The Internet can take the worst of us, especially in politics

[question everything]

Hiding behind the anonymity of the Internet, many of us would behave in rude manner that will probably not do in public.

Politics is the act of compromise. We each have our own "stand on principles" and certainly a place like DU is one where we can insist on extreme (depends on whose definition) positions.

Most of us, when it is time to check the ballot - paper or electronic - will compromise and vote for the candidate who closely matches our view of the world.

But there are always tragic mistakes. Earlier this year PBS had a program about the sixties, and one sad story was how so many of the anti war people did not trust Humphrey that they just stayed at home, and Nixon won.

Similarly, we had too many who did not like the Gore-Lieberman ticket and voted for Nader in 2000. And I have to wonder how many of them are in despair over the major changes upcoming in the Supreme Court.

(This is something that too many voters forget when they vote for the president: how the Supreme Court will be affected).

Recently there have been too many threads trashing Joe Lieberman, calling him a DINO, claiming that CT residents should just stay home...

On the other hand, many here are cheering the prospect of Bob Casey - an opponent of women's right to privacy - defeating Santorum.

What is going on here? I am not going to use the phrase "big tent." It is a porous fig leaf that the Republicans have been using.

We have never been a monolithic group; we have never tried to hide our disagreements; we have never given our candidates or our leaders 99 percent support - as the Republicans do, and similar to totalitarian regimes in their countries "elections."

Why is it that Lieberman's support for the war is worse that Reid opposition to a woman's right to choose? I have never heard of Congressman Murtha until a few weeks ago, but didn't he hold similar views on the war?

Most senators voted for the Iraq war resolution and many still support a presence there - they just differ in their exit strategy; they want an exit strategy that the White House just shrugs.

The war in Iraq is not the only issue, even though many consider that it is, that it should. Frankly, I think that abortion is a lot closer to many voters than the war in Iraq - as long as there is no draft. Indeed, the opposition to the war in Viet Nam started when college deferment were canceled.

Sure, it affects our deficit but how many voters make the connections?

Anyway, this is not the purpose of my post.

No, the point is that I think many of us would vote for a pro-war pro-choice candidate before we will vote for an anti-war, anti-choice one if that were the only choice.

I don't know why Gore chose Lieberman as his running mate, I was not excited about either. But I voted for them and I would vote for them again if they are our party candidates. Except for the war, I believe that Lieberman's record is a liberal one - but feel free to prove me wrong, with reliable sources.

We should be proud of our party that allows many opinions and ideas to co-exist, about the war, about women's (and men's) right to privacy, abut fairness of the tax system, about access to decent jobs, education, health care and retirement.

Please, let's not lose our focus. The war in Iraq is only one topic, not the only one and Senator Lieberman has been an honorable member of our party. Let's not do the freepers' job of outcasting him. Do we really want Don Imus to be the one telling us who we should call our own?

OK, start shooting.

[lpbk2713]

1. No potshots here.

Recommended as a matter of fact.

[Meldread]

2. I support those who earn my support.

I don't support Lieberman, I don't support Hillary, and I won't support anyone who has gone out of their way to go AGAINST my values - Democratic Values. Moral Values. Real values, that value people, privacy, equal rights, and freedom.

I am still proud of my vote for Nader in 2000. Gore stood by while Clinton again and again supported anti-gay legislation. Gore also attended a fund raiser held by Fred Phelps son back in the 80's. I couldn't vote for him because of that, and to add Lieberman to the ticket was just adding salt to an already open and infected wound.

Gore since 2000 has earned back some respect. I'd consider him now, if he ran - I'd give him serious consideration - but I don't regret my vote in 2000. I voted what I thought was best at the time.

I'll also do the same again. Put Hillary up there in 2008 and I'll vote for a 3rd party again. I held my nose and voted for Kerry even though I didn't like how he didn't take a strong stand on important issues. I looked at his record and admired that, mostly, and figured he was just playing politics. Though, truth be told, I would have dumped him like a sack of potatoes to vote for Teresa instead. (I loved her.)

[Sapphocrat]

8. Howard-- I mean, Meldread speaks for me!

Except that I never voted for Nader, or any third party in a national election. It's been a straight Dem ticket since I was 18, no matter how revolted I've been by certain candidates.

