Didn’t he have a lot to do with watering down corporate accounting standards? That’s the wrong place for him to have strong centrist credentials right now.
He does indeed have the charisma of jell-o. Compared to Leiberman, Gephardt is almost charismatic.
No, I don’t think Leiberman has much of a shot for the nomination in 2004. I’d vote for him against Bush, but I’ll vote for the Dem nominee against Dubya, no matter who he is. (Yeah, I know Sharpton’s running, but he fortunately doesn’t have a prayer of being the nominee, so that’s no impediment.)
That’s exactly my problem with Lieberman running at all. Just the fact that he’s “better than Bush” (which I agree with) isn’t good enough. Lieberman represents more of the same to me, and I don’t think he has the wherewithal to oust Bush in 2004.
I forget who said it (it may have been on The West Wing), but this is looking like another case of the voters beign asked to vote for “the lesser of ‘Who cares?’”… it’s a compromise which I abhor. I don’t vote for a party or a general ideology, I vote for an individual. I vote for what kind of leader I think he or she is, and what he or she stands for. So far, Lieberman and I disagree on many points… media and censorship being one of them. But more than that, I think he’s a generally weak candidate. His debates with Cheney in 2000 showed him to be wishy-washy, and his political battles since have not improved my opinion of him at all. He may or may not earn the Democratic nomination (hard to tell at this point, I’d give it 50/50), but he certainly hasn’t earned my vote yet.
And if the Democrats honestly believe that Lieberman is the best they can do, then they’ve lost all my respect along with my vote.
This is the reason voter turnout is low – because the parties offer these whitewashed, lowest common denominator candidates that don’t really appeal all that much to anyone, except in a “He’s better than ______” sense.
My solemn wish for 2004 is one of two things. Either John McCain runs as an independent, or Colin Powell gets out from under Dubya’s shoe and runs as whatever he likes. Either man would get my vote before anyone else I’ve seen in the running, and what’s more, I think either actually has a chance of winning. Particularly Powell… not that I think it will happen, but I can hope, I guess.
With Al Gore out of the way, I have to believe that if he stepped into this race, he’d instantly be one of the front-runners. And he has the sort of stature and credibility that most of these guys lack.
I don’t know what alternative universe you’re in, Riboflavin, but the interparty divide is hardly superficial. It may have been so once, but nowadays the typical Republican and Democratic Congressperson will disagree on most issues of any consequence.
There has never been a sillier time in American history to “vote the man, not the party” at the national level, because which party is in control determines pretty much everything these days.
OK, why do you agree that he’s better than Bush? I’m trying to understand what people see in him, and so far it appears that his only selling point over Bush is a “D” on the team jersey, or maybe that his name is different.
I can’t speak for others, but for me, Lieberman has a somewhat better grasp on many issues than Bush has. He is more intelligent (a definite plus), and can at least string a coherent senetence together without stumbling over his tongue.
It has nothing to do with his team jersey… I’ve just seen ample evidence that Lieberman is at least smarter and better-spoken than Bush, which makes him “better” in my eyes. Probably not enough to get my vote, though.
And RTFirefly, the “voting the party” argument is one I’ve heard often in the last several years. However, when the party can’t decide what it stands for for longer than six months, and doesn’t seem to have a solid platform at all, then how can I possibly vote for the party? Also, it’s the Presidential candidate we’re talking about here, not the whole of Congress.
Sorry, when the party’s platform is shaky at best, it leaves me no choice but to vote based on the merits (or lack thereof) of individual candidates. Your logic fails.
No - Ashcroft is a member of the winning party. And of course, he isn’t running for President, which was the topic under debate.
If you folks think of Lieberman as a conservative, the Republicans have the White House locked up for the next twenty years.
And we see another of the problems with Democrats. People hear you all raving about how extremist and evil Republicans are tearing up the Constitution, starving children, etc., etc. Then they look at what is really happening in the country, and giggle and vote Republican.
Nobody is going to vote for Chicken Little unless the sky is really falling.
Perhaps. Or perhaps the center isn’t where you think it is. I have seen no indication that Pelosi et al. have any idea where Joe Sixpack thinks the center lies.
Back in the good ol’ days, of peace and prosperity, the Pubbies had a hard time coming up with a candidate to take on the BigDog. He looked too solid, but they managed to talk poor ol’ Bob Dole into falling on his sword. The only chance they had was if Bill was caught in bed with a live boy or a dead woman. In truth, I was kinda holding by breath on that one.
But now, looks like every Dem and his cousin wants a crack at GeeDubya. Whos cooking up a monster deficit. Who has determined that the rich have won the “class war” and is ordering the poor to pay reparations. Who seems determined to drag us into a war that the rest of the world regards as pure cowboy. Maybe they’re on to something? Politics is what they do, after all. Oh, and check out Drudge. Five point drop for GeeDubya in one week. At that rate, he’d be lucky to beat Carrot Top.
