's Forum Archives - Non-Cycling Discussions

Archive Home >> Non-Cycling Discussions(1 2 3 4 )

Why is Lieberman a democrat?(42 posts)

Why is Lieberman a democrat?Alex-in-Evanston
Jan 23, 2004 9:09 AM
Whenever I hear his voice it's family values this and faith-based services that. Increased funding for defense, tear down Iraq to rebuild it in our image. Every attack impulse in his brain is focused on democrats and liberal issues.

What voter is he speaking to? Is there a democrat out there in 2004 who is waiting for the "family values" candidate?

He's JewishDwayne Barry
Jan 23, 2004 9:27 AM
I don't think they allow those people into the Republican party!
Can't he convert? nm128
Jan 23, 2004 9:31 AM
Yeah, but they'd never trust him (nm)Dwayne Barry
Jan 23, 2004 10:34 AM
Jewish lawyer/politician!?!? What's not to trust? LOL nmNo_sprint
Jan 23, 2004 10:37 AM
Jacob Javits was a republicanDave_Stohler
Jan 23, 2004 11:32 PM
And he was New York's senator for many, many years, until that idiot D'Amato beat him. Before FDR came around, nearly all jews were republicans.
They're paying himNo_sprint
Jan 23, 2004 9:41 AM
and it must be a huge sum too. He's the only decent guy in the party.
A big tentMR_GRUMPY
Jan 23, 2004 9:41 AM
Clark is right of center also.
Don't confuse 'Democrat' with 'liberal.'OldEdScott
Jan 23, 2004 10:05 AM
Most rank-and-file Democrats are firmly middle of the road. The 'national' Democrats, the Washington boys who get all the press, are fairly liberal. But a common refrain out here in the heartland is 'The national party is more liberal than me, and too liberal for us, and we're getting dragged down by association.'

If a 'family values' Democrat who was NOT Soporific Joe Lieberman could ever survive the nomination process, he'd be a VERY formidable candidate.
Jan 23, 2004 10:11 AM
Good job. I agree with everything in this post.
It must be nonsense.czardonic
Jan 23, 2004 10:25 AM
I smell "popular wisdom" here.

Ed, I trust you save the good stuff for paying customers.
He's at least got a hair touching reality. nmNo_sprint
Jan 23, 2004 10:38 AM
Well ...OldEdScott
Jan 23, 2004 10:52 AM
I've said many times here that the Dems won't take the South back until we take God, guns and gays off the table, and win back the NASCAR crowd. Just as a practical matter.
I submit that if Washington Democrats are too liberal for you. .czardonic
Jan 23, 2004 10:58 AM
. . .you are not a liberal and never will be.

If the South wants politicians who will trample the Constitution in the name of State sanctioned proselytization and homophobia, let them vote Republican.
I submit that if the Democratic Party listened to you, it.OldEdScott
Jan 23, 2004 11:16 AM
would vanish from the Earth in 72 seconds flat.

Hell, I'm a commie, czar. I hate 'liberals' on principle because they're reformist and essentially reactionary. But I work in the real world, not Russia in 1917. The only thing worse than the goddamn mush-brained Democrats is the goddamn piggish Republicans. So I make adjustments.

Not sayin it's a GOOD thing.

"Too liberal for me." That's rich!
They don't. They are still losing. That's my point.czardonic
Jan 23, 2004 11:25 AM
Not that they should listen to me per se, but that they are not liberal.
OK, let's get to your definition of liberal.OldEdScott
Jan 23, 2004 11:35 AM
Is anyone currently in politics liberal? Is Kucinich?
Certainly left of the Democrats since the Clinton era. . .czardonic
Jan 23, 2004 11:43 AM
. . .which may have had three toes in the liberal pool for every one in the conservative pool.

Is Kucinich "in politics"?
Yeah, amazingly. He gets elected from thatOldEdScott
Jan 23, 2004 11:51 AM
district. Despite the fact that almost NO one else takes him even remotely seriously.

Hey, I agree with him on more-or-less everything. You know, if I can't get a vanguard together to give birth to a deformed socialist state here, and we're going to have a capitalist system after all, the stuff he proposes is stuff I pretty much agree with.

