Joe Lieberman to endorse John McCain

[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....

[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.

[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.

[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.

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.

Both McCain and Lieberman are against drilling in ANWR.  So they have some environmental common ground.  But I think it's highly unlikely Lieberman would be warmly received into the GOP fold without some sort of "give" on social issues like abortion, gay rights and general civil rights.  People compare Lieberman to Zell Miller, and in terms of hawkishness and seeking media attention, it's apt.  But beyond that, no dice.

Of course, all that could change.  The GOP could start listening to people like Chistine Whitman, and move away from Theo-Neo to Paleoconservatism.  Or even...   <gasp> ...moderation.

[JSojourner]

If McCain were to get the nomination, I believe his running mate will be former PA Gov. Tom Ridge.

That would be a smart move.  Ridge is socially moderate, has executive experience and was relatively popular in Pennsylvania (I believe -- Correct me if I am wrong.)

That Ridge is another war hero, like McCain, might strike some as overkill.  But in the long run, it's an asset.

Oh, one other possible benefit.  Ridge is seen by some as yet another moderate cast out of the current administration.  (I know, I know -- he wanted to spend more time with his family...)  But Christine Whitman, Andy Card and Colin Powell all vacated.  Ridge, another social liberal, did also.
Coincidence?  Maybe. 

But coincidence or not, Independent voters and moderate Republicans who might be inclined to vote Democrat in 2008 could see the inclusion of a moderate castoff from The Decider's administration as a plus.

[JSojourner]

I can't see why Lieberman should feel obliged to support a party that already kicked him out?

What I can't see is why Lieberman still persists in calling himself an "independent Democrat" when he clearly wants nothing to do with his old party.

Why did Zell Miller refuse to join the Republican Party?  The only way he got any media attention was by technically remaining a Democrat.

I liken it to retired Bishop John Spong in my denomination.  Bp. Spong rejects the basic teachings in the Nicene and Apostle's Creeds. But he refuses to leave the Episcopal Church, even though we pledge fealty to these beliefs daily, or weekly. Spong would fit perfectly in the Unitarian-Universalist tradition.  And UU people are fine, wonderful folks!  But why won't he leave our denomination, even though he doesn't believe the historic creeds?

Because the only way he can sell books and get interviewed is by remaining Christian, and rejecting basic Christian doctrine.  If he were Unitarian, he would just be another Unitarian.  If Zell Miller or Joe Lieberman were Republican, who would pay any attention to them?