I will add this caveat well before anyone starts flinging blame around again: My life is not a "wedge issue," and I refuse to be intimated into sitting down, shutting up, and doing what I'm told.

I've done that, repeatedly, all my life, and where's it gotten me? In terms of my civil rights, back to about 1968.

[RufusEarl]

3. Well Put

I'll vote for the person I feel has the best interest of the country in mind, and has the best heart. That could be a man like Lieberman again, I believe he has a good heart.

I think, and I'm speaking for myself. That this war has got allot of people uneasy, I just dislike knowing that young men and women are drying for nothing, and I want someone to bring them home. I'm sure Joe thinks he's doing the right thing, I just disagree with him on this issue.

[Broken_Hero]

4. good post....

and no flaming from me...:)

[rman]

5. "Gore chose Lieberman as his running mate"

Who were Gore's advisers?

Has anyone asked Gore why he choose Lieberman as his running mate?

[question everything]

6. To balance him?

Good ol' boy from the south vs. a gentleman from the northeast

a methodist (I think) vs. a Jew

Someone who would never ever even look at a woman who is not his wife vs. l'affair Lewinsky

This was the biggest mistake that Gore did - distancing himself from Clinton. Clinton, under whose administration everyone's standard of living increased, whether he had anything to do with it or not.

Clinton, who appointed ACLU Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer to try to stem the tide against the far right

[MADem]

14. Well, Hadassah was Joe-Mentum's SECOND wife

That got very little play, ironically. The first wife was a bit too secular, allegedly....

[question everything]

15. Really? Did not know that

as you say - did get very little play

Is she, though the mother of his children? I mean, was the first an early marriage when most of us don't know what we want to do when we grow old?

I don't think that she is a trophy wife to replace the older model, a-la Newt Gingrich, Dole, Pete Wilson, Phil Gramm..

[MADem]

16. Two kids from Numbah One, One from Numbah Two, one stepkid!

Hadassah, to be fair, is NO TROPHY. She is quite conservative, like he is. That was part of the appeal. And he was well divorced before the matchmaker put them together (seriously):

Just now, he warms to the story of how he met his second wife, Hadassah, to whom he has been married for 15 years.

Shortly after his divorce from his first wife, Lieberman was approached in the synagogue by a woman who said, "I have someone I want you to meet -- but not yet." Lieberman playfully extols "the wisdom of Edith Goldberg -- the matchmaker" who wisely understood that at the time, Lieberman was not yet ready to meet her friend, his wife-to-be.

Six months later, as a candidate for attorney general of Connecticut, Lieberman found himself in the unusual position of being alone with no political event scheduled. It was Easter Sunday, April 11, l982 (a romantic, he remembers the day fondly). Lieberman delved into the drawer where he kept all the names of prospective dates given to him and picked out the most unusual. Wouldn't it be fascinating to go out with someone named Hadassah? So he phoned with a strange request: meet him that day or not until December because he had virtually no free time until after the November election.

Not missing a beat, Hadassah told him she had just bought a dining room table and could use some help moving it in.

The couple met and romance blossomed. It is amazing, Lieberman beams, (and this is part of Lieberman lore, too) how often between April and November he managed to see her.
http://www.jewishsf.com/content/2-0-/module/displaystory/story_id/9203/edition_id/175/format/html/displaystory.html

Here's a bit about wife #1:

He was not very observant in 1965 when he married his first wife, Betty Haas, a Reform Jew. (As their daughter, Rebecca, puts it, "My mom came from the kind of Reform family who grew up with a Christmas tree.") The couple met while interning in Connecticut senator Abe Ribicoff's office; she went on to become a psychiatric social worker. "We kept a kosher home, so my parents could visit us," Lieberman says. "I still wasn't observing the Sabbath. Then, in 1967, my grandmother died." Lieberman's maternal grandmother, Minnie Manger, was a deeply religious immigrant and a strong influence. "When she died, it's trite to say, I felt the torch had been passed," Lieberman says. "I had an obligation to carry on the religious tradition." Interesting read from the New York Mag: http://newyorkmetro.com/nymetro/news/politics/n_7996/index1.html

[Meldread]

9. Why? Simple.

It was to try and win over the Jews in Florida. That's the reason Lieberman spent most of his time there. Lieberman wasn't picked because he was the best man for the job, he was picked for political convenience.