But I watch him on TV and just CRINGE. Youi can almost see the meters plunge off the bottom of the chart at all the focus groups. Americans just won't tolerate Kucinich-style liberalism. I know the People's Republic of Berkeley probably finds him vaguely suspect and right wing, but for the VAST majority of Americans he's a liberal nut. And the pragmatic fact is, we have to work with the reality we have, not the reality we would wish.
He strikes me a too liberal to be elected.czardonic
Jan 23, 2004 12:03 PM
He also strikes me as being fairly distant from the Democratic mainstream which is decidedly mainstream and moderate.

I am a pragmatist too. As such, I don't see how working with "reality" as defined by the RNC is an effective strategy.
"Hello bathwater? This is baby." Can't the very liberal128
Jan 23, 2004 11:17 AM
Liberals compromise on these polarizing issues that impede the liberal agenda?
Always THE problem with the Left, for a hundred years:OldEdScott
Jan 23, 2004 11:41 AM
Ideological purity and refusal to even bend, let alone compromise. The Left is always shredded by suicidal factionalism, based on inane questions like "How many workers can dance on the head of a pin?"

That's why I became a centrist Democrat. WE know how to compromise! Ho, ho.
Jan 23, 2004 11:45 AM


Man, I've seen two new sides of Old today. One that he's got a sliver of a toenail buried in reality and two, one serious sense of humor!
Sounds simple enough. How would you cast these issues128
Jan 23, 2004 11:10 AM
to appeal to the broadest south/liberal/dem. population?

Off the top of my head:

Go for it with God, anything too far out will stop at the (Supreme)courts, the rest liberals must tolerate for the greater good;

support guns as a foil for maintaining environmental protection-hunting grounds (still have to oppose assault weapons though and I like the the waitng period at gun shows. Leary of a registry but would probably support it, after all if you have nothing to hide...)Libs need to realize the 2ndA is not, soon anytime, away going. People (God knows why) want their pistols in their holmes)

And gays should just all go straight to ...errr. I mean compromise with civil unions and leave "marriage" out of it at least for now. Maybe we can give them their own bathrooms in return?? (remember the 'potty-parrity' hub bub.)

So how can you 'operatives' sell it?
You are RIGHT ON with number 2 there!OldEdScott
Jan 23, 2004 11:33 AM
That's easy to knock out of the park. Equate guns/hunting with environmental protection. "I support your 2nd Amendment right to have guns, and I will also fight for your right to have woods to hunt in and game to kill and clean creeks with fish in them so you can take your son down to catch a muskie if you have a mind to."

As for gays: "Yeah, I DO support equal rights for homosexuals, not because I approve of it, but because I don't agree with the Republicans that it's the government's damn business to tell folks how to live their private lives. Live and let live, I say. Long as folks are peaceable and law-abiding, this is America, and so be it. And if that means they want to move in together and say they're married, hell, I don't care, give 'em a piece of paper."

You're right on God, too. For now, we've just GOT to stop looking anti-religious, and let the courts carry the load. Talking Jesus and going to church is a small price to pay. Otherwise we'll never get elected to anything again, and Repubs will make all the judicial appointments, and even the COURTS will fall to the Christian right.
That's attitude is all well and good. . .czardonic
Jan 23, 2004 11:38 AM
. . .until conservatives stack the courts and amend the Constitution. You are talking a sucker's game.

Except for guns: on that, you two might be on to something.
Re the courts:OldEdScott
Jan 23, 2004 11:43 AM
Re-read my post. That was a point I made: Unless we actually get elected to something, it's gonna be bye-bye courts too. Exactly.
Suckers game.czardonic
Jan 23, 2004 11:50 AM
Either there is viable non-right wing constituancy out there or there isn't. If there is, give them a reason to vote for you. If there isn't, game over.

Getting elected is meaningless if you don't stand for anything other than getting elected.
Jan 23, 2004 11:57 AM
You can't win anything if you're dead.
"Popular wisdom". (nm)czardonic
Jan 23, 2004 12:04 PM
Indeed, the people ARE wise. nmOldEdScott
Jan 23, 2004 12:13 PM
[rolling eyes] (nm)czardonic
Jan 23, 2004 12:14 PM
[Squabbling leftists. Factions.] nmOldEdScott
Jan 23, 2004 12:37 PM
Forgot the toughest issue: re-production/abortion issues.128
Jan 23, 2004 11:51 AM
I had "Health" class in (private) middle school. Along with nutrition, exercise 'n stuff we were also instructed on resposible sexual behaviors including birth control and abastinence. Seemed to work well.

No one supports abortion, just maybe the right to take care of one's own body without gov't intrusion (prior to the third tri-mester). I don't see anyone compromising on this. Although RU487(?) might obviate the issue.
Nightmare issue.OldEdScott
Jan 23, 2004 12:12 PM
But I think we can negotiate it as long as a majority of the country supports some form of choice, and we change the language. 'Right to choose,' 'control of her own body,' 'reproductive freedom,' all those much-hated code words. Frame it in anti-big-government terms, not touchy-feely feminist terms that rednecks instinctively distrust. 'You want some pointy-headed bureaucrat in Washington telling your daughter she has to have a baby? What does that bureaucrat know about you and your family? That's something for you, your daughter and your doctor to decide.'

Plus we have to give a little on the margins. I believe we can and should give ground on partial-birth or abortions and maybe things like parental notification. It would be a hard pill for the base to swallow, but it might help expand the base.
Jan 23, 2004 12:29 PM
Sorry to stick my up-turned Berkeley nose in again, but are you kidding?

You are talking about core life-and-death issue for many. Hardly something that can be traded for anti-government bluster. Moreover, abortion is strictly practiced by the godless hedonist types whose necks Big Government was put on Earth to keep its foot on. You think that anti-abortion adherants are going to be mollified by the option to consult with their family and doctor on something on they would never do?
The zealots won't, obviously. But most folksOldEdScott
Jan 23, 2004 12:36 PM
aren't zealots. They just want some indication the Democrats have at least SOME sympathy on the issue.

For the HUGE majority of people, abortion is not a black and white issue. They're uncertain. It pains them. We should feel their pain instead of being so absolutist. In doing so, we're more likley to retain the fundamental right.
It isn't a fundamental right.czardonic
Jan 23, 2004 1:04 PM
And to the degree that it is a right at all, it is being bargained away out of hope that the next compromise will be the last. It won't. And the more the issue is allowed to be chipped away at, the easier it is to write off completely.

Whether or not it is right (or a Right), is irrelevant to me. It is a needed option -- whether or not I can imagine choosing it for myself or someone I know. I think it needs to be emphasized that abortion existed before Roe and no law will every stop it. So the choice is between regulated, safer abortion and back-alley butchery.
I used the wrong word. I meant the 'core' rightOldEdScott
Jan 23, 2004 3:06 PM
of choice, maybe subject to some restrictions. May be the best we can hope for.
"Core right of choice" = codewords. And defined as such by what?czardonic
Jan 23, 2004 3:48 PM
The Constitution? Even if it were, the zealots are hard at work on that. It is all to easy for someone "pained" by the issue to allow the zealots to dispense with it once and for all. No more abortions (good) and no debate to agonize over (also good).

I think our best hope is to be the adult in the situation. The Right offers easy, absolute, and ideologically pure answers. But sad, ugly things happen in this world that can't be wished, prayed or legislated away. Whether you agree with abortion or not is not the issue. Under what circumstances the abortions that will inevitabley take place is the issue. The zealots will have no problem condemning desperate women to be butchered in back alleys. The reasonable people will, however grudgingly, agree that a regulated hospital is the appropriate venue.
Yeah, not all Liberals are Democrats...Matno
Jan 23, 2004 8:04 PM
A lot of them these days are Republicans.

If you really think that a lot of Democrats are "middle of the road" your definition of "middle" is pretty dang warped.

Then again, my vote hinges solely on whether or not a candidate supports the second amendment... ;^)
Liberal Republicans used to be commonDave_Stohler
Jan 23, 2004 11:37 PM
as an example, once again, Jacob Javits. Fiorello LaGuardia. Nelson Rockefeller (once actually had Republican, Liberal and Conservative party endorsements!!)
Heck, if you want a "liberal" republican, what about Lincoln? Until the 1920's, most black voters were "liberal" and Republican.