26 Comments

• 1. sleepygene  |  December 16th, 2007 at 3:34 pm

  Matt-

  I think Lieberman “insulted” the democratic party first by not backing the democratic primary winner Ned Lamont. If he was a loyal democrat he would have accepted his party’s primary winner. Joe’s loyalty rests with Joe. You know perfectly well that Joe only caucuses with the democrats because he wants to keep his charimanship of the homeland security committee. A committee which has been silent even though there have been several news reports of money being squandered with no rhyme or reason.

  Also, unless the republican party is ready for a v.p. candidate that is pro-choice and pro-gay rights then Joe as your v.p. candidate is a pie in the sky notion.

  Also, I would say americans who want to end our occupation of Iraq extends well beyond moveon.org’s 2 millions members.

• 2. liberalT  |  December 16th, 2007 at 4:01 pm

  let it not be said that Matt doesn’t entertain us. The simple fact of the matter is that it was Joe Liberman changed quite a lot after 9/11. The democrats are not controlled by the “radical antiwar left” - since when is it radical to be antiwar. A serious question for you Matt - do you ever think of whats the best thing to do and just put party politics aside. Every time you post its always to complain about democrats. Why not take a stand on an issue and not a political party?

• 3. extramedium  |  December 16th, 2007 at 4:03 pm

  “That would be an interesting situation, and easily help the ticket appeal to independent voters and moderate Democrats.”

  There might be some truth to that, it you believe that Leiberman appeals to independents and moderates. I don’t. The only reason that he’s in office at all is because New England is notoriously biased toward incumbents. On a national level, Leiberman is a freak of politics that appeals only to Bush loyalists, and even then only as an instrument to antagonize Democrats. That particular gimmick aside, he’d be at the bottom of any conservative’s list of VP possibilities, and therefore a liability to any prospective GOP ticket.

  Am I wrong? Do any of our resident conservatives want to be a heartbeat away from pledging their loyalty to Joe Leiberman as their Commander in Chief?

• 4. Matt Margolis  |  December 16th, 2007 at 4:20 pm

  I happen to believe that Joe Lieberman is a lot more socially conservative than most believe. His leftward shift socially coincided with his joining the Gore ticket in 2000.

  Second, LiberalT, if you paid any attention at all, you’d see that Democrats are in fact beholden to radical groups like MoveOn.org for the simple reason that they have money to throw at candidates, and large email list to fundraise and promote with.

  And yes, I do think about the best interests of our country. Undoubtedly, the best interests of our country are not the interests of the Democratic Party, and you better believe that I’ll criticize the Democrats when they should be criticized. I’ll also criticize Republicans when they need criticism.

  And of course, when Republicans stand up for what’s right for this country, I applaud them, whether it be promoting tax relief, standing up for our troops in harm’s way, opposing socialized healthcare, supporting the war on terror, securing our borders, etc. etc. etc.

• 5. Mark Noonan  |  December 16th, 2007 at 6:15 pm

  liberalT,

  Lieberman endorsing a GOPer is a big deal - it will make waves and, also, allow that 10% or so of the Democrats who haven’t signed off on lunatic leftism to feel comfortable switching sides in 2008. More importantly, it opens up the prospect of Lieberman being on the GOP ticket…at that point, you can say all you want that Lieberman should have been a loyal Democrat, but for your 2000 VP nominee to be running on the GOP ticket just 8 years later shows you how seriously F’d up you Democrats have become…

• 6. liberalT  |  December 16th, 2007 at 6:26 pm

  but Matt - point me to one time when you have criticized the Republican party. I cannot think of a time when you have ever done that. Please correct me by showing me 5 instances when you have done that pubicaly. Criticize the democrats all you want - most of time they deserve it. My point is simply that 90% of your posts are “democrats do this”, “democrats are this” while there is very little discussion of actual issues. Just you being a hack for the republican party. I would hope you could rise above that and discuss actual issues - but perhaps I over estimate you

• 7. plainjane  |  December 16th, 2007 at 6:42 pm

  Don’t be putting Holy Joe on a Republican pedestal quite yet. He knows politics and knows all to well caucusing with Repugs would only be a short time high. Contrary to the delusional Limbaugh and Hannity, the 2008 election will bring an even bigger Democratic majority. A 2009 Republican Joe would be looking for his new office in a basement latrine.

