How's Lieberman?

[mr_president]

After Al Gore backed Governor Dean instead of Gore’s running mate Senator Joe Lieberman dose he still have a chance or dose he still want to run? Lieberman said he would withdraw from the race if Gore ran. What’s going on?

[dazzleman]

Gore cares more about seeking revenge against Clinton than in showing loyalty to his former running mate.

Gore had a mentality that he was entitled to the presidency, had been groomed for it all his life.  His failure to secure it destroyed him, since he really has no inner core.  In casting about for people to blame, one of his targets is his former boss, Bill Clinton.

Truthfully, Clinton is partly to blame, since Gore inherited many of Clinton's negatives, but not all his positives.  Also, Clinton was more concerned with helping his wretched wife win her Senate seat, as a payback for her standing by his lies in the Lewinsky matter.

Gore's endorsement of Dean is more about 2008 than 2004.  He wants to wrest control of the party from the Clintons, and possibly run against Madame Ceaucescu (I mean Clinton) in 2008.  But make no mistake, Gore is out to destroy the Clintons, even if he thinks he can't or won't run in any case.

I don't think Lieberman stood much of a chance anyway.  His foreign policy positions are far too realistic and sensible for Democratic primary voters.  He tried to compensate for it with class hatred on the economic side, but I don't think that's enough.  It's a shame for the Democrats, because he'd be one of the stronger candidates in the general election, but I just don't see his nomination happening.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Madame Ceaucescu (I mean Clinton)

Not funny, not clever and insulting to Romanians.
You might dislike Sen. Clinton but she is nothing like the Bucharest witch.

[Gustaf]

Madame Ceaucescu (I mean Clinton)

Not funny, not clever and insulting to Romanians.
You might dislike Sen. Clinton but she is nothing like the Bucharest witch.

Especially since I believe Madama Ceaucescu got lynched by the mob together with her husband. (My tolerance for jokes is pretty high though, so I'm not that disturbed by it.)

[dazzleman]

It's funny how those on the left are so sensitive when their icons are criticized, but show no such sensitivity to others.

I could also have compared Hillary to Madame Chiang Kai-Shek, Madame Honecker, the vile wife of the former East German dictator, or Jiang Qing (sp?), the super-radical wife of Mao Zedong.

Unlike the leftists who compare Pres. Bush to Hitler, I don't actually think Hillary is as bad as those women in an absolute context, but I do think she's their equivalent within the, thankfully, much milder American political context.

[Gustaf]

It's funny how those on the left are so sensitive when their icons are criticized, but show no such sensitivity to others.

I could also have compared Hillary to Madame Chiang Kai-Shek, Madame Honecker, the vile wife of the former East German dictator, or Jiang Qing (sp?), the super-radical wife of Mao Zedong.

Unlike the leftists who compare Pres. Bush to Hitler, I don't actually think Hillary is as bad as those women in an absolute context, but I do think she's their equivalent within the, thankfully, much milder American political context.

I don't really get the similarities between the ruthless and corrupt wifes to communist dictators and the wife of an American ex-president, so maybe you could clarify that a little. Hillary Clinton is NOT an icon of mine and I have never compared Bush to Hitler (has anyone, with the exception of that minsiter in Germany?). You should maybe be a little careful with accusing people of views they haven't expressed.

[dazzleman]

[
I don't really get the similarities between the ruthless and corrupt wifes to communist dictators and the wife of an American ex-president, so maybe you could clarify that a little. Hillary Clinton is NOT an icon of mine and I have never compared Bush to Hitler (has anyone, with the exception of that minsiter in Germany?). You should maybe be a little careful with accusing people of views they haven't expressed.

Well, first of all I wasn't accusing you of having any views.  I was making a general statement, not specific to any person, about how many politically correct people expect to be treated with a level of sensitivity that they do not show to others.  I stand by that statement, but nobody should take it personally, least of all you.

With respect to Mrs. Clinton, she is a ruthless and corrupt wife of a former American president.  Like the wives I mentioned, she was a power behind the throne who used her position as the president's wife to achieve a level of power that she could not have attained on her own, and for which she was not qualified (i.e., her health care debacle).  Also like those wives, she was generally considered to be more radical and ruthless than her husband.  

As I said, she can be compared to those women only in the American political context, which is far more mild than the context in which those women operated, rather than an absolute context.  But within that more limited context, she played a similar role to the role those women played, and wielded power in a similar manner.

One big difference is that none of those other wives went on to hold office on their own as Hillary has done.  Mao's wife was arrested and thrown in prison, Ceaucescu's wife was killed along with him, and Honecker's wife disappeared along with her husband when their government was overthrown.

