Lieberman - what are the dangers?

Great Debates
1

Although I’m sure people are sick of discussing Lieberman and the “Jewish” factor by now, there are still some aspects of the matter that haven’t really been adressed.

  1. If he becomes our next vice president, will Lieberman be a liability in any peace negotiations with Israel and the PLO? Will Arafat really trust the US to be an impartial mediator considering Lieberman’s probable bias in favor of Israel?

  2. How great is the danger that Lieberman’s (or even Gore’s) life would be in jeopardy if Gore is elected? If I recall, most men who have attempted to assassinate a president have been mentally unstable. Yet in Lieberman’s case, his enemies include every member of every anti-semitic fringe group in the country. This would seem to be a much greater threat than that presented by psychotic individuals. Granted, Lieberman would only be the VP, and not the president, but wouldn’t it be logical to assume that he would run as Gore’s successor after the conclusion of Gore’s term(s)?

2

Similar questions were raised in the 1960 election about John Kennedy (a Catholic). Fiddlesticks, says I.

First off, a Vice President probably wouldn’t be (hasn’t been) involved in Israeli-Palestinian negotiations anyway. Second off, even if the Palestinians would be more distrustful of us, is that a major issue? And if it is, where do we draw the line? Do we avoid electing Americans of Chinese-descent because the Japanese will be distrustful of us? Do we avoid electing women because the oil-rich nations would be distrustful of us? Do we avoid electing blacks because that would impair our ability to deal even-handedly with Africa? How about people of British ancestry who might favour Britain over Ireland? Hey, if we elect a white person from a former slave state, won’t that ruin our relationship with Africa? Bah, says I, Bah! Hambourg! We are electing Americans, regardless of their biases, their ethnic backgrounds, or their religious beliefs.

Now, having said that, if you think that making the Palestinians distrustful of us is THE major issue, then by all means, you will vote against Lieberman. Similarly, if you think that gun-control or abortion-rights are THE major issue, then you will vote against li’l Bush. That’s your right to vote based on what you think the most important issues are. I suspect that there is NO candidate who has EXACTLY your opinions on EVERY issue. You need to figure which issues are worth compromising on, to vote for the candidate that agrees with your position MOST of the time.

Your second point, would Lieberman be more of a target than another candidate, sounds pretty remote to me. Are you suggesting that we should only elect members of the lunatic fringe, so that the lunatic fringe wouldn’t take pot-shots at their own? As before, your logic implies we shouldn’t elect anyone with any black background, for instance. Nor any women. Nor Catholics, for fear of the Irish Protestants. Nor Protestants, for fear of the Irish Catholics.

Fiddle. We’ve elected all sorts of people with all sorts of views (including minorities) to public positions, and we’ve been able to provide protection against the violent loonies – not perfect protection, no, but we’ve got a very low record of political assassinations recently.

Seems to me that’s only an issue if you want to make a big deal of a candidate’s race, religion, gender, or ethnic background. And seems to me that’s exactly what we SHOULDN’T be doing.

3

IIRC, there has been only one serious assassination plot against a vice-president. Andrew Johnson was targeted by the group associated with Boothe, as were several members of Lincoln’s cabinet. Johnson’s assassin chickened out, as did all the others but Boothe.

If elected, Lieberman will at least offer protection to Gore against anti-Semite assassins.

(Similar thinking probably went into the selection of Quayle in 1988. Assassins would get GHW Bush in their sights, then think of Quayle and go, “Naaa…” :D:D )

4

I can see how you came to this conclusion, but it was not the correct one. I am not saying that Lieberman or anyone else should not be elected on the basis of race/religion, but rather that we need to be aware of the danger he faces and possible take more stringent security measures in order to protect him.

Since I am not even old enough to vote, my interest in this matter is, for the most part, not political. I am mainly curious about such things as whether or not Lieberman’s family believes that he is in danger, and whether or not they think the importance of what he is doing outweighs the potential consequences.

I was hoping to get a reply more along the lines of: “no, he is not in very much danger because…” or “yes, he’s screwed because…”

Although you seemed to take a somewhat confrontational stance in your reply, I thank you for your input on the subject.

5

First off:
AWB: Actually, Seward’s assassin didn’t chicken out either, and managed to grieviously injure both Seward and his son in his attempt.

Okay, now to the OP.

1.) I don’t think Leiberman being VP will affect much in terms of peace talks. Will Palestine claim that the US is now pro-Isreal? Geez, after billions of dollars in aid to Israel, and generally taking Israel’s side in the issues, you’d think there was little question as to how neutral we were. Lieberman as VP is more a general confirmation of the US’s pro-Israel tendencies than it is a sudden shift in policy.

In fact, we’re seen as a good arbitrer by the Palestinians precisely because we’re generally pro-Israel. They figure that if talks fail, they can blame it on Israel and the ‘pro-Zionists’ in the US; if talks succeed, the Palestinians have Israel’s largest backer and supporter leaning on Israel to make things work. Either way, good for them.

2.) And if Cheney gets elected VP, how many environmentalist wackos akin to the Unabomber will start targeting him? For any position, race, religion, or background, there’s some fanatical group willing to blow someone away to make a statement. I seriously doubt that Lieberman is at much more risk than any other candidate is or will be.

As for being Gore’s successor- if Gore wins election, he’ll only be the third Vice-President to be immediately elected to succeed the President he served under. Three out of forty-two isn’t real good odds for Lieberman. And even if you’re not talking about immediate succession, only two out of the last eight vice-presidents (Nixon and Bush) became President without the death or resignation of the President. (Include death and resignation, and it jumps to four out of eight- still only 50/50.)

