The Candidates
Since he won the Republican nomination, I have laid off really criticizing John McCain. He’s the nominee, and I accept that. Now I am reading some that are openly pushing for a McCain/Lieberman ticket? After having read lately about how great Hillary is? Am I on a different planet?
To address the latter first, or the topic of Hillary Clinton… I’ve been impressed with the fight that Hillary Clinton has shown for the latter part of this campaign, and the type of candidate that she has decided to run as lately. In fact, if I were to go by her actions of the last few months, then I would probably feel that she wouldn’t be so bad as president. However, unlike some people who give their opinions, I remember the 1990’s. I haven’t forgotten who it was who defined the term “right wing conspiracy.” I remember, very clearly, the eight years of Clintons in the White House. Obama becoming president would be a nightmare, but returning power to the one family that believes it is rightfully theirs make anyone feel that much better?
________________________________________________________________________________
Now on to my second topic…
Lieberman for Vice President???? Is this some kind of twisted neocon idealistic dream? Joe Lieberman??? The same guy who helped bring us the great charade of 2000, when hanging chads became apart of the national debate? The same guy who ran as AL GORE’s running mate? The man who helped bring us the Florida debacle of 2000? Personally, I think Lieberman is a fine man, but not on the ticket for the Republican nomination, especially when teamed up with John McCain.
Does anyone honestly believe that Joe Lieberman would be out there standing by a President McCain’s side to help him fight for justice’s in the mold of Antonin Scalia? Vice President Lieberman supporting conservative ideals?
Look, anyone can debate just how conservative John McCain really is for years and get nowhere. Do I think he’s conservative? The answer is yes, but compared to what? The fact is that some of those who champion McCain like to bring up his lifetime ACU rating of 82%, and compare it to other notable conservatives lifetime ratings. That is fair, and over his entire career in elected office, McCain has been pretty conservative. However, those who bring this up tend to gloss over the fact that since the 1994 Republican takeover, McCain’s rated at around eight to ten points below his lifetime average. In fact, when one compares his record to others who first took office in 1994 over the same timeframe, he falls well short of many of those who they use as examples. He falls short of Chuck Hagel over this time frame.
To bring this discussion back to Joe Lieberman, his LIFETIME ACU RATING IS 16.8%!!!! By comparison, Joe Biden’s lifetime grade is 13.4%, Evan Bayh’s lifetime grade is 20.8%, Mary Landreu’s is 20.6%, and Ben Nelson’s is 55%. Harry Reid’s lifetime grade is 19.8%, 3 points higher than Lieberman. ROBERT BIRD’s is 29%!
Yes, it is very true that while most of these others are against the war, Lieberman is aligned with conservatives, but on just about everything else, he’s a liberal.
The Republican party has to appear united at the convention, giving the impression of unity and strength. If Lieberman was on the ticket, it could lead to disasterous consequences. Yes, it would be spitting in the face of those whose votes McCain must hold onto in order to win in 2008.
UPDATE: According to the 2007 ratings, Joe Lieberman graded at a magnificent 8%! Way to go, Joe. 8%! Make this man the Republican VP!
May 17th, 2008 at 3:44 pm
Well, at least Lieberman would be good on the war on terror.
Otherwise, he certainly is a lib.
May 17th, 2008 at 3:47 pm
Tommy, you know I’ve blasted McCain for being way too much of a moderate on economics and related issues.
Yet I like Lieberman as a running mate. How I reconcile that? Because Lieberman would not be in a position to reshape the GOP.
The war IS the main issue and we MUST NOT pull out of it, or we will never have any deterrent power against our enemies again, having pulled out of several successive wars.
In a political climate that’s very bad for the GOP and against partisanship, with Obama talking about unity… it may be that a bi-partisan ticket is the only way to really win this year. It would really prove that McCain is the uniter that Obama claims to be.
McCain and Lieberman are close buddies, and Joe wouldn’t go around undercutting McCain’s agenda.
The troubling issue is, what if McCain died or became incapacitated and we got Lieberman as President? I’d ask you to weigh the 3% chance of that against the 50% (+?) chance of Obama being President.
