Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

The Gore team choosing Lieberman

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU
 
chaumont58 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-06-03 10:37 AM
Original message
The Gore team choosing Lieberman
Edited on Sat Sep-06-03 10:38 AM by chaumont58
This is from Eric Alterman's blogspot for yesterday:

<snip
The Manchurian Candidate?: Is Karl Rove advising Joe Lieberman? The latter has been shilling for the disastrous Bush war all along. Last night he announced, “The Bush recession would be followed by the Dean depression.” Expect to hear Republicans quote that ad nauseum should Dean become the nominee. This too from a Lieberman press release: “HOWARD DEAN’S PROTECTIONIST TRADE POLICY WOULD DEVASTATE AMERICA’S ECONOMY.” Lieberman was originally elected with the help of Republican conservatives led by William F. Buckley Jr. to defeat Lowell Weicker, one of America’s most distinguished and independent-minded senators. The leopard, spots, etc.

end snip>

At the Dem convention in 2000, the Gore people that chose Lieberman must have known the bit about how Lieberman came to be elected to the Senate. Maybe Gore chose alone, but, to me, it is one more example of Lieberman being chosen, solely because he had denounced Clinton on the Senate floor. I'm not sorry Gore is not in the 2004 race. IMHO, he is among the handful of people in the US who are responsible for that smirking chimp being in the White House right now.

link to Altercation:
http://www.msnbc.com/news/752664.asp
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
wtmusic Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-06-03 10:41 AM
Response to Original message
1. Lieberman is a Democrat in name only
His support is paper thin and he's in attack mode?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jiacinto Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-06-03 10:45 AM
Response to Reply #1
3. That's not true
I don't like what he is doing, but he is not a DINO. The facts don't agree with you.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bearfan454 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-06-03 11:16 AM
Response to Reply #3
11. Bullshit !
Lieberman goes along with Bush almost every time. He is more bought and paid for then the DNC. Sorry if you don't like it but it is true.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jiacinto Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-06-03 11:38 AM
Response to Reply #11
14. It's not true if you actually go to Project Vote Smart
If you actually took the time to research his voting record it isn't what people say it is at DU. I don't like what he is doing so I don't support him.

But the cyberlynching he has received here at DU is unfair. Like most DUers who hate Lieberman you aren't interested in the reality.

He is not my choice for the nomination and I don't like his behavior. But he is not the monster people here make him out to be.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Touchdown Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-06-03 04:24 PM
Response to Reply #14
41. Lieberman knew about Scaife.
He knew about The Arkansas Project. He knew that Hillary's VRWC was true. He knew that Whitewater held no water. He knew Vince Foster committed suicide.

Yet, he went ahead and pilloried our last elected President anyway...and a fellow Democrat at that! I'm not expecting devotional loyalty, but I do expect someone to not eat their own.

His silly non-issue of violent video games is also nicely distracting from world hunger and real issues as well.

If he's not a DINO, then he's an "I told you so!" Ninny.

And he looks like a garden gnome too!;-)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jiacinto Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-06-03 05:28 PM
Response to Reply #41
44. He didn't vote for the impeachment
That's another lie spread by the Lieberman haters.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Touchdown Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-07-03 01:29 PM
Response to Reply #44
45. I didn't say he did.
That's another lie you seem to want to perpetuate.

I'm also not stupid, since Senators can't vote for impeachment, only Representatives. Senators vote to convict on the articles.

What I said is that he chose to moralize, when he knew what kind of Putsch was going on, and what was at stake. How many Republicans voted to convict because he couldn't keep his damn mouth shut?

How many Dems is he going to turn off and get to stay home who believe him when he says that another Dem will cause a depression?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
durutti Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-06-03 04:33 PM
Response to Reply #14
42. 43 Percent ACLU Rating
All I need to know.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
neuvocat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-06-03 11:38 AM
Response to Reply #3
15. Gonna parrot that line, huh?
The facts don't agree with you, the facts don't agree with you. *Squawk*

Facts aren't subjective materials designed to suit anyone's whims. You apparently think they are to suit yours though when it comes to stepping up for your boy Holy Joe.

