Sunday, January 25, 2004
If you want to know why we went into Iraq, click here. It's a preliminary report written by David Kay, the man previously in charge of the WMD search in IRAQ whom has since resigned to return to the private sector. The media's coverage of the report was simply "Kay report turns up no WMDs yet", which fails to address the report firmly stating that intent was there.
People, intent was all that was neccessary under the cease fire agreement. If Saddam didn't want to abide by those terms, he shouldn't have tried to forcefully take Kuwait's oil.
By the way, if you want a domestic example of what happens when the government tries to do too much, look at California. Businesses and residents are fleeing the state in the wake of through the roof taxes that are needed to pay for their various social and economic programs. As far as I know, Ahnuld has the right idea: stop spending the people's money, and stop taxing businesses.
Okay, it's Lieber-time.
How it all began:
In 2000, Joseph Lieberman ran as Al Gore's running mate in the 2000 Presidential Election. He and Gore won the popular vote, but lost the electoral vote.
Since that time, Lieberman has been serving as the Conneticut Senator. After waiting to see if Al Gore would run against Bush in '04, Lieberman decided to throw his hat into the Presidential ring.
Al Gore then proceeded to endorse former Vermont Governor Howard Dean (with only a lackluster attempt to notifiy Lieberman's offices the morning of). This hurt Lieberman, and has contributed to an inability to get his campaign off the ground.
Where he stands now:
Lieberman declined to participate in Iowa, preferring to concentrate his efforts in New Hampshire.
This strategy has not worked for Lieberman. Most polls of New Hampshire place him at 7-11 percent, trailing Kerry and Dean by a huge margin, and only just managing to keep up with Edwards.
The case for Joseph Lieberman:
Lieberman has one main advantage over the rest of the field: if you are a Democrat who supported the Iraqi war, then your only viable option is Lieberman. The other candidates, even those who supported the war before running for president, are now staunch opponents of it.
Lieberman's experience comes from spending 15+ years as a United States Senator. During that time, he served on various committees ranging from the Small Business and Entrepreneurship Committee to the Armed Services Committee. He was also the Attorney General to Conneticut, as well as a Senator and Majority Leader for the state assembly there. He has no military experience, but his fairly diverse political background would seem to compensate.
Lieberman's considered to be one of the more principaled politicans in Washington. His denouncement of the current political compaign financing system and the abuses thereof was one of the most poignent and scathing. He doesn't make personal attacks on his opponents in his campaigns, and his arguements against them seem to be policy-based, not politically based. This would raise him above most of the Democratic Presidential Nominee field in that regard.
There are very few instances of inconsistency in Lieberman's positions. This is a huge boon, as all of the other candidates are seriously flawed in this area.
The Senator is also a Jewish man, and as the first Jew to be placed on a major party's Presidential ticket, he should draw a lot of voters from the Jewish community. And since this isn't 20+ years ago, the number of voters who will not vote for him due to his religious background is very small.
As far as his proposed changes if elected President, his better ones are increasing tax cuts for the lower and middle classes while repealing Bush's tax cuts for the top 2% of income earners, and proposing an amendment that supports Roe v. Wade while at the same time letting it evolve to take into account the improvements in medical technology that allow for fetal viability at an earlier point in the pregnancy.
Finally, Lieberman's voting history is more moderate than his opponent's. Oddly enough, his record and views are more comparable to Bill Clinton than to Al Gore, particularly now that Gore has veered off to the left. He's a Democrat in the new Clintonian sence of the word, from his supporting of taxpayer's right to pick public schools, to supporting universal health care, to his strong national defense stance.
The case against Joseph Lieberman:
Lieberman, like all of the Democratic Presidential Candidates, supports universal health care. I've covered that topic before, but suffice to say, it isn't a good idea.
I mention it here because Lieberman, the least liberal of the whole bunch, is still a proponent of it. His plan of increasing the already heavy burden on the upper class is not going to sit well with business owners.
What the Democrats don't seem to understand is that increasing taxes, even just on the wealthy, only gives a short boost in tax revenue. After a certain point, its detrimental effect on the economy and the amount of money in it, of which the government's slice of the pie is drawn from, will decrease to the point where the government will actually see a decrease in tax revenue after a year or so. The reason is simple: the more money you take out of the economy, the less money the economy has to give to the government.