May 17th, 2008 at 3:48 pm
If McCain tries to put Lieberman on the ticket, we need to look at how to force a different nominee. Maybe if we could get enough delegates to skip the first round, or just vote for their local Governor/Senator/Most Senior Rep. as the nominee (until the second round, when we could get really get down to business).
If John McCain tries to put a liberal Democrat on the ticket, when his record is already extremely shaky, he deserves to lose. And, if a McCain/Lieberman loses, it could be good for the party - it would send the message that you can’t screw the base like that and win. We could spend the next four years rebuilding, and then run a better nominee like Romney/Sanford/Pawlenty in 2012.
If McCain tries to pick Lieberman, the GOP should dump him in the trash where he belongs - they don’t need a nominee who is so willing to screw the party.
May 17th, 2008 at 3:52 pm
act, you of all people should understand the 2012 argument, since you’ve regurgitated it 100 times.
May 17th, 2008 at 3:53 pm
Metro,
Fair assessment. However, what about on a vote in the senate where he casts a tiebreaker? Are you confident that Leiberman would side conservatively?
May 17th, 2008 at 3:54 pm
“I’d ask you to weigh the 3% chance”
McCain is 72, overweight, a multiple-time cancer survivor, and still suffers from injuries sustained during his time as a POW. I think the chance that he would die in office is significantly higher than 3%.
You say the war is important, and it is, but its interesting to note that McCain is now setting timetables - the very same (falsely made) claim that he used against Romney. In any case, what do you plan on McCain/Lieberman doing two years from now, when the war isn’t a big issue anymore?
AS for undercutting McCain’s agenda - McCain needs someone who will keep him in line - otherwise, we’re facing amnesty, damaging environmental regulations, and much more - many of the same policies that the Democrats would be pushing in the Oval Office.
May 17th, 2008 at 3:59 pm
“act, you of all people should understand the 2012 argument, since you’ve regurgitated it 100 times.”
That Lieberman wouldn’t reshape the party? What stops him from running for Prez. in four years? Heck, McCain’s already dumping half the platform. Lieberman would just be another step in the same direction.
Also, you are talking about four years of Conservatives being completely shut out - you don’t think that will have an adverse effect on their position in the party four years from now?
May 17th, 2008 at 4:04 pm
Tommy, another 3% chance (tiebreaker), plus in that instance I’m sure he’d say he was voting for McCain.
act-blog, I’m not going to get into it with you, but Romney DID set timetables, and McCain did NOT. He said he HOPED he could achieve the goal within 4 years. I hope we can in 3 years, but I’m against timetables.
The GOP would not nominate Lieberman in 2012, period.
May 17th, 2008 at 4:05 pm
first, its not like lieberman will ever run for the repub nomination so having him as a vp would create another open seat election and a better chance at retaining the whitehouse. second, after the left wing betrayed him for lamont i think he is open to change. three, it is an out of the box unity pick. it trumps all the postpartisan talk of obama. mr new politics will pick a typical liberal vp, while the maverick will chose a democrat, putting a truly bipartisan ticket against obama’s faux change. fourth, its a winner, period. it will win florida and pennsylvania and ohio. thats the game, its a winning team. obama will become the left winger against the centrist bipartisan team. he will have zero chance.
May 17th, 2008 at 4:08 pm
“but Romney DID set timetables”
In the sense that they were private, and between the Iraqi government and the U.S. - something that had already been suggested by several others.
Romney’s suggestion was for private goals - McCain’s hope (even if that is all it is), is public, free for everyone to hear.
—
“Tommy, another 3% chance (tiebreaker), plus in that instance I’m sure he’d say he was voting for McCain.”
Not much comfort to Conservatives.
May 17th, 2008 at 4:09 pm
act, don’t you get it? unless mccain wins its obama and nancy pushing through kos-like policies. whoever you would try to nominate over mccain would lose. whatever you dislike about mccain/liberman, obama would be worse. we must win this election above all else, and for you to try and stop mccain from our own side proves that you are not loyal, not dependable, and an appeaser of markos and huffington.
