Posted on 08/21/2008 7:02:51 AM PDT by SJackson
Patriotism: Joseph Lieberman will be called a Judas for speaking to the Republican Convention, but he was betrayed by his own party for refusing to support losing a war for political gain.
It's only a matter of time before the long knives are unsheathed for Connecticut's "independent Democrat." Al Gore's 2000 running mate still caucuses with the Democrats, which lets the four-term senator maintain his seniority in committee assignments.
Lieberman serves in the plum post of chairman of the Senate Homeland Security Committee, where earlier this year he published a powerful and fascinating report on how terrorist groups such as al-Qaida use traditional media and the Internet to propagandize and recruit on a global scale.
He is also a high-ranking member of the Senate Armed Services Committee and is currently visiting Georgia, Ukraine and Poland with fellow panel member Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., to show U.S. solidarity with those young democracies in the wake of the Russian invasion of Georgia.
But because he dared to place country before ideology and supported nothing less than victory in Iraq, Lieberman was targeted for destruction by his party and defeated in the 2006 primary by a blue-blooded leftist willing to spend his family fortune against him.
(Excerpt) Read more at investors.com ...
Uh oh.
IBD called Dems cowards, and Obama's a Dem.
Can't do that, it's not fair.
Joe Lieberman didn’t leave the ‘rat party. The ‘rat party left him for Ned Lament.
Hero?
Stop already! I surrender.
I'd say that time has come quite a while back: what else would you call the Dim Party's active opposition to Liberman's re-election campaign?
OTOH, we don’t need liberals like him in the GOP either: we’ve already got Lindsay Graham, Chuck Grassle, Olympia Snow, et al.
Thou Shalt Not Steal Why rules really do matter -- more than results
Maybe he can repeat the “fire and brimstone” type of speech that Zell Miller gave! And, then threaten to kick Chrissy Matthews ass. Can only hope for a repeat.
He can stay Independent and still vote for the Republicans to organize the Senate.
How did his party "betray" Lieberman? By not renominating him? Did Reagan "betray" Jerry Ford when he primaried him in 1976? Did Pat Toomey "betray" Snarlin' Arlen? This is silliness. I'm all for primary fights in the Republican Party -- nobody has the right to an uncontested seat.
If the sheeple do what is predicted and I unfortunately expect, then they will be all too eager to make Senator Lieberman the most domestically liberal GOP member since Lincoln Chaffey.
The UndemocratIC Party threw Joe Lieberman under the bus because he was politically incorrect in his support for the war.
It came from the top of the Party to take Lieberman out.
It wasn’t a grass roots effort to get rid of him. It was the political machine running him over.
And he showed that a third party candidate CAN win in an election. The will of the wrongheaded Party be damned.
And pansies like Chuck Hagel and Olympia Snow, elected as Republicans, can vote to organize with the Dems. I actually understand that Gordon Smith (RINO-Oregon) tried to switch parties this year to head off a strong Democrat challenge.
No one went crazy over David Bonior---- He WAS pro-life---and, as it should have been, Republicans treated him as the liberal democrat that he was (is).
Really? Have any evidence to support that? Ned Lamont came out of nowhere, and I recall the DSCC and the Dem party leadership supporting Lieberman in the primary. Obama and Bill Clinton actually campaigned for Lieberman.
No, I think that you can say 'betray' legitimately here for the following reasons;
1) Senator Lieberman has been such a staunch Democrat that he was the Dem's chosen VP Candidate in 2000.
2) He was running as a standard-bearing Democrat in the Conn. Primary in 2006.
3) The standard process of the National Democrats in such cases is to squelch internal opposition and give money to the incumbents.
4) Senator Lieberman was denied almost all such support and his opponent was given that support in the primary based almost solely upon their respective Iraq War positions!
5) Senator Lieberman was re-elected as an alternate "Connecticut_for_Lieberman" candidate and was supported by independents and Republicans as well as non-radical Democrats.
To my mind he was 'betrayed' by the national Dimocrat Party based solely upon his refusal to cut_&_run from Iraq!
Lieberman is a bad joke.
1) Joe isn’t joining the Rs, he’s just speaking at the convention...
2) On a topic that he is more “conservative” on that some of the RINOs you listed.
3) It embarrasses the Ds (given he was their VP candidate just 8 years ago) and underscores how weak Ds are on national security and the need to win the “war on terror,” a concept most Ds thing was manufactured by Bush, Cheney, Rove and other “pro-Israel” supporters.
4) He helps the Jewish Vote which will be key in Florida and Michigan.
Make no mistake, Joe is a lefty on 99% of the issues but he is a patriot and wants to see the country succeed. That is what got him tossed out of the D party. I don’t agree w/ Joe 99% of the time but I’m happy to hear him talk about national security at the convention.
I’ve come to the conclusion that McCain is gonna pick one of his towel-snapping good ol’ boy buddies no matter what. And from that column I think I’d take Pawlenty over any of the others—Graham, Ridge, Lieberman, etc. Not great for the economy or fighting illegal immigration, but probably as good as we could reasonably expect.
I just wish he hadn’t dampened down the recent excitement of the base with this Lieberman talk.
Ronald Reagan primaried Gerald Ford in 1976. Ford was such a staunch Republican that he had been elected House Minority Leader, and nominated and confirmed as a Republican Vice President. Yet Reagan still challenged him, and for good reasons.
3) The standard process of the National Democrats in such cases is to squelch internal opposition and give money to the incumbents.
Which they tried to do -- check the record. However, the guy challenging Lieberman was a billionaire.
4) Senator Lieberman was denied almost all such support and his opponent was given that support in the primary based almost solely upon their respective Iraq War positions!
That's simply not correct. Lieberman's loonybins opponent, Lamont, received zero party support in the primary, unless you consider a few moonbats like Al Sharpton and Maxine Waters to represent the entirety of the Dem Party. You're correct that his support was entirely due to the war issue, but he received no support from any big name Democrats until after the primary and many big name Democrats, including Obama and Clinton, campaigned for Lieberman in the primary.
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.