It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The only Dem who can carry 2008

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 1 2005 @ 05:23 PM
link   
It's because he can bring home the religious right, and undermine a republican's chances.


It's Joe Lieberman.

And here's why.

1. He doesn't have an unsavory past
Unlike Bush, with a history of drunkeness, Lieberman and his 1-and-only wife have no "episodes" to cover up.

2. He's religious
Liberals seem to think that conservatives DEMAND that a candidate be a Christian, which is simply not the case. What they long for is someone who lives according to a value-system, that they didn't make up on their own. I'm serious about this. My mom was planning to skip the Republican primary and vote for lieberman. This is a woman who voted for Reagan in EVERY election since 1968. During the whole of Gore's 2000 campaign, I never heard a conservative say an ugly word about Liebermans religion or ethnicity.

3. He supports Israel, but only moderately
A lot of American conservatives back the state of Israel for reasons of religious affinity; yet they are deeply troubled personally by that state's trail of human-rights abuses in the occupied territories. Most evangelical Christians do NOT support a blank check for the state of Israel.

4. He is never mean-spirited
Even though Reagan himself was occasionally mean, he projected an aura of the "gravity" of the office at stake. Lieberman IS a gentleman, which matters much more to blue-staters than his stand on individual issues.

5. He doesn't appear to be power-hungry
This is one of they things that conservatives and the Christian right have always worried about as regards "W;" --that he was playing them, using their issues to get their votes, and then he would sell them out once in office. Lieberman could safely say what Reagan did: "of course you won't agree with every decision I make--neither does my wife! But you know my decisions will be carefully chosen to reflect my values, balanced against the needs of this great land of ours . . ."


Rove has done an incredible job of coalescing a voting-bloc in the conservative part of America. And honestly, with some of the traditional Dem-supporters fading away, the best play for the Donkey is to court the part of America with the greatest self-identity. Socially conservative doesn't necesarilly mean republican, or narrow-minded. Sadly, the Dems have quit listening carefully to the voters, and have started to believe their own political cartoons.

we will see.




posted on Aug, 1 2005 @ 05:33 PM
link   
I think you have a point, but I really have to question this statement.



Lieberman IS a gentleman, which matters much more to blue-staters than his stand on individual issues.


This statement is totally uncalled for, as Bush won't be running for office.



Unlike Bush, with a history of drunkeness, Lieberman and his 1-and-only wife have no "episodes" to cover up.


I have a lot of respect for Lieberman, but that is tempered somewhat by his speech before Congress after the Monica Lewinsky scandal broke. He rightfully spoke out against Clinton's behavior, but he really couldn't bring himself to condemn the man.

Ultimately, Lieberman will prove to be far too mild-mannered to appeal to Democrats, even though he would have a chance to impress many swing voters.

One must also consider that America has never had a Jewish President, although, in my opinion, America would have been far better served by Barry Goldwater than the egomaniacal and misguided Lyndon Johnson.


[edit on 2005/8/1 by GradyPhilpott]



posted on Aug, 1 2005 @ 05:38 PM
link   
And people said Kerry wasn't 'presidential'? I love Joe, and I'd vote for him in a heartbeat, but there's no way he'll get the nomination. He's way too boring, soft-spoken, honest and ...


5. He doesn't appear to be power-hungry


Sadly, some of the reasons he'd make a great president are the very reasons he'd never make it.

I like Barack Obama, myself.



posted on Aug, 1 2005 @ 05:46 PM
link   
After the 2004 elections, Bush himself said he thought the only person who ran in the Democratic primaries whom he thought could beat him was Lieberman.

The Democrats will never him pick though, he's far to conservative for their primary voters.


[edit on 8/1/2005 by djohnsto77]



posted on Aug, 1 2005 @ 05:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott

This statement is totally uncalled for, as Bush won't be running for office.



That's true.

I was using it as an example. The single biggest hurdle that Bush has had in his dance with the social conservatives, is his past. It came up in a BIG way in his bid for the TX governorship, and was a serious issue in the 2000 campaign. It wasn't enough for Bush to say he'd had a change of life; Carl Rove helped package that change so that it could be accepted by the right.

The main problem Clinton had with conservatives was his personal life. Of course, he could win without them. But it hounded him for 8 years.

I think some other contenders will have problems with their pasts, as well.

I suspect that with the modern level of media scrutiny awaiting any supreme court nominee, county dogcatcher, or sewer inspector, the issue of a candidates past may matter EVEN MORE than his record.

Ask a conservative what is wrong with Ted Kennedy. Will they point to his voting record? no.

Chappaquiddick.






[edit on 1-8-2005 by dr_strangecraft]



posted on Aug, 2 2005 @ 12:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
And people said Kerry wasn't 'presidential'? I love Joe, and I'd vote for him in a heartbeat, but there's no way he'll get the nomination. He's way too boring, soft-spoken, honest and ...


5. He doesn't appear to be power-hungry


Sadly, some of the reasons he'd make a great president are the very reasons he'd never make it.

I like Barack Obama, myself.



Hooray for Barack! It's clear he's flying under the radar right now and going a little moderate to play on both sides, but give him time and he'll develop into an amazingly strong candidate. If there is any chance in the near future of an African-American, hell, a minority President it is Mr. Obama.



posted on Aug, 2 2005 @ 11:09 AM
link   
I like Joe (and I am Libertarian), but I don't think the Joementum would really get going for one major reason:

We still remember Jimmy Carter. Mild is not a trait we need. We need a non-GOP non-Dem wildcat in order to shake the mold and garbage out of the government



posted on Aug, 2 2005 @ 11:33 AM
link   
I am on the fence about Joe. But that is because his group tried to kill WWF. Look into the PTC, Parent's Television Council. He seems like he would be a good guy, but maybe a lil less tenacious than what is needed.

There is no way Barack will be a contender. He just got elected to his federal post. And besides, he wouldn't win. Two reasons, do we have any Red States that are minority states? And two, good ole boys will not buy into a black guy unless he is of their party.

Let me put it another way. Say Condi and Barack got their respective nominations. A black woman would have a better chance of winning than the black man. Besides, Condi won't even get the nod...for the same reason.



posted on Aug, 2 2005 @ 12:52 PM
link   
I like Lierberman. I think his best shot, however, was in 2000, and eight years later is a long time. I don't think he's up to the task anymore. Just bad timing. Although I agree jethro here that he's far too mild, and can't give any sort of liveliness to anyone around him.

As Dj said, he can't pander to the people the Dems need him to. It does, however, depend on who the GOP runs.

Chappaquiddick will always be the final arbiter for Kennedy. Although there's plenty of reasons not to vote for him.



posted on Aug, 2 2005 @ 02:26 PM
link   
Since I live in Mesa Arizona, where the Republican Primary is the election, I have registered Republican if only to choose the most libertarian of the candidates running.

In the statewide and national elections, I have voted Libertarian since 1980, although it was really tough voting against the great AuH2O in 1982.

I cannot think of any time when I voted for a Democrat.

But I, and many of my friends who (unlike me) are real Republicans, would vote for a decent, upright, gentleman patriot, Democrat or no....

...Which means we would gladly vote for Joe Lieberman.



posted on Aug, 2 2005 @ 07:22 PM
link   
If Lieberman runs, he tops off at 3-5% and drops out after losing South Carolina. If he couldn't get the job done running on a ticket with the Vice President, pre 9/11, he certainly can't do it now.

Lieberman loses women, unless the GOP runs a rapist. He can't max out the African American vote, and god forbid, even cleaves off another 5-7% to the GOP. He won't excite the 18-24's, and who probably won't come out and vote in record numbers anyway. But, the most important reason why Joe can't win...

He's a Northeastern Democrat

And I don't care if her personally ressurects Jesus H. Christ from his earthen tomb, he still can't carry the south and the west. And that's the final nail on his coffin. If he weren't so boring and bland, he might get new voters out to the poll. And, he can't excite his own base enough to carry and midwestern swing states. And he'll never swing enough conservative Christian voters to really make a difference.

Although, if Hillary nominates him for VP, then we really know that's trying to appeal to the Religious Right.



posted on Aug, 4 2005 @ 08:39 PM
link   
This is a great topic, but belongs more in the Political Figures Forum



posted on Aug, 4 2005 @ 09:15 PM
link   
i think its early to say who the democrats should choose for 2008. Many candidates are positioning and posturing themselves and it'll be interesting to whom gets the final nomination.

I think the performance of the democrats in 2006 will go a long way in what people will want for a candidate.

thanks,
drfunk



posted on Aug, 5 2005 @ 01:34 AM
link   
Drfunk is spot on in this case. Logic would suggest that a candidate who makes the run for the presidential nomination to early will witness there campaign peak to early and people will simply lose interest.
The smart candidates will be waiting in the wings watching what cards are placed on the table while building a profile in the public eye. Lieberman could well be doing this.
Of course a candidate can leave there run to late which is just as silly as having your campaign peak to early.



posted on Aug, 5 2005 @ 03:06 AM
link   
Sounds good. The Democrats could just nominate Lieberman.

Or the Republicans could just nominate Hillary Clinton.

What's the difference?


No thanks.

You now, this is getting old. And in that regard I'm referencing every conservative I know in real life. Most of whom used the phrase Gore/Loserman with giddy abandon all through 2000 and liked to make jokes about Democrats nominating the father on ALF for Vice President.

And yet ever since, (I suppose it's buyer's remorse for Bush II -The Remistakening) they've all been loose and fast with the advice on how to capitulate to conservative ideals for "the win."

Again, no thanks. If conservatives are so sick of the jackasses their own party nominates they need to give advice to liberals on who to nominate so they have someone to vote for, change your party or join mine. But don't tell me how to be more like you.

If the "liberals" move any more to the right than they did with Clinton, you might as well call it a one idea, one party state and be done with it.

If you want a moderate so bad, nominate one... in your party.

We're not moving right any more so your team can just keep goosestepping to the reicht for differentiation. It's ridiculous, pathetic and tiresome. The line in the sand is drawn.

When conservatives can even see the middle again from the horizon upon which they find themselves, they can talk to me about getting more moderate. Until then, have fun with the Santorum/Frist Republican Primary debates to see who can out-radical each other.


I hope the radical right choke's on it's success. May you ban everything. I'd rather lose than be wrong. This nation won't be free of your dangerously regressive notions, anti-individualism, foreign aggression and economic voodoo until you've been given the chance to properly fail once and for all with no previous administrations to blame (no matter how successful they were in reality).

In fact, I may vote one of your nuts in this time just for the Daily Show coverage. The end is near indeed. What will it take to have nightly news coverage of "The Struggle" in Syria, American teens dying in Mexican alley abortion clinics, half of our children uninsured, dirty bombs in our shipping ports, Osama STILL at large and Americans crossing the border to China for a job?

Say it with me: FOUR MORE YEARS! FOUR MORE YEARS!


Then we'll win on OUR terms. And we can finally eradicate this pervasive disease of regressivism spread among our cave dwelling population forever.

Harsh? So be it. I'm right. Conservatism is wrong.

So why don't YOU nominate someone more LIBERAL, then you don't have to worry about how I vote in MY primary.

[edit on 5-8-2005 by RANT]



posted on Aug, 5 2005 @ 07:27 AM
link   
Did anyone see Joe Biden on John Stewart? There was talk of a Biden/McCain ticket. I would LOVE that! Wouldn't that blow everyone out of the water?


Do you think that would have a chance? I would vote for them (unless Barack/Bill Maher had a ticket)



posted on Aug, 8 2005 @ 08:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by RANT

. . . I'd rather lose than be wrong. . . .

[edit on 5-8-2005 by RANT]


You can do both at once.

How convenient for you!


And thanks for being so pleasant about your strident hatred of people who are different from yourself!

Funny how tolerance means other people are supposed to welcome you and your bigoted opinions, even when you micturate all over their value as citizens.

Not all of the Neanderthals live in caves, it seems.




top topics



 
0

log in

join