Lieberman is nothing more than a right winger and the guy is scarier than Bush when it comes to religion.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jiacinto Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-06-03 11:39 AM
Response to Reply #15
17. You made very nasty unfair attacks on Lieberman earlier
You aren't interested in the truth. So please just admit that you hate Lieberman for reasons that have nothing to do with his politics.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JI7 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-06-03 10:44 AM
Response to Original message
2. did eric alterman write this ?
and i also believe gore chose lieberman for "moral" reasons. liebermans moderate (some would say conservative) position was well known. you know they look very much into all possible vp choices before making final decisions so i'm sure it didn't have anything to do with misunderstanding of lieberman's politics when picking him. but i do not agree with the opinion that lieberman hurt gore in 2004. maybe he didn't help, but i don't believe he hurt the ticket.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AP Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-06-03 10:49 AM
Response to Reply #2
4. This is totally the reason Gore picked Lieberman -- morals.
He had the chance of picking Edwards, which would have squarely put the Democratic party back where it was whith Clinton (or almost squarely, becaue it would have been better if someone like Edwards were on the top of the ticket rather than a Senator's son) -- they're all about economic opportunity for the middle and working in class.

Instead, he let the Republicans define the message, and that message was Clinton's penis. So Gore thought that he had to out-moralize the Republicans. He played up his own, brief, failed attempt at divinity school, and picked Lieberman.

Dumb.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
maggrwaggr Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-06-03 11:10 AM
Response to Reply #2
8. you don't think he hurt? Middle America won't vote for a Jew
bottom line. It was stupid to have a Jew as a VP candidate. It guarantees that millions of people won't vote for you, mainly in the red states.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JI7 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-06-03 11:16 AM
Response to Reply #8
12. not sure
i do believe there are those who would not vote for someone based on religion. but i also think these people would never vote democratic anyways since much of the democratic party message is about tolerance, acceptance etc. if someone is so bigoted to vote on that issue alone they are most likely not a democrat. there could have been some who voted bush in the end because of lieberman being jewish, but i don't think it would have been enough to make much of a difference, certain not in the millions. also, al gore got more votes than bush.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Clete Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-06-03 11:17 AM
Response to Reply #8
13. What???
Middle America isn't Nazi Germany. And there are many Jews living in Middle America without any fear of being hauled off to camps. I don't think anti-semitism has anything to do with it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jiacinto Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-06-03 11:38 AM
Response to Reply #8
16. And also among the far left
Edited on Sat Sep-06-03 11:43 AM by jiacinto
Look at this board. There are a lot of people here hostile to Israel. And because Lieberman happens to be both pro-Israeli and Jewish he gets singled out here.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-06-03 11:44 AM
Response to Reply #16
19. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
jiacinto Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-06-03 11:53 AM
Response to Reply #19
21. I think his being a Jew is a major part of it
Edited on Sat Sep-06-03 11:56 AM by jiacinto
Go to the I/P forum and you will see that it is heavily biased against Israeli. Lieberman happens to be Jewish and pro-Israel. He voted for the war in Iraq. But SO DID Gephardt, Kerry, and Edwards. Why aren't they attacked to the extent Lieberman here is on this board? What other conclusion can I draw, especially when people call him "Holy Joe", which happens to be a direct subtle attack on his religion?

I am sick of the unfair attacks Lieberman has gotten here on this board. It has gone on for way too long. People repeat the same lies daily as if they were truth. People continue to make false assertions about him. They continue to distort his record. The name calling has gone way too far.

I don't like Lieberman's recent actions. I don't think he has what it takes to win against Bush. However, he is not the monster that people make him out to be on this board.

I am voting for Dean in the primary. But I think it is horrible the treatment Lieberman has gotten on this board. Someone has to say something at some pont.

People can't stand me because I dare to point out their bigoted prejudices.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ibegurpard Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-06-03 12:03 PM
Response to Reply #21
22. People call him Holy Joe
because of his moralistic crusading. His Jewishness is incidental. I can't believe you would actually defend someone who is GOING OUT OF HIS WAY to do potentially serious damage to other Democrats when you constantly rail against people on this forum doing the same thing. And, no, people can't stand you because you cling to and parrot incorrect notions no matter how much evidence to the contrary is staring you in the face. You can post Lieberman's record all you want and keep stating the obnoxious opinion that people don't like him because he's a Jew but you're completely missing the point. If you'd remove your blinders and apply the same standards to Lieberman that you do to people on this board then you MIGHT start to get an idea as to why people hate him so much.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jiacinto Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-06-03 12:06 PM
Response to Reply #22
23. I don't like what Lieberman is doing
But I do think he is the victim of unfair character assination on this board. I'm tired of it. I'm not going to shut up because I point out what happens to be the obvious uncomfortable truth.

