Lieberman To Speak At GOP Convention?
April 16th, 2008 at 07:25am Matt Margolis
The Hill reports on the possibility…
Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.), the Democratic Party’s 2000 vice presidential nominee, is leaving open the possibility of giving a keynote address on behalf of Sen. John McCain (Ariz.) at the Republican National Convention in September.
Republicans close to the McCain campaign say Lieberman’s appearance at the convention, possibly before a national primetime audience, could help make the case that the presumptive GOP nominee has a record of crossing the aisle. That could appeal to much-needed independent voters.
McCain has yet to ask Lieberman to speak, either in primetime or elsewhere, at the convention. But if McCain thinks it will help make his case for the White House, as some of his allies suspect, Lieberman would be willing to speak on his behalf.
“If Sen. McCain, who I support so strongly, asked me to do it, if he thinks it will help him, I will,” Lieberman said in a brief interview.
If Lieberman does speak at the GOP Convention, that would be devastating for the Democrats. In the past eight years, Joe Lieberman has sought the Democratic nomination for President, and has been the Democrats’ vice-presidential nominee. As the Democratic Party shifts further and further to the far left, Lieberman’s appearance would highlight how out-of-the-mainstream today’s Democratic Party has become.
You know, it’s funny, Barack Obama claims to be a uniter, yet in recent weeks, he’s referred to his grandmother as “a typical white person,” and insulted small town Americans. Those aren’t the words of a uniter. A uniter is someone who could bring the former vice-presidential nominee of his opposing party to speak on his behalf at his party’s convention.
It’ll be interesting to see not only what Lieberman does, but what Democrats do to prevent him from speaking for McCain at the GOP Convention.
Entry Filed under: Campaign 2008, Democrats
25 Comments
1. NeoClown | April 16th, 2008 at 8:50 am
There have always been conservative turds floating in the Democratic punch bowl; Zell Miller and Joe Lieberman are two that come to mind. Fortunately for us, neither Miller nor Lieberman can do our party any more harm.
The Republicans have a real problem on their hands though. John McCain is a self professed Liberal Republican and he has a shot at becoming our next President. Just imagine the damage he will wreak on the conservative side of the street. Conservatives call Hollywood John a maverick; Democrats call him a useful idiot.
2. Amanda | April 16th, 2008 at 9:55 am
Um, not really, Matt. No self-respecting Democrat I know has cared a bit about Lieberman for quite some time. Y’all like to throw around the term RINO for your liberal Republicans, and Lieberman was a DINO for us. Glad to see him gone.
3. Zach | April 16th, 2008 at 10:11 am
Theres 2 good examples of NeoClown and Amanda’s unwillingness to unite with people of different political affiliations.
These comments are divisive and only galvanize tensions between republicans and democrats.
You two by chance aren’t Obama supporters are you?
4. Joe | April 16th, 2008 at 10:27 am
Since Lieberman didn’t even win the Democratic Primary last time around, why do Democrats care?
You do remember that his is an INDEPENDENT and not a Democrat, right? That is why there is an “I” after his name and not a “D”.
If he speaks at the GOP convention the only people that will care are the Republicans.
Then again… maybe you WON’T want this based on his stance on anything other than Iraq. If he doesn’t get booed off the stage, then that would show that Republicans care about one thing and the is a perpetual war.
For stem cell research
For keeping abortions legal
Rejected partial-birth ban
Parental consent
Flag burning is abhorrent, but not a constitutional issue.
Allow driver’s license for immigrants.
Sunset the Patriot Act.
Opposes laws against gay sex & sodomy; focus on real crime.
Rated 25% by the US COC, indicating an anti-business voting record.
Voted NO on prohibiting lawsuits against gun manufacturers
Voted NO on limiting medical liability lawsuits to $250,000.
He also said (in 2003)…..
In 2000, Al Gore and I went all around this country and warned the American people about George W. Bush. We said he would squander our surplus. We said he would compromise civil rights, he would abandon the middle class and he would turn his back on the poor. Let’s be honest about this, the presidency of Bush has been a worse nightmare than even Al and I warned America about.
From Reseach 2000 3/31/08-4/2/08
If you could vote again for U.S. Senate, would you vote for Ned Lamont, the Democrat, Alan Schlesinger, the Republican, or Joe Lieberman, an Independent?
All
Lamont (D) 51 (48)
Lieberman (I) 37 (40)
Schlesinger (R) 7 (9)
Democrats
Lamont (D) 74 (72)
Lieberman (I) 19 (25)
Schlesinger (R) 2 (3)
Republicans
Lamont (D) 4 (7)
Lieberman (I) 74 (69)
Schlesinger (R) 19 (24)
So…. Dems wouldn’t care if he spoke at the GOP convention since he wasn’t the Dem choice and he is an Independent. The GOP (probably) wouldn’t want him talking at the convention since he agrees with them on basically one issue.
