« The stakes are too high for irresponsible political posturing | Main | Reporting From Iraq »

Lieberman May Support Republican in 2008

Since the Democrats showed no loyalty to him when he ran for reelection, he has no sense of loyalty to the Democrats. He has made it clear that he will support the candidate he thinks is best suited to be president no matter what the party:

"I'm going to do what most independents and a lot of Democrats and Republicans in America do, which is to take a look at all the candidates and then in the end, regardless of party, decide who I think will be best for the future of our country," Lieberman said Sunday.


"So I'm open to supporting a Democrat, Republican or even an Independent, if there's a strong one. Stay tuned," said the three-term lawmaker who caucuses with Senate Democrats.

Lieberman is an ally of GOP Sen. John McCain of Arizona, a 2008 hopeful, and supports President Bush's new Iraq strategy. Lieberman won re-election as an independent last fall when Democrats backed an anti-war candidate who won the party primary.

Speaking of which politician he may support in 2008, Lieberman said, "Obviously, the positions that some candidates have taken in Iraq troubles me. Obviously, I will be looking at what positions they take in the larger war against Islamist terrorism."

That doesn't sound too good for the Democratic candidates running so far.


Comments (27)

KimAs if any of th... (Below threshold)
aRepukelican:

Kim

As if any of them would be concerned with what the simpleton Lieberman chose to do.

Lieberman differs on one is... (Below threshold)
jpm100:

Lieberman differs on one issue from textbook liberalism.

Tell me again how the Democrats are the party of inclusion and free thought?

You think the last Connecti... (Below threshold)
Langtry:

You think the last Connecticut senatorial campaign was ugly?

Expect the Democrats to launch a second assault, no, war on Sen. Lieberman.

Joe has my vote if he tosse... (Below threshold)
epador:

Joe has my vote if he tosses his hat in the ring.

A Zell M Miller - Lieberman... (Below threshold)
JLawson:

A Zell M Miller - Lieberman ticket would have been real tough to beat in '04. Strong on national defense, somewhat liberal on other issues, and above all responsible and looking toward the long term, it would have gone a long way towards turning the Democratic party around.

If Joe runs in '08, he's got a good shot of getting my vote...

Zell Miller's OK if he's no... (Below threshold)
bryanD:

Zell Miller's OK if he's not considered a snitch. He had a little TOO much fun on conservative media flapping his gums. Yapyap-Yap-Yap-Yap! And Lieberman's a human sleeping pill so the two could be well-matched! Like Sneezy and Sleepy.

That doesn't sound... (Below threshold)
Larkin:
That doesn't sound too good for the Democratic candidates running so far.

This is a joke right Kim? Are you seriously saying that the Democratic candidates should care what Lieberman says or who he endorses?

I can't imagine why they would. Connecticut is an almost guaranteed win for whoever the Democratic candidate is. Kerry clobbered Bush by 165,000 votes in the 2004 election in Connecticut. A Lieberman endorsement might sway a few thousand votes to the Republican candidate but I don't think it will put the state in danger. I am certain that any statewide poll in Connecticut right now would show a much stronger anti-war majority than the rest of the country. Hillary or Obama won't spend more than a single afternoon in that state I assure you.

Lieberman is nothing more than an amusement these days. The only ones interested in what he has to say are right-wing blogs like this one. He is a pariah in the Democratic Party and will never be accepted in the Republican Party because of his doctrinaire liberalism on every issue (save one).

He lost as a Vice Presidential candidate, lost as a Presidential candidate and was humiliated by losing the Connecticut primary in 2006. He only won the election because Republicans didn't run a viable candidate in order to help him out. He's finished. Through. Yesterday's news.

Everyone who's surprised, r... (Below threshold)
Publicus:

Everyone who's surprised, raise your hands.

Anyone?

You think the last... (Below threshold)
Publicus:
You think the last Connecticut senatorial campaign was ugly?

Expect the Democrats to launch a second assault, no, war on Sen. Lieberman.

Note to Republicans: Lieberman isn't interesting or important to us Democrats. We have more important things to do...

I thought voting for the be... (Below threshold)

I thought voting for the best candidate for the job was the very bedrock of democracy. You know that democracy thing we're trying to export to the middle east. What a sad commentary on the state of politics in America when something like this is worthy of a headline.

"A Lieberman endorsement ... (Below threshold)
Rob LA Ca.:

"A Lieberman endorsement might sway a few thousand votes to the Republican candidate but I don't think it will put the state in danger. I am certain that any statewide poll in Connecticut right now would show a much stronger anti-war majority than the rest of the country. Hillary or Obama won't spend more than a single afternoon in that state I assure you."


