Lieberman Endorses McCain; DNC Slaps Lieberman
Dave Price
He gets it:
“I know that it is unusual for someone like me — an Independent Democrat — to support a Republican candidate for president,” he wrote. “But the dangers we face as a nation are too profound … for us to let partisan politics decide who we will support.”And then gets it from the Democrats:
The Democratic National Committee stripped Connecticut Senator Joseph Lieberman of his “superdelegate” status following his December endorsement of fellow senator John McCain of Arizona, a Republican, in this year’s presidential race. The move means that Lieberman — who has been persona non grata in the Democratic Party since losing renomination in the 2006 Democratic primary and subsequently winning re-election to the Senate as an independent — will be unable to cast a vote for the party’s nominee at the Democratic National Convention in August...who don't get it.
Democratic leaders at both the state and local levels said they are baffled at Lieberman’s decision...Some of us are not baffled.
To do so would throw the Senate into Republican hands.
It's Joe's Nuclear Option - and he can only play it once.
Will he? And if so, when?
Yours,
Wince
I don't think the DNC is out of line here, but I have to ask: have they done this to other superdelegates who endorsed a candidate outside the party? This is surely not the first time a Democrat has endorsed a Republican, or vice-versa, during election season. It happens every election cycle, in fact.
And who gets his super delegate vote now? A Hillary supporter??
do you get it? if lieberman wants to be a republican that's fine, it's his right. but he can't expect to hold sway in the democratic party without supporting the democratic candidate for president. similarly, why should he even want a superdelegate vote since he clearly feels neither democrat is capable of holding the office?
democrats can still be baffled by his decision, since ostensibly most democrats should feel that their own candidates can better prosecute the gwot than republican candidates.
Sure, if they don't get it. Lieberman understands the GWOT is a serious issue.
since ostensibly most democrats should feel that their own candidates can better prosecute the gwot than republican candidates
Again, not if they're paying attention. It is impossible to reasonably argue that handing control of Sunni Iraq to Al Qaeda could be anything but catastrophic for the GWOT. That is the position of people who either think the GWOT is more of a bummper sticker than a vital issue, believe counter to all to the facts that U.S. troops are the problem in Iraq, or are simply against whatever Bush does.
Has the GWOT dropped of the radar for even the GOP?
Many Republicans who were railing against Bush a few years ago did so because they thought he wasn’t aggressive enough in the GWOT. The Rumsfeld thing, being weak on Iran, etc.
And now it’s many of those very same folks who are speaking out the most loudly against McCain.
If there is one area where McCain has a more “conservative” track record than Bush, it’s with the GWOT. So what gives?
And as I was saying, if something big goes down in the Mid East, or another terrorist attack occurs, will these semi-conservatives come around to McCain?
you're being ridiculous. If you think McCain is better able to handle Iraq that's fine, you should definitely vote for him. But the Democratic position is NOT "hand Iraq to AQI." Lieberman, for his part, doesn't get IT, he gets YOU. You agree with him so he must get it, and anyone who disagrees simply hasn't put enough thought into the issue?
I'm sorry, but it clearly is.
Obama and Hillary have both said very specifically that they will withdraw combat troops on a timetable, regardless of conditions on the ground.
I mean, really. What did you think "no open-ended commitment" meant?
If you think McCain is better able to handle Iraq that's fine
How well they would handle it is a moot point if one side is committed to leaving no matter what.
Well, again, some people think our troops are the problem in Iraq. Anyone holding that belief clearly is not familiar with the facts. They don't get it.
I'm not claiming any kind of particular perspicacity here. It's fairly obvious to any reasonable person who looks at the facts that our troops are helping keep the peace and empower moderates.
Other people think the GWOT is more of a bumper sticker than a serious issue. They don't get it.
Still others, such as yourself, seem to believe we can bring our combat troops home by a date certain, but don't seem to realize that implies we leave whether or not AQ still has safe havens there. Yes, I would humbly suggest putting more thought into that.
Please don't presume to know what it is I believe. When have I ever said that we should leave by a date certain? I support withdrawal based on benchmarks, not a timetable. All I am trying to say is that you can think deeply about the issue (get it, in other words) and come to the conclusion that Hillary, or even Obama, is the right person to lead the way forward in Iraq. McCain is not the only option.
I'm not here to argue for a Democratic candidate. If you decide that McCain is the right choice, then again, that's fine. I think it's totally reasonable. If Lieberman wants to endorse McCain then he should go right ahead. But it's stupid to claim that it's because Lieberman's the singular member of the Democratic party to "get" the issue. It's also silly to expect that the party wouldn't react harshly to his endorsing who will become the titular head of the opposition party. McCain has opposed the party on more than one occasion and it's turned him into a pariah with the party elite. Why should the Democrats be any different?
No, what I meant was you apparently don't grasp the implication that we must leave AQ safe havens if they still exist at that date, if we leave by a date certain (since you argue that handing Sunni Iraq to AQ is not the Dem position, and the Dem position is to leave by a date certain). Sorry, re-reading I see that was unclear from my phrasing.
I am here to argue for whomever will support human liberty.
But it's stupid to claim that it's because Lieberman's the singular member of the Democratic party to "get" the issue.
I'm sure there are others. Unless the Dem nominee adjusts his/her position, I expect they, too, will vote for McCain this November.
It's also silly to expect that the party wouldn't react harshly to his endorsing who will become the titular head of the opposition party.
Of course it was expected. What's a little odd is that they are "baffled" by his choice. Obviously, they don't get it, or they would understand, even if they disagreed.
Sorry, but that simply isn't true. McCain is the only candidate who has committed to "lead the way forward in Iraq." The others have committed to leaving Iraq, by a date certain.
Again, this is a perfectly reasonable position if one proceeds from the assumption that U.S. troops are the problem in Iraq, or that the GWOT is not a serious enough issue to warrant American combat troops in Iraq (and so AQ safe havens in the Sunni triangle are an acceptable outcome), or that whatever Bush does is wrong.
okay, I think it's fair to say that if the democratic establishment "bafflement" is honest (and it almost assuredly isn't), then they, unlike the rest of america, don't get Lieberman.
the Dem position is not leaving by a date certain. Obama has come the closest to this with his withdrawal timetable, but even he is hedging now. Clinton's position is that she will convene the Joint Chiefs to draw up a plan for withdrawal, but doesn't mention any specifics about how or when or by what criteria a withdrawal will take place.
Even still, leaving AQ strongholds in Iraq doesn't mean giving Iraq to AQI. Even Obama maintains that he will leave forces in the region to enact targeted strikes against AQ activity.
Well, I hope to see a lot more hedging between now and November. As I've said before, there's a lot to like in a President Obama -- if he moderates.
Even Obama maintains that he will leave forces in the region to enact targeted strikes against AQ activity.
Well, that was the pre-9/11 strategy in the Sudan and Afghanistan, and is similar to the pre-surge strategy in Iraq. I would argue that the flaws in such a strategy are well-established, most notably that airstrikes and targeted strikes cannot protect the populace on a daily basis, leaving them open to intidimidation and putting them in a position where they must support AQ or die.
I would agree it's not the best strategy for Iraq (it may be appropriate in some circumstances) but it is still a far cry from leaving Iraq and wiping one's hands.
Of course we all lose our tempers now and then. Dean freely admits to being imperfect in this regard, which is why regulars to this establishment will generally be cut more slack than people who we don't know very well.
Still: behave like an adult, or go find somewhere else to play. Thanks.