This is (yet another) non-story.
5. hermie | April 16th, 2008 at 10:30 am
Eight years ago Neoclown and Amanda would’ve defended Lieberman as a good Democrat, worthy of becoming Vice President and even President. Yet when he and other Dems stray from the plantation, it’s time to get out the pitchforks and the tar and feathers.
6. Amanda | April 16th, 2008 at 10:39 am
Um, hermie, you’ll note that I said that Lieberman was basically a DINO for the Dems for a long time. I never much cared for him. Still don’t. I don’t hate him, just don’t want him in my party.
Zach, let’s talk about uniting. Mark and Matt cling stringently to conservative ideals. They bemoan any activity, bill, law, etc. that strays from those ideals. They call liberals boneheaded and fundamentally wrong in their worldview.
According to M&M, I’m a boneheaded liberal who doesn’t understand the world. For my part, I’d like to see our country make a return to its liberal roots (let the arguments on that begin), and I work every day to make that happen. So, no, I don’t want to work with people that I believe don’t care about the same things I do. I’m happy to engage them in conversation (that’s why I visit here regularly), but when two people — or parties — are so opposed, there’s a point when you say, “We agree to disagree.”
7. Joe | April 16th, 2008 at 10:44 am
hermie, don’t be a fool. Just like the GOP calling Hagel a non-Repub for speaking out against the war.
8 years ago when Lieberman was the VP candidate, yes we backed him (although I can say I really didn’t like him much). Lieberman lost his Dem primary by a (decent amount) and he shunned the Dem party by then running as an Independent. So yes… now we are not big fans of him. Bottom line is that if he was against drawing down troops, that would be one thing. But he is a cheerleader for the war and that is not what the Dems want.
So your comment really has no meaning as an attempt to throw in a zinger. It is true that we backed him 8 years ago. So what.
8. JD | April 16th, 2008 at 11:55 am
Speaking as one of the conservative variety, I support any Republican, Independent, or other party who desires to hasten the end of Bush’s occupation of Iraq and get our military forces out of there. By the same token, I oppose any Republican, Independent, or other party who desires to continue Bush’s folly and maintain our military presence in Iraq.
9. Amanda | April 16th, 2008 at 12:07 pm
JD: Agreed, from the other side of the aisle.
10. InDaVa | April 16th, 2008 at 12:07 pm
I don’t think he insulted small town Americans…If you look at what he said, what he said was not that these values of small town America, and rural America and working class white America are the product of economic hardships. He?s saying that those folks in America do not believe they?re going to get any economic help from Washington so they don?t? vote their economic interests when they vote, they instead vote these other things. We?re debating the damage of the caricature of his comments. It?s become this meta-narrative about how he?s been described rather than actually taking on the meat of what he argued.
As for Lieberman, I don’t think it will be ‘devastating’ but it won’t help the Dems.
11. Diana Powe | April 16th, 2008 at 12:14 pm
Zzzz-zzz…wha?!? The Chairman of the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs might actually do something other than whisper corrections into Senator McCain’s ear? Really, does anyone actually think that Joe Lieberman is relevant to anything?
12. Capitalist Infidel | April 16th, 2008 at 3:17 pm
Why is it these far left wing fanatical nut jobs here don’t want us killing terrorists in Iraq? Do they really support al Qaeda in Iraq? I just don’t get it, isn’t killing terrorists anywhere a good thing? Especially in Iraq?
13. Joe | April 16th, 2008 at 3:56 pm
Capitalist Infidel,
I can’t tell if that was a joke or not. I would have to assume it was, but just in case………..
When the hell did anyone say we were against killing terrorists?
I guess we can ask…
Why are the far right wing fanatical nut jobs here so against going after those that actually attacked us on 9/11?
Why are those same nut jobs so eager to create an occupation in Iraq for no reason what-so-ever?
Why were those nut jobs so against going after the place where AQ was and not going into Iraq?
Why do those same right wing nut jobs get their jollies from tying the insurgents that want an occupying force out of their country to the organization that orchestrated the attacks on U.S. soil?
Why do the same right wing nut jobs think they can kill every terrorist in the world and that would be the only way to claim victory on this “War on Terror”?
Don’t give us that load of Bulls@#t that “the dumb liberals don’t want us killing any terrorists anywhere in the world”. If you truly believe that, then you have serious issues.
14. Heatwave | April 16th, 2008 at 4:39 pm
“Do they really support al Qaeda in Iraq? I just don’t get it, isn’t killing terrorists anywhere a good thing?”