Larkin shows us just how confident he is in the effectiveness of his "Party of Perpetual Fraud". So cocky as to claim heck , we don't need Lieberman.

Leave it to the right to be... (Below threshold)
Brian:

Leave it to the right to be shocked... shocked!... that someone would dare even suggest voting for the best person, regardless of party affiliation.

Too funny.Democrat... (Below threshold)
Wanderlust:

Too funny.

Democrats, as a general rule, accuse Republicans (and GWB in particular) of stifling dissenting opinions, free speech, personal rights, etc. Yet the moment one of their own disagrees with the Democratic Talking Points on one single issue, they will - more often than not - cut that person loose faster than sh*t through a goose.

Kos (spit) tosses anyone off his blog for diary entries that resemble "right wing talking points". Kos and his nutty minions tried to hijack Lieberman's re-election because Joe dares disagree with the Far Left on the sole issue of Iraq. And the moment - no, the very second - that they discover someone on the Right who may be a practicing homosexual, but has never published "I AM GAY!" in the NYT or LAT for all the world to see, well, any compassion for that person's chosen lifestyle instantly vanishes, only to be replaced with a mean, vindictive, lynch-mob urge to "out" that person, especially if in so doing, they think they can irreparably damage that person's personal and professional life. So much for being compassionate when votes and control of the Congress may be at stake. First things first, don't you know?

Someone recently argued that the term "liberal" should not be applied to the political Left. I must agree with that statement. The Left may have been "liberal" in some sense of the word many, many years ago. Now, they are are better described by the pejorative term they sometimes hurl towards Republicans: far from being "liberal", they are in fact "repugnant".

I may fight tooth and nail with Lieberman on certain social issues, but I respect him because he isn't willing to sell out the safety and security of his fellow countrymen just to earn the votes of people who, like Kos, seem to despise the foundations of the society that grants them the very freedoms of speech and personal expression that they so easily take for granted.

I will argue that the Left is increasingly mean-spirited, selfish, and practically soulless. In pursuing their own freedoms at the expense of any consequence, they are slowly, but surely, becoming suicidal. And they are so full of themselves that they not only fail to see it, but laugh derisively at anyone who would dare point it out to them.

When the West fails, and the Caliphate, totalitarianism, and the Chinese/Latin version of communism becomes the norm, may God have mercy on their souls.

Because their new Masters, be they Ahmadinejad, Jiabao, Chavez, or Kim...certainly won't.

"When the West fails, and t... (Below threshold)
Duncan Avatar:

"When the West fails, and the Caliphate, totalitarianism, and the Chinese/Latin version of communism becomes the norm, may God have mercy on their souls.

Because their new Masters, be they Ahmadinejad, Jiabao, Chavez, or Kim...certainly won't."


Lets hope that the West doesn't fall. I think that there are enough good Americans, regardless of political motivations, that will not surrender, not when the rubber meets the road. Ofcourse, just like WWII, because the problem was squashed when it was small, but left to fester like a gangrenous sore, much blood will be shed. Call me crazy, but the past seems to just want to repeat itself, only the players change...

My thoughts exactly, Wander... (Below threshold)
nikkolai:

My thoughts exactly, Wanderlust. The very enablers of the Islamo-fascists (leftist, anti-American defeatist i.e. "peacenicks") will be the very first beheaded.

Republicans, understandably... (Below threshold)
Publicus:

Republicans, understandably, isn't too happy with Hagel who, by every other measure except his current position on Iraq, is a perfect conservative. They're not too pleased with dissent within their party.

Lieberman's dissent ISN'T within the party----Lieberman ran AGAINST the Democratic nominee chosen by voters in his state. He is caucusing with the Democrats...but he was not elected as one, and ran opposed to a Democrat.

That's fine. People have different positions. But Democrats (and, in fact Republican's too) realize than Lieberman is no longer a Democrat. He was rejected by voters of his party, and he ran against the Democratic nominee.

Any of us can vote for whoever we want for president! What's the point?!

Too funny.O... (Below threshold)
mantis:

Too funny.

Oh, but your essay is so much funnier.

So, let me see if I understand this correctly. Because the voters in the Democratic primary in Connecticut voted for a candidate other than the sitting senator, a candidate who takes a position against the Iraq War and was supported by some quarters of the blogosphere, the entire political left is soulless and repugnant, hates the foundations of our society, and without doubt will lead us to a world run by Islamists/Chinese Communists?