  Politicians like Lieberman are why the upcoming election is critical. Even the Democratic Party is not immune to neocons. It will take a massive effort after the 2008 to root them out of every corner of the government and marginalize them. Cheney has them planted everywhere. Justice has a nest of them. Even a foreign policy lib like Huckabee would not be able to get rid of them. Only a Democratic President can make the changes needed.

• 8. JPL  |  December 16th, 2007 at 6:46 pm

  “Contrary to the delusional Limbaugh and Hannity, the 2008 election will bring an even bigger Democratic majority.”

  Perhaps, but not inevitable, and in any case the president will be Republican.

• 9. Mark Noonan  |  December 16th, 2007 at 7:32 pm

  JPL,

  Plain, like most liberals, is convinced that they’ve already won…and it’ll be rather fun to watch them twist and turn on the day after Election Day has they weave ever more paranoid conspiracy theories to explain Speaker-elect Boehner.

• 10. Diana Powe  |  December 16th, 2007 at 7:43 pm

  Mark,

  Would that be this Rep. John A. Boehner?
  

  Polls show the public holds congressional Republicans in low esteem. Boehner’s effort to craft a new agenda for Republicans remains under wraps. And in the minority leader’s own words, their fundraising “sucks.”

  “Now the money sucks for two reasons,” Boehner said in a Politico interview. “People are mad at the president; they are mad at the party. And then [there is] this whole immigration fight. People just turned off the spigot.”

  Boehner has undertaken a study, consulting corporate image experts, to “re-brand” the party. But so far, no big ideas have emerged.

  Source: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1207/7321.html

• 11. neocon  |  December 16th, 2007 at 8:05 pm

  Fortunately for Boehner, the Democrats are even more incompetent. Having wasted the last 10 months, the Democratic Congress finds itself the most hated Congress. Poll after poll shows a job approval rating slightly above of 11% under Pelosi and Reid.

  The Democrats should have passed some legislation before beginning on their quest to all things evil under Bush/Cheney.

  Only 1 item on their agenda has been achieved. And that 1 achievement was via slipping an amendment onto a defense appropriation in a time of war.

  Voters will not be kind.

• 12. Diana Powe  |  December 16th, 2007 at 8:29 pm

  Poll after poll shows a job approval rating slightly above of 11% under Pelosi and Reid.
  Source: neocon

  Gallup’s 2007 polling from January through August chronicled a nearly relentless decline in public approval of the job Congress is doing. However, after sinking to a record-tying low of 18% last month, Congress approval has rebounded to 24% — the largest one-month increase in support for Congress seen since the Democrats took majority control of the U.S. House of Representatives in January. Nearly all of the recent increase is due to improved ratings of Congress among Republicans. The percentage of Republicans approving of the job Congress is doing rose from 18% in August to 37% in September. At the same time, there was only a two-point increase in approval among Democrats, and a three-point decline among independents (neither of which is statistically significant).
  Source: http://www.gallup.com/poll/28741/Congress-Approval-Rises-Slightly-24.aspx

  Most of the disapproval of Congress is there abject failure to do more to bring an end to our presence in Iraq which is very important to Congress’ number given that so few Americans identify as Republicans these days:
  

  In the second quarter of this year, 29% of Americans identified as Republicans, 37% as independents, and 33% as Democrats. These percentages are based on responses to Gallup’s basic party identification question: “In politics, as of today, do you consider yourself a Republican, a Democrat, or an Independent?”

  and…
  

  The review of Gallup poll data included here, however, provides the inescapable conclusion that the state of the GOP — as measured through the opinions of the American public — is actually at low ebb. Fewer people identify themselves as Republicans than at any other point in the Bush administration (although not lower than at other points in the 1990s), the image of the Republican Party is at a lower point than at any other time during the last 15 years, and Rove’s boss — President Bush — has job approval ratings that are in the bottom 5% of all presidents since the end of World War II.
  Source: http://www.gallup.com/poll/28429/GOP-Identification-Party-Image-Bush-Approval-Down-Rove-Leaves.aspx

• 13. Ricorun  |  December 16th, 2007 at 9:47 pm

  According to FOX News contributor Bill Kristol, Senator Joe Lieberman is set to endorse John McCain for President.

  I like John McCain. But it seems to me that he couldn’t be more effective at shooting himself in the foot if he was actually aiming.

• 14. liberalT  |  December 16th, 2007 at 10:19 pm

  at least McCain understands that waterboarding is torture.