May 17th, 2008 at 4:10 pm
Private or not, timetables are a problem.
McCain’s position is he hopes he can accomplish the goal in 4 years, but 100 is OK if necessary.
Can your brain comprehend that position?
May 17th, 2008 at 4:10 pm
#9: Nicely put.
May 17th, 2008 at 4:12 pm
Tommy,
Agreed. I think alot of this chatter is related to the most conservative online Republicans essentially retreating from the arena. A year ago, DaveG was suggesting Tim Pawlenty as a mavericky running mate; then he moved to Tom Ridge. Then to Condi. Now to Lieberman. He keeps dancing to the left because, at least in the online world, there’s no longer a significant countervailing conservative force. The moderates are taking over the party, but they’re doing so in the silliest way conceivable; they’re mistaking the current environment, for the actual sentiment of conservatives.
I.e, because there aren’t 400 posts denouncing the idea of a McCain/Lieberman ticket, they’re able to convince themselves that conservatives would turn out, regardless, when in fact, plenty of conservatives who will probably end up voting for McCain, provided he doesn’t do something boneheaded, will stay home; this fact is obscured by current public opinion polls, which show that alot of the base has come home, and due to the fact that people like me now pretty much represent the Right segment of the engaged Republicans. It’s an echo chamber of moderates, with a few pragmatic conservatives thrown in (like me), who can’t be bothered to throw a hissy fit over each new uber-moderate/leftist suggestion.
Anyway, Joe Lieberman’s a poor choice even if we assume the base stays with McCain. He hasn’t attracted blue-collar Democrats since something like his first senate race; since then, he’s mainly appealed to wealthy Connecticut blue-blood liberals, and wealthy hawkish but otherwise moderate Republicans and independents. There’s no reason at all to believe that he’s any more likely to bring in blue collar Democrats then a generic Republican VP. And he’ll certainly engender a whole heaping of endless rage from the left, which can’t possibly help us.
May 17th, 2008 at 4:12 pm
also, and mccain/liberman term will not stop a romney or jindal run in 2012. mccain will likely not run again, and joe wont run for our nomination., the best way to keep the white house long term is to keep having open seat elections. so after 4 years of mccain/lieberman, with the war won, bipartisan reform achieved, the republican brand will be healthy and strong, and a more conservative can emerge in 2012 like a romney or a jindal to carry the ball forward. but to try and stop the foremost priority (stopping b. hussein) is simple minded, arrogant, and ridiculous.
May 17th, 2008 at 4:14 pm
“so having him as a vp would create another open seat election”
Oh, great, another chance for moderates to exploit their built-in advantage in the primary system and get another McCain.
—
“and a better chance at retaining the whitehouse.”
Only if you think McCain will be unpopular (I don’t). It could have the reverse effect - preventing a sitting VP from exploiting his populartiy to the fullest in the general election.
—
Also, enough with this “post-partisan” bull$%!# - look at the disasters that bipartisan legislation has produced for the GOP: McCain-Kennedy, McCain-Feingold, that bloated farm bill, etc.
America is a partisan nation. on most major issues, we are split right down the center. When you get these pair-ups, it seems like the only result is an even more widely hated result.
May 17th, 2008 at 4:15 pm
Tommy I share your feelings perfectly. I think most people on here vote on personality or identity politics. Then they justify that choice ideologically.
Lieberman’s closer to Barack Obama than John McCain on domestic issues. Putting Lieberman on the ticket cedes our argument on every domestic issue. Our only issue of agreement between McCain and Lieberman would be the war.
We’re not going to win this election based on the Iraq war.
May 17th, 2008 at 4:19 pm
Matthew, I’m no moderate, apart from the fact that I’m socially liberal, I’m extremely to the right on economics and national security, and have always loathed the Chafee/Pataki/Whitman/Snowe/Voinovich, and, yes, McCain wing of the party.
But for the reasons stated above, I don’t mind McCain/Lieberman.
