Man, I’d vote Green in a second if there weren’t probable Supreme Court justices to appoint next term. I think Gore and Bush are the same candidate, virtually. I just think when it comes to the Supreme Court, I don’t want 30 years of anti-abortion, school-prayer, gun-rights, no-health-care justices.
[sarcasm]
I’m happy with Lieberman, though. Being a Jew, I welcome the endgame of the consolidation of power of the World Zionist Conspiracy. We own the media, the banks, and a few nukes. Now, we go for the last remaining superpower. Note to self, must fire off email to Elders of Zion.
[/sarcasm]
Not only that, but it will help put the lie to the Republicans’ claims of inclusion when, mark my words, Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, or one of their ilk makes disparaging remarks about him based on his religion.
I would be extremely surprised if any evangelical types made disparaging comments over Leiberman because of his being an Orthodox Jew. The evangelical movement has always been one of Israel’s biggest supporters, and extremely respectful of Jewish tradition and beliefs.
Conservative Protestantism and Evangelicals do have their conflicts with secular Jews (as opposed to Judaism). I’m talking about the “Hollywood Jew”, or the “ACLU lawyer Jew” who many Christians see (rightly of wrongly) as antangonistic to fundamental beliefs or expression of same.
The religious Jew is not lumped in the same category. In fact, as I mentioned above, many fundamental/conservatiive Christians consider Jews to be God’s chosen people, and any Jew that honors this by means of sincere belief and worship is held in the highest regard. Christians aknowledge that God made a sacred covenant with His people. Of course, these Christians also believe in the “New Covenant” and may try to convert Jews into it; but that does not obviate respect and even admiration.
Gore watche d the Republican convention and hsaw that they were going to pound on the “respectability in office drum” and try to connect Gore with Clinton. Gore’s choice was a reaction to this. By choosing a guy who made some strong statements about Clinton, be is trying to diffuse the republican charge.
And it is this that scares me. I do not want a leader that makes decisions based on polls and what will look best. I would have been very disappointed if Bush chose Powell, which would have been an analogous situation. But instead he chose someone based on his credentials and not how it would play in the polls.
But Does the VP even matter in the long run? It is the pres that runs the show. Vote for him.
Trutyh be told, Bush comes across as much more down to earth and likeable. A good chunk of his family is hispanic, and his running mate has a gay daughter. You dems can call the republicans disingenuous all you want, but they are coming across awfully darn good. It is the good ol’ boy and the westerner vs. the wooden man and the northeast Jew.
I checked into his voting record. How he got the label “right leaning” is beyond me. Now being a little closer to the center line might be a fairer statement. But even then according to the site I looked into he voted pretty much party line most of the time. Usually 100% on issues like abortion and his environmental record looks pretty solid too. Think he got the label when he was the first to speak out against Clinton’s unprofessional behavior. And then there is the rating/warning label subject. Which people like to call “anti-1st Amendment”, pure crap really, since he is not advocating censorship at all. Just thinks people should know the contents of what they or their children are buying. Seems to me that it isn’t much different than nutritional labels on food products. Everyone wants to know how much fat, sodium and sugar they are eating. No reason why parents shouldn’t know how much sex and violence is in the media their children are consuming.
As for the Jewish thing, I think it’s a damned shame that in the 2000 election that is almost the ONLY thing anyone has very much to say about in regards to this man.
For me personally Gore has made a very good move with this choice. I think it shows he’s a little bit more astute than I originally thought. Although I don’t think the Democrats have a snowballs chance in hell of winning this election no matter who runs.
well, Newt was pretty damn pissed that the Grand Old party didn’t come out spewing his particular form of vitriol…but what makes Newt unhappy should make the Dems happy. funny to see him agreeing with them re: the GOP.
THe GOP just can’t win though. If they come out in favor of diversity, they are called liars, if they don’t support it, they are called demons. Personally, I like the direction the party is heading: softer on social causes, same hard line on fiscal policy.
I am sure that the Dems wish that the GOP was thumping bibles, screaming about abortion and condemning non-whites with Buchanan as a VP.
To be fair, Mr. Z., the GOP can “come out in favor of diversity” all it wants, but the facts are that the composition of GOP delegates and voters does not even remotely resemble what was shown on the stage (although they may genuinely be making outreach efforts), and that the GOP platform, which is the official philosophical position of the party, calls for tough restrictions on abortion and a ban on gay marriages and gays in the military. If they are currently committed to diversity, why did the party chairman tell Kweisi Mfume of the NAACP that he couldn’t speak at the convention, but he’d gladly let him sit in his box? I’m sure he thought it would look good on TV to have the leader of the NAACP in his box.
The party can say whatever it wants, but I’d like to see them put their money where their mouth is. If they are genuinely interested in a more diverse membership and a more open social platform, more power to them. I suspect, however, that just like all Presidential candidates, they are succumbing to expediency to lure swing voters.
If the GOP were so interested in softening up on social causes, then why did the entire Texas delegation turn their heads down and pray for Jim Kolbe when he gave his talk on trade? Once again, all of the color on stage looked great for the camera, but that’s not where the party’s core is.
I’m sure the GOP would prefer democrats to be bleeding heart tax-and-spend wastrels. But it’s pretty obvious that the dem ticket is damned business-friendly.
You have to start somewhere. Maybe the composition of the delegates isn’t what was shown on stage, but changes aren’t going to happen overnight. Give it some time before you start bashing them.
As for the “entire Texas delegation” praying during Kolbe’s speech…sigh…it wasn’t the entire delegation, but it was pretty damn embarassing as a native Texan to see such an asinine display of holier-than-thou preachyness.
