<p>More politics as usual. It gets really, really old after a while. When are we going to stop being self-serving and vote out the establishment and force a change (I’ve considered voting for Obama just for this reason. Still haven’t ruled it out but he seems to be showing quite the established political accumen lately as well)? I’m not a fan of term limits but it may be the only legislation that can keep us from putting the same numbnuts back in office for 30 and 40 years (Kennedy, Thurmond, etc…). It is amazing. </p>
<p>It wasn’t the specifics I was referring to anyhow. More the way the politics go. I don’t know if Obama helped Lieberman or not, nor do I really care all that much. I certainly won’t take the word of someone at the bottom of an article who posted on a forum board as gospel and I really don’t care enough to research it.</p>
<p>I have said this over and over again…I am not voting for anyone who is an incumbent in this cycle. My hopes are that if enough incumbents lose maybe the politicians will see their constituents are tired of the political game they play and actually want to see something accomplished instead of finger pointing and broken promises.</p>
<p>Sen Lieberman is an Independent. He is not obligation tow the Democrat party line. He owes nothing to Sen. Obama and has not backstabbed him. It is nice to hear an independent voice now and then and Sen. Lieberman does a good job of expressing what is in the best interests of America.</p>
<p>Citing left-wing kook blogs is not adequate evidence to support your thesis.</p>
<p>Exactly. Lieberman is a consideration for the Republican VP as well according to some people so he was never a Obama supporter hence I don’t see the betrayal?</p>
<p>Actually I’m pretty much on the right, if you haven’t been able to figure that out before now. I don’t really care what Lieberman’s views are. I could really care less whether Lieberman stabbed Obama in the back, front or whatever. The title is straight from the column and used to grab attention. As I said in the first part of the thread: “More politics as usual”. It just me habit to attack someone you think disagrees with you. Tell me you wouldn’t want to see politicians more concerned with the country and the people rather than their party and getting re-elected? Lieberman only went independent when the Dem stopped supporting him. He would still be with them if it weren’t for that. He’s no more of an independent than myself or any of the left-wingers here. He’s just playing one on TV.</p>
<p>Ah I see, pmrlcomm. Of course I’d rather politicans with the country’s best interests at heart. The system in America is very ineffective when you consider how easy it is to get re-elected in most offices. But I’m merely guessing it’d be the same with a lot of prosperous countries simply because people don’t want to rock the boat. </p>
<p>In Australia the election for Prime Minister (Our President) is decided by who controls the House. Thus effectively when we vote for our MPs (Congressman I guess) we’re voting not for or against the local Congressman but for the Prime Minister. This system allows for a lot of swing voting as opposed to the American system in my opinion. </p>
<p>I’m not as informed as you are about American politics (even though politics + economics are my passion) but I was under the impression Liebermann was a free trade advocate whilst Obama was a economic protectionist. And isn’t he a bit of a foreign policy hawk who wants more military spending. CNN implied that when he was named a honorary co-chairman of something in the Senate plus I know for a fact he supported the Iraq War. </p>
<p>So I’d say he is very socially liberal and right wing in other aspects so I guess he epitomizes the type of voter I would be (I’m only 15 so a while yet :P)</p>
<p>If the liberitarians were a viable 3rd party I would align with them. I, like you, fall to the social liberal/fiscal conservative model (I just happen to much older!). When push come to shove though a smaller government and fiscal restraint outweigh the social end of the spectrum…hence why I am a Republican. I’m not far right but right enough to find it difficult to vote for Dems unless they are more moderate. This wasn’t a thread designed to bash Obama, Lieberman or anyone else. More of a rant about politics as usual.</p>
<p>Oh I completely understand pmrlcomm. Politics in America is ludicrous at times, I believe the incumbency percentages in Congress are in the high 90s? </p>
<p>What do you think about Australia’s system of politics? I think that could ensure a reduction in incumbencies. Just as an example, when elections were held at the end of last year there was a 20 point swing to Labor from the incumbent Liberals and thus many seats (districts) had new people placed in power. Of coure I’m not naive and realize any system that tries to reduce the ludicrous incumbency rates will not be supported by the politicans who currently wield these offices but its an interesting idea. </p>
<p>And the most frustrating thing is there are lots of voters like us (Socially liberal, economically conservative) so you’d think the Libertarians would be a viable 3rd party or at least more influential then its current state of ridicule. Right now if I could vote, although I actually think the Libertarians make a good case I’d vote Republican as I don’t see eye to eye with Obama’s economic policies and thus I wouldn’t want to have a donkey vote.</p>
<p>As flawed as our system may seem to be it really isn’t the system. It’s the people that vote. I’m as guilty as anyone with the way I vote sometimes. True change can be a scary thing and sometimes the devil you know is a whole lot less scary. I’m sure what the Aussie’s do works for them. I wouldn’t trade our form of gov’t in for any other on the planet. I just wish we could be smarter sometimes.</p>
<p>First of all – I agree that Joe Lieberman is & was very much out of line on this. But I want to comment on something else you wrote: <a href=“I’ve%20considered%20voting%20for%20Obama%20just%20for%20this%20reason.%20Still%20haven’t%20ruled%20it%20out%20but%20he%20seems%20to%20be%20showing%20quite%20the%20established%20political%20accumen%20lately%20as%20well”>quote</a>
[/quote]
I think that many people are confusing Obama’s message of “change” with some sort of hope that he would be a Mr. Smith Goes to Washington innocent or neophyte. So every time he demonstrates politically astute behavior, there seems to this shock wave, as if it proves that he is not for real.</p>