May 17th, 2008 at 4:20 pm
act, you fail to understand that obama has a huge advantage and that must be curbed. putting a right winger on a vp will not help mccain draw that independent vote he needs to win. mccain/romney mccain/thune mccain/huckabee all will lose. mccain/lieberman will triumph, by a considerable margin. all of those older dems who dont like the more radical, younger code pinkish base will turn to mccain/lieberman. and it will offer conservatives a chance to cleanse themselves after the bush admin. has nearly crippled the brand forever.
May 17th, 2008 at 4:20 pm
“We’re not going to win this election based on the Iraq war.”
It may well be true that we’ll either lose it on the Iraq war, or win it on the Iraq war. And McCain/Lieberman may be the best way to do the latter. Although McCain/Petraeus might be a fascinating option, too.
May 17th, 2008 at 4:21 pm
matt, right it would totally undercut Obama’s entire raison-d’etre. And a bipartisan ticket would be as big a deal as a black candidate, and given that option, the country wants a bipartisan approach very badly.
May 17th, 2008 at 4:25 pm
metro, and the simple undeniable fact is that its a winning ticket. if mccain had accepted kerry’s offer, kerry would have crushed bush and be the president. mccain/lieberman breathes life back into a crumbling republican party and beats back mcgovern jr. barack.
May 17th, 2008 at 4:25 pm
“unless mccain wins its obama and nancy pushing through kos-like policies.”
As opposed to Amnesty, CFR, more moderate judges, can-’n-trade? At least with the Democrats doing it, we could use it against them in 2012, and mobalize mass partisan opposition to prevent it. Both of those are harder or impossible against McCain.
—
“and for you to try and stop mccain from our own side proves that you are not loyal, not dependable,…”
I am loyal to the cause - not the party. If the party screws me, I will be more than happy to return the favor. Am I supposed to follow the party like a blind sheep, into what ever hell-hole it chooses?
There is a point where enough is enough. Completely shutting the base out is that point.
—
“the best way to keep the white house long term is to keep having open seat elections”
Why? You think we would have done better in 1980 with some new face running? Open seat elections are good when the incumbent is unpopular. When the incumbent is popular they only stop us from using that to our full advantage.
—
“bipartisan reform achieved”
Oh yeah, Amnesty for millions of illegal immigrants with no skill, education, or respect for our hertiage or laws. That is deffinately something to look forward to, oh, wait, NO ITS NOT.
—
“the republican brand will be healthy and strong”
Just how is are a moderate and a liberal supposed to repair the brand of the mostly-Conservative party?
May 17th, 2008 at 4:30 pm
“putting a right winger on a vp will not help mccain draw that independent vote he needs to win.”
You think McCain can win without Conservatives? You think he can win by telling the base “screw you”? Conservatives are a group dedicated to their ideology, and one that doesn’t mind not supporting those who don’t earn their support. You think McCain can win if Conservatives stay home this election?
—
“and it will offer conservatives a chance to cleanse themselves after the bush admin. has nearly crippled the brand forever.”
By “clense themselves” you mean be completely shut out of governing, being given no frontrunner for 2012, etc.
May 17th, 2008 at 4:32 pm
“metro, and the simple undeniable fact is that its a winning ticket. if mccain had accepted kerry’s offer, kerry would have crushed bush and be the president. mccain/lieberman breathes life back into a crumbling republican party and beats back mcgovern jr. barack.”
Then why is it that we have at least one poll that shows McCain doing WORSE with Democrats and Independents, with Lieberman on the ticket? Why is that a poll from the same set shows that adding Condi to the ticket helps more with Democrats and independents? Could it because Joe is most prominently known for being a turncoat Democrat, and an outrageous hawk, neither popular positions in America right now? I’m not at all convinced, by the way, that Kerry/McCain would have crushed anyone. But, conservatives disliked McCain more then they’ve ever disliked Edwards and they would have seething with rage had he agreed to be on Kerry’s ticket. They would have donated at higher rates. They would have voted at higher levels. But, at least plausibly, McCain might have made up for this by being very popular with the moderate wing of the party. Joe Lieberman’s not even in that happy position. A good number of moderates and moderates approve of him, but because the issue he’s so nearly connected to is Iraq, that approval often stops at the ballot box (just as it does for McCain). Whatever creds he might get for bi-partisanship are largely negated by the fact that he’s bi-partisan in precisely the wrong way. McCain/Lieberman isn’t winning. It’s clear pathway to losing.
