Veepstakes

[Rapunzel]

Re: Veepstakes

Well, what diggitydot said in the last post on page one also applies to Lieberman:

His religion would be held as a liability against him.

He is Jewish - therefore he gets the label "Zionist". You would see people coming out of the woodwork to imply all of the old anti-Jewish mythology.

[Momo]

Re: Veepstakes

TR read this and you will see why I sate this about him...actually anyone that knows him should be well aware of this.

http://lieberman.senate.gov/newsroom....cfm?id=279110


BTW I don't assume a Jew to be a Zionist nor do I assume that anyone who is pro-Israel to automatically be a Zionist.

[diggitydot]

Re: Veepstakes

BTW I don't assume a Jew to be a Zionist.

I don't make that leap, either. But that doesn't mean someone else won't. I would imagine the people who'd have preconceived ideas about a Mormon VP would also likely have some (albeit, different ones) about a Jewish one, too.

My point was really just that while most people are quick to denounce racism and sexism, it's kind of "open season" on most religions. And I'm not a particularly religious person, it's just a phenomenon that I've noticed much more lately. And it seriously bugs.

[mommax3]

Re: Veepstakes

I'm interested to see if Obama picks Bayh. He was elected governor of IN twice, before he became a senator, and IN is pretty well known as a republican state. I've actually met him a couple of times.....my madrigal group sang in the gov's mansion (close to the University) as part of a Christmas special and after the taping, we hung out with Evan and Susan and ate cookies. They were both very nice. He also visited my classroom a few years later (I forget why....) and although it was mostly a photo opp, he wasn't too fake. I think he would help balance how liberal Obama is, but since they both hail from the same region of the country, it wouldn't help him there.

[diggitydot]

Re: Veepstakes

Not that I'm condoning discriminating against anyone, but I do think there's a bit of a difference, in that religion often guides people's politics. And I think a politician's beliefs are sort of the core of what we vote on, don't you?

I see your point and hadn't really considered it that way. I guess I've always just figured that once you cut out a lot of the dogmatic minutiae most religions were pretty similar. At least in the big picture "be good to each other" kind of way. And since EVERY politician claims to be one of faith, religion just doesn't seem like much of a distinguishing factor.

I do see your point, I just don't think all candidates base their platforms solely on their religious beliefs. Beliefs, yes...just not solely the religious ones.

[GrayMatterWife]

Re: Veepstakes

GMW worte:

but I like his foreign policy, which is what I will vote on.

It would be a liability, when it comes to Middle East Foreign Policy/ Peace Process to tap a Veep that is a staunch Zionist. The issue of Israel and Palestine needs as many neutral players as it can get. I hope & pray the next administration will be able to make serious inroads in the peace process.

BTW the Lieberman choice could even be considered Rovesque. It would be the kind of choice that could guarantee the conservative, Christian Zionist, Hagee loving right .

Personally, I don't think it is accurate to call Lieberman a Zionist--at least, not without defining what you mean specifically by "Zionist." There are a lot of different types/theories of Zionism and Lieberman doesn't hold himself out as a "Zionist"--at least, not without defining that. And if he is a Zionist, it's definitely not a Hagee-type Zionist. He may pander to this voting block by making silly speeches suggesting that Jewish Zionism (whether religious or politically based) is anything like or related to Christian Zionism (as the evangelical Christians get to observe a real live Jew like an aberration... )--but that still leaves a lot undefined. But, I guess if we define "Zionist" in very broadest possible terms--simply supporting Israel--then he's a Zionist, since he is pro-Israel and supports AIPAC, ADL, etc. But then, if that's the definition (supporting Israel), I guess I am a Zionist, too, even though I would never ordinarily describe myself with that term at all, given the often religious and militant manifestations of Zionism, Zionism's origins, its own history of endorsement of violence and dislocation, and the current form of "Christian Zionism".

I agree with Lieberman on the issue of how important it is to protect our relationship with Israel for political reasons--but not because I am a Christian Zionist. My support for Israel isn't particularly related to my faith. (There is a school of thought, of course, that Americans, who are predominantly Christian, support Israel because we see ourselves as having more in common with Jews than Muslims. I don't happen to subscribe to that idea--I happen to think that we have a lot more in common with moderate Muslims and their values than we do with secular Israel and certainly hardliner right-leaning Israelis. I was really excited by D'Nesh D'Souza's latest book that addressed this exact similarity of values notion--positing that America should wake up and see how much we have in common with faithful, moderate--ie, nonradicalized--Muslims.).

Of course, being pro-Israel in terms of how that relation can serve the US's foreign policy interests isn't an endorsement of everything Israel does and says. The brutality that Israel shows in the name (whether justified or not) of self-protection cannot be cheered or held out as desirable or endorsed. But then, there are a lot of foreign regimes that we should support despite how the regime holds power--for example, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. Hardly places that reflect American values, but are nonetheless important allies.

But, that aside, Liebermans's pro-Israel foreign policy position is not the foreign policy I was referring to. I was referring to his strong support for the current efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan. I don't see our efforts as pro-Zionist or anti-Muslim. Of course, many people disagree with that assessment--a position to which they are entitled.

I am sure you're right on the idea that Christian Zionists would be happy about Lieberman because he is pro-Israel. But not all (or even most) Christian evangelicals are Zionist leaning. Overall, personally, I don't think that the Christian evangelicals would be happy at all with Lieberman. I think that would be seen as a huge betrayal--he is very liberal regarding the abortion issue. Always has been. Antecdotally, my experience has been that abortion is a very--if not THE--important issue for Christian evangelicals. I know Christian evangelicals who can barely bring themselves to vote for McCain because they claim he hasn't been "vocal enough" about his position on abortion (!!)--and he has ALWAYS been pro-life, in every vote. He's just not "in your face" on this issue like Bush has been. And I know very few Christian evangelicals who aren't Christian Zionists who are give a whig what Hagee thinks or says (even when I was in Texas). Even my super-religiously conservative ILs... He is generally seen as a nut.

As an aside, I think it's kind of unfair that the left keeps associating Hagee with McCain, suggesting that it is valid to compare Hagee's endorsement as arising from a similar relationship between Hagee and McCain that existed between Obama and Rev. Wright. It was nothing similar. McCain is a fairly moderate Baptist who in no way endorsed or participated in the beliefs and worship espoused by Hagee.