This, in contrast to Dick Cheney, who wasn't picked for political convenience (if anything one could argue he was a political liability), but for the fact that he was a policy maker. Ironically, it was Bush who was used for political convenience. One could easily argue that this is really a Cheney/Rove White House and Bush is just window dressing.

After all Bush is somewhat like a dumb animal. It's too stupid to know any better so you can't REALLY get mad at it, and he has all the qualities that make the Republican base go wild. (Dumb, Religious, and talks with a southern accent.)

[MADem]

10. Because of the Clinton blowback post-impeachment

Come on, it was not that long ago, really!!

Gore feared being tainted with the Clinton brush, which is why Clinton did not campaign for him. The idea was that Gore had to be his own man...Lieberman was the only Dem in the Senate who got up and gave a speech saying "Bad, bad, Bill, for letting that young girl toot your popsicle..." and there was this big "honor and integrity" meme being tossed about by the GOP.

The bounce initially was good--everyone thought Gore had HUGE stones for picking a religious Jew for the ticket.

Donna Brazile had a lot to do with the campaign, as did others.

The problem was, they spent all their time responding to the GOP, when they should have said, "WHO CARES what they think? The BIG ISSUES are not some guy fooling around on his wife, the BIG ISSUES are the environment, families, health care....blah, blah" (all that stuff that was important before Monkey plopped a great big load of war and terra on our plates).

The media helped the GOP and put Gore on defense, and he never got off it. Still, he WON, but he lost with the Supremes.

Whatchagonna do....

[question everything]

12. And then a repeat performance four years later

"The problem was, they spent all their time responding to the GOP, when they should have said, "WHO CARES what they think? The BIG ISSUES are not some guy fooling around on his wife, the BIG ISSUES are the environment, families, health care....blah, blah" (all that stuff that was important before Monkey plopped a great big load of war and terra on our plates)."

different players - from our side - and substitute fooling around with abortion and gay marriage - but the same winning strategy by Rove.

How many times do we have to lose before we realize that we cannot let them define us and the agenda? I think that the Clinton campaign was better at that - after the Willie Horton campaign in 1988. Stephanopolous and Carville and whoever else was in that campaign pounced back on them before the ink dried on their press releases.

[KoKo]

7. A great post...even though I'm much too lefty at this point

after so many disappointments to agree that I can't vote for Principles and Integrity over "who can win" or the ABBRepug Candidate.

I thank you for your caution, because I look back and realize that the Repug Propaganda Machine has been at work much longer than we all thought. What happened to Gore and Kerry was the "Machine." But their Campaign choices were THEIRS...so there is blame to go all around on this. Rupug machine is great at dividing Dems when we don't do it all on our own with very bad choices either in running mates for our front runners or in campaign flubups because of who we choose to run our campaigns.

But, well said and something to be aware of. Thanks! :-)'s

[question everything]

13. Thank you for your kind words

We all make our decisions but it bothers me that when a politician does not follow the party line - as defined on these pages - he is being indicted, convicted and executed (banishing him out of the party). And it is not just a few. There have been too many threads trashing him. It is not as if, like Zell Miller he expressed his support for Bush. No, he even campaigned for Kerry.

[Sam_Lowry]

11. I think the war

Is so front and center that it obscures everything else. Stories of the war come daily, whereas stories about abortion are far fewer. Many do not know of Reid's stance on abortion because they are cheering his taking on the administration. And in the last few years the dems have been such a poor opposition party, any voice that states the obvious is welcomed with open arms, without any scrutiny of the speaker's other positions. Most of us here on this board would not support Murtha's pro-military stand, unless it takes the form it currently does, namely getting them out of a meat grinder.

But you raise a question for which I cannot come up with a good answer. Would I vote for a pro-war, pro-choice candidate over an anti-war, anti-choice one? I honestly don't know.

Are either of those individual positions a deal-breaker for you? In other words, would you vote against a candidate because of their stance on abortion alone, or their stance on the war, even if in all other areas they were what you wanted?