We just believe the terrorists that attacked us on 911 can be found in Afghanistan. Most of the killing in Iraq involves killing Iraqi insurgents. I just don’t get it, as a conservative do you really support the day in and day out killing of Iraqis?
15. congressive | April 16th, 2008 at 5:14 pm
I just don’t get it, as a conservative do you really support the day in and day out killing of Iraqis?
Yes. Yes he does.
Even if it kills ten innocent civilians per one terrorist, it’s worth it. And that’s the OPTIMIST’S estimate.
It’s the moral equivalent of the LAPD killing ten innocent civilians in Los Angeles in their quest to apprehend ONE murderer, and justify it by blaming it all on the murderer.
To paraphrase Russ Meyer’s immortal trash classic “B” movie: Faster, Pussycon! Kill! Kill!
As for Lie-berman, he can read the writing on the wall. After November’s Democratic sweep, he will have virtually NO power among the Democrats. He will lose ALL committee appointments and be effectively tossed into the Congressional dumpster. He’d better cozy up to the Republicans, ’cause he’s got nuthin’ else.
16. Capitalist Infidel | April 16th, 2008 at 6:40 pm
Do you intellectual midgets on the left not know that there are terrorists in both Iraq and Afghanistan? And before you morons say they weren’t there before we invaded (even though that’s a lie, Zarqawi and his minions fled there from Afghanistan after we invaded) shouldn’t we decide on which front to fight the war? Why would you idiots want to fight in the mountains? You realize our casualty rate would soar if we chose their battlefield don’t you?
Please tell me that all liberals aren’t as intellectually dishonest/challenged than those on this site. Can you imagine wanting to fight in an atmosphere that would put our military at a disadvantage?
17. Doug | April 16th, 2008 at 7:22 pm
I see where the democrats are now, as liberal as Lieberman is, he just happens to be conservative on the one issue that the franatic left wing won’t allow a democrat to be conservative on - the war on terror. He lost the primary because of the huge influx of radical left-wing hippie money and those same people have taken over the Democratic party. Thus, as Matt alluded to, Lieberman speaking convincingly at the Republican Convention would be a huge magnet for most of the 30% of independent voters out there and will also draw some more liberal Democratic voters, at least those who aren’t still living in the early ’70s.
18. Jonathan | April 16th, 2008 at 7:28 pm
If Lieberman does speak at the GOP Convention, that would be devastating for the Democrats.
I really don’t give a damn what Lieberman does.
Joe Lieberman is only looking after what Joe Lieberman wants. Enough said.
19. LiberalNitemare | April 16th, 2008 at 9:09 pm
Yeah, Lieberman is nothing for the dems to worry about.
Its not like his endorsement might pull centrist democratic votes away from the liberal candidate in an election, that never happens.
20. Timothy Horrigan | April 16th, 2008 at 9:47 pm
Devastating? You think Lieberman’s defection to the GOP would devastating, Matt? Dream on! JoeMentum is a figure of some national influence… he was AlGore’s running mate, even… but he doesn’t have much of a following. He was lucky just to win his Senate seat back. He ran for President in ‘04 and barely even registered.
If Lieberman spoke at the GOP convention, that would have about as big an impact as Zell Miller’s and Ron Reagan Jr.’s speeches in ‘04… both of which NO effect on the campaign (and NOT because they cancelled each other out.)
In any case, there have been high profile Republicans who have gone the opposite direction: to name just four, David Brock, Charles Barkley, Ariann Huffington, and Jim Webb (who was a high-ranking official in the Reagan administration.) It is thanks to Webb (and *sigh* Lieberman who did re-join the Democrat caucus), BTW that the Democrats have a majority in the Senate.
21. bongoman | April 16th, 2008 at 10:35 pm
Capitalist Infidel - 2% of the violence in Iraq is Al Qaeda related.
So stop the crap about fighting the ‘terrorists’. We are engaged in an occupation and most of the violence directed to US troops is from Iraqi nationalists.
Imagine if the USA was occupied and invaded - imagine the effort that ensue to rid the country from the foreigners. That is what we are facing there.
22. bongoman | April 16th, 2008 at 10:36 pm
…especially if those foreigners wanted to build permanent military bases in OUR country.
23. Gaijin | April 16th, 2008 at 11:51 pm
You guys can have Lieberman.
24. sam | April 17th, 2008 at 10:56 am
Lieberman is nothing but an insignifant midget in the democratic party..he isnt even really in the party anymore….typical spin from Matt, trying to make himself feel better about his party’s chances.
25. Capitalist Infidel | April 18th, 2008 at 3:54 am
“2% of the violence in Iraq is Al Qaeda related.”
Please provide proof. You think I’m going to believe an obvious lie just because you print it?