<p>The “change” that Obama is talking about is a shift of political priorities, power and influence. Obama’s small-donor fundraising strategies and his own personal history means that he is not beholden to big money interests – the idea is that too much US policy has been driven by what is good for the oil companies, big pharmaceutical companies, health insurers, etc. rather than what is good for the people. Obama has also run a campaign premised from the very beginning on big tent politics, trying to run as a unifier rather than on a leftist/progressive platform-- a big part of his appeal has been to try to negate the red state/blue state dichotomy and decry the partisan divisions. </p>
<p>As a former Edwards supporter, I don’t know why it is that Obama is now being portrayed as shifting to the middle – all through primary season, he has been the middle. He has spoken as a pragmatist - albeit a very inspiring one – every step of the way. </p>
<p>Other than the fundraising issue, I don’t remember anything that would make Obama the icon of some sort of new type of politics. True, he announced he would not take money from Washington lobbyists – but that was only AFTER Edwards did so and essentially dared the others to follow his lead. Obama was at best vague on the details of just about everything he advocated – so how is it now a shift or a change to fill in some of the details in a way that some people didn’t anticipate. I, for one, am not surprised – I assumed that his opacity was part of a deliberate strategy to win the nomination without boxing himself in. I personally would support Dennis Kucinich if I thought the man had a chance of getting elected – but I am not deluded enough to think that a far-left candidate is ever going to be able to win a majority in the general election. </p>
<p>Of course Barack Obama is playing to the center now – the reason he is running for president is that he wants to get elected. Obviously, in order to get elected he has to make it clear to all the people in the middle that he’s a reasonable kind of guy who will be responsive to their concerns, despite a liberal Senate voting record.</p>
<p>The only real strategic difference that I see is that Obama has a unique background a community organizer – and he has employed the experience and tactics learned from grassroots organizing into his campaign. That is a big difference from back room politics funded by lobbyists and power brokers – but it is not a realm in which people are naive.</p>
<p>I wouldn’t trust a neo-conservative, right wing politician who all of a sudden started playing to the center either. I’m not real pleased with McCain trying to play to the religious right either. I don’t mind someone chaning their mind on issues when new facts come about but to move yourself to the center is exactly what I’m talking about when I say he is showing his political accumen. What I want when it comes to change is someone who will come in, stay THEIR course, not just pandering to get elected. I actually believe someone who sticks to their guns (provided they are reasonable) will have more respect and a better chance of getting elected. This is, again, turning into an election of who I don’t want rather than any candidate that I would want to vote for. I think before it’s all said and done most will feel like this. McCain keeps pandering to the right, which he shouldn’t and Obama is coming to the center, which he shouldn’t. What the Dems should do is actually find a Democrat who is a moderate…not try to turn a liberal into a moderate.</p>
<p>Obama’s been proven as the most liberal member of the Senate and trying to mould him into a moderate is a gamble that could backfire heavily. If the Democrats believed a moderate was the key to winning, why not actually vote for one? At the very least the superdelegates should have thrown themselves behind a moderate if they believed a moderate was their only chance.</p>
<p>I’ve never accused the Democratic Party of being overly intelligent when it comes to running these last few Presidential campaigns. They think they have a horse than can win the race. We’ll see.</p>
<p>Joe Lieberman is a self-serving hypocrite! In 2000 his changed/moderated some of his so-called core principles to make himself acceptable as a VP candidate.</p>
<p>Joe Lieberman is a Democrat who caucuses with the Democrats in the Senate. He ran as an independent in the last election only after he lost the Democratic primary.</p>
Actually, pmrlcomm, I think if you look back at the primary campaign, Obama has been the most moderate/pragmatic of the leading democrats all along. He’s tended to be very vague on details and just about every speech he made was on a “bring us together” theme, arguing against the “partisanship” that divides Washington. I don’t think there’s been any change at all except in emphasis, with the possible exception of the public financing issue – but Obama would have been nuts to accept the spending limits that come with public financing given his financial strength-- and I’m sure McCain would have made the same decision if he had the same fundraising ability. (I mean… who would want a President who can’t count dollars?) So that one was motivated entirely by common sense and pragmatism. </p>
<p>I could have told you 10 months ago that Obama was a pragmatist and that is why I was supporting another candidate. I honestly don’t think you can go to anything he has said in debates or speeches and find a significant change of position – just a change of spin.</p>
<p>Here’s a quote from a Krugman article written last January – I’ve highlighted the parts that show that for those of who were focused on specifics rather than spin, Obama was the candidate closes to the center all along.
<p>I don’t think it’s pandering. It’s what brought him to Trinity church in the first place.
As a community organizer, Obama saw what Trinity and religious organizations like it could provide in terms of services for the community. He’s also long advocated that the government cannot do it all; individuals and families have a role to play. His Father’s Day speech, he had made quite a few times earlier. As I’ve posted before, he appeared at the Compassion Forum organized by CNN and received quite a lot of applause for his comments.
I am personally agnostic but I contribute to the American Friends Service Committee (Quaker).</p>