But Shodan skips merrily along, humming a happy tune. And those big ugly birds circling overhead? Why, the bluebirds of happiness, of course!
LOL, and you are probably right. Dole was a weak candidate, and ran a bad campaign. Not to mention that Clinton was a master of triangulation.
Hell, yes, as soon as Gore dropped out. Again, the Dems were pinning their hopes to the past - having convinced themselves that the Supreme Court stole the election from them, they figured Gore was going to sail thru this time. For the same reason, they convinced themselves that they were going to win the 2002 elections big-time, because of all that stored up resentment against Bush and Co. Didn’t exactly work out that way, did it?
But by all means, run in 2004 on the same sort of platform as you did in 2000 and 2002. Insanity is doing the same thing over and over, and expecting different results. Insanity, or Democratic politics.
Of course it’s early days yet, and the 2004 election is a year and a half out. A lot can happen. But Iraq will be done with by then, and Dems can’t point to North Korea without a lot of embarassing questions about who brokered the sucker deal of 1994, and the economy will have recovered by then, so that Bush can take credit for it.
Nope, that’s the famous American turkey buzzard! Trouble is, he has gotten used mostly to Democrat over the last few years.
Shodan, maybe you’ve forgotten that OUR PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE GOT MORE VOTES LAST ELECTION?
If you want to build an argument around Democrats not knowing how to play the game, fine. But when you talk about where the “public” is on issues, we got more votes in the last presidential election. The fellow in power is there through a quirk of the system. So quit pretending that the populace is behind Republican positions.
I find it telling that the people who support Liebermann’s candidacy most in this thread are Republicans who say they’d vote for him if they had to vote for a Democrat. Last I checked, nobody has to vote for a Democrat – anyone who likes Liebermann better than (say) Edwards is probably gonna like Bush better than Liebermann.
If Liebermann wins the nomination, I’ll have to think long and hard about whether to flush my vote down the toilet with a vote for an independent candidate.
But I don’t think he’ll win, for the following reasons:
He’s not a Southerner. Neither was Mondale or Dukakis, and they both lost. Carter and Clinton were Southerners, and they both won. I think the Democratic party has its own Southern Strategy.
He’s got no personality.
Some Democrats, at least, have learned the Nader Lesson (disenfranchise the progressives and you’ll lose enough of them to cost you the election) and the 2002 Lesson (follow the Republicans’ lead, and the Republicans will be the leaders). Pelosi was elected for a reason.
My prediction is that Edwards will be our candidate and will give Bush a very strong race. He’ll win the debates (he’s a trial lawyer, ferchrissakes). But he may not articulate strong positions. He may not ignite a fire in people.
If the voter turnout is strong in 2004, Edwards will win. If it’s weak, Bush will win.
Sorry, I was away. Did not want to look like a drive-by.
I certainly overstated my case. I just expect more in GB than pure insult which is all repulsive,stupid and shallow is without anything else there to support it. I also find the “I used to be a Democrat” line a little tired.
I apologize though lout for putting it so poorly and probably insulting you. I should know not to post after a couple of beers.
And perhaps you’re forgetting that YOUR CANDIDATE got ONLY A FEW HUNDRED THOUSAND MORE VOTES running as a MEMBER OF THE INCUMBENT ADMINISTRATION coming off EIGHT YEARS OF PEACE AND PROSPERITY against SOMEBODY WHO HAD CONSIDERABLY LESS EXPERIENCE.
I will agree with your prediction that Edwards will win the nomination, because the Dems will continue to believe that what the people want is a good, liberal candidate to raise taxes, balk at war, and perpetuate the nanny state. The 2002 elections were just bad luck, of course.
I further predict that if either the economy improves, or we’re successful in Iraq, Bush will win by a comfortable margin. If both happen, Edwards will be the Dole of '04. If neither happen, then the election will be a toss-up, as a result of voter apathy, with a slight edge for Edwards. However, the odds of both the economy continuing to stagnate for another two years AND for us to fail in Iraq are pretty small.
If I were a bookie, I’d give Edwards 8:1 odds.
Jeff
. No, I have not. But the best thing in the world for Democrats would be if they forgot.
Because it doesn’t matter. Bush won the election - fair and square. His party won the 2002 elections - fair and square.
Keep rehashing the fact that we do not elect a President by strict popular vote, and people will dig out their Sore-Loserman pins again. And vote Republican. Again.
Nixon didn’t win the White House by endlessly rehashing the 1960 election.
For some of us, politics is about issues rather than electability. That’s essentially what’s wrong with voing for Republican Lite for me. What’s the point of giving someone political power if they’re not an improvement over the opposition?
