John McCain To Be Endorsed By Joseph Lieberman

[Pabster]

Story here.

So it looks certain that Joseph Lieberman (I) will endorse John McCain (R) tomorrow. This is the first cross-party endorsement I'm aware of (Lieberman was a lifelong Democrat, and continues to caucus with the Dems). Combined with the slew of recent newspaper endorsements (NH, Boston Globe, DSM, et al) is John McCain coming back from the dead?

 

[nageov3t]

an endorsement by Lieberman seems like getting kissed by Judas

 

[LegendKiller]

Originally posted by: loki8481
an endorsement by Lieberman seems like getting kissed by Judas

New England Blue blood who talks like a snob endorses torturing traitor? Perfect match made in hell if you ask me.

 

[jackschmittusa]

Lieberman just killed his political career. The people who voted for him will now assume that he lied to them about making an honest evaluation of who he would back. It is not that he picked a Republican (which he said he might), but that he is doing it so early, in a field so crowded. Many will see it as premeditated.

McCain is already toast anyway. The Republicans don't like him because he broke from the party line on torture, in direct opposition to GWB. The Democrats consider him just another sell out politician because he caved in on the issue. Sold his credibility to keep from being marginalized by his party.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: jackschmittusa
Lieberman just killed his political career. The people who voted for him will now assume that he lied to them about making an honest evaluation of who he would back. It is not that he picked a Republican (which he said he might), but that he is doing it so early, in a field so crowded. Many will see it as premeditated.

McCain is already toast anyway. The Republicans don't like him because he broke from the party line on torture, in direct opposition to GWB. The Democrats consider him just another sell out politician because he caved in on the issue. Sold his credibility to keep from being marginalized by his party.

:roll: Republicans don't like him due to many reasons but for you to attempt to single out "torture" as the reason is intellectually dishonest.

 

[jackschmittusa]

CADsortaGUY

Don't see it as dishonest at all. It was the most dramatic confrontation between McCain and Bush, as well as Cheney. It became international news. This crystallized the opposition to him in the party. Since his initial stand was so firm, it appeared that they had to really threaten him to make him back down. Even though he was allowed to come back to the fold, this was the issue that made him forever untrustworthy by the diehards. No other issue so clearly demonstrates how he came to be in such a precarious position in the party.

 

[StageLeft]

McCain was old news months ago, he has no meaning in these elections.

 

[Lemon law]

I have to agree with jackschmittusa on this thread. And I have to have some sympathy with the box McCain was placed in. If McCain was to retain any Presidential ambitions, he had to stay in the good graces of the Republicans. GWb&co ended up playing him like a fiddle, they gave him his moral victory or the torture bill, but quietly gutted into nothing in committee.

I fail to understand why so much blame attaches to McCain when the moral depravity is really in the rest of the GOP.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: jackschmittusa
Lieberman just killed his political career. The people who voted for him will now assume that he lied to them about making an honest evaluation of who he would back. It is not that he picked a Republican (which he said he might), but that he is doing it so early, in a field so crowded. Many will see it as premeditated.

so early? the iowa caucus (which mccain won't win because he doesn't support farm subsidies) is less than 3 weeks away, as is the wyoming caucus. the NH primary is just 22 days away. michigan is less than a month away. nevada and SC are just over a month away. when should lieberman endorse someone? when it's too late? (though it may already be too late)

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: jackschmittusa
CADsortaGUY

Don't see it as dishonest at all. It was the most dramatic confrontation between McCain and Bush, as well as Cheney. It became international news. This crystallized the opposition to him in the party. Since his initial stand was so firm, it appeared that they had to really threaten him to make him back down. Even though he was allowed to come back to the fold, this was the issue that made him forever untrustworthy by the diehards. No other issue so clearly demonstrates how he came to be in such a precarious position in the party.

Uhh, no. He had already "lost" alot of Republican support so there was no sudden magic "crystallized" opposition because of "torture". There was little support for McCain before this issue came up so it very much is intellectually dishonest to say that's why Republicans don't like him. It may be a small factor - AFTER the fact - but not a major factor for his lack of GOP support.

 

[Nitemare]

Yeah Lieberman is one of the few democrats that are actually worth a damn, but yeah he is a pariah when compared to the liberal democrats

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: Pabster

Topic Title: Sell Out Turkey To Be Endorsed By DINO Turd.

Fixed it for ya. You're welcome.

 

[Thump553]

As a citizen of the state Lieberman allegedly represents this does not surprise me at all. The correct interpretation of this endorsement is that McCain (in Lieberman's expert view) is the most likely candidate to continue to pursue the Iraqi War.

As for killing Lieberman's career, it is already over. I would be astonished if he runs again in five years. He's in mid-seventies and is going nowhere further in politics-remember his pathetic run for Presidency in '04? When his senate seat was contested last year there was a huge upturn in registrations for the Democratic Party amoung former independent voters, such as myself. Lieberman eventually won the election by soft pedalling his Iraq position (I'm now listening to the people-forgotten they day after the election) and with boatloads of GOP money and support.

