Lieberman's True Colors Come Out

[ECW]

(CNN) -- Sen. Joe Lieberman is crossing party lines and endorsing Republican Sen. John McCain for president.

"Being a Republican is important. Being a Democrat is important. But you know what's more important than that? The interest and well-being of the United States of America," the Democrat-turned Independent said in announcing his decision Monday morning in New Hampshire.

"Let's put the United States first again, and John McCain is the man as president who will help us do that," he said.

Lieberman, the Democrats' vice presidential nominee in 2000, said the next president needs to "break through the reflexive partisanship that is poisoning our politics today and stopping us from getting anything done in Washington." Watch Lieberman explain his move »

In accepting Lieberman's backing, McCain said, "It is one of the great honors of my political career to have known him, to have worked with him and to have received his endorsement."

The Connecticut senator decided to endorse McCain because he considers him "the most capable to be commander in chief on day one of his administration, and the most capable of uniting the country so that we can prevail against Islamic extremism," a Lieberman aide said earlier.

The Lieberman aide insists the senator does not see this as a "commentary on or an endorsement of the Republican party, only the person."

more...

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/12/17/mccain.endorsements/index.html?eref=rss_topstories

Well, I'm not surprised. If Lieberman really wants to do anything about the "reflexive partisanship" he should go talk to the moron living at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. Endorsing McCain only endorses a Stay The Course strategy that further mires us in the quagmire.

[qwerty]

Google, Lieberman+aipac

[Osborn F. Enready]

I couldn't support Liberman or AIPAC, and in fact, view both as part of the problem.

[PatrickHenry]

Lieberman and McCain. Supporters of US Global Imperialism.

True colors is right.

Do we want a republic or an empire? We can't have both.

[ECW]

What we want and what we are going to get are all too often two very different things. Joe is just endorsing one of his own.

[Shintao]

Well, I'm not surprised. If Lieberman really wants to do anything about the "reflexive partisanship" he should go talk to the moron living at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. Endorsing McCain only endorses a Stay The Course strategy that further mires us in the quagmire.

Of course! Good ol Jew loving Joe, means nothing is being done in Israel of late.

[lily]

I don't see why this is so surprising. Being an Independent he can swing either way. It doesn't matter that he couldn't win as a Democrat and then decided to run as Independent and I also don't see what the big shock is with his endorcement. Both he and McCain are on the same page with regards of not leaving Iraq and wanting to bomb Iran.

Only makes sense.........and I'd even bet he has visions of being asked to be veep. with this endorsement.

[Drocket]

Being an Independent he can swing either way.

Except he really *doesn't* swing either way. If you look at his votes for the past decade or so, you'd be hard-pressed to find an actual Republican with more Republican straight-party votes. He just enjoys calling himself a Democrat so he can get attention for this sort of stuff (after all, a Republican endorsing McCain - Zzz. A "Democrat" endorsing McCain, though, guarantees him massive media coverage for weeks or even months.)

[lily]

........but he's no longer a Democrat.....oh I see......it doesn't matter to the talking heads.;).......well McCain can use all the help he can get I guess.

[Fishingriver]

Lieberman didn't "cross" the party line. He was thrown out of the party in the last primary. McCain is desperate and Liberman wants another shot at VP (as mentioned by Lily) and neither one is going near the white house.

[ViolaLee]

I was going to call him and tell him he might as well just change his party affiliation to Republican, but then we don't really want him to do that. If he did, we wouldn't have the majority anymore. It's that close.

[Drocket]

I was going to call him and tell him he might as well just change his party affiliation to Republican, but then we don't really want him to do that. If he did, we wouldn't have the majority anymore. It's that close.


Actually, it doesn't really matter at this point. The leadership of the Senate is fixed for the rest of this session of Congress - the Democrats are in charge until January 2009 no matter what. As for his vote, he votes with the Republicans 99.5% of the time anyway, so that won't change anything either.

[NortheastCynic]

Pardon me for dispelling this common myth.
http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/110/senate/party-voters/

Senator Lieberman votes WITH the Democratic Party 87.3% of the time.

Eighty-Seven Point Three Per Cent.

To compare, Sen. Sam Brownback votes with Republicans 87.7% of the time.

That's a .4% difference.

Joseph Lieberman is a moderate Democrat.

Gasp.