Electing Joseph Lieberman, a Jewish man, will also serve to piss off Arabic nations that are already under the impression that the U.S. is biased towards Israel in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. This should by no means be given much weight in choosing who will represent the interests of the U.S. However, it is something to consider.
Lieberman's main problem, however, is that he is a huge proponent of regulating morality. The only position where he doesn't propose the federal government regulating moral issues is on gay marriage (he's personally opposed to it, but supports the states' rights to choose). In every other instance, he has proposed that the government get more and more involved in choosing what is and is not right for the American people. He is the Honorary Chairperson of the Parents Television Council (PTC), a group that has a proven history of twisting and bending facts in order to get shows pulled off the air that they don't like. All of this makes him a hard candidate to stomach for Democrats, a party notorious for its "freedom to choose your own morality" platform.
Is he deserving of the nomination?
If not for that pesky habit of trying to legislate morality, he'd be the perfect Democratic candidate given its platform. He's got tons of varied political experience, he stands for issues as opposed to merely taking issues when it's political advantegous to do so, and he seems to have a moral guiding compass. He's less of a 'politician' than most, and in today's world that's an admirable quality. He is a deserving candidate.
Is he deserving of the Presidency?
This one's murkier. He's still a proponent of bigger government. He's still a candidate who doesn't see fit to eliminate programs that, while good, are not the government's responsibility. He still doesn't see the need to ask the citizens of the U.S. to show personal responsibility in his proposals towards the bloated Social Security and Medicare programs. Policy-wise, he will take this country in the same direction that most politicans want it to go: away from the non-interventive government that this country was founded on, and towards making this country a nation that depends upon its government. In that respect, he is not deserving.
Taking partisan issues out of the argument, his experience for the job isn't laughable. He's been in politics most of his life, and has served in a wide range of Congressional Committees. He ran a law firm for 11 years, and is a former Attorney General. He does has no diplomatic or military experience to speak of. He has however written books on the subjects, and seems to have acquired a basic understanding of foreign relations.
There's another important factor to consider.
There are few men of strong principle in politics nowadays. You can never make the case that Joseph Lieberman isn't trying to look out for the best interests of the U.S. If you agree with the politics of the Democratic party, then there are few more deserving candidates than Senator Joseph Lieberman.
Can he win the nomination?
He's a long shot at this point, but stranger things have happened. He will attract Democrats who view the other Presidential candidates as modern day appeasers. He'll attract conservatives who believe on taking a stand for morality. He has nationwide notorioty from being on the Presidential ticket in 2000. He's a Democrat who isn't afraid to be tough, and a lot of people. And he has managed to stay above the other candidates by not making petty attacks on them or Bush.
However, a lot of Democrats view him as too conservative for their tastes. He's not as staunchly anti-gun, pro-choice, or anti-Bush as they would like. He may speak well, but he's about to be 62, and very much looks it. Perception and looks sadly play a role in who people vote for, especially in Democratic primaries where the voter base is typically younger and more susceptible to looking at superficial factors.
Despite what some commentators have said, Lieberman has a shot. A long one, but a shot nonetheless.
If nominated, could he beat Bush?
It is baffling why voters looking for electability are looking at anybody but Lieberman. But then again, maybe not: a lot of the primary voters claim to want someone who can beat Bush, but in reality want somebody who can beat Bush AND is anti-war.
Lieberman is the only candidate who won't be crushed in the arena of national defense. And since that issue will drive this election, the Democrats have to have a candidate who Bush won't run over on that issue in order to have any chance of beating him. In fact, Lieberman may well steal some of Bush's supporters, since he offers a pro-defense stance AND increased tax cuts for the middle class. Lieberman's chances would not be good, but he would give Bush at least some kind of a struggle for the Presidency.
He's the best candidate of this sorry bunch. He'll give you an increase in the size of government with a side order of heavy-handed morality regulations, but at least he'll protect the lives of Americans while doing so. Plus, he is willing to oppose his party on some issues. If Joseph Lieberman were elected President, he would not be the worst President ever. That's quite the praise, considering who he's running against.