Ironically I like McCain and would strongly consider him but for his blind allegiance to our failed war in Iraq.

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: loki8481
an endorsement by Lieberman seems like getting kissed by Judas

New England Blue blood who talks like a snob endorses torturing traitor? Perfect match made in hell if you ask me.

McCain as a "torturing traitor"?

Odd, McCain is the most vocal anti-torture person around. As a POW he was tortured. Calling a former POW a traitor also seem misplaced.

Also, I thought "blue blood" referred to those WASPs who claimed lineage to the Mayflower or some Euro royalty etc. As he's Jewish doesn't seem to fit.

Fern

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: jackschmittusa
CADsortaGUY

Don't see it as dishonest at all. It was the most dramatic confrontation between McCain and Bush, as well as Cheney. It became international news. This crystallized the opposition to him in the party. Since his initial stand was so firm, it appeared that they had to really threaten him to make him back down. Even though he was allowed to come back to the fold, this was the issue that made him forever untrustworthy by the diehards. No other issue so clearly demonstrates how he came to be in such a precarious position in the party.

Uhh, no. He had already "lost" alot of Republican support so there was no sudden magic "crystallized" opposition because of "torture". There was little support for McCain before this issue came up so it very much is intellectually dishonest to say that's why Republicans don't like him. It may be a small factor - AFTER the fact - but not a major factor for his lack of GOP support.

CAD's right.

McCain lost plenty of Repubs with his campaign refinance bill, then a ton of them with his immigration stance - IIRC he was a co-sponor of the hugely unpopular immigration reform bill.

He's never been a front runner in this primary (Rudy was the early front runner). McCain's never won a Repub nomination either.

Can't lose what you don't have in the first place.

In fact, I'd say it more accurate to say he's been trying to get what he never had. lately he's being less of a "maverick" and trying to make up with the evangelicals (remember the "agents of intolerance" remark?). It just ain't working

Seems the shift to less emphasis on problematic foreign issues (terrorism, Iraq & Iran) has been hurting him & Rudy on the repub side and HRC on the Dem side.

Edit: I'm not sure I'd count him, or many others, out at this point. It's still to early. E.g. Edwards has been counted out on the Dem side and that may be a mistake. I think Edwards will take Iowa, particularly if the weather's real bad (snow &/or ice).

Fern

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: Fern

Odd, McCain is the most vocal anti-torture person around. As a POW he was tortured. Calling a former POW a traitor also seem misplaced.

You're right. However, he's still a sell out POS. Even after Karl Rove and the Bushwhackos did the same kind of hatchet job of lies on him as they did it to John Kerry and Max Cleland, he stood on that stage behind your TRAITOR IN CHIEF and endorsed his candidacy for President.

With all due respect for McCain's own suffering as a tortured POW, he's pandered his soul for political gain. One more Republican turd to be flushed.

 

[Stoneburner]

What is boils down to it Johan Mccain is a decent republican who angers the establishment and will never be supported for it DESPITE the fact he's a true conservative.

It's about time regular, middle class, republicans understood, the party has never supported your social and fiscal concerns. They care about protecting their vested interests. Why do you think the socially liberal Romney ... and Hillary are the establishment choices? I mean the republican big business establishment.

And now we have Huckabee, surging ahead with the regular republican based on true conservatism, and he's being hammered by those establishment mouthpieces like the wall street journal and national review.

If you read "What's the matter with Kansas" by somebody whose name i forget and am too lazy to google, you'll understand this phenomenon. The republican base is used by big business with false promises of social conservatism that NEVER are kept. And now there is some blowback and it's fascinating to see the dynamic.

GO huckabee!

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: Stoneburner
What is boils down to it Johan Mccain is a decent republican who angers the establishment and will never be supported for it DESPITE the fact he's a true conservative.

It's about time regular, middle class, republicans understood, the party has never supported your social and fiscal concerns. They care about protecting their vested interests. Why do you think the socially liberal Romney ... and Hillary are the establishment choices? I mean the republican big business establishment.

And now we have Huckabee, surging ahead with the regular republican based on true conservatism, and he's being hammered by those establishment mouthpieces like the wall street journal and national review.

If you read "What's the matter with Kansas" by somebody whose name i forget and am too lazy to google, you'll understand this phenomenon. The republican base is used by big business with false promises of social conservatism that NEVER are kept. And now there is some blowback and it's fascinating to see the dynamic.

GO huckabee!

I don't know man. To say Romney's running as a social liberal is hard to fathom. He may once have been one, but not this "new" Romney.

Didn't he recently say he wanted to outlaw abortion? (Not just overturn Roe v Wade)

Isn't he now against gay marriage etc.

Wasn't he touting himself last week as the "NRA approved" candidate?

So on and so forth.

