Politics1: Lieberman will speak at GOP Convention

[bullmoose88]

Most irritating part of this story: Reid says this wouldn't affect Lieberman's committee chairmanship or memberships.  What a leader.

Heh...he still rather be "majority" leader.

The implication was that even in the 111th Congress this would not be held against Lieberman.

I'll believe that when I see it.

[Keystone Phil]

I like that he will be speaking but I don't want him giving the keynote address.

[Brittain33]

Second straight convention our keynote will feature a Democrat!

Hey, one of our candidates was a Goldwater Girl.

[Stranger in a strange land]

He won in 2006 when the Iraq war was at the height of its unpopularity as an Independent. He could do it again in 2012. It's not like the people that voted for him would care that he spoke at the RNC. Those voters voted for Lamont.

Lieberman will not be able to win as a Republican in Connecticut. Iraq is still unpopular. In 2006, Lieberman had promised to caucus with the democrats, so voters knew they wouldn't swing control of the senate. Also, he hadn't delivered an angry speech before the RNC. Anyway, I doubt it will matter as he's probably going to retire anyway.

[7,052,770]

This brings me to tears.  I am unbelievably saddened at how Lieberman has betrayed us.  He is up there with Benedict Arnold and John Walker Lindh.  What a terrible, terrible, person.

[Stranger in a strange land]

actually this reminds me of something you righties might want to consider before letting Leiberman speak in primetime: the guy isn't exactly known for his oratory skill.

[Beet]

I supported Ned Lamont (in the general), but now I regret ever crossing Lieberman. He really showed me. I realize now my opposition to Lieberman was misguided, that Lieberman is a very powerful man who deserves a lot of respect, and anyone who gets in his way will be screwed over. We should all bow down to the great Lieberman and never oppose him again or he will beat you and then betray you. Thank you Mr. Lieberman. You have showed what a wonderful person you are. I am so sorry. I subvert my ego before yours. You have my complete respect and support and admiration now.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Heh, he really is having fun isn't he. Quite a vindictive sense of humour too.

[Boris]

If you want to bore the convention audience into a slumber, Joe Lieberman is the perfect man to do so.

But I agree with Al. He does have a sense of humor that I can definitely relate to.

[opebo]

Heh, he really is having fun isn't he. Quite a vindictive sense of humour too.

One can only hope that he gets his cummuppance sometime soon, though of course scumbag Senators simply become lobbyists.  I suspect however that this lowlife will be embittered when he is finally thrown out of power, and lobbying won't be a sufficient substitute.

[Brittain33]

Lieberman will not be able to win as a Republican in Connecticut. Iraq is still unpopular. In 2006, Lieberman had promised to caucus with the democrats, so voters knew they wouldn't swing control of the senate.

He also ran ads showing him bringing soldiers coming back from war. It's only afterwards he went into full vengeance mode and started claiming his reelection was a vote to continue the war and to repudiate every Democrat.

[Gustaf]

I never quite got this reasoning. First the Democrats, especially those indignant Democrats on here, call for his head for years. Then they throw him out for some no-name nobody in an important election, showing no respect for him whatsoever. Then he wins anyway as an Independent. And now you expect him to be LOYAL? I mean, seriously, lol. Lieberman owes the Democrats nothing, as far as I'm concerned. He should follow his conscience in supporting McCain.

[Brittain33]

I never quite got this reasoning. First the Democrats, especially those indignant Democrats on here, call for his head for years. Then they throw him out for some no-name nobody in an important election, showing no respect for him whatsoever. Then he wins anyway as an Independent. And now you expect him to be LOYAL? I mean, seriously, lol. Lieberman owes the Democrats nothing, as far as I'm concerned. He should follow his conscience in supporting McCain.

Firstly, the problem here is that you're eliding "the Democrats" just as Lieberman does. Random posters here aren't representative of the party as a whole, any more than Republicans on the Internet represent their party.

Secondly, Lieberman started bashing the Democratic Party a few years before the 2006 primary. It really began in 2004, when he was snubbed in the presidential primaries and starting acting vengeful toward the party, slamming it when he could get a chance and praising the Republicans. He'd been priggish for years before, but it was only then that he really seemed to cut his ties with the Democrats and believe his own propaganda about being an independent thinker instead of someone just looking to get revenge on the party that didn't appreciate his leadership.

Third, he ran for reelection as an Independent Democrat, specifically trying to capitalize on residual loyalty from the Democrats who gave him 48% of the vote in the primary along with the Republicans and independents he courted. He ran as being in favor of ending the war, in favor of a Democratic nominee for President, in favor of caucusing with the Democrats. Note that nearly all of the senators in power (one would think would be included with "the Democrats" in your usage) supported him in the primary and pretty much held back even after he lost and ran as an independent. He owes as much to the Democrats and they owe to him, because he clearly felt he needed Democratic support to win.