I don't defend Lieberman's actions, as I don't support his candidacy. But I will stand up to the blatant lies and the reprehensible character assasination he receives here.

I don't "cling and parrot" to incorrect notions. It's the Lieberman hatesr who do.

Again why is Lieberman singled out more for his votes on the Iraq war and supporting Israel when Kerry, Edwards, and Gephardts share the same position?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ibegurpard Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-06-03 12:08 PM
Response to Reply #23
24. what you call the "obvious uncomfortable truth"
is your woefully off-base opinion.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jiacinto Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-06-03 12:12 PM
Response to Reply #24
25. No it's not
I really don't think it is.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Touchdown Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-07-03 01:38 PM
Response to Reply #23
47. Then why don't you talk about WHY you didn't like his actions.
instead of the "but" at the end of just that. You have an amazing opening, because that's what this thread, and Alterman's blog is about...BONUS! I rarely post in Lieberman threads, but I see you gnawing at that old anti-semite bone in every single one. I think we get the point.

How about moving on and talking about Lieberman's actions for a change.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
chaumont58 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-06-03 01:59 PM
Response to Reply #22
33. I agree with you
My late wife was Jewish, so I don't know how the hell I could be called an anti-semite. I am turned off by Lieberman's moralistic bullshit. He just happens to be Jewish. I don't care for Jerry Fallwell either. Jerry and Joe have a lot in common as far as I'm concerned. I dislike them equally.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jiacinto Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-06-03 02:16 PM
Response to Reply #33
34. Actually they don't
2001-2002 On the votes that the Christian Coalition considered to be the most important in 2001-2002 , Senator Lieberman voted their preferred position 20 percent of the time.

2001-2002 On the votes that the Family Research Council considered to be the most important in 2001-2002, Senator Lieberman voted their preferred position 22 percent of the time. (Due to the 49-51 split in the Senate, an insufficient number of votes were taken on issues of concern to warrant inclusion).

2001-2002 On the votes that the Concerned Women for America considered to be the most important in 2001-2002, Senator Lieberman voted their preferred position 25 percent of the time.

Source: http://www.vote-smart.org/issue_rating_category.php?can_id=S0141103#Conservative

2002 On the votes that the Human Rights Campaign considered to be the most important in 2002, Senator Lieberman voted their preferred position 100 percent of the time.

Source:
http://www.vote-smart.org/issue_rating_category.php?can_id=S0141103#Civil+Rights


So these right wing groups don't think highly of Lieberman. Lieberman supports Gay rights. Fallwell hates gays.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ElsewheresDaughter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-07-03 01:38 PM
Response to Reply #21
46. joe's being jewish has NOTHING to do with it....Wellstone was jewish...
and i loved him...i loathe joe!...you are always crying "anti-semitism when someone says anything negative about your holy joe...give it a break!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tinnypriv Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-08-03 02:21 AM
Response to Reply #16
52. NAME THEM
Who is "hostile to Israel"? Specifically?

You come out with this bullshit in every other post.

Anyone who throws out this random smear that a bunch of people are guilty of "hating" Israel, "biased" against Israel, or, heaven forbid, "anti-semitic", need to either put up or shut up.*

* (if Lieberman himself reads DU - forgive the horrible translation and mspaint skills Senator. ;-))
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AntiCoup2K4 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-06-03 12:19 PM
Response to Reply #8
26. then why are Holy Joe's best numbers in South Carolina??
Can't get more "red state" than the people who elected a 100 year old corpse to the Senate repeatedly.

I'm no Holy Joe fan, but it has nothing to do with how he chooses to spend his Saturdays.

Naturally his Jewish heritage is probably a factor in his support of PNAC's agenda, but it's that agenda, not the religion, that makes him unsuitable as a candidate.

