« We Don’t Know the Half Of It | Home | Links of the Moment »
Your Average Joe Liberal Can’t Win in ‘04
By Matt Margolis | August 4, 2003
I certainly don’t expect to be preaching to anything but a wall when it comes to discussing the 2004 election to liberals/Democrats. I can give the most objective perspective on the election and still be talking to deaf ears because my opinion will be immediately deemed irrelevant because I am a conservative.
Nevertheless, I feel that my position has been supported by the words of not another conservative, but of one of the Democratic Presidential Candidates, Joe Lieberman.
Generally speaking, I think Joe Lieberman is a phony – at least, he certainly was in 2000. I think he compromised many aspects of his own belief system by going on Al Gore’s ticket for the last election. I think, beneficial to him, he’s showing more of his true side for his own bid for the presidency now – however, that doesn’t generally make him overall appealing to me – but it may help him get the nomination.
Presidential candidate Joe Lieberman warned Monday that his Democratic rivals threaten to send the party “into the political wilderness” with a return to big-government programs and less-than-strong stands on national security.
Determined to persuade Democrats that he is the only candidate capable of defeating President Bush, the Connecticut senator said the party must focus on strengthening America’s security and economy and will, in turn, win over moderate voters.
That’s what it comes down to, the moderate voters. Candidates like Kucinich and Dean don’t appeal to moderates. Joe Lieberman, a moderate Democrat, does have the potential to appeal to moderate voters.
“Some Democrats, on the contrary, still prefer the old, big government solutions to our problems,” Lieberman said in a speech to the National Press Club. “But, my friends, with record deficits, a stalled economy and Social Security in danger, we can’t afford that.”
Translation: Howard Dean’s or Dick Gephardt’s socialized health care plans suck – neither will work. But, thinking people knew that already. Joe Lieberman is right.
He criticized Missouri Rep. Dick Gephardt’s plan to provide health care for nearly all Americans and his opposition to trade treaties such as the North American Free Trade Agreement.
He assailed those who opposed the U.S.-led war against Iraq — former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean, Sen. Bob Graham of Florida, Rep. Dennis Kucinich of Ohio former Illinois Sen. Carol Moseley Braun and Al Sharpton.
This is another issue that puts Lieberman in a better position the previously mentioned candidates. The war in Iraq is still supported by the majority of Americans.
Lieberman is positioning himself as the foil to Dean, whose campaign has taken off on his criticism of Bush’s tax cuts and the conflict in Iraq. Lieberman said those positions “could really be a ticket to nowhere.”
You heard it - right from the Democratic presidential candidate’s mouth. Those are not my words (although I do agree with them) they are Lieberman’s. So if the liberals who visit my site don’t want to take my word for it, maybe they’ll take Lieberman’s.
“If George Bush and his bankrupt ideology are the problem, believe me, old Democratic policies like higher taxes and weakness on defense are not the solution,” Lieberman said. “We need to reclaim the vital center of American politics for the Democrats.”
While Lieberman goes after the center to take votes from Bush, Dean says Democrats must take a stand against Bush’s policies to win.
What Dean really means is that Democrats shouldn’t run on the issues. That’s really what it is. Pick a target, and everybody aim. That’s what Dean wants – he wants the focus of the election to be Bush, not the issues, not his own record. Dean would much rather run an antagonist’s campaign.
“Unlike some Democrats in Washington, Governor Dean believes that the way to beat George Bush is to stand up to him and to give people a reason to vote,” said Dean spokeswoman Tricia Enright.
The issues… what about the issues? Does Dean have anything else to say beside “Nationalized Health Care,” and “Bush is bad.”? Dean has nothing on his plate to offer the American people. Joe Lieberman is at least smart enough to realize there are issues to address when you’re running for president.
As long as Joe Lieberman maintains a platform that appeals to moderates, he will be more useful to the Democratic Party in 2004.
Topics: Bush 2004 |
Related Posts:
August 5th, 2003 at 8:25 am
” I think he compromised many aspects of his own belief system by going on Al Gore’s ticket for the last election.”
I see no evidence that Lieberman objected to the project of the Criminally Inclined.
In 2000, an outright lawbreaking endeavor that received too little attention was the Gore-Nader Vote Swap Initiative.
