T Nation

A Democrat Who Actually Puts The Country First

While the democrats are trying to sabotage the intelligence reform bill in congress so they can blame Bush for not getting it done, Lieberman in an act that shows he actually cares more about the country then politics is working to get bi-partisan support to get the bill passed.

I don’t know where he stands on everything, but he seems to have a spine and some values. Why can’t the dems choose someone like that to run?

[quote]Berner wrote:
While the democrats are trying to sabotage the intelligence reform bill in congress so they can blame Bush for not getting it done, Lieberman in an act that shows he actually cares more about the country then politics is working to get bi-partisan support to get the bill passed.

I don’t know where he stands on everything, but he seems to have a spine and some values. Why can’t the dems find pick someone like that to run?[/quote]

Berner:

I will tell you why: Quite a while ago the democratic party was hijacked by liberals. Those who are pro homosexual marriage, pro partial birth abortion, pro tax hike etc.

In order to get the democratic nomination a candidate must be liberal, as most liberals vote in the primaries. Someone like Liberman (who I agree is a good man) had no chance. The reason that Al Gore picked him in 2000 was to balance out the ticket.

One reason John Kerry is having a difficult time right now is because during the primaries he had to pull even further left than he is, with Howard Dean, in order to get the nomination.

I am sorry to say the days of FDR, Harry Trueman and John Kennedy are gone forever. Don’t be looking to hard for a democrat with a spine these days…you won’t find one!

What I thought about FDR changed after reading the book, FDR’s Folly, How Roosevelt and His New Deal Prolonged the Great Depression. History is selective. Seems now we have a choice of two marginal candidates. Worst ever

Had Lieberman been the Democratic nominee, we wouldn’t be having these debates on who would have won – because Lieberman would have won.

Unfortunately for the Democrats, he wasn’t willing to “run to the left” in the primary and change his stance to appease the “Deaniac” voters – something about which Mr. Kerry had no qualms. Now Kerry can’t take a strong stance on Iraq – which, in and of itself might be enough to push him ahead – because he is caught between realists and hipppies.

Lieberamn is the real deal. He is someone I may have voted for. I am a committed Republican but this guy may have got my vote. Compared to Kerry the man has ethics, decency and brains.

I am proud to say that Joe Lieberman received my vote in the Democratic primary.

In conjunction with the not being far-left, I really think that Lieberman may have been been set up to lose with his last name. Sadly, I just don’t see this country being open-minded enough to have First Lady, Hadassah.

~Terumo

Terumo:

Having a jewish president? Imagine how crazy the arab nutjobs would have been with that?

Whew!

And also…

Isn’t it strange how the primaries are set up to make the least electable candidate the party nominee? The winner of the primary is usually one of the extremists, on the left-right map, as the extreme liberals and conservatives are generally the ones that show up at the primary polls.

However, in the final election, the extremists don’t do as well. The Democratic candidate (even if a moderate like Joe Lieberman) is already going to pull 95% of the extreme liberal vote, and the Republican candidate (even if a moderate like Colin Powell) is going to pull 95% of the conservative vote. A centrist candidate just isn’t going to make it through the primaries very easily.

And that, my friends, is why we are choosing between the proverbial giant douche and turd sandwich. [Apologies in advance for the pop culture reference that will probably soon be worn out.]

~Terumo

[quote]Terumo wrote:
And also…

Isn’t it strange how the primaries are set up to make the least electable candidate the party nominee? The winner of the primary is usually one of the extremists, on the left-right map, as the extreme liberals and conservatives are generally the ones that show up at the primary polls.

However, in the final election, the extremists don’t do as well. The Democratic candidate (even if a moderate like Joe Lieberman) is already going to pull 95% of the extreme liberal vote, and the Republican candidate (even if a moderate like Colin Powell) is going to pull 95% of the conservative vote. A centrist candidate just isn’t going to make it through the primaries very easily.

And that, my friends, is why we are choosing between the proverbial giant douche and turd sandwich. [Apologies in advance for the pop culture reference that will probably soon be worn out.]

~Terumo[/quote]

Terumo:

It’s not so much that the primaries are set up to favor the extreme wings of either party – it’s that people with extreme beliefs tend to be more motivated to turn out and vote in the primaries than people without strong opinions.

In the final election, the extreme wings of both parties tend to cancel each other out – especially because they won’t exactly be changing allegiances to vote for the other side – so the candidates attempt to swing the moderate voters to their side. Of course, they have to do it in such a way as to not dispirit the extreme wings to the extent that they stay home.

It’s just like the economic models about two competing businesses locating right across the street from one another (sorry, but it’s been a LONG time since I took microeconomics, and I can’t remember the name of it). It would seem that, if you were to imagine two competitors, and all customers on a line, they would locate about 1/3 from either end. However, they always end up at the center. If either moves away from the center (i.e. toward the extreme side), it is in the interest of the other to move over and capture the territory that was vacated, because those at his end of the line (e.g. the extreme wing of his base) are no closer to the competition, even if they are further from him.

In the primaries, this effect still holds, but the population that the candidates are competing for is just skewed to the extreme side (this is why most of the Dem candidates went left to try to peel off nutty Deaniacs).

You are making the same point as I was hopelessly attempting. Would you not agree that Kerry certainly one of the more liberal of the Democratic candidates? He was probably the most liberal of those that were credible (that excludes wackos like Dean and Kucinich).

Personally, I think Lieberman or Clark would have been far superior candidates, with more overall electability than Kerry. Likewise, I think McCain or Powell would have more electability than Bush. However, those centrists are going to be hard-pressed to win a primary since those that vote in the primaries are usually on the more extreme ends. The moderate voter will usually be much more likely to vote in the presidential election than the primaries, and that is why we end up with uber-liberals like Kerry running for the big office.

Yeah, the Democratic primary was a complete mess. At first, everyone liked Lieberman. Then, emphasis switched to Dean. But after actually listening to Dean for a little while, it became ABD. The conservatives and moderates liked Clark, but they weren’t really voting in the Democratic primaries. Then it was Edwards or Kerry. Hell, we had already cycled through everyone but Kucinich and Sharpton! What else were the Democrats going to do?!?! Rhyme-Master Sharpton 2004?

~Terumo