Umm, also, the moral mafia does not make up the entire GOP. Remember, as gay as Kolbe is, he is a member after all.
Anyhow, I’m voting for Harry Browne and Art Olivier, screw the rest. Especially Nader.
pld: polls have shown that about 75% of americans are pro-abortion. Since the number of Dems is under 75% I would say that a lot of Repubs are pro abortion. Besides, I don’t see what abortion has to do with things like education and inclusion.
As for gays in the military, I think that one can be pro diversity and still think that this is a bad idea.
And Mfume, my god man, why on earth would they let him talk? would the Dems let Buchanan rant and rave on their stage?
But it is really a matter of what you believe about the party. I happen to think that the GOP convention matched not only my form of republicanism, but that of my friends and family. I think that the more moderate platform reflects the majority of republicans. And Cheney is certainly in line with the philosophy.
On the other hand, Leiberman is clearly a ploy to attract a specific set of voters. I think it reflects the ClintonGore tendency to decide by poll. And I think that it was a bad choice. Lieberman is going to go over like Dukakis.
I too like this more moderate and centered tone to the GOP.
“Compassionate Conservatism” is a concept long overdue.
If it weren’t for the Supreme Court picks coming available in the near future, though, I think the American voter should get to see this “moderate position” reflected among the voting record of GOP legislators in Congress, to prove that it simply isn’t a catchy “sound bite” slogan. Let’s see the GOP put its money where its mouth is.
Heck, you test-drive a car before you buy it, right? So we should kick the tires, light the fires and take this puppy for a spin on the freeway to see if she lives up to her press. Alas, we waited too long.
As for the “Moral Mafia”: Go to hell. Church and State are two separate entities, neither of which has any business being anywhere near the other. Teach math in school, morals in Sunday school.
So why is the platform specifically anti-abortion?
Right. “You homos are OK in my book, as long as you don’t want to serve your country or get married or anything.” Terribly inclusive, that. :rolleyes: “Gays, join the GOP–The Party That Fights AGAINST Your Civil Rights!”
I don’t know. Why did Mfume allow George W. Bush to speak to the NAACP? Why would they want him at the convention, in the party chairman’s box, but not on the stage?
Also, please don’t base any arguments on the supposition that I’m voting for Gore/Lieberman, or throw up other Democrat red herrings, because I’m not.
No. Demise, it doesn’t work that way. I am not going to give them the benefit of the doubt when they parade their so-called inclusion on stage during a perfectly scripted convention. Look at the GOP voting record. If it were so concerned about diversity, it would be reflected in social policy, not in pre-election rhetoric. Compassionate conservatism has been a sound bite for months, so why hasn’t anyone actually done anything about it?
Mea maxima culpa.
At least they weren’t lying like the rest of the GOP.
So? The moral mafia represents the most vocal part of the GOP. They give money, they make noise, and dammit they all vote. And yes, Kolbe is a member. But he is also the only openly gay member. He and J.C. Watts sound more like the exception than the rule.
A number of things have happened since I last entered this thread. Picking one…
Saying that Lieberman typically votes with the party doesn’t really address how different Gore and Lieberman really are. Noone cares if you vote together 99% of the time if the 1% where you disagree are big ticket (platform) issues.
Look at the big ticket items. Clearly Lieberman does nothing to define the ticket.
Hell, in his first live, on-air interview Lieberman wasn’t allowed his own venue. Gore accompanied him and explained Lieberman’s every remark. I think that the good Senator MUST be having second thoughts by now.
Of course a convention is “scripted.” What do you expect them to do, ad-lib? I bet the Democrats have their speeches all planned out, photo-ops set, etc… This is hardly unusual or a worthy bone to pick.
According to your standards, the Republicans are in a no-win situation. You castigate them for having an inclusive convention. Of course, if the stage was occupied by 90% white males, you’d castigate them for that, too.
Your last statement is the one that seems to continually pop up from those who believe that the only way to create diversity is from government mandate. I respect that this is your position, but I get griped when a person won’t even admit that a different path to a similar end just may exist.
“Republicans are against affirmative action; therefore, they are against black people.” No, No, No! Can’t Republicans be ‘for’ minorities in such a way that avoids government social engineering or throwing around money and new programs? How about “Republicans are committed to diversity by rewarding people no matter what their skin color.” How about “Republicans believe the best way to empower minorites is to encourage self-reliance, ownership of private property, and creation of capital through small (or even large) businesses.”
How about “Republicans believe a huge stigma is created through programs in which favoritism or the apperance of favoritism can cast doubts as to the actual accomplishments of an individual.” How about “Republicans believe that governmentally scripted ‘social policy’ can be patronizing and debilitating in the long run (despite the appearance of short-term benefit), for the very people it purports to help.”
This is not just pre-convention rhetoric. These are actual beliefs that aim to help the very people you accuse the Republicans for stepping on.
You may not like the GOP voting record. Fair enough. But don’t try to convince yourself or others that Democrats have the market on compassion just because you can’t see the many ways in which Republicans desire similar goals, though by vastly different means.
Think about all of the civil rights reforms that have taken place in the last 40 years. Affirmative action in its many forms is but ONE of the things that the Democrats brought to this country.
Well MOST of this country. Remember also that the U.S. House and Senate were controlled by the Democratic Party through most of these 40 years and chose to explicitly exempt the House and Senate from having to abide by the law.
Republicans haven’t approached “inclusion” in a way that is pleasing to you. The Democrat’s method of “inclusion” was to keep the minorities out of their way.