May 17th, 2008 at 4:42 pm
I know how to win the election–attack everybody we don’t like even if they are not going to be on the ticket. The new path to winning elections. How about a novel idea–let John McCain decide who he wants and then support the Republican ticket–on the outside chance that Obama is more liberal.
May 17th, 2008 at 4:43 pm
Metro,
And I agree with you on most of those points. Lieberman has no chance of influencing the direction of the party, and will never be our nominee. So I’m not terribly concerned about him supposedly destroying conservatism if he’s the VP. I just happen to think you shouldn’t tick off 70-75% of your party, unless you’re actually going to make gains in the middle. And I think that, far from adding to McCain’s strength with independents and Democrats, Joe would be a slight drag. And he’d be an unequivocal disaster in terms of base turnout and the like. So it seems like an exceedingly silly idea.
May 17th, 2008 at 4:47 pm
With the agita caused by the contemplation of a VP Lieberman in conservatives’ stomachs, I imagine the GOP base would actually breathe a sigh of relief should Mr. Cap’n Trade McCain, instead, assuage the concerns of economic conservatives and defense hawks uncomfortable with any talk of timetables by balancing his ticket with the presence of Rudy Giuliani, who, relative to the Connecticut senator, is at least a moderate on social issues. The supply-sider, global warming-skeptic who opposes PBA and supports parental notification would not only help McCain secure PA and FL, as could Joe, but the former NYC mayor would also put NJ squarely in play.
May 17th, 2008 at 4:47 pm
#26: Thank you for some good sense and calmness. It is rare.
As an historical note, the one instance of a mixed-party ticket — Lincoln-Johnson — did not work out well for Lincoln, Johnson, or the nation.
May 17th, 2008 at 4:50 pm
“John McCain decide who he wants and then support the Republican ticket–on the outside chance that Obama is more liberal.”
see #23 - loyalty is earned, not something a candidate is entitled to. Obama would be bad, very ture, but McCain could do more damage to the party.
I’m not saying that I don’t currently support McCain. At this point, I want him to win. But, if John McCain threatens to completely shut Conservatives out of the process…
May 17th, 2008 at 4:55 pm
#28 - Or, he could pick Romney, who would provide the base with virtually everything they could ask for.
Not saying he will, but there really isn’t any complaints the base could make about him.
May 17th, 2008 at 5:01 pm
Amen, Brother Oliver!
For what could Lieberman, much less Clinton, compensate on a McCain ticket? Nothing that I can see. He’s a tried-and-failed candidate from the legislative branch, one who was booted out of his own party but still caucuses with them. His urban domestic, North Eastern liberalism simply makes McCain less appealing to the rest of the party. Is this meant to boost McCain’s numbers in the Greater Hartford area, or what?
The mere idea of adding another seasoned legislator to the ticket makes little sense. (Mmm. Seasoned…)
If the GOP were desperate for a bipartisan unity ticket, the most logical selection would seem to be a blue-dog Dem that supports victory in Iraq. This would essentially pour acid and vinegar into the oozing sore between the two wings of the national Democratic party. This would likely be someone from the near dead Democratic Leadership Conference, but I can’t think of a single name. Yet this still violates the concept of finding someone with executive experience.
Unity’s all well and good, but the GOP needs to work on its own unity by figuring out a coherent stance. It was worth noting this week how the Farm Bill sailed through Congress with a veto-proof majority, just as has other recent legislation — none of it resembling responsible limited-government policy.
May 17th, 2008 at 5:02 pm
I’d not bother voting if McCain picks Giuliani as VP. I say that as someone who would grudgingly vote for McCain if he picked Lieberman.
May 17th, 2008 at 5:06 pm
#32 Mark, would John Breaux qualify?
