PDA

View Full Version : Why isn't Joe Lieberman more popular?


KidCharlemagne
01-23-2004, 08:11 AM
I thought he came off really well in the debate last night: charismatic, confident, well-informed. Why isn't he more popular? Is the fact that he's Jewish hurting him a lot? Anything I should know about him?

Revtim
01-23-2004, 08:17 AM
I didn't see the debate, but I've heard his views are too much on the right for most democractic voters.

Menocchio
01-23-2004, 08:19 AM
I thought he came off really well in the debate last night: charismatic, confident, well-informed. Why isn't he more popular? Is the fact that he's Jewish hurting him a lot? Anything I should know about him?


He's (percieved as) way too conservative. He drags religion into politics, more than the norm, and is notorious for bashing the media for explicit material.

So, on the pro side, if he won the primary, center-to-conservative voters might switch to him from Bush. On the con side, why the hell would the Dems want to elect someone who would be indistinguishable from Bush, but for the Judaism? If he took the primary, look for the center-to-left to stay home or vote 3rd party out of apathy fopr both candidates. Bush's conservative clout is stronger, so the right will mainly stay in his corner.

Democratic primary voiters aren't extreme leftists (see the continuing fall of Dean and the utter disinterest in Kucinich), but they by and large want someone slightly to the left of Bush.

Eve
01-23-2004, 08:29 AM
As Jon Stewart said, "Joe Lieberman—he's for people who like Bush, but feel he's just not Jewish enough."

I wouldn't vote for him because:

• There is no way a Jew will win, so I'd be throwing my vote away

• He's too right-wing

• I am sick of hearing how he and God are best pals

Hammer
01-23-2004, 09:00 AM
He doesn't look very good on TV;)

av8rmike
01-23-2004, 09:08 AM
He doesn't look very good on TV;)
He looks too much like Emperor Palpatine ;)

lee
01-23-2004, 09:19 AM
He, along with Lynne Cheney wanted to blacklist academics who they felt were not patriotic enough.

Cite. (http://www.commondreams.org/views01/1213-05.htm)

That alone is reason enough to not want him to lead this country. Land of the Free.

Marley23
01-23-2004, 09:31 AM
I've never found Lieberman an exciting guy myself. But the answer is that he is VERY conservative, and that's not what most Democrats are looking for. I don't think the Judaism hurts him, really. I think it helps him because it keeps him from being a stereotypical religious Christian.

CarnalK
01-23-2004, 09:32 AM
I always think of that Harry Truman quote when I see/hear Lieberman: "Give the people a choice between a Republican and a Republican, they'll choose a Republican every time"

He's an awful choice in so many ways it's more reasonable to ask why does he have any popularity. I think it lies with people who want another conservative candidate back-up in case Bush somehow manages to blow the election for himself.

SmackFu
01-23-2004, 09:50 AM
I have the impression that he's the opposite Democrat from myself: fiscally liberal and socially conservative.

The socially conservative part is the real killer. I don't actually know that he's fiscally liberal, but I would hope so, otherwise why be a Democrat?

scotandrsn
01-23-2004, 09:59 AM
Lieberman was never anyone's choice for President, in my opinion.

I believe he was chosen by the Democrats to be Gore's running mate for two reasons:

1. He was a Conservative Democrat, and would balance out Gore's more leftist leanings (such as they are), continuing the shift to the center that had brought the Democrats such success with Clinton.

2. He was Jewish, and might solidify support in areas with a high Jewish population, locking up electoral votes in places such as... Florida. And we all know how THAT turned out.

The Dems know, deep in their hearts, that the whole 2000 fiasco might never have occurred if there had been a stronger ticket, and Lieberman is partly to blame for its resulting weakness.

On top of that, he's completely out of touch with the fact that the Dems now realize that abandoning the left has hurt them, and he's out in the cold.

In addition, he comes across as mealy-mouthed wuss, whatever his actual views may be. His sheepish smile and half-muffled whine of a voice leave one with the impression that he is about to excuse himself and leave the room out of sheer embarassment.

Some good charm school lessons might get him to the point where Dems (or anyone) could stand to listen to what he had to say, at which point they would realize that his views are not what they want.

aahala
01-23-2004, 10:47 AM
Ever since the nominating process changed from party regulars to primaries selecting a candidate, moderates of either party have had a difficult time. We have no middle party and a moderate must have some special circumstance, issue or trait to be selected. Lieberman doesn't have that.


Lieberman was smart enough and experienced enough to know he needed something special. I have no idea why he had that blind spot.

carnivorousplant
01-23-2004, 11:02 AM
I believe he was chosen by the Democrats to be Gore's running mate



He was chosen to be Gore’s running mate because his criticism of President Clinton would serve to distance the ticket from Clinton’s morals.

jayjay
01-23-2004, 11:14 AM
He was chosen to be Gore’s running mate because his criticism of President Clinton would serve to distance the ticket from Clinton’s morals.

And, unfortunately, Clinton's popularity.

I still think the biggest mistake the Gore campaign committed, given that there were a heck of a lot of Democrats who would have gladly voted for Clinton again if it were allowed, was distancing himself from Clinton. If Gore hadn't gotten all puss-mouthed and schoolmarmish about the President in 2000, we might not have had to put up with Fearless Misleader for the last four years.

jshore
01-23-2004, 11:16 AM
I have the impression that he's the opposite Democrat from myself: fiscally liberal and socially conservative.

The socially conservative part is the real killer. I don't actually know that he's fiscally liberal, but I would hope so, otherwise why be a Democrat?

Well, I think he is a bit more than just socially conservative in that he is also affiliated with the Democratic Leadership Council (like Clinton) which was pretty much designed to be pro-corporate / business enough to attract corporate money.

But, he is sort of a mix on these things...For example, a big difference from Bush is that he is way better on the environment.

Actually, he is a mix on the "socially conservative" part too...e.g., he is pro-choice I believe.

Still, all in all, he's too conservative for me and I do worry about the question of why voters would vote for Republican in Democratic clothing when they can have the real thing. [That said, I do think a Lieberman Presidency would be way, way, way, way, way, way, way, way better than what we are suffering through now.]

jayjay
01-23-2004, 11:16 AM
Three years. Sorry. It just feels like so much longer...

carnivorousplant
01-23-2004, 11:20 AM
If Gore hadn't gotten all puss-mouthed and schoolmarmish about the President in 2000,

Absolutely.
I think Lieberman was intended to counter the bad Clinton stuff while Gore would keep the good stuff, but Gore was too frightened of the bad stuff and tried to distance the ticket further.

Skammer
01-23-2004, 11:27 AM
I have the impression that he's the opposite Democrat from myself: fiscally liberal and socially conservative.

The socially conservative part is the real killer. I don't actually know that he's fiscally liberal, but I would hope so, otherwise why be a Democrat? I completely agree with you, because I totally disagree with you.

I am fiscally liberal and socially conservative. In the past, I've almost always voted Republican, except for our latest gubenatorial race. I voted for both Bushes, but I'm really not looking forward to voting for W. again.

I'd vote for Lieberman in a second -- and probably will, in the primaries. He impressed me during the 2000 VP debate and I might have even voted for the Gore/Lieberman ticket if it had been Lieberman/Gore instead.

Unfortunately, he's too conservative to get the Democratic nomination -- he's like the Democratic version of John McCain, who was too liberal to get the GOP nomination.

Beagle
01-23-2004, 12:04 PM
So much for the BIG JEWISH CONSIPIRACY that supposedly controls our media. If it wasn't for the debates -- where they have to show him -- I would not know Lieberman was running for president.

Second, so much for the US being Israel's lap dog.

Do I expect those that believe these things to let little things like actual facts dent their tinfoil hat worlds. NO WAY, JOSE!

MC Master of Ceremonies
01-23-2004, 12:13 PM
He's in a rtaher awkward poltical postion, too conservtive for Demcratic voters and too Democratic for conservative voters.

The feeling I get (though as this is mainly gathered from reading bulletin boards, feel free to question it), is that he has reasonable level of popularity among conservative and traditionally Republican voters (mixing religion and politics certainly would not be issue for them), however this people are likely to vote only for the Republican party, and with GWB offering everything that Lieberman offers to conservtaive voters plus more, JL isn't going to convert this popularity into votes.

For more liberal and traditionally Democratic voters Lieberman is too conservative and gets a mixed reaction and again does not offer as much to traditionally Democratic voters as other Democratic candidates.

Perhaps the fact that Lieberman is not a serious candidate for the next President shows that American politics is polarized.

David Simmons
01-23-2004, 12:20 PM
I think Roger Moore was right when he described Lieberman as "a moderate Republican" in the Democratic party.

