Lieberman At It Again
After failing to win the democratic nomination for CT Senate in 2006, Lieberman is at it again. He has just endorsed Republican John McCain in the 2008 race for US President.
(Picture by Brian Snyder of Reuters)
I know there was a certain, shall we say, warmth in the relationship. Was this some sort of quid pro quo?
With Lieberman may be rivaled by Elliot Spitzer as the most visible Jewish politician, I wonder if their are implications for either the Jewish vote or McCain’s donor base.
Why be cynical about the endorsement? Why not just take it as Lieberman’s honest opinion of who would make the best next president. As to implications as to donor base and/or the Jewish vote, you could ask that same question whoever Lieberman endorsed. And if you were going to rank Senator’s on the basis of honesty and least influenced by monied outsiders, Lieberman would have to rank at or near the best. Let’s not derogate him because he’s one of our own.
I could not disagree more with Incorrect’s posting above. In terms of honesty, Lieberman said in a debate with his most recent opponent that we need to elect a Democratic President. He lied about his loyalty to the Dems to get elected and never met a big financial firm he didn’t love. You want an honest Senator? You might have to go to Canada to find one but at least Ted Stevens admits he’s a shill for big business.
And when it comes to the Jewish vote, I think previous analysis have shown that only a tiny portion of the Jewish vote sways away from core democratic issues — there is little doubt to me that Leiberman, a fringe Democrat, is going to steal votes towards a fringe Republican in any substantial way. Perhaps if stronger, most interesting Democratic candidates didn’t exist in the arena.
Then again, maybe underestimate the phenomenal swing voter power of this Jewish voter group.
I could be right, I could be wrong. Interesting responses to the news story of the endorsement on Huffington.
to be honest, the quid pro quo quip was mostly a response to the suggestive photo which was probably an angle mistake.
incorrect writes:
Why be cynical about the endorsement? Why not just take it as Lieberman’s honest opinion of who would make the best next president.
For once I agree with incorrect! Why wouldn’t a warmonger neocon endorse another warmonger neocon?
“You want an honest Senator? You might have to go to Canada to find one”
Ours are appointed, not elected. That doesn’t necessarily make them less honest. But, it probably makes them less accountable to the citizenry.
Bz,
Lieberman supported the war (and now McCain) because he thought (mistakenly IMNSHO) it was the right thing to do and in America’s interests.
Hilary, Kerry et al supported the war because a) they were afraid of being called ‘unpatriotic’ and b) If the war had turned out to be the promised cakewalk, and 2004 saw the installation of a stable, pro-American democratically elected regime in Iraq, they wanted to be able to say they had been on board from the start.
Of course, once the situation got sticky, they pretended to be opposed.
Is Lieberman that much worse? if at all
Yes. Though I have opposed the war from the beginning, I prefer those who enabled it out of political expediency to those who supported it out of deep conviction, precisely because, as you point out, when the situation changes, the former will change their positions while the latter will stick to their guns.
I’ve been reading some talk online about the possibility of a McCain-Leiberman “third party” run in this election. If that’s where they’re going, I think that can only be good for the Democrats.
I’ve been reading some talk online about the possibility of a McCain-Leiberman “third party†run in this election. If that’s where they’re going, I think that can only be good for the Democrats.
Sounds like my grandparents’ dream team.
Lieberman played a very different role from the political expediency crowd. You might say Edwards, Hillary, etc got on board a train so it wouldn’t run them over. Lieberman helped build the tracks. He gave Bush the bipartisan cover while this war was being debated and wrote countless pieces defending it and used all his tools to sell it. Probably the most high profile maneuver was his WSJ editorial. So, yeah, he is a lot more culpable.
Am I the only one seeing McCain appear to be shaking Lieberman’s crotch? I foresee trouble ahead for these two lovebirds.
yeah, man. that where the whole “quid pro quo” joke came from. this turned out more seriously than i intended.
Lieberman’s politics have always tended to the sort of classic conservativism (i.e. they are about as right wing as one can get and not classify as a sociopath) that John McCain endorses– they’re both pro big business, prefer an aggressive foreign policy and believe in kow-towing to the religious right. The only thing seemingly liberal in their beliefs is that they are both somewhat friendly to the environment. So this should be as no surprise.
To be fair to John Kerry, though, he explained very clearly why he voted for authorization of military force in Iraq: he felt that the threat of military force was the only thing that would get Iraq to agree to a renewal of arms inspections. Bush went well beyond what the Senate authorized when he invaded and thus forced an end to arms inspections. Agree or disagree, the problem is that it doesn’t fit into a sound bite.