• 15. Mark Noonan  |  December 16th, 2007 at 11:17 pm

  Diana,

  Watch and wait. You’re about to get an advanced education in politics in 2008 - and you won’t like the result.

• 16. Ricorun  |  December 17th, 2007 at 12:32 am

  Mark: Watch and wait. You’re about to get an advanced education in politics in 2008 - and you won’t like the result.

  I’m assuming the course won’t be taught by the same Professor Noonan who taught Advanced Politics 2006.

• 17. Timothy Horrigan  |  December 17th, 2007 at 4:16 pm

  Well, it shows the liberal bias of the media… they made huge fuss about Oprah’s endorsement of Obama & Joementum’s of McCain… but they ignored the real blockbuster. Judge Bork endorsed Romney!! Yes!!! That pretty much seals the nomination for Romney :-)

• 18. NeoClown  |  December 17th, 2007 at 4:24 pm

  John McCain wants a large US military presence in the Middle East.
  Israel wants a large US military presence in the Middle East.
  The democrats do not want a large US military presence in the Middle East.
  Joe Lieberman had to choose: The interests of Democratic Party, or the interests of Israel.
  Lieberman chose. Joe Lieberman is no longer a democrat.
  Joe Lieberman has endorsed John McCain.
  Israel is happy.

• 19. FmrMarine  |  December 17th, 2007 at 6:29 pm

  CLOWN
  you are correct, Joe is NOT an elected democRAT, he is an independent!
  Israel may happy, but mcLame will NOT get the pubbie nomination.
  He has pi$$ed on to many of our shoes for the last 8 years. He is DONE in this game.

• 20. Almiranta  |  December 17th, 2007 at 6:57 pm

  My goodness, you rabid Libs certainly don’t pull any punches when you are striking out at anyone who doesn’t share your radical agenda, do you—even a Democrat!!

  Look at extra-average’s smear campaign against one of the most loyal and steadfast Dems ever. S/he claims, first, that Joe only won because of some emotional aberration in New England, something I guess about not liking change or something. It COULDN’T have been because they had had years of Lieberman in the Senate and liked the work he did. Sooo dismissive, soooo condescending, sooo typically excuse-ridden Lefty cant.

  And there is this gem: “On a national level, Leiberman is a freak of politics that appeals only to Bush loyalists, and even then only as an instrument to antagonize Democrats.” Ooohhhh—you kiss you mama wif dat mouf? Nassssttttyyyyyy.

  But then, consider the source.

  The Dems tried to punish Lieberman for having his own informed opinion, and he stood up for himself and his principles and asked his consituents to make their own decisions. And they did. And it just kills the radicals to be shown that they do not call all the shots.

  Now take a minute to reflect on how often the LL mouthbreathers have tossed around slurs like “Bushbots”—you know, making fun of people they claim to be totally controlled by party loyalty. And now we have one of said MBs whining that if Joe had only had more loyalty TO THE PARTY he would have put his tail between his legs and slunk off to enforced defeat. (Wait a minute—am I talking about the Dem solution to the war in Iraq, or their attitude toward a once-beloved Senator? Two sides of the same coin, I guess…)

  I think Leiberman is supporting McCain because they are so similar, each so close to the other side that they meet in the middle. I am not cricizing this, just commenting on it.

  My concern is that the middle is too squishy to get much done. Quite honestly, of the two I think I would vote for Leiberman, as I really think he has more backbone than McCain.

  But neither is a true leader, and we need someone willing to stand up and take the hits which are inevitable when a strong position is taken.

  BTW, I think it is a mistake to confabulate lack of support for the RNC with lack of support for conservative positions and candidates. I for one have turned down every effort by the RNC to get me to contribute, but have sent checks to individual candidates I support. The national party lost its way and is being taken to the woodshed for it, but when push comes to shove and we have to choose between a Republican and a Socialist (and I don’t see the Dems running anything but…) the party will rally.

  I suggest you look into Newt Gingrich’s website and his approach, which is to ignore party affiliations and look at problems and solutions independent of R’s and D’s. This will alienate a lot on the fringes of both parties, but I think it will resonate with those who are tired of seeing nothing accomplished because of crippling political manuevering, and I also think that once actual ideas and issues are at stake and not a lot of fear-mongering and character assassination and other political trickery the conservatives will gain dramatically. The Left position is not that appealling, once stripped of its hyper-emotional negative attack dog smear campaign tactics.