May 17th, 2008 at 5:12 pm
Aron, re #38,
May 17th, 2008 at 5:13 pm
Tommy, you’re right. Joe Lieberman is a flaming lib. I’d be stunned if he was McCain’s pick. Bottom line is that he and McCain vote with their party much much more than many of the most seasoned political junkies realize.
May 17th, 2008 at 5:14 pm
MarkG wrote: “If the GOP were desperate for a bipartisan unity ticket, the most logical selection would seem to be a blue-dog Dem that supports victory in Iraq.”
Harold Ford, Jr.
May 17th, 2008 at 5:21 pm
37, Dick Gephardt
May 17th, 2008 at 5:22 pm
Tommy,
In National Journal’s 2007 rankings of members of Congress (in which Barack Obama earned the distinction of being the most liberal senator: 95.5% liberal/4.5% conservative), Joe Lieberman scored a 42.5, meaning he was more conservative than 42.5 percent of his Senate colleagues.
On social issues, Lieberman was more conservative than 40 percent of the Senate, including all but 9 Democrats.
On foreign policy matters, Lieberman was more conservative than 61% of his fellow colleagues in the Senate, including every single Democrat and Republicans Dick Lugar (60%), John Warner (59%), George Voinovich (58%), Arlen Specter (57%), John Sununu (56%), Norm Coleman (55%), Susan Collins (54%), Olympia Snowe (53%), Chuck Hagel (48%), and Gordon Smith (46%).
May 17th, 2008 at 5:25 pm
How could I have forgotten Specter in #18???
May 17th, 2008 at 5:27 pm
ontheissues.org on Joe Leibarman:
Rated 100% by NARAL, indicating a pro-choice voting record. (Dec 2003)
Rated 40% by the ACLU, indicating a mixed civil rights voting record. (Dec 2002)
Rated 25% by the US COC, indicating an anti-business voting record. (Dec 2003)
Rated 50% by CURE, indicating mixed votes on rehabilitation. (Dec 2000)
Rated 86% by the NEA, indicating pro-public education votes. (Dec 2003)
Rated 42% by the LCV, indicating a mixed record on environment. (Dec 2003)
Rated 36% by CATO, indicating a mixed record on trade issues. (Dec 2002)
Rated 100% by APHA, indicating a pro-public health record. (Dec 2003)
Rated 10% by SANE, indicating a pro-military voting record. (Dec 2003)
Rated 100% by the AFL-CIO, indicating a pro-union voting record. (Dec 2003)
Rated 100% by the ARA, indicating a pro-senior voting record. (Dec 2003)
Rated 15% by NTU, indicating a “Big Spender” on tax votes. (Dec 2003)
May 17th, 2008 at 5:32 pm
Can we be a little honest right now? Aside from abortion McCain and Obama and probably as close on the issues as two nominees in modern history. And considering we will have a democratic congress any legislation is sure to tilt left regardless of who is president. So for the sake of the country the parties this time should come together for one ticket ratified by both conventions. Shouldn’t the two nominees at least consider the possibility?
May 17th, 2008 at 5:38 pm
Rated 100% by NARAL, indicating a pro-choice voting record. (Dec 2003)
McCain - 0%
Rated 40% by the ACLU, indicating a mixed civil rights voting record. (Dec 2002)
McCain - 0%
Rated 25% by the US COC, indicating an anti-business voting record. (Dec 2003)
McCain - 61%
Rated 50% by CURE, indicating mixed votes on rehabilitation. (Dec 2000)
McCain - 20%
Rated 86% by the NEA, indicating pro-public education votes. (Dec 2003)
McCain - 45%
Rated 42% by the LCV, indicating a mixed record on environment. (Dec 2003)
McCain - 53%
Rated 36% by CATO, indicating a mixed record on trade issues. (Dec 2002)
McCain - 100%
Rated 100% by APHA, indicating a pro-public health record. (Dec 2003)
McCain - 25%
Rated 10% by SANE, indicating a pro-military voting record. (Dec 2003)
McCain - 0%
Rated 100% by the AFL-CIO, indicating a pro-union voting record. (Dec 2003)
McCain - 15%
Rated 100% by the ARA, indicating a pro-senior voting record. (Dec 2003)
McCain - 40%
Rated 15% by NTU, indicating a “Big Spender†on tax votes. (Dec 2003)
McCain - 72%
May 17th, 2008 at 5:42 pm
A little late here, but:
ACT #6:
McCain is not overweight. Have you actually looked at a picture of the man ever? Or are you too busy drawing little hearts around Mitt Romney’s smiling face?