Kerry is part Jewish and Dean has a Jewish wife, which would make his children part Jewish. I haven't heard anybody say either of them are unsuitable candidates for that reason.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jiacinto Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-06-03 12:22 PM
Response to Reply #26
27. Well
SC has a closed primary. And most of those Democrats are probably black down there if I had to guess. And I think that maybe Lieberman's work registering black voters in the South during the 1960s might be the reason why he is doing well there.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
maggrwaggr Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-06-03 01:09 PM
Response to Reply #26
28. name recognition. That's it
in polls, people don't know the other Dem candidates yet, so they say the guy who was the VP candidate last time.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cooley Hurd Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-06-03 01:30 PM
Response to Reply #8
30. A Semite as VP didn't deny victory for the ticket...
...they won, remember?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
vi5 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-06-03 10:54 AM
Response to Original message
5. Gore choosing Joe is the only concesion I give to the green voters...
I still would never in a million years not have voted democratic in 2000. But the fact is that despite the revisionist depiction of Gore's campaign in 2K as "populist", his choosing of Leiberman as his running mate was the ultimate in pandering to the right. Factor in his distancing himself from Clinton and as much as I scoff at it, in hindsight the Greens did have a point. I still don't think in a million years you could say "no difference", but the fact is that the distancing of Gore from Clinton and the selection of Joe Leiberman signalled a rightward shift that I'm sure I wasn't the only non-green, hardcore dem who was dissapointed and uncomfortable with.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
asjr Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-06-03 11:05 AM
Response to Reply #5
6. Gore
But Gore actually won. I can't remember Lieberman using the tactics he is using now. I think if Gore had run for 2004 he would choose someone else. We don't need backstabbers.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JI7 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-06-03 11:13 AM
Response to Reply #6
9. lieberman was the same then
when gore chose him, there were some questions people had of his positions. he said as vice president he would support the president. and that's how they resolved the differences or at least the questions of it. at that time he was running as vp. as vp you don't set the agenda. the presidential candidate decides that. this time lieberman is running himself as a candidate for president so he is more open to saying what he believes rather than to check with pres candidate first.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MODemocrat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-06-03 11:09 AM
Response to Original message
7. Well, I'm not choosing Lieberman
Although I did vote for Al Gore, I wasn't happy with his choice for the vice president, and it may be why more people turned away.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kodi Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-06-03 11:13 AM
Response to Original message
10. with a $500B/year trade deficit how could alleged free trade help the US?
the logic that protectiing jobs in the US from unfair trade practices by US trade partners would hurt the US begs the question:

in what way would restricting imports to the US from places which have shown clearly their unilateral abrogation of trade aggreements hurt the US more than the current system?

the US has a $10 Trillion dollar economy. everyone is attempting to enter the US market. we are the dog which wags the tail. and here lieberman is telling us that the tail will hurt the dog?

ther only thing that matters is that multinational corporations would have to reduce profits whiles US workers would increase their employment by having US based companies sell their wares in the US where once the products were made oversea.

that is the issue which is unmentionable in this debate.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Khephra Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-06-03 11:40 AM
Response to Original message
18. I'm really, really, really
Trying not to bash any candidate...but Lieberman is making it hard with his latest comments.

Sigh....

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
robbedvoter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-06-03 11:46 AM
Response to Original message
20. Gore won in spite of Lieberman who undermined him both
in the debate with Cheney and during the recount when he said: all fraud on military ballots is valid! (they had the election right there by 202 votes, according to NYT).
As for the debate, his attack on dean wasn't the worst thing he said. This was:
CREATING TERROR
by Michael Crowley
http://www.tnr.com/primary/index.mhtml?pid=663
Candidate: Joe Lieberman
Category: Intellectual Honesty
Grade: D
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lumpy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-06-03 03:27 PM
Response to Reply #20
38. Lieberman is protecting/echoing the Bushco lies
by his Iraq statement reported by Michael Crowley. No way, absolutely no way, will Lieberman get my vote. God only knows what his ambitions are when he can make such public statements.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
barbaraann Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-06-03 01:15 PM
Response to Original message
29. Lieberman/Lubivitchers/Noahide laws/Chertoff/Education Day
http://www.shmais.com/chabaddetail.cfm?ID=422

http://www.voy.com/108170/25.html

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/armageddon-or-newage/message/29423

http://www.beith-din.com/Noahide_deception.htm

There's a lot here but I will just post one passage from the last link which explains the "bottom line" of the Lubivitcher movement.

