Sen. Joseph Lieberman is said to be close to announcing his candidacy for the Democratic nomination for President in 2004.

I urge any Democratic Outsports members to contact him and ask him not to embark on this disastrous course. I think Lieberman severely hurt Al Gore in 2000 and his limitations will cripple the party in 2004.

He was a terrible VP candidate- his representation of his Judaism is well out of the mainstream of American Jews, his views are far too conservative for most Democrats, he gave away the store in his debate with Cheney, and he gives the impression of being a wimp.

A larger consideration is that the country is not ready for a Jewish president. Sad as that is to say,it is nonetheless, true. I am Jewish myself and I think there is still plenty of anti-Semitism around to effectively rule him out. I think Gore ran poorly in the South (except Florida) may, in part, be due to his VP candidate. Having him at the top of the ticket would be worse.

You can call the Senate directory or go to http://lieberman.senate.gov/

[QUOTE]Originally posted by m1011:
I think Lieberman severely hurt Al Gore in 2000 and his limitations will cripple the party in 2004.

I agree. Lieberman is not my cup of tea as a Jew or a Democrat (and I am both). His inane, ant-liberty screeds against Hollywood are anathema to me.

That said, I'm afraid I can't agree with m1011 on much else.

A larger consideration is that the country is not ready for a Jewish president. Sad as that is to say,it is nonetheless, true.

While this may be true, it's no reason for Lieberman not to run. For m1011 to urge that course of action can be described in one word: COWARDICE. And if Lieberman bowed out for that reason, it would be equally yellow.

And I'm not certain it's true, in any event. While there is certainly more anti-semitism present in society than is actually expressed, and while the secrecy of the ballot would permit its fuller expression, I think the number of people who would decline to vote for someone they agreed with on that basis is smaller than most would imagine. Finally, most people who would refuse to vote for a jew under any circumstances are people who wouldn't vote for any democrat you could name. The one group of votes democrats could lose would be that segment of the black community that identifies with Farrakhan and his ilk. Not enough to tip the balance.

his representation of his Judaism is well out of the mainstream of American Jews

Sometimes, m1011, Jews are the biggest anti-semites of all. How does the fact that Liberman, unlike most American Jews, actually observes the dietary laws and the sabbath threaten you or disqualify him from office?

Your post sickens me.

[ December 16, 2002: Message edited by: Skiguy ]

Well if he's not the best candidate then he won't win the primary, so what's the big deal? I say whoever wants to run, should run. Pee Wee Herman could run too, he wouldn't win, but if he wants to run, then go for it.

And as for him being a Jew, again, what is the big deal? Aren't we sort of past all that, no Jews for president, no Catholics, no this, no that. That seems like 50 years ago or something.

As dreamy-eyed as we all might like to be about the American electorate, Leiberman's faith is a practical political consideration and cannot be dismissed. (Assuming Lieberman makes it into the general election campaign against Bush, if his people are smart they will plant some anti-semetic attacks themselves and then blame them on Republicans, putting Bush and the GOP on the defensive and energizing Jewish voters in Florida and New York.)

[quote]Originally posted by m1011:
I urge any Democratic Outsports members to contact him and ask him not to embark on this disastrous course. I think Lieberman severely hurt Al Gore in 2000 and his limitations will cripple the party in 2004.
You can call the Senate directory or go to http://lieberman.senate.gov/

---

PLEASE explain to me the sense in this request. If you want it done, why don't YOU do it?

What difference does it make what party you're voting for?

I look forward to the opportunity to weigh Lieberman's run with whomever else dares to run in 2004, if that opportunity suits him.

[ December 16, 2002: Message edited by: bluebird48234 ]

I have already sent him an e-mail urging him not to run.

As for the vitriol, etc. that you threw my way from my initial post, consider that only one Catholic was (barely and could have been a stolen election) elected in our history. The Presidential pedigree has been a Protestant Northern European through the 200 plus years of our history.

Electing someone from outside of that mode will represent a truly revolutionary development. The only person I could see breaking that mold right now would be Colin Powell. In terms of standing with the American people, Lieberman doesnt even come close.

Sorry to offend anyone's sensiblities, but I am a practical thinker who does not want to see 8 years of Bush, et. al.

I forgot to reply to one more point you made, Skiguy. I am not threatened by Lieberman's Orthodox leanings, but it is a fact that most Jews do not identify with sect, most of us do not keep Kosher, most of us relate to Judaism on a less zealous level than he does. We tend to be a fairly secular group.

