Say it ain't so, Joe and other bitter truths

Discussion in 'Politics' started by AAAintheBeltway, Aug 10, 2006.

  1. Is Lamont Jewish? Lieberman has always made a big deal of being an Orthodox Jew. Given the current anti-semitism and anti-Israel sentiment among the nutcase left, I have to wonder if that wasn't a factor.

    Of course, the media will not mention it.
     
    #11     Aug 11, 2006
  2. Lamont is not Jewish. However, he is strongly pro-israel, to the disappointment of some on the left.
     
    #12     Aug 11, 2006
  3. There is no evidence that anti-semitism or Anti-Israel sentiment played a role in Lieberman's defeat, an overwhelming number of Lamont voters are very enthusiastic about other progressive pro-Israel jewish politicians, Russ Feingold immediately comes to mind. People looking for excuses and explanations simply refuse to face the reality that Bush is radioactive and that's what did Lieberman in. Some republicans do get it though:

    The old banner of the Michigan Republican Party website
    [​IMG]

    the new banner on their website
    [​IMG]
    http://www.michiganliberal.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=6188


    The irony of an orthodox Jew helping a born again Christian establish a fundamentalist Islamic regime in Iraq was not lost on many either.

    james_bond_3rd is absolutely correct about Lamont not being jewish but strongly pro-Israel.
     
    #13     Aug 11, 2006
  4. Pabst

    Pabst

    Feingold could have been beaten in 2004. Wisconsin Republicans thought he was untouchable so the nomination went uncontested to a "regular guy" who'd never held public office. In turn Feingold only received 55% of the vote. Kerry and Bush ran virtually even in Wisconsin meaning that Feingold only attracted about 1 in 10 voters who went for Bush to "crossover." If the Wisconsin GOP had not incorrectly identified Feingold as being "safe" they could have run a name candidate and won.
     
    #14     Aug 11, 2006
  5. Feingold did not have a real competition in 2004 so I suppose he did not campaign strongly either. There is no reason to believe that if WI republicans put a real effort into defeating him and he'd be forced to put a real effort into defending his seat the outcome would be different.

    At any rate, being one of the most progressive members of the senate in a state like WI is not easy, WI is not Massachusets or Connecticut. My point was that he's extremely highly regarded by Lamont voters (which destroys the anti-semitism argument), not necessarily by his constituency.
     
    #15     Aug 11, 2006
  6. Pabst

    Pabst

    The apparent lack of competition didn't dissuade the paragon of campaign finance reform from raising $8,377,885 in quest of re-election.

    You may like to know (you're a better student of history than LoZZer) that Wisconsin was the birthplace of the Progressive movement. In fact it's just recently that the word progressive has been used to politically describe candidates outside of Wisconsin. For a few decades, Milwaukee had a Socialist Mayor!

    http://www.wisconsinhistory.org/turningpoints/tp-036/?action=more_essay
     
    #16     Aug 11, 2006