Democrats don't particularly like moderate Republicans, and today's Republicans can't stand them.

Lynn Bodoni
01-23-2004, 12:33 PM
As Jon Stewart said, "Joe Lieberman—he's for people who like Bush, but feel he's just not Jewish enough."

I wouldn't vote for him because:

• There is no way a Jew will win, so I'd be throwing my vote away

• He's too right-wing

• I am sick of hearing how he and God are best pals I really don't care that he's Jewish. I DO care that he's deeply religious, and wants to involve religion in everyone's life.

Being charismatic and confident is NOT good enough for me. I want to vote for a candidate who I feel will represent me. As an atheist and a liberal, I don't think that JL would represent me well.

Airblairxxx
01-23-2004, 12:43 PM
I think Roger Moore was right when he described Lieberman as "a moderate Republican" in the Democratic party.

When did James Bond become so involved in American politics?







;)

burundi
01-23-2004, 12:46 PM
Lynn articulates my feelings well. I don't want to elect any overtly religious candidate who loudly discusses his morals. I don't care if that religion is Christianity, Judaism, Islam, or Rastafarianism. Besides which, Lieberman comes off as a Republican, not a Democrat.

He's probably a fine man personally, but I don't want him as president.

Guinastasia
01-23-2004, 01:34 PM
Why is he even a member of the Democratic party, then?

rjung
01-23-2004, 02:19 PM
Why is he even a member of the Democratic party, then?
Free Nachos at the Friday night get-togethers?

(No, I wouldn't vote for Lieberman either. He's George W. Bush with a different paint job. :p )

Beagle
01-23-2004, 03:45 PM
Let me be perfectly clear about this. There is nothing inherently wrong with a Jewish president. OTOH, to elect a Jewish president right now would create a shitstorm of immense proportions in the ME. It would inflame the Europeans to critical mass, while proving the neo-Nazi "Christians" and Islamists (strange bedfellows) to be "right" -- in their own minds.

Sadly, that's the way I think most people think about it subconsciously. More sadly, they are right.

On the rare occasions I've heard people mention Lieberman they tend to think he's a reasonable guy that can't win in the Democratic party, one, or the general election, two. Getting them to explain why is a bit more tricky. Somehow, with qualifications, his Jewishness always comes up.

He probably should switch parties. The Republicans are doing a much better job of grabbing the center. Religion, despite the lack of grotesque 10 Commandment "Golden Calves" in front of every courthouse, is booming in the US right now. I'm not particularly happy about religion in politics, but there you have it. Similarly, in France for example, the Muslims have been doing a good job of pushing for laws to tangentally uphold sharia. It's not just here.

Me: throw all the prosthelytizing busybodys back in church, synogogue, temple, or mosques where they belong.

The Democrats keep litmus testing moderates out of the party better than the Republicans -- who are doing a pretty good job of it themselves.

How about two more parties? One Democratic Party without all the revolutionary Communist hate-America claptrap. They can all go Green, let's say. Then, we need a Republican Party without the big dose of fundmentalist Christianity.

sibyl
01-23-2004, 04:00 PM
Cause hes a republican who supports censorship, government sponsored religion and the war? :rolleyes:

carnivorousplant
01-23-2004, 04:08 PM
throw all the prosthelytizing busybodys back in ...synogogue,

We don't fo that, Dude. :)

Marley23
01-23-2004, 04:49 PM
Carnivorousplant says
We don't fo that, Dude. :)
But Lieberman does. In fact, a number of Jewish Democrats I know find his very public religiosity off-putting because like the plant-dude says, it's not really in keeping Judaism.

Regarding the Middle East, I would say Lieberman is actually to the RIGHT of Bush on the relevant issues. Bush has at least paid lip service to the two-state solution, said Sharon should give up the settlements, and opposed the wall-building (I think). I'm not aware of Lieberman doing any of that stuff.

Skammer
01-23-2004, 04:54 PM
we need a Republican Party without the big dose of fundmentalist Christianity. If you take the war-mongering, wildlife sanctuary-drilling, deficit-spending, big-corporation-loving Republicans with you, I'll gladly keep the fundamentalist Christian Republicans with me. Can we work something out? :)

David Simmons
01-23-2004, 05:20 PM
When did James Bond become so involved in American politics? ;)

You're right, of course. I obviously meant that other Moore. The guy who wrote Roger And Me about the CEO of General Motors. It was Roger wasn't it? Or am I just stuck on that name for some mysterious reason.

furt
01-23-2004, 05:43 PM
Why isn't he more popular?Because nobody listens to me. (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=4477808&postcount=39)

vanilla
01-24-2004, 07:53 PM
Lynn articulates my feelings well. I don't want to elect any overtly religious candidate who loudly discusses his morals. I don't care if that religion is Christianity, Judaism, Islam, or Rastafarianism. .