"Schneerson's goal was to have the non-Jewish population of the United States of America totally subjected and ruled by judicial ennactments that are exclusively managed, interpreted and manipulated by orthodox rabbis ."

It seems to me that the Lubivitchers are the Jewish equivalent of the Christian Ten Commandments fanatics and Sen. Lieberman's "Warm place in his heart" for the Lubivitchers makes me uncomfortable, to say the least.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
robbedvoter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-06-03 01:35 PM
Response to Reply #29
31. I thought we were discussing politics here - wrong forum, I guess
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
barbaraann Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-06-03 01:43 PM
Response to Reply #31
32. That IS politics.
It's about fundamentalists like Judge Moore in Alabama wanting to make religious law the law of the land.

If you follow the thinging of these fanatics you will see that it always ends up with men having total power over women and girls. And you know what that means.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
IndianaGreen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-06-03 03:05 PM
Response to Reply #32
35. "Ten Commandments" Roy Moore, and "Holy" Joe Lieberman

Alabama Supreme Court Chief Justice Roy Moore

Two self-righteous members of the American Taliban that are trying to impose their rigid moral values on everyone else.

The Lieberman/Moore Presidential ticket would be the perfect slate for the Party of Gawd.

BTW, for those who think that Lieberman is so fucking religious, will he stop campaigning during the 10-day period of the High Holidays?

The High Holidays begin this year with Rosh Hashanah, at sundown Friday, September 26, and conclude with Yom Kippur ending at sundown on Monday, October 6.

The most observant Orthodox Jews refrain from any labor during the entire 10-day period of the High Holidays. Most other Jews refrain from work on Rosh Hashanah, and perhaps the day following, and Yom Kippur.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
barbaraann Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-06-03 03:26 PM
Response to Reply #35
37. Lieberman/Moore for the Party of Gawd - Oh, boy.
They would probably win in Alabama.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
robbedvoter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-06-03 03:21 PM
Response to Reply #32
36. Separation of church and state is my dearest issue.
I can barely stand Joe. But there are enough political stands (that he actually expressed) to criticize him for without the need to go into ugly territory. For all his smarminess, nothing indicated to me that Joe is overly religious, let alone a fanatic. As I said, we don't need to make up reasons which speak more about ourselves than about Lieberman.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
barbaraann Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-06-03 03:36 PM
Response to Reply #36
39. I didn't call Lieberman a fanatic and I didn't make anything up.
I called the Lubavitchers fanatics and posted links showing that Lieberman panders to them, at the very least. What he did was like George Bush visiting Bob Jones University. Do you see?

And if you read through the last link you will indeed see some ugliness because fundamentalism of any variety is always ugly.

There truly are people who want to institute religious control of our legal system and it always boils down to men being in control of women and girls.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hedda_foil Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-06-03 05:26 PM
Response to Reply #29
43. I'm Jewish and afaic, you're right on about the Lubavitchers
They are, indeed, the equivalent of the fanatical xtian fundies. Let me tell you a story. If you know anything at all about Judaism, you know that the covenant of bar/bas mitzvah is all about understanding the Torah (and some Talmud) and being able to read, understand, and provide reasoned and considered oral commentary on an assigned reading from the Torah. It's not like being dipped in a fundy baptismal pool. It's the ritual which ensures that Jewish men (and more recently women) can perform their religious duties and obligations intelligently and with at least a modicum of understanding.

You can be bar mitzvah at any age, though traditionally it's a 13 after at least 6 or 7 years of Hebrew school (at least a couple of days a week after schoo., often more) and a very intensive year of one-to-one tutoring with a rabbi in preparation for the big day.

Now the reason that I preface my story with that information is to tell you about a cousin of mine who has a Christian father and Jewish mother, which makes him fully Jewish by birth. Brad was brought up as a non-observant Jew. He never attended Hebrew school and because of that was never bar mitzvah. One day he was stopped literally ON THE STREET by a couple of Lubavitchers who asked if he was Jewish (to which he said yes) and then if he had been bar mitzvah. When he told them he hadn't, they did some sort of half-assed blessing, still ON THE STREET, and told him that he was now officially bar mitzvah. That's not just bullshit, but it's almost sacriligious to take the entire bar mitzvah preparation process, and the reason for it, so incredibly lightly.