I find much of his belief to be outdated and irrelevant, and I think he represents a small portion of a small population. This is not a formula for political success.

I reacted to Lieberman's endless discussion of his religious beliefs as I do to Pat Robertson, Jesse Jackson, and any other politician who invokes religion in the course of discussing the issues. Church (and Synagogue) and State should be ABSOLUTELY separate and should have little or no bearing on the formulation of public policy.

[quote]Originally posted by m1011:
I forgot to reply to one more point you made, Skiguy. I am not threatened by Lieberman's Orthodox leanings, but it is a fact that most Jews do not identify with sect, most of us do not keep Kosher, most of us relate to Judaism on a less zealous level than he does. We tend to be a fairly secular group.

---

So we do. But the whole point of this country is that one needn't share the religious beliefs of others to participate fully in the political life of the country. I'm sure I read that somewhere . . . oh yeah the CONSTITUTION.

Article VI (in other words, so basic to the strucutre of our polity that it was in the Constitution itself, and not in our favorite afterthought, the Bill of Rights): but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

What else are your proposing, m1011, but just such a religious test: because he doesn't share the religious outlook of a majority of his co-religionists, you argue, he shouldn't even run for office, much less hold it.

You don't want to vote for him for that reason, fine, don't. (i won't either). That too is the glory of this country. But to suggest that he ought not even to run? Repugnant.

m1011, I agree with you that Lieberman's candidacy will not result in a democratic victory, and I don't think he should run, much for the same reasons that Gore cited. Should he decide to run, his gravitas within the party may cause many to see it as their duty to rally the troups 'round him, which I think would be unfortunate. Sad to say, but the biggest part of my reason for thinking he couldn't win has to do with the image he presents on television -- his physical and vocal presence are not a big drawing card.

Where I don't agree with you is that I DO Think (perhaps naively) that the country is ready for a Jewish president. I think it would be a virtual non-issue in a general election campaign. In the primaries, his conservative disconnect in this arena probably would be an issue. Skiguy's comments crytalize my thoughts on this.

[quote]Originally posted by Skiguy:
What else are your proposing, m1011, but just such a religious test: because he doesn't share the religious outlook of a majority of his co-religionists, you argue, he shouldn't even run for office, much less hold it.

---

If you look back to the original post, Skiguy, religion wasn't the ONLY reason m1011 suggested Lieberman shouldn't run. And yes, actually, it is acceptable to discourage someone from running if you think that person will harm your party's chances of attaining victory. (It is for that reason I am glad Gore dropped out.)

As for whether the country is ready for a Jewish president, I'm not sure. I guess we won't know until someone tries. (I do believe there would be some resistance, and not just from conservatives either.)

Has Lieberman ever discussed whether he would work on the Sabbath if he became president?

I doubt very much that Lieberman is the best bet to oppose Bush in the 2004 elections and for that reason and that reason only, I would discourage his candidacy. At this point in time, with wars and the economy as our top concerns and top unknowns, it's hard to know how to oppose Bush yet. Yes, his handling of the economy is basically disastrous, but he's still dealing with terrorism and Iraq. His approach to these grave situations is still very much debatable. The jury is still out.

[ December 16, 2002: Message edited by: bryan d. ]

Before I would consider voting for Lieberman, I would first have to ask where he stands on alot of issues that relates to us as gay people. I can't say that I know very much about him at this point. Right now I would have to say I am in the Kerry camp, until I know more about the candidates.

I would say I'm in the Howard Dean camp until I hear more. But what I know of him I like very much.

I am opposed to Lieberman running, not because he is Orthodox Jewish. In fact, he could still win ALL of the states Gore won, including all of the populous northeast and midwest states, California, and the Pacific Northwest as well as Florida, which would give him the lead in electoral votes AND popular votes.

My problem with Lieberman is that he hews far too close to the Republicans and would present voters with yet another case study in the failed electoral strategy of 2002. He fought tighter standards for the accounting industry. He is extremely hawkish on Iraq and Israel. His tax-cutting credentials rank him with Republicans. He wears his religiosity on his sleeve, he whines, and he is far too moralistic. His attack on Hollywood was craven. He caves easily in debates--he can be too nice. Were Russ Feingold not such a maverick, I'd suggest that he run; he's very smart, handsome, and yes, he's Jewish. But he's really sort of out in his own field--progressive and not electable.

John Kerry, I believe, was raised as a Roman Catholic, and could win; there are several prominent Republicans who are Roman Catholic, and any one of them could win someday (Rick Santorum comes to mind). Given that Kerry is a divorcee--like Lieberman, BTW--is he allowed to receive the sacraments? His wife is a Brazilian heiress to the Heinz fortune, and he himself is descended from the Massachusetts Forbes family.) Dick Gebhardt is also Catholic, as is Daschle, I believe, though Gebhardt won't get the national nod, and Daschle is just too spineless.

Right now, I see the leading contenders as John Kerry and John Edwards, though if Wesley Clark enters the race, he immediate commands stature and would be a strong VP candidate. Only Kerry, Edwards and, I assume, Clark can stand up to Sharpton and tell him to go back to New York and not give the Republicans easy ledes for months. The same is true of Dean, who, had he not signed the civil union bill (an act I totally and utterly support), might help to bring the Democrats back to their liberal roots. He'll be tarred and feathered by right-wingers for that signature, though.

[ December 16, 2002: Message edited by: fantomas ]

[quote]Originally posted by fantomas:
The same is true of Dean, who, had he not signed the civil union bill (an act I totally and utterly support), might help to bring the Democrats back to their liberal roots. He'll be tarred and feathered by right-wingers for that signature, though.

[ December 16, 2002: Message edited by: fantomas ]

---

bring on the tar and feathers! actually, i hope the right-wingers pounce all over him, and expose themselves for what they are -- bigots.

the fundamental opposition to domestic partnerships was its imminent destruction of the social fabric and structure as we know it -- the sanctity of marriage argument. we've all heard it. domestic partnerships will cheapen marriage. it flies in the face of years and years of the traditional marriage definition. it will end the family as we know it. people will be fornicating in the streets!!

as soon as these objections start to fly, governor dean can easily counter them with one simple sentence, "it didn't happen." despite ump's rather denigrating summary of vermont and vermonters in another thread, vermonters are a very forward-looking people, and have, with only minor exceptions, accepted domestic partnerships with aplomb and grace. and their world didn't end.

once governor dean, the only candidate with hard experience on the subject of the social effects of domestic partnerships dismisses the standard arguments against domestic partnerships, and its opponents can no longer wrap themselves in the save-the-family mantle, these same opponents will either have to drop their objections or be exposed for what they really are -- bigots.

while governor dean is a longshot, he can move the social agenda forward with his candidacy, if he doesn't shy away from the subject of domestic partnerships, as if his opponents would let him!

Interestingly enough Ann Roberts former Governor (D) of Texas was on, who I adore, and she said she liked Dean the best so far. She said he is a Dr. I guess, and is saying the things that she wants to hear, there really was nobody else so far that she was to excited about, yet.

A couple of thoughts on both Lieberman and Dean - I agree Lieberman should not run, because:

1. He could have the Mondale syndrome - associated with a "loser" for the presidency

2. He is WAY too conservative for a Democrat

3. He did not have a national stage or presence before the 2000 election.

I don't think the Orthodox issue should prevent him from running, but I can see it being a distraction from a major campaign. He had to deal with a lot of questions about the practice of Orthodox Judaism, particuarly the restrictions on travel on the Sabbath, as a Vice-Presidential candidate, it would be even more of an issue as a Presidential candidate.

As for Dean, what I like about him is his unapolegetic embrace of his approval of the civil union bill. His basic message is, it was the right thing to do, he would do it as President were a bill passed, but he doesn't think the country is ready for it. In a weird way, it satisfies both the liberal and conservative arms of the Democratic party, and I would guess, the nation. He is a committed man without being a zealot, and I think he could have a good shot if his message is more widely heard (almost inevitable now that Gore is out) and if he can overcome the height issue (he is much shorter than the Shrub, and the taller guy always wins).

Dean is a physician, a rare occupation for presidential aspirants.

I like his positions, but realistically, he comes from a state with few electoral votes, he is to the left of the rest of the field (which I like, but realize will cause him real problems with the media) and while his civil union bill support would probably not hurt him in Oregon or Illinois, it might be dicey in a few states the Democrats need to win.