Finally, can I ask you in what way you identify with the Democrats, as you do so in your avatar? You are welcome to like Lieberman and disagree on lots of issues, but you seem to have a negative view of the Democrats that goes beyond tactical disputes into the realm of the partisan. I'd like to you know how you feel.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

I never quite got this reasoning. First the Democrats, especially those indignant Democrats on here, call for his head for years. Then they throw him out for some no-name nobody in an important election, showing no respect for him whatsoever. Then he wins anyway as an Independent. And now you expect him to be LOYAL? I mean, seriously, lol. Lieberman owes the Democrats nothing, as far as I'm concerned. He should follow his conscience in supporting McCain.

There's a reason polls now show Lieberman would lose to Lamont if he ran again. Many Democrats (including some on this site, Harry comes to mind), supported him mostly believing he would return to the fold and act as a loyal Democrat after winning. If it had been known that Lieberman would behave as he did, he would've NOT won.

[Democratic Hawk]

I, bitterly, regret endorsing Lieberman over Lamont

Dave

[Lincoln Republican]

Well, the Joe Lieberman performance will certainly be a vast improvement over the Zell Miller performance.

Lieberman should not be condemned if he speaks at the GOP Convention, as his purpose in speaking at the convention will be based on the fact that he is a solid backer of McCain for President, to give his reasons he is supporting McCain, and because he sincerely believes that McCain would make the best President, not because he has some hidden agenda about joining the Republicans.

[Democratic Hawk]

Well, the Joe Lieberman performance will certainly be a vast improvement over the Zell Miller performance.

And as for Miller, he supported every Democratic presidential nominee from Adlai Stevenson to Al Gore; including George McGovern. Not even I would have done that

Then he goes and supports Ineptness Personified in 2004. Now I'm proud to testify that I'd have never done that

Dave

[© tweed]

-Lamontites were right
-Lieberman has no chance in 2012

[The Mikado]

You guys are welcome to him.  Whiny Droopy Dog will be the perfect complement for the distinguished Civil War veteran your party has as its nominee.  Hey, maybe they could run together as the Whiny Angry Old Men America Has Been Waiting For.

Lieberman is your problem now.

[Nym90]

Well he's hardly a charismatic and electrifying speaker, so I'm not too worried.

Other than he and Zell Miller, anyone else ever speak at both party's conventions before? Maybe Strom Thurmond, I dunno.

Maybe his purpose is to make McCain look exciting in comparison.

[Nym90]

I never quite got this reasoning. First the Democrats, especially those indignant Democrats on here, call for his head for years. Then they throw him out for some no-name nobody in an important election, showing no respect for him whatsoever. Then he wins anyway as an Independent. And now you expect him to be LOYAL? I mean, seriously, lol. Lieberman owes the Democrats nothing, as far as I'm concerned. He should follow his conscience in supporting McCain.

There's a reason polls now show Lieberman would lose to Lamont if he ran again. Many Democrats (including some on this site, Harry comes to mind), supported him mostly believing he would return to the fold and act as a loyal Democrat after winning. If it had been known that Lieberman would behave as he did, he would've NOT won.

Ditto for me. I supported Lieberman in 2006 but his endorsement of McCain was the last straw. Disagreeing strongly with him on the war, that I could take, but the idea that the war matters more than every other issue combined shows an extreme lack of judgement that troubles me.

[Aizen]

The Democrats should give Lieberman's speaking spot to Ned Lamont

[Democratic Hawk]

Ditto for me. I supported Lieberman in 2006 but his endorsement of McCain was the last straw. Disagreeing strongly with him on the war, that I could take, but the idea that the war matters more than every other issue combined shows an extreme lack of judgement that troubles me.

Exactly. According to my, hypothetical, National Journal ratings I'd outhawk Lieberman by a long shot. Have I endorsed McCain? No

I've no qualms whatsoever about endorsing Obama even if I am at significant variance with the senator on certain issues

Dave

[JSojourner]

Why is he even caucusing with the Democrats in the Senate anyway? He's far from being a Democrat in my point of view.

Unlike Ell Miller, who NEVER voted with Democrats on any issue in his last term, Lieberman still votes with the Democratic Party most of the time.

That, of course, doesn't change his status as an  who, like Miller, knows that the only way to make himself "relevant" and remain in the spotlight is to pull stunts like this. 

[auburntiger]

this is truly baffling for me. hard to believe that this guy was the Dem VP candidate just 8 years ago. But besides all that, Lieberman isn't either a D or R. That ended in 2006 when he lost the primary to Lamont. I don't see why he would run again or how he could get reelected in '12 though, Connecticut is a very liberal state.