To be honest, I think the level of sensitivity to my little comment is ridiculous.  Many, many people have said far worse things about Hillary, and about many other politicians, without anybody batting an eyelash.  It should be clear that the statement was not meant to be taken literally.

[Gustaf]

[
I don't really get the similarities between the ruthless and corrupt wifes to communist dictators and the wife of an American ex-president, so maybe you could clarify that a little. Hillary Clinton is NOT an icon of mine and I have never compared Bush to Hitler (has anyone, with the exception of that minsiter in Germany?). You should maybe be a little careful with accusing people of views they haven't expressed.

Well, first of all I wasn't accusing you of having any views.  I was making a general statement, not specific to any person, about how many politically correct people expect to be treated with a level of sensitivity that they do not show to others.  I stand by that statement, but nobody should take it personally, least of all you.

With respect to Mrs. Clinton, she is a ruthless and corrupt wife of a former American president.  Like the wives I mentioned, she was a power behind the throne who used her position as the president's wife to achieve a level of power that she could not have attained on her own, and for which she was not qualified (i.e., her health care debacle).  Also like those wives, she was generally considered to be more radical and ruthless than her husband.  

As I said, she can be compared to those women only in the American political context, which is far more mild than the context in which those women operated, rather than an absolute context.  But within that more limited context, she played a similar role to the role those women played, and wielded power in a similar manner.

One big difference is that none of those other wives went on to hold office on their own as Hillary has done.  Mao's wife was arrested and thrown in prison, Ceaucescu's wife was killed along with him, and Honecker's wife disappeared along with her husband when their government was overthrown.

To be honest, I think the level of sensitivity to my little comment is ridiculous.  Many, many people have said far worse things about Hillary, and about many other politicians, without anybody batting an eyelash.  It should be clear that the statement was not meant to be taken literally.

OK, I get it now, and I agree that people shoudn't be oversensitive, and also that people tend to take joke badly when made about their own political idols. Luckily, I don't get hurt but that sort of thing, and I wasn't crying murder about Hillary either which you will see if you read my post. But I do get your point now, and it is valid (though pehaps a little tough on poor Hillary...).

[Gustaf]

Who is Madame Ceaucescu?

She was the wife of the communist dictator of Romania about a decade ago. They were both lynched by the mob when communism fell.  

[dazzleman]

Do you think she new about the president affairs because that makes the diffrence dont it.

Of course she knew about the president's affairs.  She knew about the Monica Lewinsky affair when she went out babbling about a right wing conspiracy.  The fact is that she was running a conspiracy of her own.

It was interesting to watch the influence of Hillary wax and wane during the Clinton administration, in accordance with Bill's infidelities and her foul-ups.

At the beginning, Hillary held great power, because she had stood by Bill through the Gennifer Flowers fiasco.  So he gave her health care and she messed it all up, costing the Democrats control of Congress.  After that, she was pretty quiescent until the Monica Lewinsky thing.  After that, she had him by the 'nads again, and that was when she made her bid for the Senate.  After all, I don't think a Senate seat is too much to ask for having put up with a serial adulterer for 25 years.  And neither is the presidency.

[dazzleman]

]

Your anwser is very well expressed. Can i ask did you vote that Joe would not win the nomination?

Yes, I did vote that Lieberman would not win the nomination, although he is the Democrat that I would vote for if I were voting in the Democratic primary in my state.

I think that if Dean falters, which he could, Gephardt would be a more likely nominee than Lieberman.

But overall, there could be a lot of surprises when the primary results actually come in, so anything could happen.

[Gustaf]

Once again the question is perhaps misphrased. Lieberman can still win the nomination though it is very unlikely. I would agree with Dazzleman, Gephardt is a morelikely candidate (not if he loses Iowa though).  

[Nym90]

Wow, dazzleman, you managed to make scatching critiques of the Clintons, Gore, and Lieberman all in one post.
Why are Republicans so obsessed with all of these conspiracy theories from the left? Like Gore is out to destroy the Clintons, the Clintons are out to destroy Dean, Dean is out to destroy the Clintons, etc. Make no mistake about it, all of these people are doing what they think is best for the country, regardless of their own views or political ambitions. To say otherwise is just plain ridiculous. You can disagree with their political views all you want, but not only saying that these people all have an evil grand scheme, but asserting that you are absolutely certain beyond a shadow of a doubt that they do, is just ludicrous.

[dazzleman]

You're right.  I have made scathing critiques about the Clintons and Gore, but I don't see that I made a scathing critique of Lieberman.

