Saturday, January 12, 2008

LIEBERMAN CLARIFIES HIS SUPPORT FOR FELLOW WAR-MONGER JOHN McCAIN

>


Bob Novak's latest gossip column has a couple of paragraphs about the long-standing Lieberman-McCain romance. McCain was just one of many Republicans who endorsed and campaigned for Lieberman after he was rejected by Connecticut primary voters last year. While John Edwards enthusiastically and whole-heartedly campaigned for Ned Lamont, the Clintons and Obama only reluctantly and tepidly backed the grassroots nominee of their party. Lieberman was able to win because Rove-- at the behest of Bush and Cheney who were appreciative of Lieberman's complete support of all their most aggressive actions regarding war, torture, terror, etc-- made it clear to Republican voters that they were not to vote for the official GOP candidate but for Lieberman instead. And Lieberman's been repaying the Bush Regime ever since.

There has been some speculation lately that he would be McCain's VP nominee. McCain would love it but he's afraid that Republican voters-- many of whom already distrust and even despise the Arizona senator-- would never swallow Lieberman who often votes with Democrats on a few issues.
Close advisers of Sen. John McCain say there is no possibility that Independent Democratic Sen. Joseph Lieberman would be McCain's vice presidential running mate on the Republican ticket.

McCain credits Lieberman's endorsement for president last month as triggering his turnaround in New Hampshire, leading to victory in that state's primary last Tuesday. In addition, McCain and Lieberman are friends who admire each other personally. Nevertheless, Lieberman still votes the straight Democratic line in the Senate on nearly all issues except Iraq, and McCain's advisers feel Lieberman never would be accepted by the Republican Party.

A footnote: When Lieberman endorsed McCain, Democratic friends called his office seeking reassurance that he was endorsing McCain only for the Republican nomination and not actually the office of president. No, they were told, this was a real presidential endorsement.

Lieberman has stabbed the Clintons in the back several times but they still keep kissing up to him. They deserve each other. As for Obama... Lieberman was his offical Senate mentor after he was elected. Once when Obama got into a tussle with McCain, Lieberman got him to back down. But even if Lieberman will be campaigning against Obama if he wins the Democratic primary, the most reactionary Democrat in the whole Senate, the only Democrat who votes with Republicans more than with Democrats on substantive matters, Nebraska's arch-conservative Ben Nelson came out and endorsed Obama. He says he likes his bipartisan approach. But if anyone cares to compare their voting records, Obama's is considerably to the right of Hillary's. She's the Senate's 29th most progressive voter. He's #43-- worse even than reactionaries like Max Baucus (MT), Ken Salazar (CO) and Blanche Lincoln (AR). Only 6 Democrats (+ Lieberman) vote more frequently with the GOP than Obama. So anyone-- usually between the ages of 18 and 25-- who has sipped the Obama Kool-Aid and think he's more progressive than Hillary, let alone Edwards... look at the facts.


UPDATE: WHERE IS THE LOVE?

I made a little clip today and realized it kind of works with the above... a little.



Labels: , , , ,

11 Comments:

At 7:28 PM, Blogger carolyn13 said...

If Edwards drops out before Super Tuesday, I have the problem of chosing between two candidates I don't like very much. I'm leaning towards Hillary because her voting record is better. Can I assume from this post that you too would chose Hillary over Obama? I know this sounds like a gotcha question, but I really do value your opinion.

 
At 8:05 PM, Blogger DownWithTyranny said...

I'll be voting for Edwards in the California primary on February 5. He's polling well and could win the state. It would be great if he winds up with enough leverage to make Obama or Hillary promise-- publicly-- to do the right thing... about something. He'd be a great Attorney General.

As for picking between Clinton and Obama... they both have their pros and cons in my mind and when I add them all up there's not enough of a substantive difference for me to care which one wins the nomination. Either is infinitely better than any of the pygmies.

 
At 8:29 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

If we have ANOTHER FUCKING DEMOCRAT WHO VOTED FOR IRAQ AND THE PATRIOT ACT AS OUR NOMINEE we deserve to lose.

Seriously, her 'rating' is meaningless at this point.

 
At 7:34 AM, Anonymous me said...

I certainly would not vote for either Clinton or Obama in the primary. The only question is, should I be a little bit practical and vote for Edwards, or vote my heart and go with Kucinich or even Gravel?

If Kucinich had suggested that he'd eventually endorse Edwards, he'd get my vote. But if he will endorse Obama as looks likely, I'll have to go with Edwards now.

The general is a different story. I still don't think I can vote for either the empty suit or the aipac lobbyist. The Dems like to say that if I vote for a decent third party candidate, I'm giving the election to the repubs. I used to fall for that line, but not any more. The way I see it, it's their fault for not giving me someone I can vote for.

If they want my vote, then damn it they have to earn it, and they don't earn it by nominating shitty candidates like Lieberman, Kerry, Obama, and Clinton.

 
At 12:51 PM, Blogger carolyn13 said...

I am voting for Edwards as well. I believe in his message. My fear is that he will face enormous pressure to drop out before Super Tuesday if he doesn't win a state until then and I will be left with no good second choice.

Thanks for answering such a loaded question.

 
At 9:33 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Try sorting by lifetime record.
Surprise! Obama is more "progressive" than half the Dems in the Senate.

 
At 9:41 PM, Blogger DownWithTyranny said...

Well, if you sort by Lifetime record (instead of "When the Chips Are Down" or, worse still, instead of the current session), it just proves he has moved further to the right of late. Not my idea of a positive.

Instead of dwelling on what mediocre Democrats he and Hillary are, I just rejoice about how much better they are than any of the horrible Republicans. I mean any time I feel any misgivings about Obama or Hillary, I just think about Mitt Romney and McCain and The Huckster.

 
At 9:42 AM, Anonymous me said...

I have my absentee ballot in front of me right now, and I still can't decide. Gravel, Kucinich, or Edwards. Those are the only possible choices.

Election after election it's always the same thing: The ones I want won't win. The last time someone I supported in the primary actually won the nomination, it was McGovern. And the Establishment Dems stabbed him in the back and gave the election to Nixon.

This whole situation is disgusting.

 
At 11:11 PM, Anonymous Bil said...

Hey me,
A currently absentee Californian here with a similar choice.
I support Dennis whenever I can because he has been right with the same message for over 10 years. I have seen him speak, intelligent, warm, deep.

Feet to the fire on electability I will probably choose Edwards.

I would like to think all 3 of the Democratic leaders would choose Dennis for the first Cabinet Level Secretary of Peace, as counter-weight to the Rumsfeld Secretary of War model. Dennis created the vision, he owns it.

 
At 6:02 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

you are a bunch of unAmericans....you are not goo enough to live in this country...so get out

 
At 8:01 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I like priston tale Gold very much because it is very useful. In fact at first sight I have fallen in love with priston tale Money. So no matter how much I have spent to buy priston tale Gold, I never regret. Because of cheap priston tale Gold, I meet a lot of friends.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home