Posts with the tag 'Joe Lieberman'
As I write this, Lieberman Must Go has 35,000+ signatures on this petition:
We CANNOT tolerate a leader of the Senate Democratic Caucus who supports George Bush and McCain’s War in Iraq. We CANNOT tolerate a Democratic chairman of the Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee who endorses and stumps for McCain. We call on the Senate Democratic Steering Committee to strip Joe Lieberman of his chairmanship and his leadership role.
Which action, of course, would also probably strip the Democrats of their Senate majority, at least until January - either the petitioners don’t realise this, or they are supremely confident in picking up a net of at least one Senate seat in November. Still, it is a bit arrogant for them to make that presumption - the time to strip Lieberman, if that is to be done, would be in January, and then only if the Democrats have 51 seats without him. I’ll bet they get to 350,000 signatures in short order, so great is the leftwing hatred of President Bush and of anyone who doesn’t hate him as the left does.
Please note that they are calling it “George Bush and McCain’s War in Iraq” - it is, of course, America’s campaign in Iraq, part of America’s fight in the War on Terrorism, but so hatefilled is the left these days that they are not animated by a desire of what is best for America, but by a desire of what is most harmful to President Bush and his possible GOP successor, John McCain. There is also the rank moral cowardice of making such a statement - it is the left saying, “its not me!”; as if one can be a true and loyal American citizen and not be morally responsible for all of the acts of the United States of America. Only a traitor can really say of Iraq that it is not his campaign - but it remains America’s campaign, even if a traitor eschews it; a traitor, or someone so hate filled that they don’t understand what they are actually doing.
And before anyone out there says I’m exaggerating about the hate, herewith some samples from the signatures:
Awful person…He is among the biggest scumbags on the planet…He’s is worsre than a traitor…Lieberman has set the reality of self serving, despicable politicians at a new plateau…His country is Israel not the USA.
How many of our young men and women must die to defend Israel and the powerful AIPAC?…Are peoplle like him mindless idiots or hellbent on destroying America?…A totally classless jerk…Joe Liberman’s position is more in line with Israel’s than US’s…AIPAC is his allegiance. He takes his orders from them…He is a traiter, but more than that, he is such a non human…Not only must he go, strip him of his citizenship…This man is a menace to society…Joe belongs in the GOP-aipac section…Joe go live in Israel now. You are a war monger supreme…more loyal to Israel than to our country…
I think that pretty much says it all - fanatic hatred destroying the souls of those on the left to the point where they don’t even realise they’re slipping into anti-Semitism…
Tags: Iraq, Joe Lieberman, John McCain, liberal anti-Semitism, liberal lies
June 27th, 2008
Interesting:
More than almost anyone in public life, Joe Lieberman knows from experience how to finesse a vice-presidential question. At the end of an impromptu press conference after a visit to discuss global warming with sixth graders here on Monday, Al Gore’s 2000 veep pick was asked if he would be John McCain’s running mate this time around. “No,” Lieberman says flatly, as if the question were as ludicrous as his joining the antiwar movement. All Lieberman would add when prodded by a follow-up question is, “I think in this, as in so much else, [McCain] has his head screwed on right. I think he’s looking for somebody who shares his priorities and would be capable of being president.”
But in a presidential year filled with firsts (African-American nominee, serious woman candidate, former POW to be his party’s standard-bearer), Lieberman retains the intriguing potential to become the first Jewish, party-crossing, second-time-around vice-presidential nominee in American history. While McCain is keeping his vice-presidential deliberations intensely private, it is not hard to pick up Republican whispers that the wild-card Lieberman speculation is grounded in reality rather than water-cooler fantasy. No McCain campaign sidekick — not South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham nor former Hewlett Packard CEO Carly Fiorina — does more than Lieberman to burnish the GOP candidate’s reputation as a different-drummer Republican. As top McCain strategist Charlie Black says about Lieberman (talking in general, not as a potential running mate), “Joe, who is nationally known for having run for vice president and being elected [in 2006] as an independent, is the best possible character witness you can have for McCain’s independence and bipartisan approach.”