People, intent was all that was neccessary under the cease fire agreement. If Saddam didn't want to abide by those terms, he shouldn't have tried to forcefully take Kuwait's oil.
By the way, if you want a domestic example of what happens when the government tries to do too much, look at California. Businesses and residents are fleeing the state in the wake of through the roof taxes that are needed to pay for their various social and economic programs. As far as I know, Ahnuld has the right idea: stop spending the people's money, and stop taxing businesses.
Okay, it's Lieber-time.
Senator Joseph Lieberman
Former Vice Presidential Nominee
How it all began:
In 2000, Joseph Lieberman ran as Al Gore's running mate in the 2000 Presidential Election. He and Gore won the popular vote, but lost the electoral vote.
Since that time, Lieberman has been serving as the Conneticut Senator. After waiting to see if Al Gore would run against Bush in '04, Lieberman decided to throw his hat into the Presidential ring.
Al Gore then proceeded to endorse former Vermont Governor Howard Dean (with only a lackluster attempt to notifiy Lieberman's offices the morning of). This hurt Lieberman, and has contributed to an inability to get his campaign off the ground.
Where he stands now:
Lieberman declined to participate in Iowa, preferring to concentrate his efforts in New Hampshire.
This strategy has not worked for Lieberman. Most polls of New Hampshire place him at 7-11 percent, trailing Kerry and Dean by a huge margin, and only just managing to keep up with Edwards.
The case for Joseph Lieberman:
Lieberman has one main advantage over the rest of the field: if you are a Democrat who supported the Iraqi war, then your only viable option is Lieberman. The other candidates, even those who supported the war before running for president, are now staunch opponents of it.
Lieberman's experience comes from spending 15+ years as a United States Senator. During that time, he served on various committees ranging from the Small Business and Entrepreneurship Committee to the Armed Services Committee. He was also the Attorney General to Conneticut, as well as a Senator and Majority Leader for the state assembly there. He has no military experience, but his fairly diverse political background would seem to compensate.
Lieberman's considered to be one of the more principaled politicans in Washington. His denouncement of the current political compaign financing system and the abuses thereof was one of the most poignent and scathing. He doesn't make personal attacks on his opponents in his campaigns, and his arguements against them seem to be policy-based, not politically based. This would raise him above most of the Democratic Presidential Nominee field in that regard.
There are very few instances of inconsistency in Lieberman's positions. This is a huge boon, as all of the other candidates are seriously flawed in this area.
The Senator is also a Jewish man, and as the first Jew to be placed on a major party's Presidential ticket, he should draw a lot of voters from the Jewish community. And since this isn't 20+ years ago, the number of voters who will not vote for him due to his religious background is very small.
As far as his proposed changes if elected President, his better ones are increasing tax cuts for the lower and middle classes while repealing Bush's tax cuts for the top 2% of income earners, and proposing an amendment that supports Roe v. Wade while at the same time letting it evolve to take into account the improvements in medical technology that allow for fetal viability at an earlier point in the pregnancy.
Finally, Lieberman's voting history is more moderate than his opponent's. Oddly enough, his record and views are more comparable to Bill Clinton than to Al Gore, particularly now that Gore has veered off to the left. He's a Democrat in the new Clintonian sence of the word, from his supporting of taxpayer's right to pick public schools, to supporting universal health care, to his strong national defense stance.
The case against Joseph Lieberman:
Lieberman, like all of the Democratic Presidential Candidates, supports universal health care. I've covered that topic before, but suffice to say, it isn't a good idea.
I mention it here because Lieberman, the least liberal of the whole bunch, is still a proponent of it. His plan of increasing the already heavy burden on the upper class is not going to sit well with business owners.
What the Democrats don't seem to understand is that increasing taxes, even just on the wealthy, only gives a short boost in tax revenue. After a certain point, its detrimental effect on the economy and the amount of money in it, of which the government's slice of the pie is drawn from, will decrease to the point where the government will actually see a decrease in tax revenue after a year or so. The reason is simple: the more money you take out of the economy, the less money the economy has to give to the government.
