So Mark Warner's friends compare him to Lieberman??

Oh brother:

Sometimes your friends can cause you more harm than your enemies.

Former Virginia Governor Mark Warner, a leading candidate for the Presidential nomination in 2008, wowed an AIPAC (American Israeli Public Affairs Committee) crowd the other day with what apparently were strong comments in defense of Israel. Those comments apparently prompted several AIPAC members to say the following:

At last week's American Israel Public Affairs Committee, former Virginia Gov. Mark Warner won kudos for his comments, with several insiders suggesting that he is the "Joe Lieberman" in the race‑a moderate Democrat who strongly supports Israel.

Lieberman, of course, is now the Bete Noir of the Democratic base, with large elements of the netroots working tirelessly to defeat him in the upcoming Connecticut Senate primary (You can contribute to Lamont's primary challenge against Lieberman here).

If these AIPAC people truly support Warner, don't you think maybe they would have stopped to think that comparing Warner to Leiberman was not the best move for Warner's chances in a Democratic primary? Are you sure these people really support him, or are they cleverly trying to deep-six his campaign to give Hillary an easier path?

http://www.politicalcortex.com/story/2006/3/18/17548/3412

Now, I harp - nearly constantly - about the need to pick candidates who can flip some red states. Mark Warner is one of those candidates.

But, I'm very conflicted about supporting a candidate who's friends compare him to Joe Lieberman and Warner's support of AIPAC and corporations and the need to pick a candidate who can flip some red states. *sigh*

What bothers me about the support of AIPAC isn't the support of Israel - my husband, the love of my life, is Jewish - but I have a problem with people who support Israel over the United States of America.

Can Warner supporter debunk this? Or tell me why I should support him should he become the nominee.

So, who's in control here? Disregard what Israel PM Ariel Sharon allegedly told Shimon Peres, his Minister of Foreign Affairs, a month after the 9-11 attack -- "I want to tell you something very clear, don't worry about American pressure on Israel," Sharon said. "We, the Jewish people control America, and the Americans know it."

http://onlinejournal.com/artman/publish/article_600.shtml

has also received a fairly large sum of contributions from AIPAC - $132,310 through the 2004 season.

http://www.wrmea.com/archives/Oct_2004/0410019.html

However many others have received more, but he is one of the potential 2008 contenders, so I thought it worthy of mention.

Unfortunately that page only shows 2004 candidates (for any national office), so Hillary isn't listed since she wasn't up for re-election, so we can't compare her. Kerry & Dean are pretty clean (around 6K each, career total).

As the primary wars heat up on DU after '06, this issue will be raised again I'm sure.

which I think is the problem with Lieberbush.

The question is how independent someone can be while receiving huge bucks from a particular interest group. And as I understand AIPAC is not just pro-Israel, it is pro-Zionist.

That said, there are a lot of people on that list who have gotten huge bucks from AIPAC. Sigh.

at the same time? Gee, who would have thunk it?

According to AIPAC's spokespeople, it doesn't. AIPAC maintains that they are NOT a PAC (the 'PAC' in AIPAC stand for 'Public Affairs Committee') and they do NOT engage in fundraising at all. That they ORGANIZE fundraising is another issue.

"A Jewish civil rights organization and some Alexandria Democrats have criticized Rep. James P. Moran, D-Alexandria, for suggesting at a recent party meeting that a major American pro-Israel lobbying group will raise $2 million and "take over" efforts to unseat him next year.

In comments likely to prolong controversy over Moran's views toward Israel and U.S. Jewish groups and constituents, the seven-term incumbent said the American Israel Public Action Committee, or AIPAC, has begun organizing against him and will "direct a campaign against me and take over the campaign of a Democratic opponent," according to notes taken by a person in attendance and corroborated by three others.

AIPAC spokeswoman Rebecca Dinar called Moran's comments "RIDICULOUS" and said the organization "HAD NO IDEA" what the congressman was talking about. AIPAC, an influential and prominent Washington-based lobby, ISN'T A POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE, AND BY LAW CANNOT RAISE MONEY FOR CANDIDATES and by policy does not endorse candidates, Dinar said."
http://loper.org/~george/archives/2003/Apr/877.html

Rep. Moran won that election.

Moran, BTW, has often been defined as a "NEW DEMOCRAT" and a DLC supporter. That is, he votes the Republican corporatist line against the interests of working- and middle-class Americans, as the DLC advocates.

Each have recieved $1000s

the 2003-2004 campaign season. Kennedy and Lewis only got 1K and 2K respectively, Feingold picked up 38,500. Bayh, another 2008 contender, got 58K just in 2003-2004.

I don't know how long Lewis has been in Congress but Kennedy has been there much longer than Feingold, and his total is about half. So I wouldn't consider them to have the same magnitude of potential dependence.

...does one set the bar just above their favorite?

If one's favorite got $80,000, does $81,0000 become the point where it is too much?

If I set the bar just above my "favorite", almost everyone else would fail. Of course if I set it just above one of my almost-favorites (Boxer) almost everyone else would pass.

I don't think we can do that. BUT I really don't like that one of my Senators (Specter) is in hock to AIPAC for going on a half mil. So where would we draw the line?

But some have taken a lot more, a lot quicker and a lot more recently than others. You can't seriously look at those numbers and say that Feingold and Kennedy are in the same order of magnitude - Kennedy's is spread over many more years, and the recent take is much much lower. If there is any concern about independence, then it matters.

So where does this "$1000 more" line come from?

Besides, AIPAC doesn't make direct contributions. They ORGANIZE a whole lot of contributions, but that's not the same thing, is it? According to them, it's definitely not.

So what are you, another goddamned anti-Semite sayin' the Jewish lobby is tryin'ah BUY politicians' support? Huh? Are ya?

:woohoo:

So what are you, another goddamned anti-Semite sayin' the Jewish lobby is tryin'ah BUY politicians' support? Huh? Are ya?

So what are you, another goddamned reactionary who can't follow a thread? Huh? Are ya?

Being moderate on issues doesn't make you a Lieberman clone. Lieberman attacks Dems openly, which Mark Warner will NEVER ever do. Even my hardcore leftist friends in Virginia have lots of praise for Mark Warner.

Don't buy into this bs article, and its anonymous quoting.

This reminds me of what Markos has been saying over at Daily Kos: You can be moderate or even conservative on some issues, but ultimately you must support the party as a Democrat and not look for ways to gain at the expense of your fellow Democrats. Warner gives a shit about the base, even if he may not agree with them on every issue, while Lieberman is willing to flip the bird at us every chance he has.

Warner would have good coattails too I think if we nominate him.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

on Clark supporters posting anti-Warner threads? Not to mention the random posts knocking Warner. Tiresome already. We saw this in 2004 regarding Edwards and the 2008 target is already obvious.

Warner is HOTT right now.

Check him out on the front page of the NYT magazine.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/12/magazine/312bwarner.html?ex=1143003600&en=0d3d2ff1f9d8a4c6&ei=5070

What an awful angle to shoot at. He looked very strange...I figured the pro hillary forces at the NYT chose the pic.

You know, I dont know what he looked like. It was a terrible pic.

I don't know much about this guy,
his 'governors photo' looks like
it belongs on the cover of Mad Magazine

who thinks this thread is anti-semitic? And I ain't even jewish.

Research anti-Semitism and get back to us. Is it anti-Semitic to spell Semitic with a small s?

Referencing an "alleged" quote from Sharon: "We, the Jewish people control America, and the Americans know it."

Nah, you're right, that isn't anti semitic at all.

Maybe you should research "brain stem" and get back to us.

Snip>Notwithstanding, the mere interjection of the label "anti-Semite" halts discussion, mutes doubt and crushes debate on Middle East policy. In fact, nothing has accounted more for the success of Zionism and Israelism in the Western world than the skillful attack on the soft underbelly of world opinion--"Mr. Decent Man's" total repugnance toward anti-Semitism. The charge of this bias, bringing forth the spectre of Nazi Germany, so totally pulverizes the average Christian that, by contrast, calling him a Communist is a pleasant epithet.<snip
Semite and Anti-Semite:
A Confusion Stifling American Freedom
http://www.alfredlilienthal.com/antisemite.htm

who has written, amongst other oddities, a defense of how the Catholic Church behaved during the holocaust, might not be your strongest debating point.

I am about as impressed as if you had quoted a rabid "ex-gay" like Peter La Barbera as some kind of authority on homosexuality.



on edit: spelling of "la barbera"

He is just another self-hating Jew? That debate is not the point as I see it. My point is that calling "anti-Semitism" is weak and avoids the debate. If you had a more reasonable response to the poster as displayed in your later posts I would not have commented. Throwing out a label to squelch debate is beneath you and this forum.

anti-semitic.

AIPAC has a specific, hardline, "Zionist" political position, which is certainly not shared universally by Jews. To equate the two is more likely "anti-semitic" than to question a politician's relationship with AIPAC.

Oh and btw AIPAC just played a big part in scuttling comprehensive lobbying reform.
http://www.forward.com/articles/7506

So, the relative "semitism" or not of their political behavior should be irrelevant. They're a huge frickin' lobbyist organization that can be expected to wield influence over certain politicians. It's reasonable to question those alliances, is it not?

Someone did a hatched job on Warner by comparing him to the radioactive Lieberman. Then someone floats the idea that AIPAC itself is the embodiment of all evil, and mentions Feingold. Feingold is also not like Lieberman.

AIPAC will support anyone that they perceive as being pro-Israel, regardless of party. Now that makes AIPAC significantly different from the NRA, the NRA says they are for gun rights but they only support Republicans.

which is why I referenced the "thread" as being anti semitic, not specifically the OP.

I am not saying you do. Perhaps that is not your thinking at all. Maybe that is the farthest thing from your mind. But there can be little doubt that some people do think that way.

Since Arabic people are by definition a semitic people, one could argue that it is also a type of racist anti-semitism that seeks to legitimize an inferior status to the Palestinians and deny them their rights of self-determination and human dignity.

the NRA supports several Democrats both locally and nationally.

Many jews are. Perle, Wolfowitz, Murdoch, Sharon, Chomsky come to mind. None of them look very semitic, yet they are jewish; they are jewish by religion, not by race.

why dont you research his record rather than relying on hearsay?

Here is some reading matieral for you:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=261x94

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/12/magazine/312bwarner.html?ex=1143003600&en=0d3d2ff1f9d8a4c6&ei=5070

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=261x108

http://www.draftmarkwarner.com/

http://www.forwardtogetherpac.com

"Ive heard more people compare him to Clinton."

You say this like its a good thing. The Welfare Reform Act, NAFTA, Media deregualtion, all minuses in the Clinton legacy. They represent a failure to implement real and abiding DEMOCRATIC policies, and we see where that has gotten us today, now that the Republicans have gotten ahold of the country and stomped it into the ground. These policies helped them do the stomping. I can see Warner backing these policies, yes, but.....

The there is the matter of Bill Clinton's PLUSES. He had the ability to make all people feel that he "felt their pain" like few Presidents before him. He was highly charismatic. He is also probably the most gifted public speaker ever to have been elected as President. Are you telling me Warner has either of these two pluses? I've seen and heard him speak. All I can say is NO WAY. Warner is more like Michael Dukakis than Bill Clinton.

We cannot afford another stroll down the path of The Middle Way. This Party is one loss away from annihilation. And, so is our country.

TC

IMO, Bill Clinton could have been one of the greatest presidents in history, IF he had stuck to real liberal nd progressive principles. He had the personalo charisma and brains to move the political "center' farther to the left. Instead, he chose to align himself with the forces of corporate conservatism on too many isues and helped push the center further to the right.

rejected (see: HillCare and his watered down welfare reform bill). It wasnt until Clinton drifted toward the center that his agenda was accepted and his approval rating shot through the roof.

HillaryCare was a disaster. It was a sop to the healthcare industry that was way too needlessly complicated to plaate the Corporate Insurers. So it was the worst of both worlds politically and was basially killed by BOTH parties.

And then, he and the Democrats chose to walk away from healthcare instad of going back to the drawing board and coming up with a better plan.

To quote a good friend of mine...

"The 8 Clinton years were the best 8 years in the modern history of this nation. We are still "drinking from the well" of the prosperity of that time.

Too bad he couldn't help the Democratic party as much as he could help the U.S."

http://www.forwardtogetherpac.com/

I guess most DUers could just visit and find out the answer to your question? Or contact Gov Warner? Or, or !?

I don't see anything on foreign policy. Did I miss it?

what ain't there. ;)

That's an affliction here on DU. Anyway, I think their saying his support of Israel is as strong as Lieberman's, not that he's another Lieberman. That's just the way I'm reading it.

He's Michael Dukakis... without the charisma. Aside from the fact that he's DLC, we can do better.

TC

that a dem can get the nomination without sucking up to AIPAC? They're incredibly powerful.

it is necessary for a candidate to "suck up to" (I actually prefer "court") only THE DEMOCRATIC VOTERS for the nomination. I'm sick of special interest groups (such as AIPAC) calling the shots in Washington.

TC

I would be delighted if he was on the ticket. Preferable with someone with more foreign experience. Maybe Clark.

:hi: :bounce:

significance.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000103&sid=alzoQPiW_xxc&refer=us

"Warner has been trying to expand his network of Democratic Party and national heavyweights. In May, Democratic elder statesman Vernon Jordan took Warner to the annual Bilderberg Conference, which brings together some of Europe's and North America's leading bankers, economists and government officials. ``He did very well,'' Jordan said.

Fourteen years ago Jordan took another young southern governor to his first Bilderberg Conference. His name was Bill Clinton."

Ick. That nasty little piece of info just made me even more prone to view Warner with a jaundiced eye.

you found this bit of info interesting.

please! :hi:

Joe is wrong on the war, but other than that, he's a decent man.

on the Gore ticket back in 2000???

I'm not going to hold my breath, however.