A Rasta president would certainly change the marijuana laws!

Guinastasia
01-24-2004, 09:28 PM
He looks too much like Emperor Palpatine ;)

Apparently, you're not alone in that observation. (http://boards.theforce.net/message.asp?topic=14683657)

Beagle
01-24-2004, 11:30 PM
If you take the war-mongering, wildlife sanctuary-drilling, deficit-spending, big-corporation-loving Republicans with you, I'll gladly keep the fundamentalist Christian Republicans with me. Can we work something out? :) War "mongering" -- I'm not really sure what that means. We did overthrow the Taliban and capture Saddam. I'm one of those people that does not consider a brutal regime that kills hundreds of thousands of its own citizens while starting multiple wars "peace". Especially when the first war was never finished and the peace terms were not complied with.

During the Versailles Treaty the French disassembled a factory in the Ruhr Valley of Germany and sent it to France. That was "peace" -- that directly led to war. Similarly, not finishing off Saddam when we had the chance directly and inevitably led to this war.

The UN sanctions regime, and the oil-money-for-French-banks program, along with Saddam's use of food as a weapon (the biggest factor) were killing more people than the freaking war did by a factor of 100.

War isn't the worst thing that can happen in our world. It should be, but it's not.

"wildlife sancutary drilling" I can't comment on that. Well, I can say one thing. The native people that live up there would really like to drill a few wells in a very small area so they can get rich. What, you don't want dark-skinned people to get rich? Just kidding.

"Deficit-spending" You got that right. Bush is big-spending liberal.

How the Democrats plan on building the welfare state without even more spending is a mystery to logical people everywhere. The Ds mostly cut defense spending. That's a big chunk of the budget, granted. OTOH, entitlements are bigger and grow automatically. The Democrats have never met a large bureaucracy that didn't need more money, except the Pentagon.

"Big-corporation-loving" The world would be better off without big corporations? Anyone know a horse I can buy cheap? Wood stove?

A "corporation" is just a business form with limited liability to the shareholders and officers. A "partnership" is also a business form. I always wonder why corporations get the grief. The private ownership of public corporations (stocks) is probably one of the greatest advances in wealth distribution ever invented. Thanks to corporations what Marx said about ownership turns out to be total crap. If you worked for Enron, sorry.

As for fundamentalist Christianity. I'm against turning our courthouses into cathedrals, forcing kids to pray in schools, totally banning abortion, or not allowing gays to get a piece of paper that functions as some kind of "marriage".

Back to Lieberman,

Bottom Line: He sounds too much like Porky Pig. "Be vewy, vewy quiet."

gex gex
01-25-2004, 08:59 AM
"Big-corporation-loving" The world would be better off without big corporations? Anyone know a horse I can buy cheap? Wood stove?
Just because big corporations play a useful role in the modern world doesn't mean they are flawless. And the big corporations of the world certainly don't need government welfare to help them out. They're big enough and rich enough to stand on their own feet.

FabioClone
01-25-2004, 10:31 AM
Lieberman hates violent video games. How can I trust him to command the U.S. armed forces when he doesn't even have the moxie for Grand Theft Auto?

I couldn't bring myself to vote for such a man.

jshore
01-25-2004, 12:59 PM
L
The Democrats keep litmus testing moderates out of the party better than the Republicans

Wow, looks like Beagle is trying out for the Jay Leno show!


How about two more parties? One Democratic Party without all the revolutionary Communist hate-America claptrap.

What world do you live in Beagle? In my world, there is one center party that has everyone from the small left wing through the center right and another party that has the center right through the far right (with the far right dominating). What you seem to be proposing in your over-the-top rhetoric is that we need to move the centrist party to the center right.

Just out of curiosity, have you travelled much outside the U.S?


A "corporation" is just a business form with limited liability to the shareholders and officers. A "partnership" is also a business form. I always wonder why corporations get the grief. The private ownership of public corporations (stocks) is probably one of the greatest advances in wealth distribution ever invented. Thanks to corporations what Marx said about ownership turns out to be total crap. If you worked for Enron, sorry.

Everything in moderation, my friend. What we are complaining about is not the existence of corporations but the stranglehold they have over our political system at the moment.

BTW, you might want to check on some actual statistics of how wealth distribution has evolved in the U.S. over the past 25 years or so.

chappachula
01-25-2004, 01:13 PM
He looks too much like Emperor Palpatine ;)

I think he looks more like Yoda :)

The Flying Dutchman
01-25-2004, 01:32 PM
He doesn't look very good on TV;)

Seriously, Joe Lieberman looks butt-faced ugly. It seems Americans like to have their presidents to be good looking. If you ever see the line up photo of a G7 or G8 conference, the American president is the best looking of the bunch. America always tries to be the best at everything.

Nixon was the exception to the rule, and look what happened to him.

vanilla
01-25-2004, 08:34 PM
Are you referring to ALL presidents?
Cause I doubt Lincoln would've won any beauty contests.
And what of Ford?
You think Carter was handsome?

Marley23
01-25-2004, 09:10 PM
If you mean Americans in the post-TV era, there might be some truth to that. But it's not a unanimous thing. Most found JFK handsome, Bill Clinton too I guess... but then there's Nixon, Ford, Reagan and the Bushes...

ElvisL1ves
01-25-2004, 09:37 PM
There are certainly those who dismiss his policy positions as Bush-without-the-fuckups, but I do think most decisions are made more viscerally. IMHO Lieberman isn't getting out of single digits because he comes across as a whiny, sanctimonious little prick with a sense of entitlement to the nomination from his being the rightful VP.

It hasn't helped a bit that virtually all of his favorable mentions have been mostly from the GOP right, not his own party - he represents policies that have to be defeated, not ratified. He's also the next one to drop out after NH, where he'll be #3 of 3 among New England candidates and will be too short of money or prospects to keep going.

Beagle
01-26-2004, 11:30 AM
Just out of curiosity, have you travelled much outside the U.S?

Everything in moderation, my friend. What we are complaining about is not the existence of corporations but the stranglehold they have over our political system at the moment.

BTW, you might want to check on some actual statistics of how wealth distribution has evolved in the U.S. over the past 25 years or so. You know, it's funny that people ask me that (traveling abroad) all the time. Unlike Democrats who think they understand the Europeans, I actually make an effort to do so. I'm an imperialistic, capitalistic, war-mongering, Jewish conspiracy dupe.

By the way, yes, I've traveled overseas a lot. Mostly the Caribbean, but Europe as well. I worked there for two Summers and traveled a lot. I read a lot of European news. Actually, were they not losing their minds, I would be the most hardcore Europhile you've ever met.

I like Formula 1, manual transmissions, old buildings, medieval history, Roman history, and speaking my rusty, shitty French. Although, I'm learning Spanish as fast as I can.

Yes, I do count the huge Muslim population in France as "Europeans".

Just like my "Chinese" neighbors, my "Puerto Rican" neighbors, my "Indian" neighbors, and my "Pakistani" neighbors are all "Americans".
---
Actually, Bush "loving" big corporations could mean just about anything. That's what I was responding to. Personally, I "love" big corporations that turn a profit, provide jobs, don't rape the environment more than they have to, clean up the mess, and make me lots of neat products that I could never have owned one hundred years ago even if I was Emperor of the World.

As much as globalization sucks for us, China is loving it. Hey, Bush must be a Communist! He's already a fascist war-mongering raper of all things good and pure.

"Wealth distribution."

Funny you mention that. A recent study showed that the average American "poor" person is overweight, has cable television, a car, and a "large" place to live. I'm not going to get into the other issue they raised in the spirit of less international mud-slinging.

One nutty leftist actually said, "How can you measure poverty in material things?" That's almost an exact quote.

I need to find that article.

carnivorousplant
01-26-2004, 12:25 PM
Funny you mention that. A recent study showed that the average American "poor" person is overweight, has cable television, a car, and a "large" place to live.

I find that hard to believe.
Perhaps the study defines "poor" differently.
The homeless who it was feared would die in the recent New England storms come to mind, as well as sharecroppers in the Mississippi Delta.