Electing Joseph Lieberman, a Jewish man, will also serve to piss off Arabic nations that are already under the impression that the U.S. is biased towards Israel in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. This should by no means be given much weight in choosing who will represent the interests of the U.S. However, it is something to consider.
Lieberman's main problem, however, is that he is a huge proponent of regulating morality. The only position where he doesn't propose the federal government regulating moral issues is on gay marriage (he's personally opposed to it, but supports the states' rights to choose). In every other instance, he has proposed that the government get more and more involved in choosing what is and is not right for the American people. He is the Honorary Chairperson of the Parents Television Council (PTC), a group that has a proven history of twisting and bending facts in order to get shows pulled off the air that they don't like. All of this makes him a hard candidate to stomach for Democrats, a party notorious for its "freedom to choose your own morality" platform.
Conclusions
Is he deserving of the nomination?
If not for that pesky habit of trying to legislate morality, he'd be the perfect Democratic candidate given its platform. He's got tons of varied political experience, he stands for issues as opposed to merely taking issues when it's political advantegous to do so, and he seems to have a moral guiding compass. He's less of a 'politician' than most, and in today's world that's an admirable quality. He is a deserving candidate.
Is he deserving of the Presidency?
This one's murkier. He's still a proponent of bigger government. He's still a candidate who doesn't see fit to eliminate programs that, while good, are not the government's responsibility. He still doesn't see the need to ask the citizens of the U.S. to show personal responsibility in his proposals towards the bloated Social Security and Medicare programs. Policy-wise, he will take this country in the same direction that most politicans want it to go: away from the non-interventive government that this country was founded on, and towards making this country a nation that depends upon its government. In that respect, he is not deserving.
Taking partisan issues out of the argument, his experience for the job isn't laughable. He's been in politics most of his life, and has served in a wide range of Congressional Committees. He ran a law firm for 11 years, and is a former Attorney General. He does has no diplomatic or military experience to speak of. He has however written books on the subjects, and seems to have acquired a basic understanding of foreign relations.
There's another important factor to consider.
There are few men of strong principle in politics nowadays. You can never make the case that Joseph Lieberman isn't trying to look out for the best interests of the U.S. If you agree with the politics of the Democratic party, then there are few more deserving candidates than Senator Joseph Lieberman.
Can he win the nomination?
He's a long shot at this point, but stranger things have happened. He will attract Democrats who view the other Presidential candidates as modern day appeasers. He'll attract conservatives who believe on taking a stand for morality. He has nationwide notorioty from being on the Presidential ticket in 2000. He's a Democrat who isn't afraid to be tough, and a lot of people. And he has managed to stay above the other candidates by not making petty attacks on them or Bush.
However, a lot of Democrats view him as too conservative for their tastes. He's not as staunchly anti-gun, pro-choice, or anti-Bush as they would like. He may speak well, but he's about to be 62, and very much looks it. Perception and looks sadly play a role in who people vote for, especially in Democratic primaries where the voter base is typically younger and more susceptible to looking at superficial factors.
Despite what some commentators have said, Lieberman has a shot. A long one, but a shot nonetheless.
If nominated, could he beat Bush?
It is baffling why voters looking for electability are looking at anybody but Lieberman. But then again, maybe not: a lot of the primary voters claim to want someone who can beat Bush, but in reality want somebody who can beat Bush AND is anti-war.
Lieberman is the only candidate who won't be crushed in the arena of national defense. And since that issue will drive this election, the Democrats have to have a candidate who Bush won't run over on that issue in order to have any chance of beating him. In fact, Lieberman may well steal some of Bush's supporters, since he offers a pro-defense stance AND increased tax cuts for the middle class. Lieberman's chances would not be good, but he would give Bush at least some kind of a struggle for the Presidency.
Final verdict:
He's the best candidate of this sorry bunch. He'll give you an increase in the size of government with a side order of heavy-handed morality regulations, but at least he'll protect the lives of Americans while doing so. Plus, he is willing to oppose his party on some issues. If Joseph Lieberman were elected President, he would not be the worst President ever. That's quite the praise, considering who he's running against.
Comments:
Post a Comment
