Or is he too much like Bush? Or perhaps the parties are actually close enough together that there is no great distinction.
He’s too much like Bush for my vote.
I think he’s kind of annoying little weenie, and he’s too socialy conservative for me. It might be interesting to elect our first Jewish POTUS, though, especially after four years of Jesus W Bush.
He is far to much of a social conservative to get my vote.
I don’t know of anyone who is representative of the Democratic Party all by himself.
The man strikes me (on first impression) as having the moral backbone and fiber of a jellyfish.
Who would be representative of the Democratic party? Joe Isuzu!
Ugh, I hope he’s not representative. He did far too much bible-thumpin’ for my taste in 2000 (or Torah thumpin’, whatever).
I think he’s VERY representative of mainstream Democratic voters. However, mainstream Democratic voters aren’t the ones who turn up in droves during the primaries. *
So, I think he’d be a very formidable candidate against Bush in the general election… but I don’t think he stands a very strong chance of winning the nomination.
- Yes, I know, this cuts both ways- many moderate Republicans who’d stand a decent chance of winning the general election wouldn’t have a prayer of winning the nomination. The highly-motivated Right controls the Republican primaries, just as the highly-motivated Left controls the Democratic primaries.
Lieberman is more representative of the Republican Party, nominally the opposition, than his own. He always blames Hollywood for the decline in America’s moral fiber, he can’t stop talking about god, he’s pro-life, pro-death penalty (I realize this isn’t uncommon) and very pro-war. In short, I’d say if he was a Methodist instead of a Jew, he’d fit in perfectly with anybody across the aisle. He’s not representative of the mainstream Democratic party, and I’ve never heard anyone say so. He’s about as conservative a Democrat as you’ll ever see by anyone’s estimation.
At the moment, that may be his chief selling point as a candidate. He hasn’t deviated from Bush about anything, so he can’t be criticized as anti-war/unpatriotic, and he supports going after other Arab countries (especially Iran) in the interest of national security. I imagine some feel he’d take away mainstream Republican votes from Bush, but I think a lot of Democrats would shy away from his very religious conservatism. Republicans would probably drool over a Bush/Lieberman race, I think they’d get what they want no matter who won.
Lieberman is more representative of the Republican Party, nominally the opposition, than his own. He always blames Hollywood for the decline in America’s moral fiber, he can’t stop talking about god, he’s pro-life, pro-death penalty (I realize this isn’t uncommon) and very pro-war. In short, I’d say if he was a Methodist instead of a Jew, he’d fit in perfectly with anybody across the aisle. He’s not representative of the mainstream Democratic party, and I’ve never heard anyone say so. He’s about as conservative a Democrat as you’ll ever see by anyone’s estimation.
At the moment, that may be his chief selling point as a candidate. He hasn’t deviated from Bush about anything, so he can’t be criticized as anti-war/unpatriotic, and he supports going after other Arab countries (especially Iran) in the interest of national security. I imagine some feel he’d take away mainstream Republican votes from Bush, but I think a lot of Democrats would shy away from his very religious conservatism. Republicans would probably drool over a Bush/Lieberman race, I think they’d get what they want no matter who won.
By the way, if the “highly motivated left” controlled the Democratic primaries, the last two Democratic candidates wouldn’t have been Clinton and Gore. The motivated right is far more organized and unified; their counterparts on the left are far more ideologically diverse.
Clinton won by default because most of the candidates the left WANTED to back (Mario Cuomo, for instance) looked at George H.W. Bush’s post-war poll numbers and chickened out. In the end, the Democrats were stuck with two SEEMINGLY unappealing candidates (Clinton and Tsongas) and got lucky.
And while Clinton certainly didn’t govern from the far left, there’s little question that the far left was thrilled when he won. They convinced themselves, if only for a moment, that he was one of them.
I was too young at the time, so I can’t say that didn’t happen. But I remember him running rather hard on the idea that he was NOT a liberal, since that was used pretty much as a swearword against him. He was fiscally conservative and socially - um, social policy that is - not that liberal either. Could’ve happened, but it would’ve been rather stupid if it did.
Not at all. The average Democrat is socially liberal and fiscally conservative. That’s why someone like McCain can appeal so easily to the “enemy”.
I would not vote for Lieberman, but more importantly, I think that in general, the Dems need someone who is more of a fighter. I’m convinced that Bush could easily be demolished in debates by someone who really knows the facts AND knows how to make an argument (Gore had the former down, but missed the latter). Lieberman strikes me as being not forceful enough and too similar to Bush, and therefore a poor choice for a candidate.
-Andrew L