Lieberman Speech

[Dos Equis]

It was okay.  Pretty incredible that you have the former Democrat VP nominee giving a speech at a Republican convention.  Both he and McCain will appeal to at least some Democrats and independents. 

[marcus]

I didn't watch the speech but noticed briefly there were shots of people, I think women, holding signs that read "Democrats 4 McCain." I'm assuming these are the ones who feel Obama isn't qualified?

[mightymouse72]

I think the list of speakers alone at the convention show the versatility of McCain:
~Conservatives
~Moderate Republicans
~Democrats & Independents

-all showcasing McCain’s history in politics.


How many speakers boasted on Obama’s past political achievements?  None.  Because he has none.
Where was Tony Rezko?
Where was Bill Ayers?
How about some ACORN members? 
Jeremiah Wright, where was he?
Some community members that Obama helped organize?

Were none of these people available to speak on all his wonderful accomplishments??

[Dos Equis]

I think the list of speakers alone at the convention show the versatility of McCain:
~Conservatives
~Moderate Republicans
~Democrats & Independents

-all showcasing McCain’s history in politics.


How many speakers boasted on Obama’s past political achievements?  None.  Because he has none.
Where was Tony Rezko?
Where was Bill Ayers?
How about some ACORN members? 
Jeremiah Wright, where was he?
Some community members that Obama helped organize?

Were none of these people available to speak on all his wonderful accomplishments??

I was hoping for John Edwards.   

[Colossus_500]

It was okay.  Pretty incredible that you have the former Democrat VP nominee giving a speech at a Republican convention.  Both he and McCain will appeal to at least some Democrats and independents. 

His direct address to the camera (Democrats and Independents who were watching) was probably the most effective.

[Decker]

It was okay.  Pretty incredible that you have the former Democrat VP nominee giving a speech at a Republican convention.  Both he and McCain will appeal to at least some Democrats and independents. 

I also think Lieberman is incredible.

He is a true independent.  Except his yamulke is showing a bit too much.  His independence is a tad bit compromised by his not so subtle allegiance to Israel.  Arguably, that's why he rushed to Big Mac's side, what with the 100 year war statement and all.

Let's just hope he does for McCain what he did for Gore.

[Dos Equis]

I also think Lieberman is incredible.

He is a true independent.  Except his yamulke is showing a bit too much.  His independence is a tad bit compromised by his not so subtle allegiance to Israel.  Arguably, that's why he rushed to Big Mac's side, what with the 100 year war statement and all.

Let's just hope he does for McCain what he did for Gore.

I thought he was a great choice by Gore back in 2000. 

How does allegiance to Israel compromise his independence? 

[CQ]

I thought it was okay, bit flat after Thompsons great delivery, but hey going after a trained actor can't be easy.

[Decker]

I thought he was a great choice by Gore back in 2000. 

How does allegiance to Israel compromise his independence? 

He is no longer a democrat largely b/c the dems want out of Iraq.  McCain wants the US in Iraq for a long time pulling the trigger and so does Joe.

Iraq War
Lieberman sponsored S.J. Res.46, the Senate version of H.J. Res. 114, that is, the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002, also called the Iraq Resolution.[85]

Lieberman defended his support of the Iraq Resolution; in a November 29, 2005 op-ed piece for The Wall Street Journal, he praised the efforts of the U.S. military in the occupation of Iraq and criticized both parties:

"I am disappointed by Democrats who are more focused on how President Bush took America into the war in Iraq almost three years ago, and by Republicans who are more worried about whether the war will bring them down in next November's elections, than they are concerned about how we continue the progress in Iraq in the months and years ahead."[86]

Later, on December 7, 2005, Lieberman said, "It is time for Democrats who distrust President Bush to acknowledge that he will be Commander-in-Chief for three more critical years, and that in matters of war we undermine Presidential credibility at our nation’s peril. It is time for Republicans in the White House and Congress who distrust Democrats to acknowledge that greater Democratic involvement and support in the war in Iraq is critical to rebuilding the support of the American people that is essential to our success in that war. It is time for Americans and we their leaders to start working together again on the war on terrorism. To encourage that new American partnership, I propose that the President and the leadership of Congress establish a bipartisan Victory in Iraq Working Group, composed of members of both parties in Congress and high ranking national security officials of the Bush Administration."[87]

Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid expressed disappointment with Lieberman, saying, "I've talked to Senator Lieberman, and unfortunately he is at a different place on Iraq than the majority of the American people." House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi added, "I completely disagree with Lieberman. I believe that we have a responsibility to speak out if we think that the course of action that our country is not making the American people safer, making our military stronger and making the region more stable." Lieberman responded, "I've had this position for a long time – that we need to finish the job."[88]

Lieberman's defense of the administration resulted in speculation that he was attempting to position himself to replace Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld or another high-ranking government official, but Lieberman has denied having any desire for this. In 2005, media reports suggested that Lieberman might replace Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld;[89] Lieberman responded with, "It's a total fantasy, there's just no truth to it."[90]

On June 22, 2006, Lieberman voted against two Democratic amendments to the annual defense appropriations bill, including S. 2766, which called for a withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq. S.2766 did not set a withdrawal deadline, but urged President Bush to start pulling U.S. forces out of Iraq in 2006. Both amendments were defeated in the Senate, 60-39.[91]

Israel
In 2002, Lieberman sponsored a pro-Israel U.S. Senate Resolution (S. Res. 247) regarding the Middle East Conflict, "expressing solidarity with Israel in its constant efforts to fight against terror".[95]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Lieberman

BIG MAC HAS SCORED SOME JOE-MENTUM

[Dos Equis]

He is no longer a democrat largely b/c the dems want out of Iraq.  McCain wants the US in Iraq for a long time pulling the trigger and so does Joe.

Iraq War
Lieberman sponsored S.J. Res.46, the Senate version of H.J. Res. 114, that is, the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002, also called the Iraq Resolution.[85]

Lieberman defended his support of the Iraq Resolution; in a November 29, 2005 op-ed piece for The Wall Street Journal, he praised the efforts of the U.S. military in the occupation of Iraq and criticized both parties:

"I am disappointed by Democrats who are more focused on how President Bush took America into the war in Iraq almost three years ago, and by Republicans who are more worried about whether the war will bring them down in next November's elections, than they are concerned about how we continue the progress in Iraq in the months and years ahead."[86]

Later, on December 7, 2005, Lieberman said, "It is time for Democrats who distrust President Bush to acknowledge that he will be Commander-in-Chief for three more critical years, and that in matters of war we undermine Presidential credibility at our nation’s peril. It is time for Republicans in the White House and Congress who distrust Democrats to acknowledge that greater Democratic involvement and support in the war in Iraq is critical to rebuilding the support of the American people that is essential to our success in that war. It is time for Americans and we their leaders to start working together again on the war on terrorism. To encourage that new American partnership, I propose that the President and the leadership of Congress establish a bipartisan Victory in Iraq Working Group, composed of members of both parties in Congress and high ranking national security officials of the Bush Administration."[87]

Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid expressed disappointment with Lieberman, saying, "I've talked to Senator Lieberman, and unfortunately he is at a different place on Iraq than the majority of the American people." House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi added, "I completely disagree with Lieberman. I believe that we have a responsibility to speak out if we think that the course of action that our country is not making the American people safer, making our military stronger and making the region more stable." Lieberman responded, "I've had this position for a long time – that we need to finish the job."[88]

Lieberman's defense of the administration resulted in speculation that he was attempting to position himself to replace Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld or another high-ranking government official, but Lieberman has denied having any desire for this. In 2005, media reports suggested that Lieberman might replace Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld;[89] Lieberman responded with, "It's a total fantasy, there's just no truth to it."[90]

On June 22, 2006, Lieberman voted against two Democratic amendments to the annual defense appropriations bill, including S. 2766, which called for a withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq. S.2766 did not set a withdrawal deadline, but urged President Bush to start pulling U.S. forces out of Iraq in 2006. Both amendments were defeated in the Senate, 60-39.[91]

Israel
In 2002, Lieberman sponsored a pro-Israel U.S. Senate Resolution (S. Res. 247) regarding the Middle East Conflict, "expressing solidarity with Israel in its constant efforts to fight against terror".[95]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Lieberman

BIG MAC HAS SCORED SOME JOE-MENTUM

Decker I was asking about this comment:

His independence is a tad bit compromised by his not so subtle allegiance to Israel. 

