I actually heard people saying that Lieberman was a “front-runner” now that Gore dropped out. They can’t be serious. He’ll never be elected, and it would be a disaster if he did.
A Jewish president ruins any hint of impartiality we might hope to have in brokering a Mideast peace deal. It doesn’t matter whether Lieberman would actually favor Israel, it matters that the rest of that region will perceive him as doing so, and respond accordingly. It would undermine any action we took in that entire region.
If the USA has a Jewish president, it will invite further terrorism. We will be associated even more strongly with Israel than we are now, in the minds of would-be terrorists. What better way to act out their violent fundamentalism then to attack a nation they would perceive as being under control by Jews? Some of them actually think that now, can you imagine how worse it would be if we had President Lieberman? They’ll hate us more than ever. We might as well paint a target around the Washington monument.
Heck, it wouldn’t surprise me if somebody tried to assassinate him. Perhaps violent Islamic groups in the US, if the Klan didn’t do it first. IMHO, he’d be crazy to even want to be President, considering that risk.
Just because the religion of a Presidential candidate doesn’t really matter to us “enlightened” people, doesn’t mean we can ignore the realities of this world we live in. This is a dangerous time for our country, and for our future. While everyone sits around worrying about US policy upsetting the Western democracies of Europe, perhaps we should worry about upsetting the people who are actively trying to blow the crap out of us. They hate us, they’re armed to the teeth, they’re willing to die to harm us…perhaps we should try not to piss them off.
If we refuse to elect a Jewish president*, then the terrorists will have already won!
I’m not actually really kidding. All other things being equal, if he–or she*–is, in fact, in the judgement of the voters, the best man for the job, etc.
**Yeah, let’s really screw with the Taliban, sez I!
We aren’t impartial in the middle east. We are allies of Israel. Everyone knows this, everyone understands this. They may HATE us for being allied to Israel, but they don’t think we’re impartial.
If some terrorist hates us because we support Israel, is he going to double-hate us because we have a Jewish president? That’s like arguing that we can’t elect a woman president, because all the macho Latin American countries wouldn’t respect us any more, being pussy-whipped and all.
People try to assassinate our Jewish president? So? Let’s track em down and get revenge. Really, the death of a president isn’t such a big deal. The country will survive. There are no irreplaceable men (or women). We’ve elected presidents in very poor health. Sometimes they die in office. The Vice President takes over. It’s all part of the circle of life…
In short, if they don’t like our Jew president they can go to heck.
You supose to let terrorists and anti American groups dictate how America runs her elections?
“No, no, there is’t an earthquake in Virginia. it’s just all the soldiers rolling over in their graves 'cus the US has turned into a mass of puss-like substance.”
So, we should let fear of terrorists dictate our whole electoral process? “Better not elect a Jew, 'cause it might piss off Al Qaeda?” They’re already pissed off, aren’t they? And where does it stop, if we start letting other people’s opinions dictate our choice of president? “Better not elect a Muslim, it might piss off Israel.” “Better not elect a Serb, it might piss off the Muslims.”
“Better not elect a Jew, the KKK might try to assassinate him”? There are no guarantees that some nutcase isn’t going to try to kill any president we elect.
What Buckner said. Geez. :rolleyes:
A Christian president will destroy any hint of “impartiality” that we have in the Middle East, or elsewhere in the world. We may find ourselves favoring historically Christian nations such as the UK, Canada, and Poland over historically Muslim countries such as Iraq, Libya, and Iran. Christians are prone to, at times innocently, saying things that antagonize the Muslim world. A Christian president might invoke the Crusades for instance, when fighting Muslim fundamentalists. This creates the potential for incredible misunderstandings between the United States and the Islamic world.
If the United States elects a Christian president we will invite greater terrorism. Our president, by definition, will be an “infidel” in the eyes of Muslim extremists throughout the world. Our government will be percieved as promoting one religion at the expense of all others. For instance Christmas and Easter will become “national holidays” while other religion’s holidays will be consigned to the “notify two weeks in advance” category.
