Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

(WOW:) Lieberman Leaves GOP Door Open (!!!)
http://www.courant.com/news/politics/hc-lieberman1113.artnov13,0,6768878.story?coll=hc-headlines-politics-state ^ | Hortford Courant.com

Posted on 11/13/2006 8:51:39 AM PST by screw boll

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 121-132 next last
To: theDentist
It would be a hoot! Gut feeling........with what is going on in Israel, he may be very tempted to leave the party that supports Palestine.
41 posted on 11/13/2006 9:09:10 AM PST by gidget7 (Political Correctness is Marxism with a nose job)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: screw boll

Sounds like Harry Reid is jerking Joe around on the committee assignments.


42 posted on 11/13/2006 9:13:26 AM PST by USNBandit (sarcasm engaged at all times)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: screw boll

Joe Lieberman is focused on the national security issue, and he's never wavered an inch on it since 9/11. He has been as steadfast as Bush or Rumsfeld or any other Republican. He is absolutely reliable on the war, and will not cut any political deal that will cause the US position to collapse. Part of his reasoning, of course, is the threat to the US, and part too is the threat to his beloved Israel. Joe has ALL his skin in the Middle Eastern game, and regardless of his liberalism on every other issue, and his willingness to flip-flop politically on every other issue, he will take winning the war to the mattresses.
Indeed, he already did! He let his party throw him out and ran as an independent, rather than backing off the war ONE INCH. And in the 2004 elections, he stood up there with all those other Dems who campaigned against the war, and said the unpopular thing to his party base: we have to fight.

On national security there is NO MAN in Congress or the White House, of either party, who has staked so much politically and RISKED so much politically for an adamant stance on the war.

And THAT'S why I voted for Joe Lieberman. Didn't even have to hold my nose to do it. America's at war...not legally, but really, as far as I am concerned...and winning the war is more important than the entirety of domestic policy. It trumps everything. It's not the main thing, it's the ONLY thing, and Joe Lieberman was THE MAN on the war.

So, here's Joe, telling the Democrats "Yeah, I'll caucus with you. No, we're not cutting and running from Iraq. Period." Dems want some wiggle room (remember, Lieberman will be Armed Services Chair, so he'll be THE Senate military policy guy). Joe isn't going to give them a hair of it. For as long as Joe Lieberman is sitting in that chair, America's staying put to fight. If they remove Joe Lieberman from that chair because they don't want to fight, he WILL switch parties and caucus with the other side.

America cuts and runs, Iraq falls to the Shi'ite radicals, Iran is given huge breathing space, and Israel gets nuked. Lieberman knows that. He will throw the Democrats under the bus and become a Republican before he lets that happen. It's the ONE THING you can count on from the man.

Lieberman has meant what he said on the war since September 11, 2001. He hasn't wavered, backed off, prevaricated, or budged. He put it in his own party's face, twice. He's utterly dependable here.

If you don't root for Joe, change your mind. When it comes to the War On Terror, he is the unbudgeable Churchillian figure, hard as that is to swallow because he's a liberal Democrat to the core.

Think FDR. Think Harry Truman. That's how adamant Joe is on the war. He can be counted on. Even if it means throwing the Senate into chaos.


43 posted on 11/13/2006 9:13:36 AM PST by Vicomte13 (Aure entuluva.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: screw boll

44 posted on 11/13/2006 9:14:40 AM PST by TonyInOhio ("The people have spoken, the bastards.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Just mythoughts

I want to know that if he does change over, it becomes 50 repubs, 49 dems and 1 independent wouldn't we hold the majority status especially as Cheney sits to break any possible ties? THerefore, senate chairs would be in republican hands not dem (very important for upcoming judicial confirmations)...I say "let's give Joe some real positive reasons for changing - it's no different than when Jeffords jumped and gave dems control back in 2001!


45 posted on 11/13/2006 9:14:52 AM PST by princess leah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: princess leah
With your numbers it will be power sharing regardless of Cheney being the tie breaker. He simply is not going to leave the 'party' NO matter what. Party is before everything.
46 posted on 11/13/2006 9:17:31 AM PST by Just mythoughts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: Bahbah

You are absolutely correct.


47 posted on 11/13/2006 9:18:26 AM PST by Joe Boucher (an enemy of islam)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: screw boll
Haa... Haa... Haa... Schumer, you are going down!!!


48 posted on 11/13/2006 9:20:44 AM PST by Paleo Conservative (Karl Rove isn't magnificent.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Perdogg; gidget7

IMHO, if he switches sides its anorder from the democrats so that they can lay blame to the "boogie man" Republican controlled Senate.


49 posted on 11/13/2006 9:21:12 AM PST by Echo Talon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Vicomte13

I agree and you said it beautifully. Joe will not let Israel go down.

I am kind of enjoying it. Actually Joe can call shots for the next couple of years for real. Hah hah.


50 posted on 11/13/2006 9:22:24 AM PST by cajungirl (no)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: screw boll
Meanwhile, back in the real world, the Republicans are defending 21 seats in 2008 and the Democrats are defending only 12.

Lieberman isn't going to switch, unless he wants to move his new office in January 2009 to be cubicle that used to be a men's room stall.

51 posted on 11/13/2006 9:23:15 AM PST by steve-b (It's hard to be religious when certain people don't get struck by lightning.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: screw boll

He may actually want to tag team with McCain so if the Democrats don't give him a prominent position he may very will leave.


52 posted on 11/13/2006 9:25:04 AM PST by tobyhill (The War on Terrorism is not for the weak.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Hildy

I agree with you, the dems treated him horribly because of his support for the war. All of them avoided him and basically backstabbed him in favor of Lamont. He now knows who his friends are, although I don't think he will become Republican. But hey, why not play with thems for a while. I bet they were all over him, like a long lost friend when he won as an independant.


53 posted on 11/13/2006 9:25:09 AM PST by panthermom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: screw boll

Sounds interesting, but don't count your chickens before they hatch.


54 posted on 11/13/2006 9:26:16 AM PST by RexBeach ("Important principles may, and must be, inflexible." Abraham Lincoln)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rodeodrive3

How do you know that? I thought Conn. was a dem stronghold.


55 posted on 11/13/2006 9:27:33 AM PST by shield (A wise man's heart is at his RIGHT hand; but a fool's heart at his LEFT. Ecc 10:2)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: screw boll

The Rats should call his bluff.

There is zero chance Lieberman would actually switch.


56 posted on 11/13/2006 9:28:41 AM PST by SirJohnBarleycorn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tobyhill

McCain - Lieberman in '08?


57 posted on 11/13/2006 9:28:55 AM PST by Pest (Attorneys are the larval form of politicians!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: dirtboy

Won't Sanders cancel him out, thus giving the Dems an advantage still even if Lieberman votes GOP?


58 posted on 11/13/2006 9:30:06 AM PST by rwfromkansas (http://xanga.com/rwfromkansas)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: shield
He was re-elected to the Senate by his dem base.

No, he was elected to the Senate thanks entirely to Rush, who was so sick of one of the worst RINO's ever,, Lowell Weiker.

59 posted on 11/13/2006 9:30:43 AM PST by AmericaUnited
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: rwfromkansas
Won't Sanders cancel him out, thus giving the Dems an advantage still even if Lieberman votes GOP?

49 Dems + Sanders = 50. 49 Pubbies + Lieberman + Cheney = 51.

60 posted on 11/13/2006 9:31:56 AM PST by dirtboy (Objects in tagline are closer than they appear)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 121-132 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson