So... Joe's in, what do you think?

Posted:
in General Discussion edited January 2014
My old thread was on FC, and was too off-topic to ask for its resurrection, so I'll ask again.



What do you think of Lieberman's candidacy? A few of you right wingers had mentioned that he wasn't a "free thinker". Please explain. He definitely strays more toward the middle, which shows a definite independence from the Democratic party.



As far as the primaries go, I say Gephardt will be the least popular, and it'll probably come down to Kerry and Lieberman. Do you think religion will not make an impact in the race?

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 17
    eugeneeugene Posts: 8,254member
    If the Democrats hope to win in 2004, they'd better not run Lieberman (Jewish) or Clinton (woman.) Either would have to run in a year where the incumbent cannot be reelected.



    I don't think Bush is going to have too much trouble come 2004. 1) Republicans became *more* popular between 2000 and 2002 as evidenced in last year's election. 2) He's going to start a war just before elections, and nobody likes kicking out an incumbent in a time of war.
  • Reply 2 of 17
    eugeneeugene Posts: 8,254member
    He learned from the mistake his dad made. I find a change in the executive office very unlikely in the middle of a war. The UN's about to bend anyway since the inspectors are beginning to ask questions without receiving answers. As well, the British and American militaries aren't the only ones mobilizing at this point.
  • Reply 3 of 17
    scottscott Posts: 7,431member
    VOTE FOR THE JEW! It's the best way to show the arab muslim terrorist that we think they should **** off. Let the overwhelmingly anti-semetic arabs deal with our "pig" or "dog" of a president.
  • Reply 4 of 17
    fran441fran441 Posts: 3,715member
    Bush's 'approval' rating has hit a new low since 9/11/01 at 56% approval, 38% disapproval. While they are still somewhat strong numbers, they are falling as war nears with Iraq and North Korea remains unchecked.



    There are still 2 years until election day and the Republican Congress is going to make some big mistakes. It's up to the Democrats to actually have some guts and speak up against Bush and the policies they disagree with.



    I highly doubt that Lieberman will win. After all, he showed all of the confidence in the world when he ran for Vice President and ran for Senate as well.



    Let's also face the fact that religion will play a huge part in this race whether people like it or not. Let's not kid ourselves here.



    The truth is that if the primary were held in NH today, I would not know who to vote for. I'm surprised that candidates haven't shown up yet, especially with so many running. I guess it's all of the snow we've had that is keeping them away.
  • Reply 5 of 17
    brbr Posts: 8,395member
    Bush's war rhetoric is the equivalent of a basketball player telegraphing a pass. Unfortunately, my American brethren are too stupid to notice or too apathetic to care. It matters little who runs against Bush in 2004. It is a foregone conclusion that the bastard will get re-elected. I hope I am able to eat crow over these words during the next election but I don't see any of these Demopublicans being better than the current Republicrat administration.



    I now leave you with this apropos Bad Religion song.



    [quote]New America



    Do you know the cost of future misery?

    Have you lost your sense of sustainability?

    We are just a step away

    From realizing what we strive to be

    But we've got to break out

    From this insulated, blind and lame senility

    Wake up the new america wo-oh!

    Transcend the mass hysteria wo-oh!

    Change is the thing you're wary of wo-oh!

    We need a new america wo-oh!

    Laurels, human triumph

    Bestowments from the past

    Victories don't mean a thing

    If they don't last

    We are just marching toward extinction

    With blinders on our eyes

    Jeopardizing everything

    We've learned and come to realize

    You call that wise?

    Open your eyes america wo-oh!

    See through the lies they tell to us wo-oh!

    Confront the fears that worry us wo-oh!

    We need a new america wo-oh!

    We don't have to be afraid to re-invent

    We've got to start to build

    Progress and implement

    For when we take our fill

    And never pay the price

    We only build ourselves

    A fleeting, false paradise

    You can live in staunch denial

    And mark me as your enemy

    But I'm just a voice among the throng

    Who want a brighter destiny

    They say with me

    We are the new america wo-oh!

    This is the new america? Wo-oh <hr></blockquote>



    [ 01-14-2003: Message edited by: BR ]</p>
  • Reply 6 of 17
    bungebunge Posts: 7,329member
    Personally I didn't like how outspoken Joe was with regards to censuring, but outside of that I didn't have a problem. That's a big problem though. I couldn't vote for someone that was in favor of MMPA like practices.



    I'd rather vote for Frank Zappa.
  • Reply 7 of 17
    [quote]Originally posted by Eugene:

    <strong>2) He's going to start a war just before elections, and nobody likes kicking out an incumbent in a time of war.</strong><hr></blockquote>How very clever of him that would be, and how re-assuring for all of us . . . not.



    - T.I.
  • Reply 8 of 17
    thttht Posts: 5,421member
    Wesley Clark should get the Democratic nomination, if he'd only run. He is, tactically, the Dems best choice.



    The Dems would be insane to run Lieberman. Unless something really bad happens to Bush, I don't think the Democratic turnout will be that big for Lieberman. The USA has regressed. If Lieberman gets the nom, my TV news viewing will be exclusively the ESPN news channel. It would be rather distasteful to see two men who don't understand the USA has no soveriegn and is a gov't of the people, by the people.
  • Reply 9 of 17
    groveratgroverat Posts: 10,872member
    I'd rather not have someone be elected or even run who is anti-free speech.



    That's just me, I'm crazy like that.



    I think he's dangerous, that's what I think.
  • Reply 10 of 17
    zmenchzmench Posts: 126member
    I think that like most Democrats (and Gore in particular), Lieberputt is a contrived politician. They don?t believe in the agenda they represent but are there only to serve political interest groups to line their pockets



    I also think many here are wrong. A Jewish candidate, or a woman candidate, are perfectly electable for the office of President. I just think that the right (pun intended) candidate has not yet made her bid for that office. I?d like Arianna Huffington to run. She?s a sharp political animal, a real shark, and sure to make the debate interesting.



    ps.

    I would vote for Clinton over Lieberputz were I to vote Democrat, and Condoleezza Rice should she run in 2008 and I were a Republican. 2004 is locked.
  • Reply 11 of 17
    outsideroutsider Posts: 6,008member
    Women would make the ideal presidents diplomatically. They could nag our enemies to death. Imagine her calling Saddam every day, 20 times a day?



    Saddam: hello?

    Prez: Saddam? have you gotten rid of all your nukes and stuff? have you? , cuz once you do i had some great ideas about introducing some real democracy into... blah blah blah

    Saddam: (rolls eyes and makes shooting pistol gestures to his temple)



    Reapeat hundreds of times.
  • Reply 12 of 17
    brussellbrussell Posts: 9,812member
    He's my candidate in the primaries.



    It will be hard to beat Bush in 2004, but the electoral situation gives any Democrat (or Republican, if the situation was reversed) a good shot. About 2/3 of the electoral votes are basically a lock for one party or the other (e.g., New York & CA = Democratic, most of the South and West = Republican), and so any challenger has a good 200 electoral votes without even trying. The battlegrounds will probably be in the same states they were in 2000.
  • Reply 13 of 17
    bungebunge Posts: 7,329member
    [quote]Originally posted by zMench:

    <strong>A Jewish candidate, or a woman candidate, are perfectly electable for the office of President.

    </strong><hr></blockquote>



    What the hell's going on? This is twice in one day I've agreed with Mika. Someone lock my account or something, I'm confused....



  • Reply 14 of 17
    zmenchzmench Posts: 126member
    [quote]Originally posted by bunge:

    <strong>



    What the hell's going on? This is twice in one day I've agreed with Mika. Someone lock my account or something, I'm confused....



    </strong><hr></blockquote>









    No. This is not good.
  • Reply 15 of 17
    Back in 2000 I wrote this in a reader response over at OpinionJournal.com:



    [quote]Lowell Weicker may have been a sanctimonious jerk but at least he had something to be sanctimonious about. If an impeachment of Richard Nixon had ever come to the Senate for a vote do we have any doubt about how Weicker would have voted? We already know how Leiberman voted with regards to Clinton's impeachment.<hr></blockquote>



    That said, I'd still be tempted to vote for Leiberman just to piss of all those who'd have a conniption over a Jewish president.



    [ 01-15-2003: Message edited by: spaceman_spiff ]</p>
Sign In or Register to comment.