That's the Lubavitchers in a nutshell. The same guys who think their insane rabbi Schneerson I(renowned for marrying a teenage girl when he was in his '90's) was the messiah ... a true sacrilege. There are a couple of other nutsoid so-called "Orthdox Jewish" sects in the states and apparently a whole flock of them in Israel. Unfortunately, the have close ties to the xtian fundies because they all want to kick the Muslims out and rebuild the Temple in Jerusalem, God help us.

Between the Lubavitchers and Falwell, Holy Joe's buddies make me more than nervous. And the vast majority of my Jewish friends and family around the country feel the same way as I do. None of us would vote for him on a bet.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
waggawagga Donating Member (128 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-08-03 01:05 AM
Response to Reply #43
50. It's Ancient History But Here's Why I Think Gore Picked Lieberman.
Florida. And it should have worked.

Gore's biggest mistake in 2000, the error which cost him the election, was not making up with Bill Clinton and letting him campaign in places like Tennessee and Arkansas.

This had far more impact than Gore's choice of Lieberman (which was a net gain for his ticket, I think).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dragonlady Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-08-03 01:41 PM
Response to Reply #43
53. A slight correction
Actually, bar/bat mitzvah is a status, although the words are often used for the ceremony that many families hold to celebrate their child's coming of age. Bar/bat mitzvah simply means that a Jewish person has reached the age at which he or she is responsible for his or her own actions. This is analogous to reaching the age of majority in civil law--you are eligible to vote, whether or not you have learned anything about the issues or ever intend to actually cast a vote. Yes, it's a good thing for Jews to learn about their religion, and it's nice to have a ceremony, but no, they are not required in any way to become a bar/bat mitzvah.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MrPrax Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-06-03 04:00 PM
Response to Original message
40. Score One for Eric
I always thought Joe was a neo-conservative
Rightwing on the economy (corporate cronyism, patronage, 'responsible' enivronmental issues, anti-labor, etcetc)

But has (and probably believes in genuinely) a good 'mix' of socially consciousness centrist positions (supports women, minorities, Choice, likes education and thinks it's important, clean streets, etcetc)

He could just as easily run as a GOPer...like Powell ;-)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ulysses Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-07-03 09:55 PM
Response to Original message
48. wow
I'm not sorry Gore is not in the 2004 race. IMHO, he is among the handful of people in the US who are responsible for that smirking chimp being in the White House right now.

This from Eric "not one progressive vote for Nader" Alterman? Wonders never cease.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dolstein Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-07-03 10:14 PM
Response to Original message
49. A typically bigoted article from a Lieberman critic
Why is it so impossible for Alterman to conceive of the Lieberman selection as having been the rational outcome of a lengthy selection process? Why does he refuse to take Al Gore at his word? It was Gore, after all, who said that of all the people he considered, it was Lieberman who most closely reflected his own political philosophy. I see -- taking Gore at his word would mean that Alterman would have to acknowledge that Lieberman is well within the mainstream of the Democratic Party, and of course the left (which has been shutout in the last three nomination contests) could never concede that. I especially love how he impliesthat it was a shady cabal of Gore advisers, rather than Gore himself, that engineered Lieberman's selection.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tinnypriv Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-08-03 01:32 AM
Response to Reply #49
51. The "left" is out of democratic party nominations?
Hey, that may be true, but here is a wake up call:

That makes your nomination process FUCKED UP.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dolstein Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-08-03 02:02 PM
Response to Reply #51
54. Newsflash -- the nomination goes to person with the most delegate
And if I'm not mistaken, it was the left-wing of the party that actually pushed for this. Since 1972, the nomination has gone to the candidate who wins the most delegates, with the overwhelming majority of delegates selelected through primaries and caucuses.

If the left wing truly is as dominant within the party's rank and file as DU'ers claim, then the failure of the Democratic Party to nominate left-wing presidential candidates proves only that the left wing -- not the process -- is fucked up.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri Dec 27th 2024, 03:24 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC