Why do we cheer for some .... and not for others?

[Stinky The Clown]

I will use names in this thread. PLEASE understand I am using them as examples only. I am NOT trying to make this a thread about any one candidate or personality. Please resist the temptation to flame or sputter on about some personality thing. Try to stick to the basic basic question, which, as stated in the thread title is: "Why do we cheer for some .... and not for others?"

Why are we cheering for Ned Lamont? Do we know what we're cheering about? Do you know his poisitions on any issue other than the war? Do you support him (if you do) simply on the basis of his challenge to Lieberman?

Why did we cheer for Paul Hackett? Was it simply because he went after Jean Schmidt? Was it simply because he was so wonderfully bellicose against anything Republican? Do any of his (former?) supporters know all his positions? Why was there thread after thread screaming against him when he seemed to turn on Murtha? When he refused to take a back seat to Sherrod Brown?

Why are we now cheering for Jack Murtha? Because of his general views? Or simply because he's against the war? Will anyone here support him for the role of Whip?

What about former Republican Jim Webb? Why him?

Why do we rail against Joe Lieberman? (Never mind, I KNOW the answer.)

If you stop for a moment and think about it, we sometimes seem a but unfocused - or at least inconsistent - in who we support and who we purport to oppose.

And if you think I'm being holier than thou, don't. I have wallowed in the same sort of (meaningless? ill advised? inconsistent? sheeple?) rhetoric. Probably louder and longer than many of you reading this.

Why do we do that?

[Mojambo]

1. I don't know about others, but I cheer actions, not people. n/t

[Stinky The Clown]

3. An excellent answer

Thanks!

And a very sound one, to my mind. Further, it explains, at least to some degree, the change in attitude toward people like Paul Hackett.

[ClassWarrior]

5. Yes, people demean our values when they try to turn it into a...

...cult of personality.

NGU.

[AZBlue]

14. I agree. Unfortunately many on this site don't.

And, imo, they are really hurting the Dem Party and our chances in '06 and '08.
Just check out the thread on Donna Brazile to see an example.

[napi21]

2. I believe there are many answers to your question.

Some people are FOR any candidate who is against the one they don't like. But some others actually do listen to both candidates and choose the one they agree with most often.

Just in the list of candidates you mentioned, I can tell you from a purely personal opinion, I support(ed) some because I detested the othercandidate, andsomewho I know a lot about their actions, and opinions, and I really believe they are the best of the bunch.

FWIW, I sure would support Murtha for Majority Whip!

[Stinky The Clown]

4. Thanks for a thoughtful answer, napi

I appreciate it. :hi:

[liberalitch]

6. I cheer for Jim Webb because he is the democrat that was chosen...

...in the primary (although I did not vote for him) to try to beat George "sycophantic sock-puppet" Allen.
Now since Allen's true colors are becoming known, Webb may even beat Allen.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

7. What all of them seem to have in common is that they have

the courage to speak out and not beat around the bush, as it were, about what's wroong with this country. They don't weasel or waffle or back off when challenged. Same reason I like Russ Feingold and Barbara Boxer and Wes Clark, to name a few others. Even if I don't necessarily agree all the time with absolutely every position they take, I support them because they are not cowards, and what we need more than anything right now is candidates with spines.

[Stinky The Clown]

8. I could not agree more .....

... a while ago I posted a thread titled something like 'Name you favorite tough guy'.

With the exception of one name used as an example in this thread, every one of them would be on that tough guy list. Along with the names you cited. And names like Howard Dean's. These are people that **move** you.

[MichiganVote]

9. Until this war ON Iraq is settled, we cannot get to other imp. things

Iraq is not now nor ever will be about American sacrifice. It is about common sense in leadership, common sense in economics and common sense in the traditions of the American people who demand firm resolve AND fair practice.

In this country today, some (too many) are duped by the ideological zealots who forged their beliefs during WWII and VietNam. These are not 'America First' citizens. These are globalists, zionists, fundamentalists, evangelicals, corporatists and a score of others whose allegiance is only to their creed of greed.

Well, our baby boomer children and grandchildren were not living during WWII or VietNam. Those of us who cut our teeth in youth during those conflicts don't want our families living in those times again.