I have actually somewhat liked Lieberman, more in the past than I do now, but I don't think I'd make a scathing critique of him.  He did say that high income people didn't deserve their money, and I really don't think that somebody in government has the right to decide how much money somebody deserves to have.  I do believe in a progressive tax system, but not confiscation of wealth.

You have a right to your opinions, and I have a right to mine.  I make it a point never to attack another person's opinion in this setting, because I hate to see it degenerate into name-calling.  But I do think that the Clintons are singularly bad people, and I intend to say so.  If you don't agree, that's fine.

[Nym90]

Well, I was referring specifically to class hatred. Democratic economic policies have nothing to do with class hatred, it is about the moral principle that those with more have an obligation to give some of it back to the less fortunate. Certainly one can debate the various pros and cons of that moral stance vs. the moral stance that people who have money are entitled to keep it, but they are both differing moral views and not based on hatred.
Yes, we shall have to agree to disagree about the Clintons' personal motives. The point I was trying to make is that I don't try to read anything more into people than what I know based on their positions. It seems kind of silly to always assume the worst in people just because you don't agree with their views.

[dazzleman]

Well, I was referring specifically to class hatred. Democratic economic policies have nothing to do with class hatred, it is about the moral principle that those with more have an obligation to give some of it back to the less fortunate. Certainly one can debate the various pros and cons of that moral stance vs. the moral stance that people who have money are entitled to keep it, but they are both differing moral views and not based on hatred.
Yes, we shall have to agree to disagree about the Clintons' personal motives. The point I was trying to make is that I don't try to read anything more into people than what I know based on their positions. It seems kind of silly to always assume the worst in people just because you don't agree with their views.

There are plenty of people whose views I don't agree with, but I can still hold them in high regard as people.  The Clintons are different, but just don't think that I react that way to everybody whose views I don't share.  I got a gut feeling about those people the first time I ever laid eyes on them in 1992 right after the Super Bowl, and nothing has happened to change my opinion.

I do think Lieberman got a little carried away with a statement he made about the "rich" not deserving their money.  As I said, I support a progressive tax system, which we have, but I think it's wrong to say that a person who has worked for his money doesn't deserve it.  I fear a government that gives itself the right to make these types of decisions.  

The differences between Republicans and Democrats on this issue are, quite frankly, a matter of degree.  I think most people support giving back to those who are less fortunate, but not in a way that enables dysfunctional behavior, which we have seen in the past with welfare programs.  High income people should, and do, pay more, but there should be government intention to confiscate income or wealth that is privately earned.

[Gustaf]

High income people should, and do, pay more, but there should be government intention to confiscate income or wealth that is privately earned.

Heh, heh...missed a "not" there didn't you...or else you are in the wrong party!

Good post otherwise, I thought republicans were less compassionate, but I agree mostly with what you write. I do think the difference between the Dem left and the Rep right is more pronounced though.

[dazzleman]

Gustaf, high income people do pay a much higher percentage of their income in taxes than low income people.  Believe me, I know.

Do they still have more to live on after paying taxes?  Of course, but that's as it should be.

The US tax system at this point is highly progressive, with the bottom 50% of income earners paying something like 5% of the tax revenue, while the top 2% pay 50% of total tax revenue.

My concern about making the system too progressive has to do with political stability rather than compassion.  I think that if too many people think that they can vote themselves benefits at no cost to themselves, self-government is in grave danger, since self-government and democracy rely on the assumption that the vast majority of the population is self-supporting to a large degree.

Everybody, including the middle class, should pay some share for the benefits they receive from the government, so that a situation doesn't develop in which a majority is effectively forcing a minority to turn over their wealth.  This approach has not worked well any place it has been tried.

I would also say that some Republicans are less compassionate, but keep in mind that compassion can sometimes be the cruelest thing you can inflict upon a person.

[CHRISTOPHER MICHAE]

dazzleman, I am not trying to pick a fight with you or any Republicans. I hold some of their values very dear to my Heart. However, what about the Power that Nancy Reagan usurped from President Reagan. Heck, she ran things when the President was shot, not anyone else. Also, you refer to Hillary's failures in Health Care, what about Mrs. Reagan's failures in 'Just Say NO' campaign against drugs. I don't believe either were successful. I admire First Ladies Barbara Bush and Laura Bush, in Literacy causes. I admired Jackie Kennedy, for her grace and elegance, and for testifying before Congress of the need for more funding for Breast Cancer, when she herself was dying. So, let's not pick out people from one party to bash or admire.

[Michael Z]

It's funny how those on the left are so sensitive when their icons are criticized, but show no such sensitivity to others.

Pot, kettle, black.

