Will we ever have a Jewish president?

Great Debates
61

[QUOTE=xtisme]
Um…no I’m not. I’m appealing to the facts. The Democrats, for mysterious reasons of their own (concerning politics) chose Lamont…and then lost because the MAJORITY of voters in Connecticut wanted Lieberman. How is this appealing to emotion in any way, shape or form?? Obviously Lieberman was the more popular candidate…because he won the freaking general election AGAINST Lamont!
[/quote]

Oh, since you are appealing to facts, and not emotion. Could you please give me a cite that the party literally stabbed him in the back? I took that figuratively, but since you’re only dealing in facts…

Otherwise, when is voting against someone a ‘stab in the back’? The party is an important part of a Presidential bid. That’s a ‘fact’. If the party is not with him, he’ll have trouble getting elected.

I think that can be said of a lot of the candidates. I don’t see it as being ironic at all. Kerry was a terrible choice. No doubt about it.

62

[QUOTE=mswas]
Well it’s a matter of how the election process would work. The Conservatives would want a Jew who was hawkish on Israel. They’d push him to make some extreme statements. The left would push him to show sympathy for the Palestinian cause. If he did show sympathy for the Palestinian cause, the right would come out with the ‘self-hating Jew’, epithet. If he was too gung ho for Israel, the left would protest him vigorously.

Also, Jews tend to be shorter. I can’t think of a prominent Jew in politics who is tall. We tend to not nominate short men for the Presidency.

Maybe Rahm Emmanuel will have a shot in 2020?
[/QUOTE]

Wait, isn’t every major candadate at present in the race including Obama pro-Israel? Why would the left, who appear reasonably enamoured of Obama, pose any particular danger to a hypothetical Jewish candadate?

I’m also not sure about the “Jews tend to be shorter” thing. I’m a 6’ Jew, and hardly atypically tall among the Jews I know.

63

[QUOTE=Voyager]
The government of Israel accepts a Palestinian state. Sure there are extremist wackos, but it is controversial in the same way that evolution is.
[/quote]

Heh, in rhetoric certainly, in practice, not at all. No one actually cares about Palestinian statehood on any side. It’s mostly lip service. It’s when people address real policy rather than making blanket assertions that controversy begins.

Not relevant. If there is one serious Jewish politician over 6’ that’s all that matters. Otherwise you hooked into an offhand comment that is irrelevant if it’s true in terms of the overall population. Bloomberg and Lieberman are not tall men. That tends to work against Presidential candidates.

64

[QUOTE=Malthus]
Wait, isn’t every major candadate at present in the race including Obama pro-Israel? Why would the left, who appear reasonably enamoured of Obama, pose any particular danger to a hypothetical Jewish candadate?
[/QUOTE]

Have you been paying attention to the same election I have? Obama is anti-Israel to a certain proportion of the population.

65

[QUOTE=mswas]
Have you been paying attention to the same election I have? Obama is anti-Israel to a certain proportion of the population.
[/QUOTE]

My Dad, a 6’2" Jew, is convinced that Obama is anti-Isreal. I am merely a 6’0" Jew but I support Obama.

66

[QUOTE=mswas]
Have you been paying attention to the same election I have? Obama is anti-Israel to a certain proportion of the population.
[/QUOTE]

Only as an invective by political opponents. He himself claims to be pro-Israel, and yet ‘leftists’ do not protest against him.

It would appear to an external obsever that the political climate in the US is such that being “pro-Israel” is not a political liability, given that no major candadate in the race fails to adopt a “pro-Israel” stance, and the only use of “anti-Israel” is as a political smear, hotly refuted.

67

Actually, you said “Jews tend to be shorter”. I think Voyager is interested in seeing you support that claim.

68

Brad Garrett, who I believe is the tallest consistently-working actor in Hollywood at 6’9", is Jewish. Vince Vaughn is probably the tallest big-name actor at 6’5" but right beneath him is Jeff Goldblum at 6’4½", another Jew.

69

[QUOTE=mswas]

Not relevant. If there is one serious Jewish politician over 6’ that’s all that matters.
[/QUOTE]

Chuck Schumer is pretty tall.

70

[QUOTE=Captain Amazing]
Chuck Schumer is pretty tall.
[/QUOTE]

There we go, an example. Do you think Schumer has a shot at the Presidency? I don’t. But because he’s from New York, more than because he’s a Jew.

71

[QUOTE=Malthus]
Only as an invective by political opponents. He himself claims to be pro-Israel, and yet ‘leftists’ do not protest against him.
[/quote]

Yes, I agree, but the point was that it’s not ‘uncontroversial’.

Right, but I think that a Jewish candidate would be put under greater scrutiny on that issue. Just like Obama’s blackness was put under great scrutiny.

72

[QUOTE=mswas]
Oh, since you are appealing to facts, and not emotion. Could you please give me a cite that the party literally stabbed him in the back? I took that figuratively, but since you’re only dealing in facts…
[/QUOTE]

Good grief. I hope you are kidding here…it really does nothing to further your argument to do this kind of thing, ehe?

The facts is the facts and you don’t seem to want to address them. Let’s leave aside whether the Dems stabbed Lieberman in the back (figuratively or otherwise)…he was still elected by a majority vote despite not even having his parties nomination…and despite being jewish. Comments? Thoughts? Something?

[QUOTE=mswas]
Otherwise, when is voting against someone a ‘stab in the back’? The party is an important part of a Presidential bid. That’s a ‘fact’. If the party is not with him, he’ll have trouble getting elected.
[/QUOTE]

Man…the man was the fucking incumbent! Of COURSE the party stabbed him in the back (figuratively speaking since you seem to be confused)…they shouldn’t have even run a serious contender in a state THEY ALREADY CONTROLLED! Not unless they wanted to fuck him over and get him out. And here is the think…it was FUCKING STUPID! Do you not get it? The man won DESPITE not having the nomination.

Sheesh mswas…are you deliberately being obtuse here? Not that it matters since you are simply muddying the waters by picking on that one point and not addressing the others. The man is jewish. He not only originally was elected to the Senate but won re-election despite the fact that his own party didn’t nominate him. The Dems (foolishly) didn’t nominate him in 2004 and picked Kerry instead (who lost to GW Bush). I think Lieberman could have easily beaten Bush had the Dems nominated him…and I think (to get back to the OP) that a jewish president is merely a matter of time until a viable jewish candidate (who can leap through the loony lefty hoops for the Dems, or the tighty righty hoops for the Pubs and STILL appeal to the center) comes forth.

The person being elected will be elected because they appeal to the center…their faith or skin color won’t factor in. Obama will get elected or not based on how well he appeals to the center…his skin color is a side show compared to his politics.

[QUOTE=mswas]
I think that can be said of a lot of the candidates. I don’t see it as being ironic at all. Kerry was a terrible choice. No doubt about it.
[/QUOTE]

Well, if you don’t see the irony you don’t…can’t help you there.

-XT

73

[QUOTE=xtisme]
Good grief. I hope you are kidding here…it really does nothing to further your argument to do this kind of thing, ehe?

The facts is the facts and you don’t seem to want to address them. Let’s leave aside whether the Dems stabbed Lieberman in the back (figuratively or otherwise)…he was still elected by a majority vote despite not even having his parties nomination…and despite being jewish. Comments? Thoughts? Something?
[/quote]

I HAVE responded. Having the support of the party is kind of essential to being able to win the Presidency. So it’s extremely f***ing relevant that he doesn’t have it. I don’t know why that’s so difficult.

Obviously he did something that turned the voters against him. It’s not like sticking by your best buddy when a gang of thugs corner you, or nailing your friends girlfriend. That is what it means to stab someone in the back. The Democratic voters of CT had no requirement to stay loyal to a politician they didn’t feel served by.

Well the argument is about whether or not a Jew is electable for President. If that Jew is Joe Lieberman then I think the answer is no. It’s even easier to know with him since he’s failed to achieve the Presidency before. Maybe Lieberman could have beaten him, maybe not. Of course on a long enough timeline many things can happen in terms of a Jewish President. Thousands of years ago Cyrus of Persia helped get the Jews setup in the Holy Land. He was very impressed with them. Today President Ahmadinejad of Iran is the world’s premier anti-semite. Things can change on a long timeline. What is important is the length of that timeline. Could they be elected in 2012, 2016, 2020, 3040?

The reality is Joe Lieberman is not that man. Likely his being a Northeastern Democrat is a bigger strike against his chances than being a Jew. That’s why I mentioned Rahm Emanuel as a possible contender down the line. No one has even addressed the idea of Rahm Emanuel. A Northeastern Jew just won’t have the ability to carry Southern states.

But the reality is that he has to get to the General. I disagree that Obama’s skin color is a side show. It’s a major issue, not just because of the melanin content, but because of his racial affiliation. His relationship to a Black Liberation Theology church is quite relevant and does impact upon his ability to appeal to the center. Things like religion and cultural background are not simply affectations, they affect how a person acts, and how they will enact policy. Some people will elect Obama because of his affiliation to Trinity and Black Nationalism, some will do it in spite of that, and others simply won’t care, but it is relevant. The same would be true if a Jewish candidate were a Zionist or not Zionist enough.

74

[QUOTE=mswas]
Well the argument is about whether or not a Jew is electable for President. If that Jew is Joe Lieberman then I think the answer is no. It’s even easier to know with him since he’s failed to achieve the Presidency before. Maybe Lieberman could have beaten him, maybe not.
[/QUOTE]

Who are you referring to? Lieberman could have beaten who? Who failed to achieve the presidency? Lieberman never ran for president, did he?

75

[QUOTE=Argent Towers]
Who are you referring to? Lieberman could have beaten who? Who failed to achieve the presidency? Lieberman never ran for president, did he?
[/QUOTE]

Good grief. He ran in 2000 and 2004 and was Gores VP running mate. He lost in 2004 (IMHO) because he was ‘Republican Lite!’ to the left wing crowd, who instead chose Kerry…perhaps one of a handful of candidates who actually COULD lose to George W. Bush. He lost because he couldn’t appeal to the loony left…not because he was Jewish.

The point is that being Jewish doesn’t really matter in the larger scheme of things…it’s just an excuse some are trying to make as to why there haven’t been any Jewish presidents. The real reason is because there haven’t been many Jewish candidates for the presidency…and of those, the biggest one couldn’t get the nomination of his party. Not because he is a Jew but because he was to much of a centrist for the folks who vote in the primaries. A successful candidate needs to be able to jump through the hoops of the nomination process and then be able to change directions and appeal to the center in this country. Few folks have that ability. Of those few it just so happens that none of them (yet) have been Jewish…or black, or Asian. Not because American’s are prejudiced (some are, some aren’t)…but simply because it takes a lot of luck and a special kind of politician to negotiate all the bullshit of the primaries and then win the general election. Think about the numbers of candidates who actually have even a shot at being in the top few for the nomination…and how they finally arrived at that top spot. Think of all the BS Obama had to go through to get where he is today…and all the chances there were for things to be different and Clinton or Edwards being in the position he is in today. It could have happened easily…he could have fallen out at any time, yet still been the man he is today. It’s all about momentum and luck as much as anything.

So…IMHO it’s only a matter of time before we have a black president, or a female president, or a jewish president. Only a matter of getting the right man or woman at the right time, with the right combination of personality, politics…and a whole lot of luck. Their race, gender or creed will matter a lot less than their skill, politics and luck will.

[QUOTE=mswas]
I HAVE responded. Having the support of the party is kind of essential to being able to win the Presidency. So it’s extremely f***ing relevant that he doesn’t have it. I don’t know why that’s so difficult.
[/QUOTE]

No…you have tried to focus on simply part of what I’m saying instead of addressing the argument as it relates to the OP. Certainly in LIEBERMAN’S case he needed to get his parties nomination to move on to a shot at beating Bush. Doh! The point of course is that Lieberman getting or not getting his parties nomination had nothing to do with whether he was Jewish or not…and everything to do with how he appealed to the Democrats who vote in the nomination process.

[QUOTE=mswas]
Obviously he did something that turned the voters against him. It’s not like sticking by your best buddy when a gang of thugs corner you, or nailing your friends girlfriend. That is what it means to stab someone in the back. The Democratic voters of CT had no requirement to stay loyal to a politician they didn’t feel served by.
[/QUOTE]

No…he did something to turn the PARTY against him. There is a key difference there. Obviously he didn’t turn the VOTERS against him since he, you know, won the election. Do you think that these elections are held in a vacuum or something…that the party has no means of influencing the selection of a candidate in each race? Why do you think that most incumbents don’t usually face stiff competition in the primaries? That the REAL fight is for the party contending with the incumbent…and of course in the general election? It was the Democratic party that was attempting to ditch Lieberman in CT by endorsing and supporting Lamont. There are various reasons for this, but my guess is the biggest one was Lieberman’s support for the Iraqi war which was a hot button issue in 2006.

I find it rather funny that the Dems, having tried to chuck out Lieberman actually lost to him even though he was running as an independent. Because you see, in order for Lieberman to win in the GENERAL election he’s have to carry not only the center and undecideds but a good percentage of…yep, the Democrat voters.

[QUOTE=mswas]
Well the argument is about whether or not a Jew is electable for President.
[/QUOTE]

Exactly. No, Lieberman wasn’t and isn’t that man…because he was unable to jump through the right hoops and win his parties nomination. But it wasn’t because he is Jewish…but because his politics weren’t in line with what is necessary to carry the nomination. Which was my point. Lieberman was a viable candidate…he was and is Jewish…but his POLITICS, not his creed, kept him from the nomination that probably WOULD have put the first Jew in the White House. So, it’s only a matter of time and luck until a Jew DOES make it into the White House…and his/her creed will have less to do with it than his politics (and his/her luck).

[QUOTE=mswas]
But the reality is that he has to get to the General. I disagree that Obama’s skin color is a side show. It’s a major issue, not just because of the melanin content, but because of his racial affiliation. His relationship to a Black Liberation Theology church is quite relevant and does impact upon his ability to appeal to the center. Things like religion and cultural background are not simply affectations, they affect how a person acts, and how they will enact policy. Some people will elect Obama because of his affiliation to Trinity and Black Nationalism, some will do it in spite of that, and others simply won’t care, but it is relevant. The same would be true if a Jewish candidate were a Zionist or not Zionist enough.
[/QUOTE]

Most of the things you mention here are political associations and have less to do with Obama’s skin color than Obama the man. But I don’t want to hijack the thread so I’ll just say I both agree and disagree with you on this.

-XT

76

Well the point on this is whether or not he’d have those associations if not for his skin color. The question is whether or not anyone could have the same associations without it being a product of skin color.

No, Lieberman didn’t lose because he was a Jew. He didn’t get far enough for his Jewishness to matter.

77

Did you hear about the Jew who ran for president?

He lost by a nose.

(I made this up right now.)

78

[QUOTE=Argent Towers]
Did you hear about the Jew who ran for president?

He lost by a nose.

(I made this up right now.)
[/QUOTE]

That’s several lengths.

79

[QUOTE=xtisme]
Man…the man was the fucking incumbent! Of COURSE the party stabbed him in the back (figuratively speaking since you seem to be confused)…they shouldn’t have even run a serious contender in a state THEY ALREADY CONTROLLED! Not unless they wanted to fuck him over and get him out. And here is the think…it was FUCKING STUPID! Do you not get it? The man won DESPITE not having the nomination.
[/quote]

With Lieberman in office, the Dems did NOT control the state, because Lieberman was a Dem in name only. He was Bush’s water carrier in the Senate. He was for the war, for the Patriot Act, for just about every piece of damned idiocy that oozed out of the Bush Administration. He was no more a Dem than Karl Rove was a Dem. Forcing him out of the party was the right thing to do, because he’s a fucking Republican at heart.

I’m sure you would have enjoyed the prospect of having, in essence, two Republicans to choose from in the 2004 election, but y’know, there’s a good reason why his “own party” won’t nominate him. He’s not really a part of it.

80

[QUOTE=Evil Captor]
With Lieberman in office, the Dems did NOT control the state, because Lieberman was a Dem in name only. He was Bush’s water carrier in the Senate. He was for the war, for the Patriot Act, for just about every piece of damned idiocy that oozed out of the Bush Administration. He was no more a Dem than Karl Rove was a Dem. Forcing him out of the party was the right thing to do, because he’s a fucking Republican at heart.
[/QUOTE]

QED…thanks for making my point.

[QUOTE=Evil Captor]
I’m sure you would have enjoyed the prospect of having, in essence, two Republicans to choose from in the 2004 election, but y’know, there’s a good reason why his “own party” won’t nominate him. He’s not really a part of it.
[/QUOTE]

You make two unfounded assumptions here. First that I am a Republican. Second that I want Republicans in office. Well, and third, that I would have voted for Lieberman had he been nominated.

I assure you that none of those things are true. I was merely making a point.

-XT