Yes, I laugh derisively at that. Not because I'm full of myself or suicidal, but because you are stupid and delusional. And a scared little child.

Wanderlust,I had t... (Below threshold)

Wanderlust,

I had to chuckle when you wrote "Yet the moment one of their own disagrees with the Democratic Talking Points on one single issue,". One single issue? That's like asking Mrs Lincoln "Other than the gunshot how did you like the play?".

I thought Iraq was the central battle ground in the GWOT. Now it's been reduced to "just one issue"? You guys accuse Kerry of flip-flopping?

Lieberman has some guts, an... (Below threshold)
Mitchell:

Lieberman has some guts, and brains, obviously.

Who could look at the Dim. line-up and get excited/impressed. Too bad the rest of his party is so horribly wrong.

Lessee, Guliana--proabortio... (Below threshold)
Mitchell:

Lessee, Guliana--proabortion/gay, McCain--independent of Bush, for campaign reform, Romney--gov. of Massa-f'n-chusetts.

These are the Repub. front runners--clearly more diversity of thought than those on the Left.

Mitchell--If you w... (Below threshold)
Publicus:

Mitchell--

If you want Lieberman, take him. He's yours.

"My thoughts exactly, Wande... (Below threshold)
nogopostal:

"My thoughts exactly, Wanderlust. The very enablers of the Islamo-fascists (leftist, anti-American defeatist i.e. "peacenicks") will be the very first beheaded."
Thank you nik...so often, we are caught up in our emotions...we take ourselves too seriously..your tongue-in-cheek posting made me chuckle..
I love the way you juxtaposed the terror you say people oppose with the terror you would impose..
Anyone who attacks you does not understand ironic humor....I do...

"Note to Republicans: Liebe... (Below threshold)
John S:

"Note to Republicans: Lieberman isn't interesting or important to us Democrats."

If Joe announced tomorrow that he'd lost faith in Harry Reid and he will return the Senate to Republican control, Lieberman would suddenly be VERY interesting and important to Democrats. He can do this any time he wants. And there isn't a fucking thing the Democrats can do about it.

mantis, you wrote (e... (Below threshold)
Wanderlust:

mantis, you wrote (emphasis mine):

Yes, I laugh derisively at that. Not because I'm full of myself or suicidal, but because you are stupid and delusional. And a scared little child.

Once upon a time, I recall you and I getting into an ad hominem flame, which was my fault - and one that I apologized for, to which we both promised to be civil with one another.

Generally I have enjoyed your reasoning on your posts, more often than not, even if I disagree with your point of view.

So why now would you stoop to the level of derision against me personally? My post was in a general sense; I did not attack anyone personally, much less you. As for my comments about Kos, I lost all respect for him back when he uttered his infamous "screw them" comment about contractors in Iraq, then tried to cover it up when his political ad revenue$ dried up for a while.

I guess when you can't refute someone's point of view, you just make fun of them - all while you yourself expect to be taken seriously.

I am no "scared little child". I am merely concerned that the way of life I grew accustomed to will not be there when my children reach my age. I can only hope that you too are a father and that you too want the same freedoms that you enjoy today for your children when they are old enough to appreciate those freedoms.

As for "scared", perhaps you are not old enough to understand the meaning of the word. I am only 41, yet I remember back when all Government buildings - municipal, state, and federal - had the ubiquitous "fallout shelter" signs displayed near major entryways. I remember seeing films of children participating in bomb drill exercises during the height of the Cuban missile crisis. And I remember in 1982 when the New Orleans States-Item newspaper published a map on page 1 of blast zones and fallout percentages (and estimated casualty rates) based on projected explosive yields of Soviet ICBMs.

Back then, the enemy was much easier to recognize, and thanks to the doctrine of MAD, no nuclear exchange occured. But now, our enemy has no such restraint, and unlike Communism, it has a religious basis that is emotional and therefore defies any attempt at logic or rational thought. And our enemy is actively seeking nuclear bombs to use against us.

So ok, laugh away, just as I did. I will remain vigilant, and you will - apparently - remain isolationist and ignore the threat. I only hope that someday we can look back and you can say, "I told you so". Because if I'm right, and we as a country are not prepared for it, a lot of us won't be around to debate the merits of preparedness.

I might vote for the coward... (Below threshold)
914:

I might vote for the cowardly lion since He finallys got the noive..

However I doubt His whole liberal agenda would sway enough for a victory? But people can change views and in a certain frenchmens case i.e., do so quite often.

I love that big tent they c... (Below threshold)
Jo:

I love that big tent they call the democrat party.

Bwhahahahahahahahahaha....