McCain is, if anything, somewhat scrawny. The only thing that makes him appear heavier is the fact that, like many old men, he has rather pronounced jowls. Get your facts straight.
May 17th, 2008 at 6:09 pm
His jowl was puffed from scar tissue remaining after surgery to remove possibly cancerous lymph nodes (sp?) and then a facelift.
May 17th, 2008 at 7:23 pm
Michael Reagan for VP.
Is there any way the base would vote against a ticket with a Reagan on it?
And as far the Reagan dems in the swing states, 20% of them would probably vote thinking it was actually Dutch himself.
May 17th, 2008 at 7:38 pm
LOL. Speaking of the Reagan’s, I have the suspicion that Ron Jr may have a role in the dem convention. Obama talks about his father an awful lot.
May 17th, 2008 at 9:47 pm
the truth is act, if the immigrants were coming from ireland instead of mexico, you wouldn’t care. the reagan gave amnesty, which mccain does not support.
May 17th, 2008 at 9:53 pm
act, if conservatives stay home its a slap to every man and woman serving in iraq, including mccain’s son, jimmy mccain, united states marine core. the conservatives who stay home in protest of mccain are no better then neville chamberlain, because allowing barack hussein to become president is worse then appeasing germany circa 1939. barack is a man who openly says he wants to negotiate with terrorists, and you are his enabler. mccain’s sacrifices for his country (including not seeing his children’s faces for 5 1/2 years) are more then worthy of your support. put aside your anti-mexican bigotry for a moment and envision what a b. hussein presidency brings, and the cost of another sept. 11 against this nation would have. you have the power to stop it, but if you protest a mccain/lieberman ticket, you have helped cause it.
May 17th, 2008 at 9:55 pm
cheney didn’t support the gay marriage ban, where was sampo and act to complain about this unconservative. lieberman would help mccain win, and he can be trusted as commander in chief. with our nation at war, that should be enough for you, considering appeaser barack is the alternative.
May 17th, 2008 at 10:17 pm
matt,
If you don’t vote for McCain, you’re worse then Neville Chamberlain? Sheez, I’m all for encouraging conservatives to come out to stop Obama, but hyperbole much? No wonder folks accuse Republicans of “fearmongering”.
May 17th, 2008 at 10:48 pm
Matthew Miller in 51 is right, matt of 48 through 50. The only reason conservatives would vote a McCain/Lieberman ticket is because of the war - the ONLY reason, because then on every other front, domestic, economic, socially, immigration, environmentally, etc, McCain would have sold out entirely. And rhetorically, McCain has even moved his war talk to the left. I’ve suddenly had trouble seeing him stare down Iran, Russia, Venezuela, etc. Because of the war, I’m willing to support McCain. The war alone doesn’t seem like enough for me right now to support McCain/Lieberman.
May 17th, 2008 at 11:28 pm
To me it just comes down to the fact that with Lieberman, we can win. Yeah, I’m solely focused on winning. Big deal.
A. Lieberman steals Hillary’s working-class white vote from Obama. Yes, there are others that can do this. Lieberman does it best. We win all over the northeast and Rust Belt: definitely PA and OH, probably MI and WI, and we make NJ and maybe MA competitive. We might lose the NM/CO/NV, but who needs ‘em.
B. McCain/Lieberman = the ULTIMATE anti-partisan ticket. The ultimate ticket for moderates and independents. We win everyone that’s ever felt disenchanted with the two-party system instantly. Honestly? You guys with gigantic conservative resumes can boast all you want on sites with an exclusive audience like this, but now is just not a great time to be a republican. Have you seen the charts of registered republicans vs. dems? If McCain runs as a representative of the republican party, he’ll just get the votes of you guys, and lose. Plus, be honest: if someone as far left as Obama runs on the other side, I have a hard time believing any of you will actually stay home on Election day. Quit posturing. I saw how you, and every conservative in America instantly reconfigured your entire conservative philosophy around McCain when he became the nominee. It’s a slippery slope, and it’ll happen again.
Yeah, there are other ways to do it. Bottom line for me is: picking Lieberman as his VP is the one instant stroke McCain can do to ENSURE he gets elected. This is going to be a close election, and McCain/Lieberman is the one ticket on which I’ll put good money that the GOP will win. The GOP is going through a substantial crisis right now anyway that won’t be sorted out until 2010, when the country realizes how shitty the Obama economy is. So suck it up and deal with the fact that, FOR NOW, your party is moving to the left along with the rest of the country, and let’s win this.
May 17th, 2008 at 11:59 pm
Very well-written post Tommy. When I endorsed John McCain back after Romney dropped out, I put in a key sentence. I said, “barring an extreme circumstance, I will vote for John McCain in November.” Well, picking Lieberman would be an extreme circumstance. I will not vote for any ticket that has Lieberman on it.
May 18th, 2008 at 12:29 am
53 - Why should I particularly care whether the GOP brand wins if it totally fails to represent any but one of the reasons I care about politics? It might be easier to make hawks of the Libertarian Party than conservatives of a Republican Party with Lieberman in the headline.
May 18th, 2008 at 2:36 am
While I have spoken out against putting Lieberman on the Republican ticket before, I question the following: “The same guy who helped bring us the great charade of 2000, when hanging chads became apart of the national debate? … The man who helped bring us the Florida debacle of 2000?”
I don’t understand why you would blame Lieberman for the way the election in Florida occurred in 2000. He didn’t design the butterfly ballot, or tell the Florida election supervisors to use a punchcard ballot with chads, or give Voter News Service the incorrect data that caused them to call the state for the Democrats before the polls closed in the western part of the state. Nor, for that matter, did he cause the voters of Florida to be almost evenly split in their presidential preferences.
May 18th, 2008 at 7:14 am
#53 is pure nonsense: “We win all over the northeast and Rust Belt: definitely PA and OH, probably MI and WI, and we make NJ and maybe MA competitive.”
In modern history only LBJ was able to make an electoral difference and even that was one state (Daley handled Chicago). Lieberman would be lucky to make Conn competitive.
“McCain/Lieberman = the ULTIMATE anti-partisan ticket.”
Um, Democrats right now HATE Lieberman. Indeed they like McCain more than Lieberman, who they consider a sell-out, or worse, traitor. And on that score, don’t think its beneath liberals to conjure anti-semitism by saying Lieberman cares more about foreigners (ie, Israelis) than Americans. On one blog he appears as Lieberman (I-Israel).
May 18th, 2008 at 9:33 am
All right, I will grant you that it depends upon Obama’s veep choice. If it’s Obama/Rendell or some such, we may be tied again…but imagine an Obama/Richardson ticket trying to win up in the non latte-liberal northeast! Compared to a military man and a Jew.
The strength of McCain/Lieberman is that they’re a completely new kind of ticket, though, not to be compared to past history. It would a be a ticket the likes of which hasn’t been seen since Lincoln/Johnson, and would send an important symbolic message of reaching across the aisle and choosing someone disaffected with the party system that would resonate with independents. Lieberman helps not because of some sort of home state advantage (which, yes, is BS), but because he is an independent that can relate to independents, the demographic that we need.
Democrats hate Lieberman. Independents and moderates don’t, which is the key. He’s just the wedge between the two that we need. McCain/Lieberman is not BIpartisan, it’s ANTIpartisan. No, Lieberman won’t convince democrats to vote GOP, which is perfectly fine cause it wouldn’t happen anyway. Can I make this clear enough?! Nobody else brings INDEPENDENTS to the GOP better and steals them from Obama?