I’m from Connecticut and Lieberman is our junior Senator.I voted for him in his last 2 senatorial campaigns but never again.In 2000 he ran for VP and reelection to his senate seat because the law didn’t say he could not.I would have had much more respect for him if he had resigned his seat to concentrate fully on his national campaign.In an unpublished letter I wrote to the Hartford Courant(the only statewide paper here) I said the junior US Senate seat from Connecticut should not be the consolation prize for a failed national campaign.Funny,they didn’t print it.I will also remember his speech announcing he would accept the VP nomination.He said,in this order ,he had to do what was best for the Democratic party,the state and the nation.What is best for the Democratic Party is not always best for the nation.I don’t think he has a chance nationwide.
Anyone else watch The Daily Show tonight? Reporter (sic) Stephen Colbert came up with the dream ticket: Sharpton/Lieberman. He figures that combination could get crushed worse than any other candidates in history.
Then for the love of God, list some substantive differences between Lieberman and Bush.
We’re not talking about Congressional races, we’re talking about the presidential race. I’m asking about what distinguishes the candidates for president, not candidates for congress. Individual congressmen differ more than the parties do (your typical New York Republican vs typical Texas Democrat, for example), and my quick overall impression is that Democrats are worse overall than republicans, though not by a huge margin. And that ‘issues of any consequence’ bit is just absurd; how do they differ on adding police powers in the name of Homeland Security? The War on Drugs? Censorship of offensive speech? Copyright and restrictions on electronic equipment for it? Gay rights (don’t forget DOMA)?
I always vote for individual candidates, not parties, and consider voting straight party to be moronic, but that’s another debate. If you really think voting for the party is good, then could you at least tell me what the democratic party actually stands for at a national level? Note that ‘stands’ includes ‘actually votes for’, so don’t try to say that the Democrats ‘stand’ against bills they overwhelmingly voted for. And, if the Democrats really do stand for something different, why can’t they come up with a candidate for president who is different - surely, if the Democrats stand for something different, some individual Democrat stands for it?
Avalonian, your answers don’t seem to have much concrete to them. I’m not trying to flame you even if it comes off that way, I’m trying to figure out what, other than the party he’s running for, would lead someone to vote for Lieberman. I appreciate that you’re actually putting forth ‘why to vote for Lieberman’ instead of ‘why not vote for Bush’ (unlike a lot of people), but I’ve got a bunch of pieces that I’m wondering about:
OK, so you say Lieberman “has a somewhat better grasp on many issues than Bush has” what issues are these and what leads you to say his grasp is better? Does his better grasp lead to an actual difference in what his policy would be in dealing with those issues? What actual facts lead you to say that Lieberman is more intelligent? What effect does that intelligence have on his qualification as president (I wouldn’t vote for Einstein as president, for example)? What does stumbling over words have to do with being qualified as president - it sounds more like something you can mock the other team with, not a real qualification? What you’ve said comes off as ‘I kinda like Lieberman a little better than Bush’, it doesn’t come off as ‘here’s why someone should vote for Lieberman over Bush’.
That’s because that’s exactly what it is… I would probably like Lieberman a little better as President than I like Bush (that’s not saying much, BTW), but not by much, and certainly not enough to vote for him. I’ve already said that Lieberman will have to make some big changes in the next year or so to earn my vote.
As far as the intelligence thing goes (just so we’re clear) – I like intelligent people, and I expect my leaders to have and exhibit intelligence, which includes being able to communicate confidently and clearly. They don’t have to be Einstein, but they do have to be able to represent America in a reasonable, clear fashion. Being well-spoken is more than something to “mock the other team” with. As far as I’m concerned, a degree of intelligence and good discourse are prerequisites for a potential President. They are not reasons to vote for someone, though, and the fact the Lieberman seems to possess both just gets him in the door. It doesn’t get him to the Oval Office (at least, not for me).
I mentioned no substantive differences between Lieberman and Bush because I see very few of them… and none of them are differences that matter to me.
I can’t really argue well, in this case, for a position I don’t support. I don’t know why someone would vote for Lieberman, because I don’t think I would. shrugs Perhaps someone who is a stronger Lieberman supporter will chime in… it ain’t me, and I can only speak for myself.
The idea that Bush won the election either fair or square is so absurd that I can’t address it here – and considering the thorough airing the issue got here two years ago, neither of us are likely to change the other’s mind.
But there’s really little case to be made for the idea that Republican ideas represent popular ideas. Only that they represent likely voter ideas.
My hope is that whoever our candidate is won’t be wringing his hands desperately trying to win Shodan’s vote. Nobody’s gonna vote for Bush Lite when they can vote for the real thing, and all that’ll happen is that Republicans will still vote Republican, while Democrats will stay home in despair. Like they did in 2002.
My hope is that whoever our candidate is will stand up for classical populist Democratic issues, demarcating clear differences between the Dooh Nibor policies of Dubyah and his or her own progressive policies. My hope is that whoever our candidate is will inspire the many nonvoters to go out and vote.
Daniel
PS People who suggest that Gore won only by a tiny margin forget the votes that Nader siphoned off. Had Gore actually stood for anything, had he represented somebody that lefties could give two shits about, those Nader votes would’ve been his, and his victory would’ve been substantial.
