Lieberman to speak at GOP convention.

[lupi]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
I agree with the basic contention, Lieberman is a DINO, more a servant of Israel than either a democrat or a Republican. His present value to the democrats is being the swing vote in the Senate, meaning the Senate majority leader is a democrat and not a republican. But in reality, does it really matter when either party can prevent any action in the Senate.? But bottom line, Lieberman is political toast after 11/4/08 on both a short term and long term basis. Long term, he will be both too old and unwelcome if he tries to run again after his term expires in 2012, and short term, he will likely have greatly reduced value to a democratic majority in the Senate post 2009. Assuming the dems win a greater than a 50 seat margin in the Senate, but short of a full 60 seats, Lieberman will have greatly reduced democratic future clout. Look for Lieberman to pay the price next year, loss of any plum committee positions next year.

But as a democrat, I am so looking forward to the Republican convention. Led off by a speech from Mr Terror himself, Rudy Guiliani. Followed by such luminaries such a Romney and then Cheney, the entire convention will be ready to start another few quagmires as the chant of eight more years, 8 more years of John McSame. And Lieberman will ice the cake, saying ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for Israel and perpetual conflict in the Mideast?

Lieberman may think he is a legend in his own mind, but he has still committed political suicide. And will find no welcome anywhere post 11/4/08.

I guess that puts BHO as a servant to the blacks. At least we have poll results to go with that unlike your crap.

 

[Sacrilege]

The Republican fixation on Lieberman is astounding. He really is the token Jew of the GOP.

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: jpeyton
... the theme of the convention will be "prosperity" and "peace"

:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

 

[nageov3t]

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: jpeyton
... the theme of the convention will be "prosperity" and "peace"

:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

does it count if they talk about how neither will happen under the GOP leadership?

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: loki8481

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: jpeyton
... the theme of the convention will be "prosperity" and "peace"

:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

does it count if they talk about how neither will happen under the GOP leadership?

Honesty in the GOP? :shocked:

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Fern

But IMO the Dems crapped on him 1st.

I simply do not understand how the Democrats crapped on him first.

Oh I don't know... maybe supporting his opponent(or being neutral) in the primary he lost?

Sheesh, do you people really not remember what happened in his race?

So being neutral between two separate members of your party is crapping on someone? There were a few Democrats that endorsed Lamont, but there were far more who endorsed Lieberman and the leadership stayed neutral. It's interesting that in your bizarro world the leadership not showing favoritism is a betrayal.

Oh wait, you're CAD. It all makes sense now.

Are you kidding?

Party leadership not showing favoratism to an incumbant?

Things must be waaaaay different over on your coast, because *h3ll yes* they show favoratism over here.

Fern

 

[nageov3t]

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Fern

But IMO the Dems crapped on him 1st.

I simply do not understand how the Democrats crapped on him first.

Oh I don't know... maybe supporting his opponent(or being neutral) in the primary he lost?

Sheesh, do you people really not remember what happened in his race?

So being neutral between two separate members of your party is crapping on someone? There were a few Democrats that endorsed Lamont, but there were far more who endorsed Lieberman and the leadership stayed neutral. It's interesting that in your bizarro world the leadership not showing favoritism is a betrayal.

Oh wait, you're CAD. It all makes sense now.

Are you kidding?

Party leadership not showing favoratism to an incumbant?

Things must be waaaaay different over on your coast, because *h3ll yes* they show favoratism over here.

Fern

as far as I know, every single party leader endorsed Senator Lautenberg in the senate primary this year against a challenger in the democratic primary, despite the fact that he's so old he makes John McCain look like a boy band member.

so yes... it was a weird situation when they stayed silent in the CT primary.

 

[Thump553]

I don't know where the concept of the party elite being neutral on Lieberman BEFORE the primary comes from-it simply is not correct. Lieberman paraded literally dozens of big-wig endorsements from other Washington elites-from both parties-before the primary. Lots of Dem nationals campaigned for him then. He lost the primary, fair and square.

After the primary, it is true very few Democratic politicians came to his support-but after all, he was not the party backed nominee. You are asking these people to chose between personal loyalty to Joe Lieberman and loyalty to their political party, and Lieberman to this day is personally wounded by their party loyalty.

Some wag (I think it was Truman) once said if you want a friend in Washington, get a dog.