-NC

[Drocket]

Senator Lieberman votes WITH the Democratic Party 87.3% of the time.

Except, you see, that measurement is of ALL votes - including the really stupid, obvious ones, such as the recent "Christmas is great!" vote. Lieberman voted with the Democratic majority there - Christmas IS great! Woohoo, and all that. And there's TONS of those sorts of votes. Renaming roads after George Washington, honoring little old ladies on their 100th birthday, declaring that puppies are fuzzy - all kinds of worthless votes that everybody votes yes on.

When you look at Lieberman's votes on issues that actually matter, though, ones where there's an actual difference of opinion between Republicans and Democrats, you can be pretty assured he'll be voting with the Republicans. When he's in town, at least. He has an amazing ability to be "busy" whenever there's an important vote (one rivaled only be Clinton.)

[NortheastCynic]

Ah, so Lieberman votes with the GOP "99.5% of the time" on "issues that matter".

A little subjective, don't you think, Drocket.

It is a fact that Lieberman sides with Democrats far more often than Democrats. If you would like to insinuate that he does so only on issues that "don't matter", fine...Prove it.

-NC

[Drocket]

A little subjective, don't you think, Drocket.

Somewhat, I guess. It's somewhat of a difficult thing to 'prove', since, as I said, Lieberman has a terrible voting record when it comes to important votes. He managed to miss today's FISA vote, despite being in town for 3 other votes (Clinton and Obama at least had the decency to be 'out of town' and miss all of them, giving them a fig leaf of plausibility that they weren't deliberately dodging the issue.)

Anyway, votes he's made that I'd consider important that he's sided with the Republicans on: pretty much all the Iraq votes, previous FISA bills, No Child Left Behind, and Bush's Supreme Court nominees. He also worked hard to help push Bush's Social Security reforms, though he did eventually vote against it after it became clear it was going down in defeat.

[ECW]

Lieberman is a conservative Democrat who is aligned with Bush on this war. Of all the candidates, McCain is the biggest backer of this war so it's only natural that Joe cast his lot with the person most likely to continue the war the way it is going now. I cannot speak for all the other issues but on this one, Joe and John are bosom buddies, thus, the endorsement.

[Trish]

I don't believe McCain will get the party nomination regardless of his endorsement from Liebermann. McCain's time has passed in my opinion. As far as Liebermann is concerned, I wish he were running for President. He's the only Democrat I could support in this election with a clear conscience. And no - it's not because of his stance on the Iraq war. Rather it's because he votes his conscience. He doesn't toe the party line simply because it's the party line. He has the integrity to stand by his beliefs regardless of the PC pressure to do otherwise. That's admirable in my book and it's why I'd vote for him if he were running. As things stand now, I'm almost in the same boat politically as I was during the last election - no one from my party I can support, and a limited choice on the other side of the fence - not a particularly comfortable position to find one's self!

[ECW]

I was going to call him and tell him he might as well just change his party affiliation to Republican, but then we don't really want him to do that. If he did, we wouldn't have the majority anymore. It's that close.


Actually, it doesn't really matter at this point. The leadership of the Senate is fixed for the rest of this session of Congress - the Democrats are in charge until January 2009 no matter what. As for his vote, he votes with the Republicans 99.5% of the time anyway, so that won't change anything either.


Actually, this is not true. When Jim Jeffords bailed out of the GOP and decided to caucus with the Democrats, they took over the Senate from May 2001 to January 2003. So, Joe's membership with the Democrats IS subject to change and can affect the Senate in a very real way.

[Fishingriver]

I agree with Drocket. The votes that matter are the
FISA vote, banning torture, accountability in Iraq, and
stopping another unneccessary war with Iran. On all of these
issues Lieberman has voted with the Republicans.
As far as I am concerned, when Lieberman ran as an independent
he became independent. It is what he was elected as and those
votes are what count. There are no (D) Democrats endorsing
republican presidential candidates in this election. Obviously, Lieberman is
an (I) Independent Republican supporter.

[NortheastCynic]

Alright.

John McCain favors "Campaign Finance Reform", is pro-public schooling and is permissive of illegal immigration. These are the only issues that matter; therefore, John McCain is a Democratic-leading independent.

This makes just as much sense as the 'reasoning' behind calling Lieberman a Republican.

-NC