6

Does anyone else think Lieberman looks like Teller of Penn & Teller?

7

……and sounds just like the father from Alf / governor’s aid on Benson?

8

Well, GD can always use another thread about the Senator from Conn.

I’ll move this one over there.

9

John Corrado said:

Fourth, actually. You’re thinking of John Adams, Martin Van Buren, and George Bush…but you’re leaving out Thomas Jefferson, Adams’ VP. (Different situation, of course–Jefferson became VP under the original rule, whereby the candidate with the second largest number of electoral votes became vice president, after losing the election of 1796. In the next election, he defeated Adams.)

10

MysterEcks: No, actually, I was forgetting about John Adams, too. D’oh!

If Gore succeeds Clinton, he’ll only be the fifth sitting VP to win election as President. It’s better odds than two out of forty-two; but still not great odds.

11

I’m almost sure that someone would take a pot shot at Gore or Lieberman if they get elected. But I think they’ll be playing ice hockey in hell before the Democrats win an election in 2000. So the point is moot. I think we need to face the fact that Bush is our next president and just get on with it.

needs2know

12

I think you’re waaay to optimistic/pessimistic about the election, Needs2know. Gore has a very good shot. We’re months away from the election, and if we’ve learned anything it’s that polls taken months ahead are worthless. Polls taken the weeks before the election are very accurate, but we’re waaay to far out to write off Gore.

I mean, I’ll probably vote against Gore, but more to give Clinton one last kick in the nuts than against Gore himself. And I’ll grin from ear to ear when Hillary loses in New York.

13

John Corrado: That’s ok–I’ve just demonstarted that I can’t count.

14

I was reading a Slate article which referred to Lieberman(Orthodox Jews) as the jewish equivalent of Christians like Falwell and Robertson. This caused me some consternation as I would not vote for fanatics like Falwell and Robertson. I believe the author of the article was a non orthodox Jew. I understand from other articles about Lieberman’s refusal to use machinery on Saturday and how he would handle that. Not being a jew, are there other aspects of being an orthodox jew that are of concern.

In theory we shouldn’t vote just because of religion, but we should surely take their basic beliefs into account, and certainly religion is a basic belief especially if it is adherred to with rigidity.

15

marvz: Lieberman is no more a “religous nut” than Cheney, who is a Conservative Christian. The Falwells of the Jewish world would be more like the “ULTRA-orthodox”.

And how about Cheney? Could not his “pro-life, anti-gay, anti-womans rights” religion get in HIS way? I am WAY more worried about Cheney. You’re not? Ok, what is more likely: Lieberman trying to pass a bill banning pork consumption, or Cheney trying to pass an anti-abortion bill? If both were actually attempted, which MIGHT pass in a Republican Congress? 'nuff said.

I am starting to worry about my SDMBers on this issue. Let me say this one thing- I am one of the most outspoken Christians here on the SDMB, but I am totally not concerned with Liebermans religion*. OK? Can you trust me on this?
Vote based on the POLITICAL issues, not the religous ones.

  • does not mean I am 100% with the Gore-L ticket, just no reservations on the RELIGOUS issue. I am not happy with the strong “anti-gun” plank, etc.
16

Marvz-

An Orthodox Jew, especially an Orthodox Jew like Lieberman is not akin to the ultra-radical Pat Robertson/Buchanon zealot. AFAIK, Lieberman is a a devout Orthodox Jew who Observes the Sabbath, most Halakah(Jewish laws), dietary guidelines and holidays. That does not make him a radical.

The Hasidims, Hasidic Jews, are extremely orthodox and might be considered nearly as radical as their Christian counterparts.

So, no, I don’t think we need to worry about his radicalism from a religious standpoint.

Do we need to worry about internationals resenting the US because of him? I don’t think so.

Do we need to worry about increased security for Gore, should he win? No, I don’t think so.

Might we have to increase security for him should they win? possibly.

Who knows, I just think it’s a great situation for him, if you wish to look at the religious history of the Oral office.

-Sam

17

[pit rant]
I hate it when people who think they are clever use witty gems like “oral office” that they probably heard on the Tonight Show. If you’re going to be lame, and least be originally lame.
[/pit rant]

Tyler Durden: How’s that working out for you?
Narrator: What?
Tyler Durden: Being clever.
Narrator: Great.
Tyler Durden: Keep it up, then.

-Fight Club

18

Danielinthewolvesden
You seem to make a lot of assumptions about in your second paragrap without any evidence in my post.

The only reason for my concern was the Slate article. If there was a problem, it’s hard to believe that it would not have become an issue during his senate career.

19

I thought Guilliani had quit the race. Have the Republicans found someone else?

20

Rick Lazio is now running for the ticket in New York. From what I understand, he was born there and lived there all his life, his family is from NY and his kids go to public school there. I don’t think NYers are stupid, hopefully they can see Hilary for the fake she is.

But back to the OP. The problem I see with Lieberman is not his faith, but his proclamation there of and then not following through. From my understanding, abortion is a huge no-no in Judaism. Yet, he is a consistent voter for abortion rights. Whatever your stance on the issue (I’m not claiming one here) what bothers me is he smacks of hypocricy.

Another example. He was one of the few Democrats who claimed Clinton was wrong when he lied under oath, yet refused to vote for impeachment. Again, regardless of anyone’s stance on Clinton, it seems that hypocritical to me.

Lieberman seems to claim one thing and yet do another. Over and over again.

But then again, if he didn’t, he wouldn’t be a politician, would he?