Only a Shemanesque, “if nominated, I will not run; if elected, I will not serve” denial would put this concept to bed. Still, it appears unlikely - but it also comes down to a careful calculus in an election year which promises a close vote at the end of the race. Conventional wisdom (which I think correct) holds that McCain’s best chance of completely uniting and energising the conservative base is to nominate a VP who is firmly in the conservative camp. On the other hand, would a McCain/Lieberman ticket pull in more disaffected Democrats than might be lost on the conservative side, with the additional prospect of a Lieberman right turn luring conservatives back to the fold? It must be kept in mind that Lieberman is a conservative Jew - and while he trimmed a bit to the left in 2000 for the sake of Gore, I think that he could easily wind up “out conservativing” McCain on some of the social issues crucial to Evangelicals and orthodox Catholics. Nominating Lieberman would likely put Florida completely out of reach for Obama, and might well put New York, Connecticut and New Jersey in play for McCain - a fatal mixture for any Democrat seeking the White House.
Movement conservative or “hand across the aisle”? What should McCain do?
Tags: Joe Lieberman, John McCain, Veepstakes
June 18th, 2008
Senator Lieberman points out the harsh reality of Democratic opposition to the war:
The reversal began, like so much else in our time, on September 11, 2001. The attack on America by Islamist terrorists shook President Bush from the foreign policy course he was on. He saw September 11 for what it was: a direct ideological and military attack on us and our way of life. If the Democratic Party had stayed where it was in 2000, America could have confronted the terrorists with unity and strength in the years after 9/11.
Instead a debate soon began within the Democratic Party about how to respond to Mr. Bush. I felt strongly that Democrats should embrace the basic framework the president had advanced for the war on terror as our own, because it was our own. But that was not the choice most Democratic leaders made. When total victory did not come quickly in Iraq, the old voices of partisanship and peace at any price saw an opportunity to reassert themselves. By considering centrism to be collaboration with the enemy — not bin Laden, but Mr. Bush — activists have successfully pulled the Democratic Party further to the left than it has been at any point in the last 20 years.
Far too many Democratic leaders have kowtowed to these opinions rather than challenging them. That unfortunately includes Barack Obama, who, contrary to his rhetorical invocations of bipartisan change, has not been willing to stand up to his party’s left wing on a single significant national security or international economic issue in this campaign.
The plain fact of the matter is that it wasn’t but a few months after 9/11 before Democrats were seeking ways and means of defeating President Bush and the GOP over the war - it was only a few voices to start with, but by late 2003 it was becoming a crescendo on the Democratic side…for them, Bush was the enemy; and this was so because President Bush stood between them and more power. Some say that if President Bush had done this or that it would all have come out differently - but as regards the Democrats, it didn’t matter what Bush did, they would attack him on it…always, always keep in mind that had we not invaded Iraq - had we, that is, gone along with the French, Russians and Germans in 2003 - then today the very same Democrats who condemn Iraq as a failure would be condemning President Bush for not liberating Iraq. Too often we’ve seen Democrats turn 180 degrees because it is political expedient at the moment - the most recent example of this is Obama’s 2004 harsh words about Iran contrasted to his 2008 “Iran is tiny” rhetoric…in 2004, it was wise to be bellicose towards Iran…in 2008, the kook left is ruling the Democratic roost and thus it is now politically expedient to be as anti-war as possible…even at the cost of personal honor and dignity.
Tags: Barack Obama, Iran, Iraq, Joe Lieberman, John McCain
May 23rd, 2008
Very clear and very concise:
CNN’S WOLF BLITZER: “All right, do you have any doubt about Senator Obama’s commitment to maintain a very supportive role for the United States as far as Israel is concerned?”
SEN. LIEBERMAN: “I have no doubt about that. But here’s what I want to say. Senator Obama has said he would sit down without condition with Ahmadinejad, the President of Iran. That not only gives prestige to a terrible America- and Israel-hater, but it also threatens our allies in the region.
“Look, I’ll give you another example. This is an indirect step that can undermine our position in the Middle East. Earlier this year, Senator Kyl and I introduced a resolution in the Senate, which called on the administration to impose economic sanctions on the Iranian Revolutionary Guard that is training and equipping Iraqis that are going back into Iraq and killing American soldiers, hundreds of them. … Senator Obama did not [support it]. He said it was saber-rattling. It was the exact opposite of that. It was economic sanctions. It had nothing to do with the military.”
BLITZER: “I think what he said, it would give a green light to the Bush administration to consider military action. Something like that.”
SEN. LIEBERMAN: “No way. It was the exact opposite of that. I don’t question Senator Obama’s commitment to the security of the state of Israel. I’m saying when it comes to dealing with enemies, both in the Middle East and around the world, Senator McCain has more experience, more balance, knows when to be tough, knows when to be soft.”
Its good that Lieberman points this out - think about it: in an attempt to bring non-violent pressure on the Ahmadinejad regime, Obama de-facto sided with Ahmadinejad on the apparant theory that President Bush is the greater threat to peace than the man who is sending forth his minions to murder Americans and Iraqis, and who had threated our ally, Israel, with complete destruction. This is a clear indicator that Obama subscribes to the lunatic left position that President Bush is some out-of-control war monger - with the flipside being that of course Ahmadinejad will be reasonable, just as soon as there is an American President who will be nice to him.
Democrats say that the election of McCain - a long term and very strong critic of many Bush Administration policies - will just be a third Bush term. The real strength of this accusation actually stems from the fact that Senator McCain and President Bush - unlike Senator Obama - wish for the United States to win in Iraq, not Iran’s Ahmadinejad. If “third Bush term” means “victory in the war” then, yes, I think that all patriots desperately want a third Bush term. But, of course, such accusation is nonsense - indeed, we movement conservatives are girding ourselves, once we elect John McCain, to fight him on several issues. McCain isn’t “our” man, meaning he’s not the conservatives’ choice…but he is the patriots’ choice, and we’re going to back him - if for no other reason - than the fact that he wants America to win. Fortunately, there is more than just the war to back McCain on - and, equally unfortunately, its not just the war which makes us want to defeat Obama - his creeping socialism and economic illiteracy coupled with his extraordinarily high tolerance for corruption on his side leaves us worried that he’ll not only lose the war, but wreck the nation and hand the ruins over to corrupt cronies of the Democratic establishment.
Vote McCain ‘08: quite honestly, America needs McCain to be President in 2009.
Tags: Barack Obama, Iran, Iraq, Israel, Joe Lieberman, John McCain
May 12th, 2008
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.
Tags: Barack Obama, Joe Lieberman, John McCain
April 16th, 2008
Barack Obama, the most liberal member of the Senate, allegedly “hopes” to appoint Republicans to his cabinet, if God forbid, he won the presidency. We shouldn’t be surprised at these claims… Anyone running for president will tout any efforts they’ve made in their career of reaching out across the aisle. Even the divisive Hillary Clinton has touted her past efforts working with a select few Republicans.
This sounds more like a story that should be coming out during the general election, but obviously Camp Obama, recognizing John McCain’s broad support that includes Republicans, Independents and Democrats, he sees the need to increase his support among independent voters now.
But, the thing is, I remember a while back Barack Obama making another one of his empty promises about not appointing only “yes-men” into his own inner circle. It’s probably safe rhetoric for him, since his supporters will naturally recognize those words as campaign rhetoric meant to broaden his appeal. And what could Hillary Clinton possibly say to make it hurt Obama, the same man who generates thunderous applause for blowing his nose.
Still, it’s hard to take anything Obama says seriously. We know his rhetoric on NAFTA is merely rhetoric that cannot be taken seriously, are we supposed to believe that Barack Obama, who is even more liberal than Hillary Clinton, would seriously pick Chuck Hagel (R-Nebraska) as his running mate? Hagel may oppose the Iraq war, but he’s otherwise very socially conservative. Would the pro-partial-birth abortion Barack Obama really pick Hagel for anything? Would Hagel even consider it?
Such talks of any bipartisan ticket shouldn’t be taken seriously, and neither should claims of bipartisan cabinets.. and certainly not from Barack Obama. I could see John McCain with a bipartisan cabinet before I could see Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton with one. Some have suggested that Joe Lieberman could even be McCain’s running mate, or even serve on his cabinet. I can’t see either happening, but Lieberman, who has already been thrown under the bus by his former party, would be far more likely to be John McCain’s VP or Secretary of Defense than Chuck Hagel would be likely to be Barack Obama’s VP or Secretary of Defense. But, again… both circumstances seem highly unlikely.
Tags: Barack Obama, Chuck Hagel, Hillary Clinton, Joe Lieberman, John McCain
March 2nd, 2008
Interesting part of a denial of VP ambitions - from the Los Angeles Times:
But just in case the delegate winner is John McCain and just in case the question comes up again later this winter, Sen. Joe Lieberman — a onetime Democrat from Connecticut, Al Gore’s running mate in 2000 and a Democratic presidential candidate himself in 2004 — has already taken himself out of the VP race.
“I’d tell him,” Lieberman told the AP the other day, ” ‘Thanks, John, I’ve been there. I’ve done that. You can find much better.’ ”
Lieberman endorsed McCain in December, has campaigned for him already in several states, and intends to go back on the campaign trail for his Arizona friend again. Lieberman, you may recall, lost in the 2006 Democratic primary over his support of the Iraq war, so he ran and won as an independent, though he still caucuses with Senate Democrats.