Iraq is the synthesis of the Republican doctrine on the globe. To reject this war means to reject the politicians who continue to support it because they are plainly obsolete. It is not mere economic vanity to consider how obsolete the republican view has become. We have strong competition in the world and if we don't get on it, Americans will be left behind... far behind

[Stinky The Clown]

10. I'm not arguing with your words .....

.... but what does this have to dow ith the OP? I'm having a hard time making a connection.

[MichiganVote]

13. My point is that for some, cheering those who want change in

or the cessation of the war in Iraq is the reason some are cheered or cheered more loudly than others.

[Stinky The Clown]

15. Fair enough

Thanks! :hi:

[stillcool]

11. Hope...

anyone that can inspire hope... a logical, linear thinking mind with a microphone... grabs my attention and gets my applause. I am also loyal to those that buoy my spirit...and regard them as extraordinairy human beings that dramatically touched my life for a moment in time. In other words, the end result does not change my appreciation of the gift.

[_dynamicdems]

12. I understand what you are trying to say.

There is a lot of jumping on and off of bandwagons going on here and in the liberal blogosphere in general. We have met an underhanded enemy and he has scattered and divided our forces.

Personally, I opposed Joe Lieberman on the war and I disagreed with him on his willingness to compromise with the conservatives who have hurt our country. Since his loss to Lamont, Joe has behaved with dishonor and has turned his back on his party. He used to be an honorable man and an effective senator, but Joe's sun has set.

Ned Lamont is more than an anti-war champion. Mr. Lamont has interesting ideas on many issues other than the Iraq war. I'm not quite ready to nominate him for POTUS, but I think he will make a good Senator.

Congressman Murtha was a war hero. He was the hawk in the House. Then Iraq happened and he saw a wrong war and spoke out. The courage it took to do so earns him and A+ in my book for being heroic on and off the battlefield. He's still too conservative in other areas for me to want to lift him on my shoulders as the ideal Dem. (Probably couldn't anyhow...given his manly girth.) I'm not sure about supporting him for whip. I'd like to see him vote more as a liberal, but if we really kick ass in November and take back both House and Senate, then I might support Murtha on the principle of balance.

Jim Webb has strong points but he isn't a perfect liberal by any means. As with Congressman Murtha, he's a war hero (and former Secretary of the Navy), who has seen battle and believes that the Iraq war was wrong. I respect many of his views and believe he is honorable. Between him and Allen, is there a choice? And he is someone who actually has a chance of winning in a Southern state because of his stellar military record.

Senators like Kerry, Kennedy, Boxer, Feingold, Lehey, Wyden, Harkin and Durbin (to name a few) are the "tried and trues" and have overall good records of voting for and championing all the issues of importance to Dems. I support the legislators who have supported what I believe in on all issues, not just a single signature issue. I think it is high time to get out of Iraq, but I'm more worried about WWIII, which could eradicate the human species as a life form. I'm also concerned about the environment, poverty, health care, finding a way to rejoin the global community and reach out to neighbors we have alienated (see WWIII above), personal liberty and rights of privacy and protecting our constitutional rights to name a few.

[Stinky The Clown]

16. Thanks for that thoughtful reply

I agree with much of it. :hi:

[Donna Zen]

17. When the going gets tough

The people who I chose to cheer for are there when few others are willing to stand up for the good of the country. It is not easy for a lone senator up for election in a swing state to oppose the Patriot's Bill, for a woman to stand alone against the voting machines, for a Four Star General to do the unthinkable to his closest friends--defy the CiC during a war, or for a long time arch conservative Dem to move to the anti-war side. Everyone of these folks may sometimes disagree with everything written on these boards, but when we desperately needed a voice with a mic, when the polls were against us, they came through. Brilliantly.

I'm glad that when the polls turned many of the Dems turned too. But if not for the ones we cheer, those polls might have never turned.

As for the newest members like Lamont, Webb and Hackett, they too have cast away their silent, safe lives and joined the fray. They are telling it like it is, and not mumbling over dinner at the comfy club.

Leaders stand up when no one else is standing. I'll be there for them.