Huckabee is a true conservative? I don't think that perception will last. He's got the record (apparently) of being soft on crime (a bazillion pardons etc), soft on illegal immigration, raising taxes etc. IMO, he's just big on touting his religious cred.

But since it's primary time I expect all the Repub candidates to run to the right, then afterwards back to the "center". SOS as usual.

Fern

 

[Stoneburner]

Fern, I don't think you understand how odd this election cycle is. There is no republican front runner. When was the last time there was not a preordained winner? So what we have is a civil war. We have the moderate republican in mccain, going nowhere, we have the jeebus republican in huckabee, we have the big business republican in Romney, we have the OLD SCHOOL libertarian in Ron Paul.

Typically the jeebus republicans have been fooled by the business republicans. Why won't it work this time ? http://blogs.abcnews.com/polit...2/romney-attended.html


Nobody's fooled by that flip flopping turd. I think that the people who elected bush and have been staunch republican supporters for decades should be rewarded with their choice of candidate and not be backslapped with Romney and Giuliani. It's almost like Senator Byrd getting the nomination for the dems despite his kkkwestionable past.

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: Stoneburner
Fern, I don't think you understand how odd this election cycle is. There is no republican front runner. When was the last time there was not a preordained winner?

Yeah, it's odd. For one thing it started so early and is stretched out too far. I think as events change, and our perception of the type of leader we need changes, so do the candidates support. I read an Op Ed somewhere about was candidates v peace time candidates and the different traits people look for. The war time candidate loses in peace time and vis-versa.

Used to be a lot of talk here about how the election might be influenced by another terrorist attack. I'm starting to think that may be true. For example, if Huck is the Repub nominee and HRC the Dem, she'll prolly win hands down cuz she's seen as stronger than him in foreign affairs etc. OTOH, if Obama is the Dem and Rudy the Repub, Rudy may win cuz he's seen as strong on defense/terrorism.

BTW: I think the "pre-ordained" winner was that guy who got hammered for the "makaka" remark.

I sensed the party establishment types were gonna push him like they did with GWB (who seemed to come out of no where), but the press killed that. (I can't remember his name, his dad was a former NFL coach). Wait! I think name is George Allen.

Fern

 

[Stoneburner]

You're right about Macaca, which is why Jim Webb deserves a nobel prize. Dear jeebus George Allen was even worse than Bush.

 

[fallout man]

Originally posted by: loki8481
an endorsement by Lieberman seems like getting kissed by Judas

QFT. I would have absolutely voted for McCain in the 2000 elections, had the Bush camp not played character assassin and ruined his chances for the nomination.

Do you remember the back-handed character attacks? It was something about McCain being "a little loopy" due to all of the torture he went through, and I guess he also had a black baby. All this shit thrown at a war veteran bad-ass motherfucker who had more courage in his pinky than GW and his entire draft-dodging staff combined.

My opinion has changed. Ever since McCain "forgot" how he was blatantly trampled, and started giving Bush tender hugs, you couldn't pay me to vote for him.

As far as the Lieberdouche endorsement--every time I see him, or read any headline about him, I silently scream "SHUT THE FUCK UP, JOE." Judas indeed, at least if you ask me.

 

[jjzelinski]

Originally posted by: jackschmittusa
Lieberman just killed his political career. The people who voted for him will now assume that he lied to them about making an honest evaluation of who he would back. It is not that he picked a Republican (which he said he might), but that he is doing it so early, in a field so crowded. Many will see it as premeditated.

McCain is already toast anyway. The Republicans don't like him because he broke from the party line on torture, in direct opposition to GWB. The Democrats consider him just another sell out politician because he caved in on the issue. Sold his credibility to keep from being marginalized by his party.

I'd still vote for McCain. The only thing I'd be worried about with him is Iraq, but I don't see clear enough route for that issue to condemn him for wanting to duke it out. The fact remains that the political vacuum that would ensure following our withdrawal could potentially be catastrophic. I think the solution will ultimately be diplomatic in nature, but considering absolutely no progress has been made by the current administration towards that end I think it will take the majority of the next presidential term to facilitate it. I believe McCain would be capable of said diplomacy.

As far as him selling out to avoid being marginalized by the GOP, that's a bitter pill for me to swallow but one I'm willing to anyways. Like it or not, it's the nature of politics and some of the decisions he's made were for political survival. After all, a guy like him isn't exactly well suited for the neo-con charade that has been dominating the GOP for the last 7 years.

 

[johnnobts]

friendship and conviction is more important than party loyalty kids... kudos to joe liebrman, the kind of reasonable democrat america needs.

 

[Thump553]

Political columnist from Hartford Courant (leading CT newspaper) by Jim Shea (straight shooter for the most part): Jim Shea-Effect of Lieberman's endorsement of McCain

Shea's column brought out some hard facts about Lieberman and NH that slipped my mind when I previously posted here. Despite renting a NH apartment and essentially moving there for months for the 2004 primary, Lieberman came in fifth with 9% of the vote.