Beagle
01-26-2004, 03:19 PM
Maybe someone has done a doctoral dissertation on the sharecroppers and their TV watching. I'm having trouble finding the exact article so far. But, as usual with the internet, something interesting comes up. (http://www.scu.edu/ethics/publications/iie/v6n1/homepage.html)

If you don't read the whole article, or base your conclusions on the title, you might draw the wrong conclusions. It's fairly balanced. The U.S. government has set its sights on having just about everything, everywhere linked with everything else through a web-like, high-speed, digital communications system called the National Information Infrastructure (also known as the "national data superhighway"). The National Information Infrastructure has yet to be designed. Several interests are vying to shape its future and the future of information access, including cable television companies, newspaper publishers, telephone companies, cellular phones services, computer makers, and public-interest organizations (e.g., Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility). At the heart of the debate is whether the superhighway should be developed by the government (along the lines of the highway construction projects in the 1950s) or by private interests (e.g., toll roads). Whatever you say about our government, corporations, or interest groups -- they intend to give us "cable television" factorial.

The cooperative decision-making will not impede the actual growth of the infrastructructure at the state or the private level for the most part. That, of course, goes on all the time. So, in our system, the pie-in-the-sky nature of what we are all shooting for is mostly a question of details.

In other nations they are pushing hard for more government control, UN control over, or censor the internet.

Nobody really wants anyone to be poor in the USA. Not at the political level or economic level anyway.

"Rising tide...boats." "Safety net." "Free trade." "Global economy." "No child left behind. Compassionate conservative." Charitible tax deduction. Hard numbers on entitlement spending. Absolute numbers on foreign aid since, say, 1939. Not the tricked-up numbers that punish us for having a large economy.

Whatever. Sometimes the officers of major corporations do, but nobody with brains would, forget that spreading the wealth around is essential for a healthy world economy.

The only way for large corporations to continue to profit, or for start ups to break in, is to compete. Usually this benefits us. Price competition is one of the most essential concepts in economics.

Obviously, government intervention -- especially catching outright corporate con artists -- is essential to any capitalist system. Private and many public monopolies, I'd argue, are bad. To prevent monopolies of any kind you must deal with government. At the very minimum, even in a free-for-all capitalist system, you need a court system. That's government. MOST important of all is for the people, and the government itself, to police the government. That's was "liberal" philosophy. What that word means in a modern context, I have no idea.

The problems with government, I can't list in one lifetime. It's a subject that philosophers have considered for centuries.

This includes, but is not limited to, "large corporations".

Do you see the Republicans or Democrats taking on AARP over a "senior" drug benefit? Hell no, it's a question of how much and just how. Poor young people, though covered by other programs for some medical needs, don't vote. Does anyone really take on the teacher's unions? No. The federal education budget, though dwarfed by already enormous state spending, is growing. Not enough according to some people. That's big government, not large corporate control.

Keep in mind that the "teachers" union consists of a growing, though already enormous, bureaucracy -- some of the members, though less by percentage over time, actually teach.

Who controls the large texbook corporations? The various school boards. There are some great books on that, and the revision of history along the way.

McDonalds, Microsoft, GM, GE -- sure, some of them make bombs and other scary things -- are controlled largely by consumer wants and needs viewed collectively. I'm a firm believer in the personal or organized non-violent boycott. I'm boycotting Mecca Cola and habenero peppers.

The article mentions the right to local phone service for poor people. Many people are unaware that such a thing exists in the USA. The radical version of capitalism some conservatives, even in official postions, sell overseas isn't what we have.

You'll be sorry you asked now. *Government PDF Warning: long, boring, technical.*It's somewhat dated, 1998. I don't think the cable TV industry has suffered substantially since then. (http://www.tprc.org/abstracts98/kieschnick.pdf) Go to page five for an elasticity analysis. Cable TV has been a staple for quite a while. More than food apparently. Moreover, the economic correlations are not as you might think.

The poverty line is fairly high. The objective is not to find the poorest person you can find and generalize, but to look at the "average" poor person in the US. If you've observed the criminal justice system you've seen someone who starved a child while spending thousands of dollars on a controlled substance. That's not really a "poverty" problem.

carnivorousplant, eh?

I really like nepenthes, sarracenia, sundews, and VFTs. I grow some butterworts inside.

elfkin477
01-27-2004, 12:10 AM
I plan to vote for him tomorrow. Of course, I'm a Republican and this is part of an plot to push Kerry's numbers down, but... :D If he by some twist of fate made it to the general election, I'd seriously consider voting for him over Bush. He's a republican, he's just in denial.