A consistent pattern could be seen on several websites of the Criminally Inclined in implementing the Vote Swap Initiative. Answers within their FAQ sections carefully described how it was that the electoral vote count, NOT popular vote count, was the essential relationship in deciding the presidency. After all, the Vote Swap was ABSOLUTELY dependent upon the setup of the Electoral College. Then following Florida, that position of The Criminally Inclined miraculously reversed.
In the week prior to election day, most if not all of these groups stated that they shut down(under protest!) after receiving affidavits from various states(e.g., NY and CA) pointing out that since(those states) had election laws identifying vote trading as illegal, the groups would be prosecuted for election law violation.
The CRIMINAL nature of that Vote Swap Initiative has received too little attention.
August 5th, 2003 at 7:46 pm
Larry, do you understand what the comment you quoted means?
I was suggesting that when Lieberman changes his views on abortion and affirmative action to join Al Gore’s ticket, he was compromising his own beliefs.
I could really care less about the Bush v. Gore and/or other issue regarding the Election of 2000.
August 6th, 2003 at 11:44 am
what’s funny, is that in one second, the DEms will denounce thenidea of the Suprme court deciding an election in which they inevitably lost. BUT…If the supreme court had decided in their favor, they’d be praising them, and thanking all the gods that the supreme court stepped in.
August 6th, 2003 at 3:32 pm
getting back on topic…..
I have mixed feelings about Lieberman running. On the one hand, I am of the opinion that he is more of a threat to Bush than any of the other candidates because he usually is in touch with reality, and appeals more to the center of America. The fringe left will still vote for him (against Bush), so he might actually be able to pull a win.
On the other hand. I would like to see him run because it would raise the level of debate to something less emotive, and more reasoning. It would also Force GWB to take tougher stances on stuff like Saudi arabia, and protection of the second amendment, in order to get re-elected. This would be good for the country, IMHO.
August 8th, 2003 at 1:22 pm
Lieberman is a Republican plain and simple. He has no chancein this election. Why vote for a boring guy who wants to censor you and take away your rights, when you can have America’s Favorite Drinking Buddy take away your rights…
Leiberman thinks Dean is a threat to democracy, Kucinich thinks he is a threat to democracy, so he must be juuuuuust right.
GO DEAN!
Furthermore, Matt, enjoy this article:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A31496-2003Aug7.html
August 8th, 2003 at 6:34 pm
Bushed, please explain to me why you jump on Lieberman and call him a Republican like it’s a dirty word, but the moment someone calls Dean a liberal, you start touting his moderate/conservative views.
I don’t quite understand. You have a hard on for Dean, you apparently hate Lieberman, but according to you and others, they both have so-called) conservative views.
And about your stupid link…
You can believe all you want that those 16 words in the State of The Union actually made a difference in the Iraq situation… but you only make yourself look stupid doing so. I’ve addressed the issue of those 16 words in various other threads of the blog, and I have no intention of discussion it again here. Talk about it with other lefties who jerk off to anything anti-Bush.
August 9th, 2003 at 2:01 pm
I’m sorry, Republican is not a dirty word. Bush is, but Republican in general is not. There are plenty of moderate Republicans. Lieberman is just not in touch with the core values of the Democratic Party, or with the people of the United States. He has no chance against Bush for numerous reasons, one being that whole Bush-Lite factor. He doesn’t distinguish himself as anything but a conservative, and you and I both know a conservative stands no chance agaisnt Bush.
Dean is, in my opinion, the perfect candidate. He’s liberal for all the right social reasons (equal rights for all, even gays, anti-deception, anti-Iraq (but pro-defense on afghanistan)), and conservative on all the issues that might pull in independants and progressive republicans (balanced budgets and state control on major issues, less big government.) Basically, on almost every issue he is the exact opposite of Bush. The only way to beat Bush is to be different than him. Otherwise, Bush’s charisma is gonna win every time. (That being Dubya’s one true strength.)
Dean is the perfect storm that can convince America to get off up its ass and vote. Republicans have always been better about getting out and voting (Gephardt is a fine example of dems not as he had an 86% absence on votes last congressional session), but Dean is giving everyone else the desire to get up and do their part, which is rare in modern day politics.
I myself am a moderate. I like strong defense, but also think everyone deserves equal rights.
As for the 16 words, it’s not as much about them anymore as it is that the administration continued to deceive the American public before and after that speech. It was reffered to many times by administration officials who knew it was bogus. I, personally, think that is an act that deserves punishment. Your ideology seems to blind you to that fact. I have yet to see you actually look at Bush with any sort of objective glance, even though most would consider him at least “not perfect.” You sir, seem to have a hard on for Bush. (I suppose that could be interpreted more than one way.) :’)
August 9th, 2003 at 4:17 pm
Your blatant distaste for Bush hardly makes your opinion objective when discussing anyone who is running against him.
I know you’d love to believe that Dean is “the perfect candidate” - but he is not going to get the nomination. I guarantee you. You may want him to get the Democratic nomination, but I don’t see the DNC going that route.
Now, there are some thing about Dean’s ideology which are simply ridiculous, including his stand on the bill of rights. As the campaign progresses, I shall address several issues that I am sure even you are not aware of. Nevertheless, you will see that an actual moderate Democrat has more of a chance to defeat Bush than a liberal one. Once again, I’ll ask you to look at the November 2002 election to understand the direction that America is heading.
Dean has said he’d veto any parental notification law regarding abortions. In the gubernatorial race in Massachusetts, Shannon O’Brien likely lost the election for saying during a debate that she’d allow 16 year olds to get an abortion without parental consent. Massachusetts is a liberal state too.
Dean’s campaign strategy is certainly noteworthy, but it’s not going to win him the election.
The only thing the White House did wrong was to “admit” they were wrong in including those 16 words.
The resolution to go into Iraq was passed well before the State of The Union. So don’t give me this deception crap.
My conservative leanings do not blind me to the extent your anti-Bush ideology blinds you.
August 9th, 2003 at 4:27 pm
Oddly enough I found this at Newsmax.
http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/opinions/benson/
August 10th, 2003 at 2:31 am
So let me get this straight…it’s OK that they lied to the American people, it’s just wrong that they admited it?
Dean is a moderate. He’s strong on defense, the NRA gives him an A+, and he’s actually got a conscience.
I’m a moderate as well (I wanted McCain in the 2000 0election, not Bush or Gore.)
I am anti-Bush after watching him tear our coutry limb from limb.
Shit like this.
And this.
Here’s an example.
“>And this.
It scares me that I could go on for hours, citing page after page of evidence that Bush might have done at least the occasional bad thing and your best response is that I am blinded by my hatred for Bush, without actually mentioning one thing that Bush has done to help this country’s environment, our national security, protect our soldiers (try defending cutting their benefits, I dare you), work with other countries, anything at all, other than cutting taxes. Show me one thing that he has done right, that has turned out to be productive. Leave No Children behind is cutting funding to schools. Blue Skies is polluting our air. Healthy Forests is dicing up our national forests. Back up your insults and innuendo with actual FACT, Mr. Objectivity. Defend your guy. Love to know what I can consider helping our country. Maybe I’ll even vote for him. Convince me.
August 11th, 2003 at 11:52 pm
Bushed,
You say you’re a moderate, but you read the Guardian.
That already destroys your credibility with me.
August 17th, 2003 at 1:44 am
Okay, you’ve shown us a story that specifically shows only tales of woe from Iraq. Hardly objective or reflective of the actual attitude of all or most of the troops.
You’ve showed us a news story that essentially says John Ashcroft wants to be tough on criminals. I praise him for it, you crucify him.
You showed us an interview done with one economist… Who, by the way, clearly doesn’t understand what rich technically means in this country.
You’ve showed us an article clearly suggesting your disapproval of the Bush Administration’s attempt to expand our energy sources… Considering the events of this week, you were probably also quick to criticize Bush for whatever far fetched reason you could find, to suggest Bush hasn’t done anything regarding a good energy policy. Seems like no matter what Bush does you’ll criticize him because that’s all you know how to do.
And lastly, an article talking about the soldiers doing their job… which the author decided to portray in a negative way.
Yeah… a real jackpot you have their Bushed… Ha!
October 23rd, 2003 at 7:05 am
matt, Bush is doing great with the economy and the environment right?
you havent been able to come up with anything to support this claim. are you crazy or just plain stupid?