Wanderlust,Such a ... (Below threshold)
mantis:

Wanderlust,

Such a change in your tone, not sure what to make of these fluctuations.

So why now would you stoop to the level of derision against me personally? My post was in a general sense; I did not attack anyone personally, much less you.

Maybe its because it pisses me off a touch when people who can be reasonable choose not to. I don't really care when Rob from La or jhow spout their madness. They are not rational people, or at least they choose to play crazy on the internet. Either way they are amusing in their stupidity, or easily ignored. On the other hand, when people who can be reasonable decide to make sweeping declarations about everyone on "the left", especially accompanied by the prediction that our society will be overthrown, with certainty, because of the actions of "the left".

It's actually part of the overall trend, and I guess I was sick of seeing it, and took it out on you in a quick post I didn't think much about. So sorry about that.

But let's look at what you wrote, shall we?

Now, they are are better described by the pejorative term they sometimes hurl towards Republicans: far from being "liberal", they are in fact "repugnant".

They they they. Who are they? Everyone on the left, of course. And why are "they" repugnant? Because Connecticut Democrats didn't vote for Lieberman in the primary, and because there are a few activists out there who have made it a mission to out gay politicians who support anti-gay policies.

I may fight tooth and nail with Lieberman on certain social issues, but I respect him because he isn't willing to sell out the safety and security of his fellow countrymen just to earn the votes of people who, like Kos, seem to despise the foundations of the society that grants them the very freedoms of speech and personal expression that they so easily take for granted.

In other words, if you are opposed to the Iraq War, if you think it was a godawful mistake, you despise the foundations of the society that grants the freedoms you don't appreciate anyway...apparently by not supporting the war.

I will argue that the Left is increasingly mean-spirited, selfish, and practically soulless.

Gee, you're right, I should have been nice to you because you said practically soulless. Still got me part of my soul!

In pursuing their own freedoms at the expense of any consequence, they are slowly, but surely, becoming suicidal.

Not really sure what this means, but it seems to mean that by voicing our opposition those of us on the left are really inviting "the enemy" to destroy us, which would be our fault when it most certainly happens.

And they are so full of themselves that they not only fail to see it, but laugh derisively at anyone who would dare point it out to them.

Correction, we laugh derisively because people who "dare point this out" are ridiculous buffoons.

When the West fails,

Because it will, without a doubt, happen, and it will be all our fault

and the Caliphate, totalitarianism, and the Chinese/Latin version of communism becomes the norm,

I like that the those three things (well, two, really, since totalitarianism applies to both), become the norm. You see, Islamists and Chinese/Latin communists will team up, when the liberals surrender to them, of course, despite their total fucking incompatability, and rule over us because, oh, I don't know, we don't follow Bush obediently. Got it.

may God have mercy on their souls.

Aww, that's sweet.

Because their new Masters, be they Ahmadinejad, Jiabao, Chavez, or Kim...certainly won't.

That's where the scared little child comes out. Ooh, Chavez is gonna get us! Tell me how exactly you get down the causal chain from dissent about the war to Islamocommunists ruling this country? Are you fucking insane?

I am only 41, yet I remember back when all Government buildings - municipal, state, and federal - had the ubiquitous "fallout shelter" signs displayed near major entryways.

I remember too. And you know what, that was an enemy that actually did threaten our way of life. I despise terrorists, but they are cockroaches, choking on a world they hate.

But now, our enemy has no such restraint, and unlike Communism, it has a religious basis that is emotional and therefore defies any attempt at logic or rational thought. And our enemy is actively seeking nuclear bombs to use against us.

Hey, I'm concerned about this too. But guess what, they weren't going to get them in Iraq. I'm much more concerned with nuclear weapons in former Soviet states, and Pakistan. Is the president doing anything about them?

I will remain vigilant, and you will - apparently - remain isolationist and ignore the threat.

See, this is the stupid part. Just because I think Iraq was a terrible mistake from the start, and I don't think it will every become Bush's fantasy democratic state in the ME, I must be an isolationist. Bullshit. There are a wide range of views on the left, as on the right, and almost none of them are isolationist.

My point, if I have to pick one, is that it is retarded for you to pick on something one person says, or even the general tone of one website, and ascribe that view or tone to an huge amount of people, and then accuse them of willfully destroying society and selling you and your kids into servitude and death. You sound stupid and nuts.




Advertisements









rightads.gif

beltwaybloggers.gif

insiderslogo.jpg

mba_blue.gif

Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile

Contact

Send e-mail tips to us:

[email protected]

Fresh Links

Credits

Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login



Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy