Joe Lieberman to endorse John McCain

[True Democrat]

I see no problem here.  The man can endorse whoever he wants.

It's not just the endorsement itself, but the way in which he continues to maintain a pretense of still being a Democrat.  I hate the term "DINO" when it's misused, but in Lieberman's case, he certainly seems to be going down the route of Zell Miller.

I consider it ridiculous that people support those in the same party simply because they are in the same party.  Lieberman's endorsement is a bold move to say the least, but it's one I respect more than supporting a candidate simply because of party affiliation.

[HardRCafé]

Wheres the party loyalty that nominated you for VP just 7 years ago?

The same place it was when Connecticut Democrats spurned him for a single-issue no-name.

Congressional Democrats no longer care about anti-Semitism or national security, so what on Earth does Joe Lieberman owe them any more?  Lip service?  Fat chance.

[TheresNoMoney]

Congressional Democrats no longer care about anti-Semitism or national security, so what on Earth does Joe Lieberman owe them any more? 

I forgot, you have to support the indefinite occupation of Iraq to care about "national security". And yes, the party that over 75% of Jews vote for is the "Anti-Semite" party. Thanks for clearing that up, jackass.

[Harry]

Words cannot express how disappointed I am to hear this.

[Erc]

I would say that this would doom his chances for re-election...but I don't think we can even be sure of that.

Not too surprising he didn't endorse any of the Democrats, as his major issue is the war (though why not Dodd, who won't win anyway, who knows).


Lieberman is...an oddity.  Pro-war, socially conservative, but still economically liberal [as far as I know]

[Reluctant Republican]

To be fair, he is no longer a Democrat so he really does not owe them anything. However, he did promise the people who reelected him that he wanted a Democrat in the white house, so this is a bit of a sleazy move, admittedly. Maybe the Democrats will take away his seniority  and push him over to the GOP, though I doubt they have the guts for that.

[Gabu]

Words cannot express how disappointed I am to hear this.

I'm not disappointed; that would imply I expected otherwise.

[lonestar]

Lieberman is supporting who he sees as the best person for the job.  McCain is right about the biggest issue facing our country at this time and Lieberman recognizes that.  I don't always agree with him, but he is one of the few running that I at least respect.

Our country would be a lot better off there were more McCains and Liebermans in Washington and a lot less Pelosis and Reids.

[Gabu]

Our country would be a lot better off there were more McCains and Liebermans in Washington and a lot less Pelosis and Reids.

Was the country fantastic before 2007?  Because that's basically what complete Republican control looks like.

[JSojourner]

I'm not so sure.  Lieberman was a strong advocate for the surge, and now we're winning the war. 

We won the war more than two years ago when we overthrew Saddam Hussein. What we have now is an occupation.

Which is failing miserably.

But never mind that.  We're winning in Afghanistan, where the real terrorists were to begin with.

<blink>

Oh.  Wait.

Never mind....

[Aizen]

I'm sure that the Democrats would push Lieberman over to the GOP if they didn't have a razor-thin majority in the senate. Mayhap after 2008?

[JSojourner]

I see no problem here.  The man can endorse whoever he wants.

It's not just the endorsement itself, but the way in which he continues to maintain a pretense of still being a Democrat.  I hate the term "DINO" when it's misused, but in Lieberman's case, he certainly seems to be going down the route of Zell Miller.  I honestly would not be surprised to see Lieberman speaking at the 2008 Republican convention.

The problem is, Lieberman is still extremely liberal on social and environmental issues.  Unless he "gets religion" on those -- or the GOP moderates immensely -- he's not going anywhere.

Frankly, I don't have a problem with Lieberman supporting McCain or the war in general.  My problem is with him suggesting that it's treason to criticize President Bush or that it's anti-American to say the Iraq War is a fiasco.

I was against the war from the get-go, but I respect those who felt Saddam was a threat.  However, many (most ?) of them, while they still support the IDEA of toppling Saddam, now can at least see and say how badly the war has been bungled.  

McCain started in that direction...but so far, from what I have read and heard...he's be vewwwy, vewwwy quiet when it comes to calling the President on the carpet.

[Gabu]

The problem is, Lieberman is still extremely liberal on social and environmental issues.

Yes, but the second problem is that Lieberman doesn't seem to particularly care anything except for the war.

[lonestar]

Our country would be a lot better off there were more McCains and Liebermans in Washington and a lot less Pelosis and Reids.

Was the country fantastic before 2007?  Because that's basically what complete Republican control looks like.

Was the country fantastic?  Certainly not.  Congress has spent way too much and would continue to be doing so if President Bush hadn't found the pen to veto pork that he seemed to have misplaced for the previous six years.  

But, my comment was that McCain and Lieberman are two men that understand what it means to be an elected official and put the best interest of the country above trying to score political points for their respective parties so that their party can win elections.  There are some from both sides of the aisle that go to Washington to lead and there are those from both sides of the aisle that go to play petty politics and demonize people to try and score a political point.  Pelosi and Reid have left no doubt where they fall.

[jimrtex]

Will he be banned from the Democrat convention?

Will he be kicked out of the Democrat caucus in the Senate?

[© Tweed the Younger]

Will he be banned from the Democrat convention?

Will he be kicked out of the Democrat caucus in the Senate?

yes | after 01/03/09

[politicaltipster]

I could see Lieberman as a VP candidate (again). He might be very socially liberal but surprisingly he's quite well respected by the RR because of his anti-pornography work, by Northern Republicans and by the base because of his stance on Iraq. Putting him on the ticket is no more implausible than putting HW on the ticket in 1980. A McCain-Lieberman ticket might be only ticket that could win 54%+ of the vote for the GOP and end the trend of '4th and Inches' elections.

http://thepoliticaltipster.wordpress.com/2007/12/17/is-this-the-moment-that-lieberman-changed-politics/

[The Mikado]

Will he be banned from the Democratic convention?

Will he be kicked out of the Democratic caucus in the Senate?

Fixed your post.

[JSojourner]

I could see Lieberman as a VP candidate (again). He might be very socially liberal but surprisingly he's quite well respected by the RR because of his anti-pornography work, by Northern Republicans and by the base because of his stance on Iraq. Putting him on the ticket is no more implausible than putting HW on the ticket in 1980. A McCain-Lieberman ticket might be only ticket that could win 54%+ of the vote for the GOP and end the trend of '4th and Inches' elections.

http://thepoliticaltipster.wordpress.com/2007/12/17/is-this-the-moment-that-lieberman-changed-politics/

I would respectfully disagree about the Religious Right's view of Lieberman.  They may like his support for warning labels on music, tighter restrictions on internet porn and his "Israel is always right" perspective on international policy.
(The John Hagee crowd especially loves him.)

But unless the RR is planning to shift emphasis, they'll never fully put their arms around a guy who they believe enthusiastically supports the "murder" of unborn children.

[Mr. Morden]

I could see Lieberman as a VP candidate (again). He might be very socially liberal but surprisingly he's quite well respected by the RR because of his anti-pornography work, by Northern Republicans and by the base because of his stance on Iraq. Putting him on the ticket is no more implausible than putting HW on the ticket in 1980. A McCain-Lieberman ticket might be only ticket that could win 54%+ of the vote for the GOP and end the trend of '4th and Inches' elections.

http://thepoliticaltipster.wordpress.com/2007/12/17/is-this-the-moment-that-lieberman-changed-politics/

I would respectfully disagree about the Religious Right's view of Lieberman.  They may like his support for warning labels on music, tighter restrictions on internet porn and his "Israel is always right" perspective on international policy.
(The John Hagee crowd especially loves him.)

But unless the RR is planning to shift emphasis, they'll never fully put their arms around a guy who they believe enthusiastically supports the "murder" of unborn children.

I basically agree.  Even though Lieberman agrees with most Republicans on national security issues, he disagrees with them on so many other issues that it's crazy to think that McCain, who already has enough problems with his own party, would pick Lieberman as his VP.  The only way that would happen is if they were to run on some kind of hawkish-on-foreign-policy/moderate-on-domestic-policy 3rd party ticket.

[Democratic Hawk]

McCain is a very logical choice for Lieberman to endorse

Frankly, I can't say I blame him. The persecution hawkish Democrats have to endure, nowadays, is sickening. There is no doubt I'd be much more a hawk than Joe Lieberman is in the Senate and less socially liberal. But I'd be a Democrat on what matters most: bread and butter issues

Would I endorse McCain? Unlikely, a Republican is still a Republican. He's aided and abetted Bush's incompetence, not down the line however like most GOP sheep . Bush should have faced a serious primary challenge in 2004. McCain should have won the nomination in 2000. It's now 2008, however, and there are days McCain looks like he's one foot in the Senate and another in the grave

A McCain-Lieberman ticket has appeal. Indeed, it's not plausible given what's on offer that McCain would be my favoured Republican. Didn't McCain oppose Bush's tax cuts? That's one thing to his credit. Many Republicans take the 'Queen of Mean' attitude that only the little people should pay taxes

Were it to win and McCain, God forbid, pass away, I could happily see Lieberman as President. He's not economically putrid and very much a Democrat on this score, which is the main thing assuming a President Lieberman wouldn't sell-out there. That said, he never sold out his hawkish convictions when challenged and defeated by Ned Lamont in the 2006 Connecticut Democratic prmary. He's a man of integrity

I don't see your more economically psychotic Republicans reacting too favorably to Lieberman on a GOP McCain ticket. I highly doubt McCain will win the GOP nomination in any case, but there's nowt stopping them running a third party ticket. America could do a lot worse, a lot worse

Dave

[politicaltipster]

You forget that the GOP just need to keep their base on board rather than to have them bouncing of the walls. Most of the RR is in the South which will be pretty solid and so can be mollified by a pro-life candidate at the top of the ticket. The real deal will be keeping the 'Bush Democrats' on board and adding some more centrist Democrats and Independants to the coalition - which is where Lieberman comes in useful. If there is one thing the GOP cannot do it is simply rely on the base - they'll get slaughtered.

Essentially, it's ok for a McCain-Lieberman ticket to trade 500,000 votes in the Deep South for 500,000 in Penslyvania, Michigan and Ohio - but it's not ok for them to trade 1 million votes in Virginia and the Midwest for 500,000 in New York (which would be the consequences of a Giuliani or Romney ticket).

You should also remember that one of McCain's main arguments is going to be that he can actually accomplish some moderate domestic reforms, as opposed to the Dems who have wasted the last eighteen months by focusing completely on Iraq. In essence he's going to say to indys that 'McCain with Kevin Hasset will be better than Hillary with Harry Reid' - a modern equivalent of the 'I'd rather have Ted Kennedy with a pea shooter than Carter with nukes' EFK used to try to sway Conservative Democrats in 1980.

[gorkay]

I'm not sure I agree with those who say this was a logical development. Other than the fact that both tend to be mavericks, they don't seem to me to have that much in common. Seems to me as if they have significant differences on a lot of issues, even the war. McCain's argument is that, since we created the mess over there, we have to stick around and fix it (which makes some sense, but I disagree with the methods he advocates); Lieberman seems to me to have swallowed the administration line completely and stuck to it.

[Χahar]

Why doesn't Lieberman just pull a Jeffords and give Senate control to the Republicans?

[Sibboleth]

Why doesn't Lieberman just pull a Jeffords and give Senate control to the Republicans?

Because the alternative is much more fun.