The fourth-term senator said his endorsement of McCain was no indication he’d join the GOP.
Still, Lieberman said if McCain won the GOP nomination, he’d likely attend the Republican National Convention in St. Paul. “I’d probably be more welcome there,” he said.
And then again there is the fact that the Democrats have a very strong chance of increasing their Senate majority in 2008, regardless of who wins the White House, and that would mean the Democrats would no longer need Lieberman to retain control…might be a good time to find something else to do? Especially if the really good polls that parties do for themselves (and not for public consumption) indicate that McCain would beat either prospective Democratic nominee?
I’m not entirely buying this denial - absent a Shermanesque “if nominated I won’t run, if elected I won’t serve” sort of denial, I’m keeping Lieberman on the short list of possible McCain VP picks.
Tags: Joe Lieberman, John McCain
February 3rd, 2008
Via NRO’s The Corner:
You know, when I’m asked which of the current group of Democratic candidates I prefer to run against, I always say it really doesn’t matter…These days all those candidates, all the Democratic leaders, are one and the same. They’re all NEA-MoveOn.org-ACLU-Michael Moore Democrats. They’ve allowed these radicals to take control of their party and dictate their course.
So this election is important not just to enact our conservative principles. This election is important to salvage a once-great political party from the grip of extremism and shake it back to its senses. It’s time to give not just Republicans but independents, and, yes, good Democrats a chance to call a halt to the leftward lurch of the once-proud party of working people.
So in seeking the nomination of my own party, I want to say something a little unusual. I am asking my fellow Republicans to vote for me not only for what I have to say to them, but for what I have to say to the members of the other party—the millions of Democrats who haven’t left the Democratic party so much as their party’s national leadership has left them.
Good stuff - and, as noted at NRO, very Reaganesque in style and tone. While I haven’t settled on a candidate for the primaries, this is the sort of attitude I’m looking for - its the sort of attitude which long ago made me determine that Joe Lieberman would be the ideal VP candidate for whomever the GOP nominates next year. There is, indeed, a very deep divide in the American electorate - but we won’t eliminate it by shaking hands with those who stand against everything America stands for. In Thompson’s words, the “NEA-MoveOn.org-ACLU-Michael Moore Democrats” simply don’t want an America which is recognizable to most Americans - but they are in control of one of the two major political parties of the United States, and only by crushing them politically will be able to restore reasonableness to our political system.
A political coalition which would include such people as atheist/socialist Christopher Hitchens and Christian conservative James Dobson is not a coalition which will have a long lifespan - but if the Hitchens’ and Dobsons of this world want to have the civilization they love 20 years from now, they’d better darn well band together. We are under internal and external attack - the Islamists want us to convert to Islamo-fascism; the liberal/left wants us to become like Sweden. Do we want to remain America? Then we’d better fight for it - and bury the hatchet amongst all men and women of good will.
Tags: Fred Thompson, Iowa Caucuses, Joe Lieberman
December 30th, 2007
That’s the interesting question I heard yesterday from a nondescript liberal-leaning fill-in host on a rerun of an October talk radio show. The host, who admitted that the democrat party has lost its once prominent base of white male voters, acknowledged that the democrat party wrote off the voting bloc 30 years ago, and hasn’t courted it since.
A quick google search suggests that the concept is not lost on many a democrat mind; some saying that the white male vote is a bloc forever lost in the democrat vest pocket; a prodigal son never to return to the fold. Others say that the white male voter is still a yet-untapped bloc of voters that if accessed, would assure a democrat juggernaut for years, if not decades to come.
The radio host went on to observe that all is not well in republican-land; that white male voters were becoming disaffected with the Republican party; and went on to cite the war in Iraq as the major factor in white male disaffection within the GOP.
I would submit that there may indeed be a growing disaffection with the GOP among white males, but the war in Iraq would be the least, if not nearly the least of the reasons. If anything, the disaffection of the white male voting bloc with the Republican party is due to the fact that the Republican Party, rather than governing under the principles that swept it into a decade-long majority, actually forgot who it was that brought them to the dance; and instead started acting like the two-bit tart that flirts with all the other guys while her frustrated date looks on.
The white male voting bloc signed on first with Ronald Reagan, then with Newt Gingrich’s Contract With America; and not for democrat lite. President Bush received a hefty majority vote among the white male voting bloc, not because we were ecstatic over his expansion of Medicare into prescription drugs for seniors; not because of his endorsement of No Child Left Behind; but rather because between him and Jean Francois Kerrie, he was the only one that could be trusted to be a stalwart against the terrorists, and the one who actually gave a damn about protecting this nation.