How did he compromise his independence by having an "allegiance to Israel"?  Not sure how that is possible, unless you're saying independents cannot support Israel?   

[240 is Back]

I thought he was a great choice by Gore back in 2000. 

How does allegiance to Israel compromise his independence? 

Suppose Obama had a strong allegience to Kenya.  That'd bother ya, right?

[Dos Equis]

Suppose Obama had a strong allegience to Kenya.  That'd bother ya, right?

What?   

[Decker]

Decker I was asking about this comment:


How did he compromise his independence by having an "allegiance to Israel"?  Not sure how that is possible, unless you're saying independents cannot support Israel?   

Joe's Iraq policy is directly inline with his Israeli policy which is inline with McCain and the republican's Iraqi policy which is at odds with the Democrats's Iraq policy.

 "We need an increase in troops there now," he asserted before an audience of military experts and academics. "It must be substantial, and it must be sustained." --Joe L.

He even holds out the possibility that he would back a supporter of the Iraq war, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), in the 2008 presidential race -- although his Connecticut colleague, Sen. Christopher J. Dodd (D), also may be running.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/06/AR2007010601183.html

Can you think of any other reason that a lifelong democrat like Joe would leave the democratic party (I mean other than the fact that he's stated that he left the party b/c of its stance on the war)?

[Dos Equis]

Joe's Iraq policy is directly inline with his Israeli policy which is inline with McCain and the republican's Iraqi policy which is at odds with the Democrats's Iraq policy.

 "We need an increase in troops there now," he asserted before an audience of military experts and academics. "It must be substantial, and it must be sustained." --Joe L.

He even holds out the possibility that he would back a supporter of the Iraq war, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), in the 2008 presidential race -- although his Connecticut colleague, Sen. Christopher J. Dodd (D), also may be running.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/06/AR2007010601183.html

Can you think of any other reason that a lifelong democrat like Joe would leave the democratic party (I mean other than the fact that he's stated that he left the party b/c of its stance on the war)?

Ah so.  I understand your point. 

I don't see that as losing his independence.  He wouldn't be any less independent if his position on Israel was the same as Obama (whatever that position is).  You don't lose independence because you happen to agree with a position taken by a particular party. 

I can think of a very good reason why he left:  he lost his primary election. 

[240 is Back]

What?  

Lieberman has a strong allegience to israel.  You think that's dandy.

I'm wondering what countries you're okay with our leaders holding dual allegiences to.

[Dos Equis]

Lieberman has a strong allegience to israel.  You think that's dandy.

I'm wondering what countries you're okay with our leaders holding dual allegiences to.

Nah.  You're just acting a fool.   

[Decker]

Ah so.  I understand your point. 

I don't see that as losing his independence.  He wouldn't be any less independent if his position on Israel was the same as Obama (whatever that position is).  You don't lose independence because you happen to agree with a position taken by a particular party. 

I can think of a very good reason why he left:  he lost his primary election. 

Joe makes no secret of the influence of his jewish orthodoxy.  B/c of that orthodoxy he has become an independent eschewing the democratic party.  You're not claiming that Israel does not affect or influence orthodox jews are you?

[Dos Equis]

Joe makes no secret of the influence of his jewish orthodoxy.  B/c of that orthodoxy he has become an independent eschewing the democratic party.  You're not claiming that Israel does not affect or influence orthodox jews are you?

No, I'm only saying he doesn't lose his independence by supporting Israel.  His position is most likely going to line up with one party or the other.  That doesn't affect his independence.  He would lose his independence if he wholesale adopted a particular party's platform. 

[Decker]

No, I'm only saying he doesn't lose his independence by supporting Israel.  His position is most likely going to line up with one party or the other.  That doesn't affect his independence.  He would lose his independence if he wholesale adopted a particular party's platform. 

I see.  I agree with you.  I've stated all along though that Lieberman is an independent b/c of his religious orthodoxy which is necessarily tied to Israel and in contravention of putative democratic opinion on Iraq (that is if the dems had effective congressional leadership).