Daily Kos: Tim Kaine Endorsed Joe Lieberman for President in 2004

[Freddie Stubbs]

In a statement, Kaine said: "Joe is the right person to revive the Harry Truman wing of the Democratic Party, which has traditionally been strong for national defense, strong for the economy and strong for equal opportunity."

Kaine said he applauded Lieberman's nomination as vice president in 2002 because "he clearly personified the party's commitment to faith, family and a values-based approach to public life."

more: http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/7/30/153157/227/865/559496

[Lint Head]

1. Lying man was posing as a Democrat back then. He had us all fooled.

:dem:

[merci_me]

3. "ALL"?? Speak for yourself

Holy Joe didn't have me fooled, nor actually anyone I personally know. He was pretty useless as a vp candidate and by New Hampshire in 2004, he was f*&%ing pathetic. I'm sorry to hear that lint in your head has caused fuzzy thinking for you.

[scheming daemons]

30. Did you vote for Gore/Lieberman in 2000?

[Clintonista2]

33. Do you realize the irony of your statement?

You're using faux dem Joe to prove that we should support a ticket with faux dem Kaine on it?

[merci_me]

41. Of course I voted for Gore, despite Lieberman

It turned my stomach, after having watched Holy Joe's pompASS posturing during the impeachment hearings a few years earlier. However, I live in Texas and I would NEVER vote for a Bush, infact, I would never miss an opportunity to vote against a Bush.

Obama was nearly my last choice this year, but I will vote for him, no matter who the vp is. We have a Cabinet and advisers and Supreme Court and Federal judges and Federal prosecutors to be concerned with. So, if Kaine is the vp, I'll vote for Obama and hope Kaine isn't indicative of his judgment, which I'm not too impressed with even now. I'll light a candle that he stays safe.

[wyldwolf]

2. Kaine had good intentions. But I'm glad he recognizes the need...

... to revive the "Harry Truman wing" of the party - something that won't set well with the Kossacks.

[DarthDem]

10. Harry Truman

Is that the same Harry Truman who said that in a contest between real Republicans and fake ones, the real ones win every time?

I don't think Harry would be a real strong Kaine proponent.

[onenote]

12. So you're saying Kaine is a "fake Republican"?

Public displays of ignorance are not flattering to you.

[wyldwolf]

14. that's exactly what he's saying. More specifically, he's calling Kaine a "dixiecrat."

[DarthDem]

15. Save the Ad Hominem Garbage

If you have a substantive reply, I'd be happy to address it. I just thought it was ironic that someone would actually cite Harry Truman - - in exactly the wrong context - - in a thread about picking the best possible VP nominee for our party. Kaine, in two words, ain't it.

[wyldwolf]

16. "in exactly the wrong context" - you're referring to yourself, correct?

because I cited him in an historically factual context.

[DarthDem]

18. No, Sir

I'm referring to you. With no disrespect, I think you may need to bone up on Truman just a bit.

[wyldwolf]

21. absolutely not

perhaps YOU should bone up a Truman - a very centrist president. And do you want to compare him in today's terms in a centrist vs. progressive way? I'm game. Let me get my two Truman bios off my shelf.

[DarthDem]

26. Not needed . . .

I've read them too. He's my favorite president. He (and FDR) were both considerably left of most Democrats today. Can you really contend to the contrary? His quote meant exactly what it said, without any mysterious context, and you're using it to cite some apparently opposite argument.

[wyldwolf]

39. Not indeed...

He (and FDR) were both considerably left of most Democrats today. Can you really contend to the contrary?

Sure.

1. FDR compromised with the southern block on civil rights to get key parts of his New Deal legislation through even though he intended to phase them out eventually. Classic triangulation

2. FDR attempted to pack the Supreme Court.

3. FDR imprisoned innocent Americans.
----

1. Harry Truman supported American rearmament efforts and the Selective Service Act. Writing to a Missouri voter, "We are facing a bunch of thugs, and the only theory a thug understands is a gun and a bayonet."

2. Harry Truman endorsed the NRA

3. Called the United States a Christian nation

4. Truman war quote: "Carry the battle to them. Don't let them bring it to you. Put them on the defensive. And don't ever apologize for anything."

Yes, Truman was most definitely referring to Dixiecrats with the quote you used.

[DarthDem]

50. 1-for-7

On FDR:

1. So the fact that he "triangulated" to get the New Deal passed has something to do with his political orientation via a vis the Democrats of today? Actually, it's totally irrelevant.

2. With liberals. Bad idea, but it doesn't address my point. In fact, actually, it arguably advances it.

3. Yes, the internment camps were obviously beyond despicable. It was a different time in more ways than one.

On Truman:

1. The fact that he wanted to rearm after WWII and wanted a draft means that he wasn't liberal pr progressive by today's standards? I don't think that foreign policy issues serve your point here.

2. He "endorsed the NRA"? Huh? I don't even know what means. The NRA didn't endorse him.

3. Wow - - he did? Well, that certainly places him to the right of every living Democrat, then.

4. Again, that proves nothing.


Okay, so Truman was definitely referring to Dixiecrats. You cite no references or support, but let's just go with that. You haven't made your point very clearly, but I'm guessing that you're rejecting the comparison between Kaine and someone like, say, Strom Thurmond circa 1948. Guess what? Truman's sentiment still applies today. Kaine's not Thurmond, but he doesn't have to be for Truman's words to carry enduring wisdom.

[wyldwolf]

52. when did you define what is "left" in terms of today vs. the 1930s and 1940s?

So the fact that he "triangulated" to get the New Deal passed has something to do with his political orientation via a vis the Democrats of today? Actually, it's totally irrelevant.

Sure, if we're actually discussing the relationship between centrists and "progressives," the latter of which loath triangulation to meet any end. It's completely relevant that FDR blew off African Americans to appease racists in the south.

With liberals. Bad idea, but it doesn't address my point. In fact, actually, it arguably advances it.

No, with those who shared his ideological viewpoint. Sounds more Republican-like than Democratic-like in ANY era and it's funny to hear you rationalize it.

The fact that he wanted to rearm after WWII and wanted a draft means that he wasn't liberal pr progressive by today's standards? I don't think that foreign policy issues serve your point here.

Yes. Because he wanted to rearm in case the coming cold war became hot. The prospect of fighting communists and pro-active military ventures like the Korean conflict is still a sticking point with "progressives" today.

He "endorsed the NRA"? Huh? I don't even know what means. The NRA didn't endorse him.

It means Truman openly approved of the NRA's firearms training and second amendment stance.

Wow - - he did? Well, that certainly places him to the right of every living Democrat, then.

It certainly puts him to the right of most "progressives," unless you have quotes from today's leading "progressives" agreeing with him?

Again, that proves nothing.

Again, it certainly puts him to the right of most "progressives," unless you have quotes from today's leading "progressives" agreeing with him?

Okay, so Truman was definitely referring to Dixiecrats. You cite no references or support, but let's just go with that.

Stop for a second. You only attribute the quote to Truman and nothing else. Did Truman wake up one morning, kiss his wife, then say it? Certainly you realize there had to be a REASON for him saying it that coincided with WHEN he said it? Certainly you don't see the folly in believing it was said during the election of his life - 1948 - when the Dixiecrats ran against him on a racist platform? Or maybe you do because it conflicts with your misuse of the quote.

You haven't made your point very clearly, but I'm guessing that you're rejecting the comparison between Kaine and someone like, say, Strom Thurmond circa 1948. Guess what? Truman's sentiment still applies today. Kaine's not Thurmond, but he doesn't have to be for Truman's words to carry enduring wisdom.

My point has been made very clearly. You're choosing not to get it. Even by today's standards, Truman would be more comfortable with Kaine and Bayh than Kucinich and Feingold.

[wyldwolf]

13. yep but, typically, a different meaning is being given to his quote

He was referring to Dixiecrats. There is no sane case that can be made that Lieberman or Kaine is a "Dixiecrat."

I can say this: Upon winning in 1948 (after a challenge from Henry Wallace and the "progressives,") he said he was proud to have won without the fringe elements of the party.

Along those same lines, in the 1936 midterms when the Republicans’ gained 81 seats in the House, 8 seats in the Senate, and 13 governorships, FDR noted that some good things had occurred: “We have on the positive side eliminated Phil La Follette and the Farmer-Labor people in the Northwest as a standing Third Party Threat.” A swipe at "progressives."

[DarthDem]

17. FDR

I've seen that FDR quote before. Do you know the context? The progressives of that day and age were not what we would call liberals or progressives now. Some of the same ideas, yes, but they were highly lacking in practicality.

As for Kaine as a Dixiecrat, I hadn't actually thought of applying that term to him, but I just generally don't like or trust the South. Naming our VP nominee from Virginia is playing with serious, serious fire. However, I'm starting to get the sense that the Obama camp is not considering Kaine as seriously as some wanted to believe. Thank goodness.

[wyldwolf]

20. uh, yeah

The progressives of that day and age were not what we would call liberals or progressives now. Some of the same ideas, yes, but they were highly lacking in practicality.

I don't see much "practicality" in progressives today, either. Not many people do which is probably why they have a difficult time getting elected. See the handwringing of a VP selection that could win in red states?

[DarthDem]

23. Uh, Okay

We need to get redder? Really? Mkay. Then I'm not sure why we're having this conversation. There's one "red state" that Kaine could help deliver - - his own. There is virtually no chance that he would have any impact anywhere else, since even in neighboring North Carolina, he's an unknown. And since he's not a terrific governor, and hasn't been on the job very long, I don't think he's some sweeping force to transform the Democratic party.

[wyldwolf]

28. no, we need to win in red states

Veep selections are seldom well known at the time of their selection. Who's going to help the ticket the most? A Tim Kaine or a Dennis Kucinich?

[DarthDem]

37. False Dichotomy

I understand your point, but using Kucinich as an example is not helpful. The answer to your question, of course, lies somewhere in between. And I prefer to think of it as turning purple states blue - - without compromising the party's core principles. The purple states I have in mind are CO, NM, and NV. Two of the three (along with the Kerry states + IA as a base) gets us either 269 and a win in the House, or an outright win if CO is included. I have hopes for MO, too. VA? Not so much - - and Virignia is not worth it to me to put someone on the ticket who is probably anti-choice. I believe we can win in other, better ways this cycle, and hopefully Virginia will come around soon.

[wyldwolf]

40. No it isn't. We can't win by just carrying the states Gore and Kerry took.

[DarthDem]

42. Did You Read My Post?

I actually have the math pretty down. I set forth the non-"Gore/Kerry" states that I'm interested in, which don't include VA.

[wyldwolf]

43. of course I did.

Your post boils down to trying to reason your way out selecting a veep who would have wide appeal across regions the Democratic party is weak in.

[DarthDem]

48. Wow

You have a really strange method of argument. That's not what I said at all, and you're the one making really odd leaps of logic to, I guess, try to advance your own viewpoint.

I'm not trying to "reason out of" anything - - I'm suggesting that there are far better choices than Kaine, and that pandering to the South is a tired road that we've down before, and don't need to try again. Kaine doesn't even have proven appeal in **Virginia**, were he is generally regarded as an ineffective governor, let alone anywhere else.

[wyldwolf]

49. ok, WHO is a better choice than Kaine?

He isn't my top pick but I'm curious as to where you place him on the list.

And it isn't pandering to the South to pick someone who will help there.

[DarthDem]

51. Several People

This is the part where the fact that I supported Hillary hurts my credibility. However, I supported her as the "better of two goods," not because I disliked Obama. In fact, I think he's done a fantastic job and is a terrific nominee. Naturally, though, I want him to pick Hillary, because I think she helps wrap up Ohio and perhaps puts AR and WV into play as well. Maybe even MO. And I don't think she hurts in CO, NM, or NV.

Biden is a good choice if Obama/the party wants someone who can sort of stay out of Obama's way, not hurt, perhaps add some heft on foreign policy - - and unlike Dodd, there's no loss of a Senate seat.

Richardson is very possibly a great choice. Hispanic, locks up NM for sure, probably locks up CO as well, and we're all set. Same foreign policy cred as Biden, and some energy experience as well, plus executive experience.

Any of those people are better choices than Kaine. Sorry, but the choice issue is really quite important to me, and Kaine's murky position on it is a dealbreaker. Add in his inexperience, less-than-stellar response to the 2006 SOTU address, middling effectiveness as VA governor, and his anti-gay stances, and . . . can't we do better? For me, it's Edwards all over again, except minus the progressive streak (a big minus). We figure the guy will help in Virginia (as in North Carolina before), and we ignore the emerging West at our peril. But I am not a fan of the South in general, and that is probably coloring my feelings against Kaine.

