Posted on 03/23/2003 4:54:27 AM PST by Liz
September 11, 2000
Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman is a staunch supporter of abortion rights now, and even voted (six times) against a ban on partial-birth abortion, but Catholic leaders in Connecticut remember another Joe Lieberman.
He called on the state's archbishop with a pro-life pledge 12 years ago, when he was first a candidate for the U.S. Senate, and even told pro-life leaders he would have voted to confirm Judge Robert Bork for the U.S. Supreme Court.
Mr. Lieberman met with Archbishop John F. Whealon of Hartford to seek Catholic votes in the final stretch of his 1988 Democratic bid to oust 18-year Sen. Lowell P. Weicker Jr., a Republican who supported abortion rights, from the U.S. Senate.
"Joe was very liberal, like Weicker, but we had a poll on abortion that showed which way the wind was blowing," says Daniel Cosgrove, then the Democratic town chairman in Branford, Mr. Lieberman's hometown. The poll showed anti-abortion sentiment outweighed pro-choice views in urban areas throughout Connecticut. "In the Waterbury area, it was more than any, 12,000 [more] against," Mr. Cosgrove says.
Records of a meeting between Mr. Lieberman and top officials of the National Right to Life Committee (NRLC) two months after the 1988 election quote Mr. Lieberman as saying he "thinks there are too many abortions," and promisinghe would not "apply a litmus test" against pro-life judicial nominees.
Archbishop Whealon has since died, but his former secretary, Father Thomas Berry, says he remembers the 1988 meeting where Mr. Lieberman "expressed himself as coming from a tradition in support of life, not in favor of abortion on demand."
"He expressed himself against abortion, all suicide, and euthanasia. His position on that definitely was well received by the archbishop and priests," Father Berry says.
A spokesman for Mr. Lieberman says Mr. Cosgrove's memory of the meeting with the archbishop "is not accurate," and says Mr. Lieberman has been consistently pro-choice. Mr. Cosgrove says he and state Sen. Regina Smith, who conducted the pro-life poll for the archdiocese, arranged for
Mr. Lieberman, then the state attorney general, to meet with the Catholic prelate before the election to lay out his support for Catholic pro-life positions, which Mr. Weicker had actively opposed.
The strategy worked, Mr. Cosgrove says. Mr. Lieberman convinced the archbishop he favored pro-life positions and would vote differently than Mr. Weicker, thus winning Catholic support that pushed him to a narrow 10,000-vote victory the only Democratic Senate upset of that year.
With Republican Vice President George Bush outpolling Democrat Michael S. Dukakis by almost 100,000 votes in Connecticut's presidential balloting that year, Mr. Lieberman's strategic appeal for pro-life votes countered the
Republican tide that otherwise might have benefited Mr. Weicker, Mr. Cosgrove says. Mr. Lieberman's winning margin was less than 1 percent of 1.4 million votes. Mr. Lieberman, an orthodox Jew, has defended his record, saying Jewish law is so deeply divided on the issue of abortion that even among orthodox Jews it may be construed as "a personal matter." The senator's spokesman, Dan Gerstein, insists there was no meeting between Mr. Lieberman and the archbishop before the 1988 election. "No one on staff at the time can remember a meeting with Archbishop Whealon during the campaign.
He had a private meeting with the archbishop after the election," the spokesman said. "Mr. Cosgrove's recollection of what was said at the meeting also is not accurate," Mr. Gerstein said. Mr. Lieberman "never said he would limit a woman's right to choose, that he would vote to ban abortion or to overturn Roe v. Wade."
The Supreme Court, in that 1973 case, held that a woman had a constitutional right to an abortion in certain circumstances. Mr. Lieberman has voted consistently pro-choice, both as a Connecticut state senator and U.S. senator, since his first elective office in 1970, Mr. Gerstein said.
Father Berry, now assigned to St. Mary's Parish in Newington, Conn., says Mr. Lieberman presented himself as a clear pro-life alternative, saying, "He was not an abortion activist as Senator Weicker was . . . and said his approach would be different."
In fact, Mr. Lieberman's pro-life assurances were so convincing that Archbishop Whealon arranged for the Democratic candidate to meet with Catholic priests throughout the state shortly before the November 1988 balloting. Mr. Lieberman's expressed pro-life views in those meetings, Father Berry said. "That probably was not insignificant" in the November 1988 election outcome, he said.
Two months after the election, Mr. Lieberman and key staff aides again met with pro-life leaders in Washington and assured them he was an ally, says Douglas Johnson, legislative director of the National Right to Life Committee (NRLC).
Mr. Lieberman said he would have voted to confirm Judge Bork to the Supreme Court had he been a member of the Senate during the confirmation hearings, according to written minutes of the meeting with Dr. Jack C. Willke, then the NRLC head, and Regina Smith, Connecticut's representative to the group.
Judge Bork, who was eventually denied confirmation, testified in Senate hearings that he would have voted to overturn Roe v. Wade. Mr. Lieberman "would have voted for Bork, under whom he studied" at Yale University law school, according to the meeting notes taken by Mr. Johnson.
The notes quoted Mr. Lieberman as saying: "I'm not going to vote against a judicial nominee just because he's pro-life. I'm not going to apply a litmus test."
Mr. Lieberman acknowledged there was disagreement among his own new Senate staff on the abortion issue, the notes show: "He thinks there are too many abortions, but many disagree, women will have them anyway. He is unsettled, ambivilent [sic]. Some staff on both sides. Always access to him or top staff, will be heard respectfully. Regina is great. Continue dialog." ####
LIEberman got into office by outright lying about his abortion position. Getting elected on the backs of the innocent unborn is not something that would inspire confidence in a candidate's presidential positions.
If Joey would go to the lengths he did to get the pro-life vote - lying smackdab in the face of pro-lifers, telling them what he knew they wanted to hear - he is surely capable of promising just about anything he thinks voters want to hear.
Abortion separates the men from the boys. As a radical pro-abortion advocate who voted six times for partial birth abortions, Joey proved himself to be a pimple-faced adolescent who fools the folks into thinking he's at the library when he's out smoking weed with the rest of the nerds.
Elect Joey as president?
I wouldn't trust him to walk my dog.
Lieberman is a lying win at any cost Liberal and is a prime example of the run of the mill liberals that infest the Democrat Party.
SO BEWARE OF DEMS BEARING GIFTS!!
You got that right.
Obviously what has happened is that Lieberman has (quite accurately) perceived that he could go nowhere nationally within the Democratic Party without moving into the lockstep official party position on abortion, judicial nominations, and so forth.
We've seen it all before, of course. But more frequently, Southern Democrats are involved. Al Gore was once pro-life, and John Edwards, during his 1998 Senate campaign, said he'd support a partial-birth abortion ban; in fact, he voted against a ban in 1999, and was unable to fit a vote on the recently-passed ban into his schedule -- he and John Kerry were the two absentees.
Slowly, slowly, the two parties are becoming more ideologically focused. Conservative Democrats and liberal Republicans, both commonplace two or three decades ago, are becoming endangered species.
Abortion can do that to a politician.
I called his office when he voted against the PBA ban and blasted his aide for LIEberman daring to state that he is an orthodox jew. The aide could not be more rude to me and suggested that I was a liar when I said that orthodox jews do NOT accept abortion.
Quotes will be available to support your preferred positions.
Anyone who practices a religion that supports life and votes for partial birth abortion is a hypocrite of the worst kind...the kind who will vote against the god they profess to believe in so they can win elections.
I feel that way about Joe Lieberman, an "orthodox Jew". I feel that way about Ted Kennedy and other "Catholics" who vote for the slaughter of pre-born infants.
I say this with a heavy heart about Joe Lieberman. I've always had the highest regard for him, from the very beginning of his political career, as a principled and competent person. How can he explain supporting the murder of viable infants?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.