[dazzleman]

dazzleman, I am not trying to pick a fight with you or any Republicans. I hold some of their values very dear to my Heart. However, what about the Power that Nancy Reagan usurped from President Reagan. Heck, she ran things when the President was shot, not anyone else. Also, you refer to Hillary's failures in Health Care, what about Mrs. Reagan's failures in 'Just Say NO' campaign against drugs. I don't believe either were successful. I admire First Ladies Barbara Bush and Laura Bush, in Literacy causes. I admired Jackie Kennedy, for her grace and elegance, and for testifying before Congress of the need for more funding for Breast Cancer, when she herself was dying. So, let's not pick out people from one party to bash or admire.

I think that there are a couple of major differences between Hillary Clinton and Nancy Reagan.

Nancy Reagan's JUST SAY NO campaign was not a government program, just an extra, like Mrs. Bush's literacy campaign or Mrs. Johnson's beautification campaign.  That is a traditional first lady project -- bringing 1/7 of the economy under effective government control is not.

And I wouldn't necessarily say that the JUST SAY NO campaign was a failure.  Drug use declined during the Reagan years, and shot back up later under Clinton.  It's not necessarily anybody's fault, but I don't think you can expect 100% effectiveness from a program like that.

I also found it very interesting that the same people who lambasted Nancy Reagan for meddling, which she admittedly did, at a much lower level than Hillary, applauded Hillary's role.  Why wasn't Nancy supposed dominance seen as a great gain for women, as Hillary's role was?  Why wasn't Hillary said to be emasculating her husband, as Nancy was accused of?

I really don't care how much influence a first lady (or first husband) has, as long as it is exercised through the president and not independently.  The president's spouse does not and should not hold an official position, and Hillary acted as if she did.  Nancy surely meddled, but Hillary crossed a line that Nancy didn't.

I also think that Reagan's detractors have overplayed Nancy's role.  She had limited influence on policy, but she clearly was a major meddler.  There's no denying that, and it's not something that I find as a strong point for that administration.

I have liked most first ladies because they have tended to stay away from controversial issues.  I think that is a smarter strategy politically since the president cannot separate himself from his spouse if her positions turn out to be unpopular.  Betty Ford hurt her husband greatly within his own party with some of the statements that she made, and I think it's better if the first lady brings additional support rather than costing a president support.

I'm glad to see that my comments have livened up the debate today.

[dazzleman]

It's funny how those on the left are so sensitive when their icons are criticized, but show no such sensitivity to others.

Pot, kettle, black.

Well, who started political correctness?  Certainly not conservatives.  And I have seen political correctness in action enough to know what the "rules" are.  It is OK to criticize men but not women.  It is OK to criticize white people, but not "minorities."  You get the drift.

[© tweed]

I don't think Lieberman has a chance anymore.  He is buried in the polls everywhere he is.  I like Joe, and I hope this won't distract him from being the good senator he is for our side.

Lieberman would lose respectably in the general, but northeast candidates traditionally are fairly weak.

[Gustaf]

Gustaf, high income people do pay a much higher percentage of their income in taxes than low income people.  Believe me, I know.

Do they still have more to live on after paying taxes?  Of course, but that's as it should be.

The US tax system at this point is highly progressive, with the bottom 50% of income earners paying something like 5% of the tax revenue, while the top 2% pay 50% of total tax revenue.

My concern about making the system too progressive has to do with political stability rather than compassion.  I think that if too many people think that they can vote themselves benefits at no cost to themselves, self-government is in grave danger, since self-government and democracy rely on the assumption that the vast majority of the population is self-supporting to a large degree.

Everybody, including the middle class, should pay some share for the benefits they receive from the government, so that a situation doesn't develop in which a majority is effectively forcing a minority to turn over their wealth.  This approach has not worked well any place it has been tried.

I would also say that some Republicans are less compassionate, but keep in mind that compassion can sometimes be the cruelest thing you can inflict upon a person.

I am actually to the right on economical issues, so you are preaching to a true believer. It's just that I've grown up knowing a lot of rich kids, and the view that "I'm rich, so lower taxes on rich people would be good" has always disgusted me. I am a liberal (in the European sense) b/c I think everyone is entitled to the money they earn, and that we should exercise great caution in taking away people's money. But I don't think that is the reason for most people voting for such ideas, considering the fact that most of them are rich. (It is different in the US, I know, b/c of social issues).

[dazzleman]

There's a show in the US (maybe Europe too) with Paris Hilton and Nicole Ritchie where these two rich girls go to live on a farm in Arkansas.  One reviewer I read said that Mao Zedong himself couldn't have come up with a better documentary against the rich.

I agree that the attitude of some wealthy people is a major problem, particularly when they didn't earn the money with which they have been endowed.  But I don't think government has a right to confiscate private property, even from people like this.