So, back to the original question, what would it take for me, a white, middle class male, to be able to vote for a democrat as President of the United States?
Here is a non-inclusive, though important list of the top four traits that would make it so:
- 1. First and foremost: The democrat must put America first, not blame America first.
If your rhetoric panders to the European intelligentsia, go and run for German Chancellor or President of France.
If you put the "rights" of terrorists above the safety of the United States, its citizens, and its defenders in harm’s way, just so you can beat your chest atop your soapbox and claim that you’re a morally-superior, caring, sensitive, feeling metrosexual, forget about leading the U.S.
Go and apply as a houseboy for OBL, sing kumbaya with Kalid Sheikh Muhammed; but get the hell out of my face and leave the leading of the Free World to the big boys, okay?
You want to know a secret? If the presidential race were between Ron Paul on the Republican side, and Joe Lieberman on the Democrat side, I’d vote for Joe Lieberman in a heartbeat, based on the above principle alone.
- 2. National security is serious business. Quit screwing with it.
The notion of National Security embodies the very fight for our survival as a nation and as a people. It is not a political-point vending machine placed there for your convenience.
When you go and treat Iraq as a political football game to be won, rather than what should and must be a critical strategic victory over a deadly geopolitical enemy; going so far as to actually lay obstacles in the way of our victory, and putting those who put their lives on the line in additional and unnecessary risk as a result, that tells me you don’t give a rat’s posterior about the security of our nation, and that as such you have no business leading it.
There really are people and even nations out there who mean to do us harm.
9/11 should have given you a clue.
- 3. The democrat must quit showing contempt for America and that for which it stands!
Trust me on this. You may get a pat on the back from your fellow limousine liberals over at the Yacht club, but you won’t score a single vote among the "Joe Sixpack" crowd if you refuse to wear a flag on your lapel because you have contempt for the nation for which you are asking for the privilege and honor of leading.
It’s OK to say you love America, that it is the greatest nation on earth, and that Americans have spilled more blood and have given more treasure to help the downtrodden than any nation in the history of the planet.
It’s OK. Really, it is.
- 4. Don’t tell us what our problems are. We know what they are.
Running a grocery-styled bitchlist of everything that’s wrong, and portraying everyone under the sun as a victim isn’t going to make any white guy run through a wall to get you elected.
Here’s a novel idea: Present a vision of what is right about America, and an accompanying vision of how to work with what’s right so as to become an even greater nation (and–this is important– believe in it!).
Ronald Reagan’s Shining City on the Hill vision eventually garnered him two landslide terms as President. Jimmy Carter’s "malaise" speech, along with his inability to proffer a positive vision of America’s future is arguably what lost him his second term, and what sealed his fate as one of the most ineffectual presidents in history.
Again, this list is far from inclusive as to what it would take for me to vote for a democrat as President, but it’s a start. I offer this in the knowledge that the suggestions put forth in this screed will be summarily dismissed as hogwash, and also in the knowledge that some leftwinger will no doubt leave some "clever" comments about how wrong I am. But it was a democrat that asked the question, and since I am the world’s leading authority on what I think and feel, I answered it to the best of my ability.
Fire away.
(Cross-posted at The Ice Palace)
Tags: Democratic Majority, Democratic Nomination, Iraq, Joe Lieberman, Liberal hypocrisy, liberal talk radio, NIE, President Bush, Ron Paul
December 23rd, 2007
What a sweet bunch of people…
…Lieberman sabotaged Gore in the 2000 election - why was this slime selected as his running mate anyway?…
… Lieberman is a liar and a punk and he doesn’t play on any team except the Lieberman Team…
..These two old NeoCon loons banding together on a lunatic pro-war platform in the face of their respective parties disapproval …
…He’s a Republican Rat any way you read him…
…My friend got mad at me when I said if I saw Joementum on the street I’d be tempted to take a swing - and yet the violence he advocates against Muslims on a daily basis is somehow ok?! (expletive deleted) Joe Lieberman…
…Is it too late to tar and feather Leiberman and ride him ou on a rail? …
…Lieberman and McCain are joined by a common commitment to put the security interests of Israel above those of the United States…
…All Lieberman cares about is Israel…
…Lieberman is a Likud Jew. They are the hated ones from Germany…
Insults and anti-Semitism; a few threats of violence…just another day in the life of Daily Kos.
Tags: GOP Nomination, Joe Lieberman, John McCain
December 18th, 2007
Older Posts
