uuuggg...the presidential address

[Rapunzel]

Why don't you like Lieberman?

Zell Miller is a JFK Democrat (and, Ted Kennedy is NOT a JFK Democrat btw). If I was a democrat I'd be a JFK dem. Actually, if I was a republican I'd be a JFK democrat. The Republican party has veered off to where the Democratic party was decades ago and the Democratic party has now firmly intersected with a Socialist movement. The party that is now ideologically where the Republicans were a few decades ago is the tiny Constitutionalist party. And, the Libertarian's resemble party politics of a couple of centuries ago. It's funny how things change....

[Rapunzel]

I consider anyone with a motive that runs counter to the principles of democracy to be an extremist. That would include politicians with socialist ideologies and those who find the Bill of Rights or portions thereof meritless.

Anyone who doesn't fit that definition is, in my eyes, NOT an extremist and is deserving of the term "moderate" in that they exhibit a normal range of opinions within the confines of democracy.

[PrincessFiona]

Zell Miller? You mean zig-zag Zell who opposes a lottery until he supports it right before an election? The same Zell who hailed Kerry as one of our times' heroes for his actions in Vietnam...but who then came out as a harsh critic of his 'heroism' during the elcetion? The same 'democrat' Zell Miller who refuses to attend Democratic senatorial caucuses and sits in on republican ones? He's no democrat. I wouldn't mind it if he were a republican...but he pretends to be a democrat.

Lieberman? :: He has his nose so far up Bush's behind that it just grosses me out. Maybe he's just hoping to replace rumsy as sec. of defense or something. Quite frankly, I also disagree on his support of the Iraq policy.

Agree with you that the Reps are NOT behaving as the Reps of my early years did. Reagan would have fainted if he had known about the big gov't stuff that Reps are promoting now.

[Rapunzel]

I did hear from somewhere that Bush was considering Lieberman as Sec. of Defense after Rumsfield resigns (another rumor).

I take it you had problems with Gore choosing Lieberman as his running mate? If we had a Jewish Sec. of Defense I think it would cause a lot of problems with the very nations we're now involved with and potentially involved with (ahem, Iran) militarily. Not saying it's a reason not to have someone of that background in that position - but I can just imagine what would be coming out of the "President" of Iran's mouth then!

I must confess that I only know about Zell Miller's views on the Iraq war and what I heard sounded a lot like a JFK democrat. Perhaps he does need to just switch parties....

[PrincessFiona]

I never had a problem with Lieberman being jewish...never really thought about it actually. You might be rigth though that it could cuase problems with other nations militarily....I hadn't thought that far.....

kris

[Rapunzel]

I didn't mean to imply you'd have a problem with his Jewishness (is that even a word? ). I should've seperated the first sentence of that paragraph from the rest - I took a completely different direction without meaning to connect the two outside of just talking about the same guy.

So, did you have a problem with Lieberman being Gore's running mate? What do you find objectionable about him?

[PrincessFiona]

I just never really liked Lieberman, I guess....I wasn't crazy about his being Gore's running mate....and....I didn't end up...voting for Gore ...for other reasons though....I was in Florida at the time too.....my dad laughed his butt off about me throwing my vote away and as close as it was...I kind of did.

[Rapunzel]

Yeah, I felt the same way about everyone voting for Perot. The irony in third party voting is that it really just helps the guy you absolutely hate win against the guy you are somewhat "protesting".

[SueC]

I just never really liked Lieberman, I guess....I wasn't crazy about his being Gore's running mate....and....I didn't end up...voting for Gore ...for other reasons though....I was in Florida at the time too.....my dad laughed his butt off about me throwing my vote away and as close as it was...I kind of did.

Say it isn't so Kris! ---that isn't the emoticon I was going for in case you're scratching your head

[PrincessFiona]

It is....so....I was ashamed later. I just assumed that Gore would win and i was hoping to help a 3rd party gain enough votes to get govt. money. I think the 2-party system sux. Who knew that there'd be so many darned 'chads' floating around.

Here's the video feed from the State of the Union.

http://www.ebaumsworld.com/presaddress.html

[fluffhead]

Lieberman? :: He has his nose so far up Bush's behind that it just grosses me out. Maybe he's just hoping to replace rumsy as sec. of defense or something. Quite frankly, I also disagree on his support of the Iraq policy.

I disagree about his motives. I think he's being perceived as courting W, but in essence he's just doing what he thinks is right - I think he no longer has presidential aspirations, and has decided not to walk any party line 100%.
So while we might not agree with his positions, it's hard not to respect the guy. Our local (far-left) paper had an interview with him in this week's edition, it's not online yet, but I'll post the link when it's there. It basically says he's trying to court the liberals again, but won't cave in on some of the issues (gay marriage, Iraq, torture), but that he's just such a nice guy, you gotta like him. The other thing that he said was that during the first gulf war, we should have finished the job, and that back then he warned that we'd be sorry we left Saddam in power. So George I screwed up, and now Junior has to fix his legacy, at great cost to all of us.

You have to admit, the democrats have not been extremely effective at what they're doing lately. The fact that half of the country would prefer to see a bunch of thugs and imbeciles in the white house than a (gasp) democrat should tell us that we need to adjust our game a little, and perhaps think some more about what it is that middle america is thinking.

[Rapunzel]

Actually most politicians - regardless of party status - can qualify as thugs and imbeciles. The last president we had that didn't fit that definition was Reagan. And, there's a case to be made for the opinion that most American presidents in U.S. history were thugs and/or imbeciles - just look at FDR, JFK, and LBJ for example. I mean, LBJ got to be governor (and, from there picked to be vp and then, tragically, the president) because dead people voted - alphabetically! (On a side not a good friend in upstate New York pointed out a similar thing happened for Hillary Clinton when she won the Senate seat). And, if you go back to FDR and the policies he instituted - you'll find that he actually made the depression worse. And, then there's Woodrow Wilson and his insane "League of Nations" that provided the ideological seed for the monstrosity that is the United Nations - not to mention the policies he supported that led to WWII. And the list of thugs and imbeciles just piles up....

I think the Democratic party's problem is it's spinning it's wheels in the 60's. You have ideological leaders in the party that are still hung up on race and affirmitive action, religion, gender, etc. At least that is what I'm seeing in Massachusetts Democrats - of which Kerry (the last Dem pres nominee) descended. The Democratic party is following Massachusetts trends in the last few years and, fortunately, much of the rest of the country views Massachusetts as completely screwed up (personally, I view Boston in particular as what happens when civilization begins to crumble under the weight of beauracracy and corruption).

[PrincessFiona]

You have to admit, the democrats have not been extremely effective at what they're doing lately. The fact that half of the country would prefer to see a bunch of thugs and imbeciles in the white house than a (gasp) democrat should tell us that we need to adjust our game a little, and perhaps think some more about what it is that middle america is thinking.

Well, you're right about that...and you may be right about Lieberman as well....I suppose I've let my thoughts about him be led more by 'feelings' than objective fact...and it boils down to my psychotic obsessive dislike for 'W' :> and my perception that Lieberman had kind of switched teams...I did 'like' him during the debates.

I'll step back on this one and give it some thought.

Regarding politicians qualifying as thugs/imbeciles...I think I'd look at Reagan again If memory serves, he wasn't the perfect president either.

I wonder why we just can't elect a good woman to take care of things in the white house finally I, of course, mean that mostly in jest. :>