Is Ahnold the anti-Lieberman?

[Caution]

From everything i've read about Schwarzenegger's politics he is clearly a leftist on the social side of things, he calls himself a fiscal conservative and the hiring of Buffet shows that to actually be true rather than the normal Republican fiscal conservative (read - spend like wildfire with no actual revenue to cover that spending, with no worries about debt). He appears to me to be a Democrat in Republican clothing rather as opposed to Lieberman who is a right-wing radical who calls himself a Democrat.

Does anyone have any info on Schwarzenegger's standing on the issues? He's done a remarkable job of ducking those questions so far.

[Skinner]

1. Question.

You claim that Schwarzenegger's positions are "Democratic" while Lieberman's positions on the issues are "right-wing radical".

On which positions is Lieberman more conservative than Schwarzenegger?

EDIT: Changed question slightly.

[joeybee12]

2. On issues of privacy, obviously

Ah-nuld at least came out and said the impeachment farce made him ashamed to be a Rethug--it was a personal matter. Holy Joe, on the other hand, used this farce to amke a name for himself, and went on the senate floor to denounce Clinton. He made me want to vomit then, and he makes me want to vomit now.

[Skinner]

4. Lieberman voted against impeachment.

Lots of Dems denounced Clinton -- they're politicians after all, and they like to cover their bases. In the end Lieberman voted against impeachment.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

5. Lieberman's Senate Speech Was Over The Top

I wish I could link the article in the The New Republic that deconstructed it and TNR is a nominal suporter of Lieberman.

[VermontDem2004]

6. Here is some of it

Mr. President, I rise today to make a most difficult and distasteful statement, for me probably the most difficult statement I have made on this floor in my ten years in the Senate.

On August 17th, President Clinton testified before a grand jury convened by the Independent Counsel and then talked to the American people about his relationship with Monica Lewinsky, a former White House intern. He told us that the relationship was "not appropriate," that it was "wrong," and that it was "a critical lapse of judgement and a personal failure" on his part. In addition, after seven months of denying that he had engaged in a sexual relationship with Ms. Lewinsky, the President admitted that his "public comments. . . about this matter gave a false impression." He said, "I misled people."

My immediate reaction to this statement was deep disappointment and personal anger. I was disappointed because the President of the United States had just confessed to engaging in an extramarital affair with a young woman in his employ and to willfully deceiving the nation about his conduct. I was personally angry because President Clinton had by his disgraceful behavior jeopardized his Administration's historic record of accomplishment, much of which grew out of the principles and programs that he and I and many others had worked on together in the New Democratic movement. I was also angry because I was one of the many people who had said over the preceding seven months that if the President clearly and explicitly denies the allegations against him, then, of course, I believe him.

Since that Monday night, I have not commented on this matter publicly. I thought I had an obligation to consider the President's admissions more objectively, less personally, and to try to put them in a clearer perspective. And I felt I owed that much to President Clinton, for whom I have great affection and admiration, and who I truly believe has worked tirelessly to make life tangibly better in so many ways for so many Americans.

http://www.australianpolitics.com/usa/clinton/impeachment/lieberman.shtml

[Skinner]

7. Agreed. It was way over the top.

My point is this: It is taken on faith on this message board that Lieberman is a right-wing extremist. But I don't think the facts show convincingly that Joe is to the right of Arnold.

If opinion about Clinton's conduct is the only difference, I don't consider that to be a slam dunk in Arnold's favor. Particularly because when it mattered, Joe voted the right way.

[VermontDem2004]

8. One thing about idealogy is that it cannot be measured

by someone's voting record, it has alot to do with what they say. Ahnold doesn't have a voting record, or I do think he actively stated that he voted for a propisition. But, alot of people say that he is socially liberal because of what he has said.

[Skinner]

9. Fair enough.

But I'm still curious -- is their stated opinion about Clinton's conduct the only difference which makes Lieberman a "right-wing extremist" and Arnold a "Democrat in Republican clothing"? What else is there?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

10. Joe Lieberman

embraces much of the New Democrat and DLC agenda.

I support much of it myself. It worked for Clinton, Blair, and Schroeder. I do believe that the far right and far left have failed and that the right certainly doesn't have a humane vision for the future.

But Joe Lieberman is the wrong person to carry the banner and the only thing he is accomplishing is discrediting it.

Joe Lieberman's embrace of the DLC agenda is the best thing it's opponents have going for them.


In this case, it's don't blame the message, blame the messenger.

[Bridget Burke]

3. Separated at birth?

No, that wasn't Leiberman, it was Danny de Vito--in "Twins".

Sometimes, reality is stranger than fiction. (Less funny, though.)