A Christian president will be the target of all sorts of extremists. Perhaps a radical Muslim will take a whack at him. And furthermore, what if the president is the wrong kind of Christian. If we have a Roman Catholic president, we might as well invite a thousand armed Ulster Orangemen to parade down Pennsylvania Avenue. If he is Eastern Orthodox, we may piss of Croatia or Bosnia. if he is a Protestant, the IRA will be gunning for him - if some Opus Dei nut doesn’t do it first. Either way, we can’t win.
Americans, I implore you, do not vote for a Christian president.
Well, part of this goes along with my previously stated position that we should abandon Israel as an ally, to reduce trouble with these Islamic extremists. Of course we’re not impartial completely right now, but I’d rather we moved towards that end. Electing a Jewish president might make that impossible, because the Islamic world will never trust us.
And yeah, DDG, I don’t want to piss off people who might explode a nuclear device in an American city. Over time, we can make them less pissed off at us, with policy changes. The last thing we want is to do something (elect a Jewish president) that convinces them we’re really out to get them, gets their rank-and-file membership really angry at us, and brings on worse disaster.
We need to be thinking about how to save American lives.
Don’t you all get it? The terrorists have won, and their victory was inevitable. Their “win” was to make us realize that they can and will do whatever they want to us, because we can’t maintain a free state while simultaneously taking the measures required to suppress all violent terrorism. Our objective must be to show them we are no longer a threat to them, that we will not interfere with them any longer. Appeasement doesn’t always end up like it did with Hitler. Sometimes you let somebody get what he wants, and he finds out that even if he personally wants more, his followers are satisfied. Appeasement is not a bad thing necessarily.
It’s not about who we favor, it’s about who we’re perceived as favoring. They don’t seem to hate Christians as much as they hate Jews. Our Christian presidents do say inflammatory things sometimes, and they ought to tone that down. However it does not appear that the mere fact that they’re Christian upsets anyone. I think the mere fact that a President was Jewish would be enough, no matter what he said, to anger the Islamic world. Some of them have spent years hating the Jews, fighting the Jews, watching friends die in that struggle.
Again, this doesn’t seem to be the source of any international anger. Being an “infidel” probably isn’t enough to convince people it’s worth dying to attack that nation. Being identified with Israel just might be, for the reasons I mention above.
The Ulster Orangemen aren’t going to do that, because we aren’t actively supporting their enemy. If we’d spent the last 50 years supporting the IRA, perhaps it would be different. But it isn’t that way. We know the Islamic extremists are willing to go so far as to die in attacking us, in killing US civilians. We don’t know that Northern Ireland Anglicans have any such desire. And they haven’t done anything yet, so likely they won’t.
RexDart, I am old enough to remember my parents using similar but anti-Catholic statements against John Kennedy in 1959 and '60, but the people did elect him. So I wouldn’t be surprised if we someday elect a Jew.
I imagine it is not impossible that a Muslim will someday make it.
Those Baptists, though…They scare the heck out of me.
The Baptists scare me too, TV Time. The difference with Kennedy is that, at that time, the concerns were about him and his actions. Those concerns ended up groundless. I’m not questioning Lieberman’s own actions, and not suggesting in this thread that he would act with a dual loyalty to our nation and to Israel. I don’t know the answer to those questions. I’m suggesting that things outside of his control, the reactions of the Islamic world, are the danger.
Meaning that more people voted for Gore than for Bush nationwide. Get a Jewish president and foreigners will know that he wasn’t the choice of the majority.
Benjamin Disraeli was a hell of a statemen, a great leader and reformer and all that…but he didn’t face the situation we do today, in which the religion of the leader could have tangibly bad repercussions not originating from the leader’s actions.
Relax, I was just being facetious about the democratic process, not Jews. But now you mention it, I very much doubt that a Jew would win the popular vote any time in the foreseeable. Although more likely than an Afro American or Woman.
Relax, I was just being facetious about the democratic process, not Jews. But now you mention it, I very much doubt that a Jew would win the popular vote any time in the foreseeable. Although more likely than an Afro American or Woman.