Marley23
01-27-2004, 01:57 AM
I plan to vote for him tomorrow. Of course, I'm a Republican and this is part of an plot to push Kerry's numbers down, but... :D
Way to exploit your state's unusual laws. I guess it at least proves some Republicans really are afraid of Kerry.

carnivorousplant
01-27-2004, 07:29 AM
Way to exploit your state's unusual laws. I guess it at least proves some Republicans really are afraid of Kerry.

I have voted in the Republican primary against our fat arsed nepotistic gift-receiving Governor. I always thought it had something to do with the Republicans not being able to have a list of Democrats to round up under martial law. :)

Marley23
01-28-2004, 01:19 AM
What's with Lieberman saying he was in a "three-way tie" for third tonight? With 97% of the votes in, it's

Wesley Clark 26,554 12.4%
John Edwards 25,849 12.1%
Joseph Lieberman 18,392 8.6%

:confused: He's behind by 3.5% and 7500 votes. That's not third, it's fifth. Although on CNN, Bill Schneider says Lieberman came in third... among New Hampshire's Jewish voters.

I know, I know, he's trying. Anyway, people are apparently already calling for him to quit; he says he's in until at least next week. (I tried not to laugh as CNN said he was running very strong in Delaware.) As a more serious analysis: it seems that skipping Iowa hurt Clark and Lieberman, especially Clark because he was an early favorite.

Amok
01-28-2004, 12:36 PM
Why is he even a member of the Democratic party, then?

Why wouldn't he be? Any reasonable examination of the man's positions shows that's he's in the mainstream of the Democratic party on many issues. If you look at the grading of his legislative record by various special interest groups, Planned Parenthood and League of Conservation Voters gave him 100%. The NAACP and The Children's Defense Fund both gave him a 91%. The Coalition to Stop Gun Violence scored him at 90%. Meanwhile, the NRA gave him a "F", the National Right to Life Committee gave him a 0%, the Business-Industry Political Action Committee (a "welfare reform" advocacy group) gave him a 0%, and a "taxpayers rights" group, Americans for Tax Reform, gave him a 5%. I browsed his positions on healthcare, education and Social Security, and he seemed firmly in the Democratic mainstream on those too. I would say that he's not a hardcore union supporter (even though the AFL-CIO has graded him with a lifetime score of 82%, and scored his voting in 2002 at 92%) in that he is a supporter of Free Trade, but that is true of Clinton and a lot of recent Democrats as well. So, all that makes him a Republican or the equivalent of President Bush?

He gets painted as being practically a Republican because most of his opponents in the Democratic primary hold similar views as above, while Lieberman's differences, and the things he's gotten in the national news about, are his more rightish views: e.g. the importance of religion, his support for the war, and his crusade against "media violence". None of which seem to be very popular with Democratic supporters on the Internet. But referring to him as a Republican is hyperbole at best. He's pro-choice, firmly in the Democratic party on fiscal and social-welfare issues, and has a few cultural issues (plus however you'd classify Iraq) where he's to the right of the Democratic mainstream. And those few issues are essentionally all that gets covered. So, hey, he should just go and join the Republicans, I'm sure they'd love having someone who would probably vote against their issues around 80% or so of the time.

David Simmons
01-28-2004, 01:10 PM
... So, all that makes him a Republican or the equivalent of President Bush?


A moderate Republican, certainly not like GW. There isn't a lot of difference between them and moderate Democrats.

I think that Democrats think he can't be elected and I think that's right. As long as GW keeps insisting that "we are in a war" and it is accepted by the people, they will need a good reason not to reelect GW and Lieberman doesn't supply any good reason. Incumbents get a lot of automatic support in troubled times even though their actions might have been a big factor in originating the trouble.

Moderaties don't generate a lot of heat which is needed to convince undecideds that they should throw GW out and go through the learning curve with a new administration at such a critical time.

An Arky
01-29-2004, 06:54 AM
[Johnny Rotten]

" 'e looks loyke a turtle"

[/Johnny Rotten]

Seriously, I think his Yoda-ness has a lot to do with it.

Fear Itself
01-30-2004, 07:18 AM
Seriously, I think his Yoda-ness has a lot to do with it.Yoda? Surely you mean Senator Palpatine (http://www.theforce.net/humor/pics/palpatine_lieberman.jpg)?