We really should not forget that had Gore won even one more state--such as New Hampshire, Missouri or his home state of Tennessee, he would not only have had a popular lead of 750,000 to 1 million votes, but he would easily have crossed the electoral line. IT WAS THAT CLOSE. The Democrats have a jump start with California, New York and many of the large industrial midwest states in their camp (Texas is the Republicans' trump card, as is the aggregate vote of most of the non-coastal states in the west and Rocky Mountain region), but they've got to win some of the former border states to get over the hump. I think Kerry and Edwards could do that, and given the shrinking financial fortunes and rising crime in many southern and western states, they could even win a few of these. Clinton did so and it's not inconceivable that Democrats could do so again. North Carolina, Louisiana, Florida, Arkansas, Georgia, and possibly Tennessee and Kentucky are not inconceivable.

BTW, Vermont was the first state in the union to outlaw slavery. Go Vermont!

[quote]Originally posted by fantomas:
Dean is a physician, a rare occupation for presidential aspirants.

I like his positions, but realistically,

---

I'm usually the first to play the pragmatist in electoral politics, and I still give a piece of mind to any of the Nader-voting MORONS (that's right, morons, each of you, except in states that Bush won going away, and it was known in advance that this would be so) that I come across, since Gore would have won Florida without them (and New Hampshire, whose four electoral votes, removed from the Bush column and added to the Gore column, would have won the election, Florida be damned; Florida be damned, hmmm, not a bad idea at all.)

BUT, I figure 2004 is a lost cause for the Democrats anyway. With the economy in the crapper, John Ashcroft using the war on terror (which I support) to create a police state (which I loathe), and a century-long trend of losses by the White House party in mid-term elections, the Dems STILL failed, and failed miserably this year. In 2004, when the economy is bound to be getting better (unless this downswing in the business cycle lasts longer than they typically do), and a full-fledged war against Iraq underway or already won, what chance have we?

On the one hand, that's very depressing. On the other, it means I can throw all my support behind Dean without worrying about its impact on the general election. Check out Dean's website, my fellow Dems, and see if he doesn't inspire you more than Edwards (blow-dried empty suit), Kerry (old style liberalism with a Vietnam tour of duty tacked on), Gephardt (corrupt, stupid, and committed to trade policies that would wreck the world economy), Daschle (bet he has a limp, wet handshake to go with his dazzling personality and iron grip on the Senate) or Lieberman.

Since 2004 is over already, let's use the primary season to help re-tool oour party for the future, and show TPTB that we need men like Dean, and not weasels like the above-mentioned candidates.

[ December 17, 2002: Message edited by: Skiguy ]

This discussion is moot, in my opinion, because Lieberman is too conservative to win the Democratic nomination.

(BTW, the governor of Texas was Ann Richards, not Ann Roberts.)

Richards, my mistake, sorry. Brain fart. Ann told Larry that Mary Landruex told her that the Republicans were telling the blacks dwon there that if they didn't vote on Tuesday they could come back next week. Those Republicans are such good folks, NOT!!

[ December 17, 2002: Message edited by: puckman1 ]

And they believed them? I'm not sure what is worse, being that evil or being that stupid.

[quote]Originally posted by fantomas:
I am opposed to Lieberman running, not because he is Orthodox Jewish. In fact, he could still win ALL of the states Gore won, including all of the populous northeast and midwest states, California, and the Pacific Northwest as well as Florida, which would give him the lead in electoral votes AND popular votes.

My problem with Lieberman is that he hews far too close to the Republicans and would present voters with yet another case study in the failed electoral strategy of 2002. He fought tighter standards for the accounting industry. He is extremely hawkish on Iraq and Israel. His tax-cutting credentials rank him with Republicans. He wears his religiosity on his sleeve, he whines, and he is far too moralistic. His attack on Hollywood was craven. He caves easily in debates--he can be too nice.

---

If he's that bad don't vote for him. Why shouldn't he run if that's what he wants?

And is "religiosity" a real word? I can't recall hearing it before.

Since you asked, JIP, "religiosity" is the Latinate nominal form of the English adjective "religiose," meaning "excessively religious." Or as Merriam-Webster's online puts it:

Main Entry: re·li·gi·ose
Pronunciation: ri-'li-jE-"Os
Function: adjective
Etymology: religion + 1-ose
Date: 1853
: RELIGIOUS; especially : excessively, obtrusively, or sentimentally religious
- re·li·gi·os·i·ty /-"li-jE-'ä-s&-tE/ noun

Dictionaries are better than Dunkin' Donuts or Krispy Kremes to me, and Lieberman is too damned religiose, but let him run!