Beet
Atlas Star
Posts: 28,914
|
 |
« on: November 26, 2003, 11:25:36 PM » |
|
|
« edited: November 26, 2003, 11:27:04 PM by Beet »
|
M is right. We need to nominate BOTH a patriot and someone who will provide a real choice; make a substantive difference on the issues than Bush. A Democratic president would have a much easier time pulling together a global alliance against terror, and would have influenced Congress to pass a much different health care bill, and energy will, that have been passed/will be passed, and do a much better job at defending social security. Also he would be an important element in the balance of power in government, which is now decidedly lacking.
The Democratic party is in a sad state when people who claim to be Democrats actually hurt the party by thinking that only a radical who will lose to Bush deserves their vote. I think there would be a big difference between Bush and Lieberman or a moderate Democrat on domestic issues; and if there isn't a big difference on international issues (although the Democrat would come in with tons of credibility that Bush doesn't have), who the hell cares when we are in the war? The most important thing in a war is to unite the civilized world.
The problem with Lieberman frankly is that he is Jewish; I've always found it curious that states that went for Clinton very decisively in 1996, such as Ohio and New Hampshire, ended up going for Bush in 2000, even though the economy was doing great, and basically everything else was doing great. Gore campaigned as an experienced, incumbent moderate who proposed a large tax cut. Why did he lose so many states? I've heard the theory that the reason is anti-semitism, and for that reason Lieberman can never win.
Right now anybody but Dean sounds okay. Unless of course Dean radically alters how he's been projecting himself so far, which is possible.
|
