebdec10,0,7735444.story?coll=hc-headlines-local-wire) Lieberman gained the support of many prominent Democrats, including former President Bill Clinton, but lost nonetheless, 52% to 48%.

Lamont's campaign against Lieberman was supported by progressive elements of the Connecticut Democratic party. Focusing heavily on Lieberman's support for the Iraq War, Lamont was able to close the gap in the polls from 46 points (May 2nd, Quinnipiac) to 6 points (June 12th, Rasmussen). [18][19] In addition, Lamont, a self-made cable millionaire, was able to heavily finance his campaign. Early in the race, he pledged to spend $1.5 million of his personal funds on unseating Lieberman. Lamont's campaign was also strengthened by the support of former U.S. Senator Lowell Weicker, who was unseated by Lieberman in 1988.

On August 8, 2006, the day of the primary election between Lieberman and Lamont, Lieberman's campaign manager, Sean Smith, announced that someone had hacked into the senator's campaign website the night before, causing it to crash. Smith called the attack, "...a deliberate attempt to disenfranchise voters." The FBI quickly announced its intentions to investigate the matter. [[20]](http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060808/ap_on_el_ge/primary_elections_36;_ylt=Ak_NXZ1DYDF4kcgCHM_0wbnJ76Mv;_ylu=X3oDMTBiMW04NW9mBHNlYwMlJVRPUCUl) [21]

Following his loss, Lieberman declared his intentions to run for the Senate as an independent candidate. A mid-July Quinnipiac University poll found that while Lieberman trailed Lamont among Democrats, he remained the favorite to win the general election against Lamont and Republican Alan Schlesinger. [22]

On August 21, a group of self-proclaimed peace activists asked Sharon Ferrucci, the Democratic registrar of voters in New Haven, Connecticut, to remove Lieberman from the party in response to his independent Senate campaign. The request could lead to a hearing in which Lieberman, the three-term senator, would need to argue that he still adheres to the party's core principles. [23]

In the November 7 general election, Lieberman defeated Lamont and Republican Alan Schlesinger (50%-40%-10%, respectively) to retain his seat. While he won as an independent, he indicated that he would caucus with Democrats and formed part of the Democrats 51-49 seat majority in the Senate. [24]

Money in politics

This section contains links to – and feeds from – money in politics databases. cid=N00000616&cycle=2006

Links to more campaign contribution information for Joseph Lieberman

from the Center for Responsive Politics' OpenSecrets.org site.

Links to more campaign contribution information for Joseph Lieberman

from the Center for Responsive Politics' OpenSecrets.org site.

Links to more campaign contribution information for Joseph Lieberman

from the Center for Responsive Politics' OpenSecrets.org site.
Fundraising profile:2006 election cycleCareer totals
Top contributors by organization/corporation:2006 election cycleCareer totals
Top contributors by industry:2006 election cycleCareer totals

Committees and affiliations

Committees

Committee assignments in the 109th Congress (2005-2006)

More background data

Contact

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/10/11/101011fa_fact_lizza

...

The Senate coalition that introduced the bill started to form in early 2009, when Lieberman instructed Rosengarten to work with the office of John McCain, Lieberman’s longtime partner on the issue. As the newest member of Lieberman’s staff, she was in charge of his climate portfolio, and Lieberman made a simple and oft-repeated demand: “Get me in the room.”

Lieberman had worked on climate change since the nineteen-eighties, and in recent years he had introduced three global-warming bills. He also had long been interested in a pollution-control mechanism called cap-and-trade. The government would set an over-all limit on emissions and auction off permission slips that individual polluters could then buy and sell.

By late January, 2009, the details of the Lieberman-McCain bill had been almost entirely worked out, and Lieberman began showing it to other Senate offices in anticipation of a February press conference. The goal was to be the centrist alternative to a separate effort, initiated by Barbara Boxer, a liberal from California and the chair of the Environment and Public Works Committee.

But the negotiations stalled as the bill moved forward. In Arizona, a right-wing radio host and former congressman, J. D. Hayworth, announced that he was considering challenging McCain in the primary. McCain had never faced a serious primary opponent for his Senate seat, and now he was going to have to defend his position on global warming to hard-core conservative voters. The Republican Party had grown increasingly hostile to the science of global warming and to cap-and-trade, associating the latter with a tax on energy and more government regulation.Sponsoring the bill wasn’t going to help McCain defeat an opponent to his right.

By the end of February, McCain was starting to back away from his commitment to Lieberman.At first, he insisted that he and Lieberman announce a set of climate-change “principles” instead of a bill. Then, three days before a scheduled press conference to announce those principles, the two senators had a heated conversation on the Senate floor. Lieberman turned and walked away. “That’s it,” he told an aide. “He can’t do it this year.”

In Barack Obama’s primary-campaign victory speech, in St. Paul, Minnesota, he said that his election would be a historical turning point on two pressing issues: health care and climate change. “We will be able to look back and tell our children that this was the moment when we began to provide care for the sick,” he said. “When the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal.” During the campaign, he often argued that climate change was an essential part of a national energy strategy. “Energy we have to deal with today,” Obama said in a debate with McCain. “Health care is priority No. 2.”

http://www.democracynow.org/2013/5/29/julian_assange_stratfor_hacker_jeremy_hammond  says pressured banks to prevent wikileaks for getting donation

ja claims repeatedly won in icelandic ct  Visa  Free Press Fdn cusak, ellsberg, workaround JPB

Republican lobbyists sponsored fundraiser for "Independent" Senate race

President George W. Bush "moved a step closer to Democratic Sen. Joseph Lieberman's re-election bid in Connecticut as an independent candidate when Tom Kuhn, the president's college roommate and close friend, co-sponsored a Lieberman fund-raising luncheon ... in downtown Washington," Robert Novak reported in the October 1, 2006, Chicago Sun-Times. "Also among the Lieberman event's sponsors was Rick Shelby, a longtime Republican operative who is executive vice president of the American Gas Association.

"The luncheon's sponsors pressed fellow Republican lobbyists to pay a minimum of $1,000 a ticket." [12]

Wife works as lobbyist

In March 2005, Lieberman’s wife, Hadassah, joined the Hill & Knowlton lobbying firm. She stated as her reason: “I have had a life-long commitment to helping people gain better health care…I am excited about the opportunity to work with the talented team at Hill & Knowlton to counsel a terrific stable of clients toward that same goal.” She has been criticized for joining the firm, for it has spent a considerable amount of time as a defendant in tobacco class-action lawsuits for its role in distributing propaganda disputing the health risks of smoking.

In addition, one of the firm’s major clients is GlaxoSmithKline, the British pharmaceutical company. In April 2005, Lieberman introduced a bill that would award new government “incentives” to companies like GSK to produce more vaccines—notably patent extensions on existing products. [13]

Attachments