• 21. Diana Powe  |  December 17th, 2007 at 7:33 pm

  Look at extra-average’s smear campaign against one of the most loyal and steadfast Dems ever.

  Really, Almiranta, the political process isn’t that difficult to understand. Senator Lieberman was a member of the Democratic Party. He stood for reelection and, as sometimes happens in American politics, he was challenged in the Democratic Party primary in the state of Connecticut. The challenge was primarily because of his devotion to the Republican President of the United States as immortalized in The Kiss. Senator Lieberman then proceeded to lose the primary election to Ned Lamont who became the Democratic Party’s candidate for the United States Senate seat occupied by Senator Lieberman.

  Now, hypothetically, if Senator Lieberman was for the Democratic Party rather than for Joe Lieberman, he would have thrown his support behind Ned Lamont as the Democratic Party candidate to make sure that the seat he occupied remained in the Democrat column. However, being actually loyal to himself, he ginned up a fake party to appoint himself as its “nominee” so he could run in the general election. He won that election, continues to occupy the seat in the Senate he holds in trust and caucuses with the Democrats so he can have a committee chair. However, he’s not a Democrat.

  It’s not really that hard and it’s laughable to try to claim it is a “smear campaign” to point it out.

• 22. Diana Powe  |  December 17th, 2007 at 7:47 pm

  Hmm, what sounds like a “hyper-emotional negative attack dog smear campaign”?

  “you rabid Libs”
  “extra-average”
  “S/he”
  “LL mouthbreathers”
  “MBs”
  “Socialist”

  Almiranta, may I introduce you to the psychological concept of projection?

• 23. NeoClown  |  December 17th, 2007 at 10:02 pm

  None of us republicans are voting for McCain right? We’re just happy because an x-democrat is endorsing a republican that none of us like.
  Is it good that Joe Lieberman has endorsed John McCain for President because President Bush said that John McCain would be a terrible President? See following…

  “Bush supporters circulated church fliers that labeled McCain “the fag candidate.” Columnist Frank Rich noted that the fliers were distributed “even as Bush subtly reinforced that message by indicating he wouldn’t hire openly gay people for his administration.”

  Senate Republicans, and the George W. Bush campaign, are spreading the word that John McCain is unstable. The subtext, also suggested in this whispering campaign, is that he returned from 5 1/2 years as a POW in North Vietnam with a loose screw. And it is bruited about that he shouldn’t be entrusted with nuclear weapons.”

  Bush supporters in South Carolina made race-baiting phone calls saying that McCain had a “black child.”
  The McCain’s’ daughter, Bridget, was adopted from Mother Teresa’s orphanage in Bangladesh.
  Rove Suggests Former POW McCain Committed Treason and Fathered Child With Black Prostitute.

  Bush Used Fringe Veterans Group to Attack McCain as “Manchurian Candidate.”
  Ted Sampley, compared McCain, who spent five years as a Vietnam POW, with ‘the Manchurian Candidate.’” Sampley Called McCain a “Coward” and a Traitor.
  “Sampley… accused McCain of being a weak-minded coward who had escaped death by collaborating with the enemy. Sampley claimed that McCain had first been compromised by the Vietnamese, then recruited by the Soviets.”

• 24. Timothy Horrigan  |  December 18th, 2007 at 4:10 pm

  Joe Lieberman is hardly one of the “most” loyal or steadfast Democrats ever… not to his party at any rate. If he was, he would have respected the wishes of his primary and not run as an independent. Yes, he lucked out because the Republicans didn’t run a viable candidate, and hence he eked out a victory over Ned Lamont.

  If he was loyal and steadfast, he would have endorsed his fellow Connecticut Senator, Chris Dodd (who DID endorse his party’s nominee in 2006.)

• 25. Tractatus  |  December 18th, 2007 at 8:48 pm

  Almiranta, may I introduce you to the psychological concept of projection?

  I’d say Almiranta is the undisputed champ of projection, but Noonan gives her quite a fierce bit of competition.

• 26. Timothy Horrigan  |  December 19th, 2007 at 9:57 pm

  And now, Henry Kissinger has endorsed Romney… I think it is pretty much over for John McCain. 2 of the 3 most popular and revered figures in American public life… Judge Bork and Dr. Kissinger… have endorsed Romney. The 3rd of the 3, Dick Cheney, appears to be leaning towards him. Look, folks, it’s all over. No need to even count the votes. Romney is the annointed one.

Matt Margolis on Twitter