[Mass]

4. I thought it was clear he was a conservative Democrat. It is probably his main attraction

to be on the ticket. (it is definitively not his charisma or his knowledge in national and international issues).

[DarthDem]

19. In that case - -

Next!

[Mass]

22. Did I say I found him attractive? No.

Just stating this is why he is even considered. Anybody who paid attention would know that. Some prefer to close their eyes and support him just in case Obama takes him.

I think it is an error because he does not bring anything to the ticket:

- he wont get the votes of those who will not vote for Obama because he is black,

- he wont get the votes of those who will not vote for him because they think he is not experienced enough,

(and add to the list).

By now, we should understand that. But apparently some do not.

[DarthDem]

25. Didn't suggest that you did.

Chill a bit, maybe?

I agree with you. I'm not an eye-closer either.

[ejbr]

5. What does he think of Lieberman N OW?

even though we knew Lieberman to be a tool for quite some time now.

[onenote]

6. so did some other folks, like Robert Wexler.

as pointed out above, the issue is what does he think of him now.

Hell, Obama and Clinton supported Lieberman in his primary fight against Lamont in 2006, so why is this even being discussed?

[KittyWampus]

9. It's a great way to continue airing ones grievances with Obama via proxy.

[KittyWampus]

7. So? After Joe was picked, he was supposed to trash him? I'm sick of the assholes pushing this crap

[rox63]

8. Umm, don't forget that Gore picked Lieberman as his veep nominee

Does that affect your opinion of Gore today? I can't stand LIEberman. But I have the greatest admiration for Gore.

[democrattotheend]

24. Good point

And I have to admit, I was pretty thrilled when Gore picked Lieberman. I was 16 at the time and didn't know much about him, but it was exciting for me and my family and a lot of the other Jews I knew to have one of our own picked for the ticket. I can't stand Lieberman now, but he still is a symbol for me and many other Jews in much the way Geraldine Ferraro was a symbol for a lot of women who remember the 1984 election (I was only 6 months old at the time so I can't say I remember a whole lot).

[Maven]

11. HAHAHA

[Wetzelbill]

27. well there you go, Kaine has the judgment to be Veep right there

:rofl:

[scheming daemons]

29. Everyone reading this site endorsed Joe Lieberman for VP in 2000

:shrug:

[Mass]

31. but probably not for president in 2004?

And most of us knew enough to know that withdrawing from Iraq was the right thing to do in 2005, whatever caution we would want to apply to that. In 2005, Kaine was using the GOP meme "cut and run".

[scheming daemons]

32. My point is that Lieberman had a LOT of people fooled...

[Mass]

35. In 2004???

My point is that we accepted Lieberman as VP because it was Gore's choice, just as we will accept Kaine IF he is Obama's choice.

In the meantime, some of us think he is not the right guy and are saying it (and I understand some have ulterior issues. I do not, but on many aspect in 2000, Lieberman was a flaming liberal, which Kaine is far from being, and it is the conservative aspects of Lieberman that he was endorsing).

[scheming daemons]

36. In 2004, Joe was still a Democrat. Now he's not.

in 1992, we liked Zell Miller too.

[onenote]

45. in 2006, he was still being supported by a lot of Democrats in the primary

including Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, to name a couple off the top of my head. Why is Kaine's endorsement of him in 2004 -- an endorsement also made by some very progressive members of the Democratic party, such as Robert Wexler -- even worth mentioning?

[DarthDem]

38. Actually

. . . I thought he was a horrible choice. But by 2004? Yeah, I was pretty much done with him.

Looks like someone over at Kos has unearthed a clue.

[onenote]

46. "unearthed a clue"? A clue to what?

How much does it bother you that two years later, Hillary and Barack were still saying nice things about Lieberman and trying to get him the Democratic nomination over a clearly more progressive primary opponent?

[DarthDem]

47. Quite a Bit

So let's compound the mistake by taking Kaine along too?

I want Obama to win. You don't need to go to the Liberman well to find reasons to count Kaine out, but if Kos (not my favorite site) contributors want to go there, I'm fine with it.

[Stop Cornyn]

34. More Importantly, Tim Kaine Endorsed Obama for President in 2008

[blm]

44. No wonder McAuliffe was pushing him....the Clinton/Lieberman wing of the party needs to

worm its way into the WH somehow so they can continue to protect BushInc any way they can. Like Bill did throughout the 90s.