|
I like Lieberman, at least he stood by his decisions unlike most all Democrats and what'd he get in return, banishment, a great party those Dems have. That said I doubt his endorsement will have a meaningful effect on McCain's chance to be the nominee. Birds of a feather.... right rat, go soaring with the buzzards I love how the media tries to paint Joe as a conservative democrat when the only difference between him and the rest of the extremely liberal senators is his position on Iraq. And I think that his support for McCain will just amplify and remind conservative voters why McCain isn't the front runner right now. It is a reminder of the work he is done with other liberal senators such as Feinstein and Kennedy. I admire anyone who stands by their decisions, who rejects placing blame for their actions on others. You can't say the same for most of the Dems in congress. Since Joe stood by his original stance on the war, he was of no further use to the far-left in the Democratic Party and was discarded. I doubt McCain ever stood a chance at the nomination and Lieberman's endorsement will not hurt or help him in my opinion. You're right about Joe being a liberal, but at least he still has some integrity left. I share your appreciation of Lieberman for having his political integrity intact; at least as much as I know. I liked what he said about being able to *cross the aisle* and work with someone with whom he agrees. Also his unwavering support of Israel. I don't think the endorsement will have much impact. McCain might make a fairly good President but I worry about his health and age. The man has no integrity whatsoever. And the number of positions that he shares with the Republicans (he is an independent, not a democrat) is outstanding, just look at his voting record. Had he had integrity he would have lost graciously on the primaries instead he went on and won his election running for all intents and purposes as the Republican. As for running with the buzzards, since you are already up there, dl, do you care to give me a lift? just look at his voting recordYes, let's do. The American Conservative Union gives Lieberman a 17 rating in 2006, and 8 rating in 2005, and has a lifetime rating of 16.8. Compare that to Byrd's 21, 20, and 29.6, or Evan Bayh's 16, 20, 20.8. Are you going to claim those two are conservative democrats as well? And if you don't trust the American Conservative Union's ratings, how about it's liberal cousin Americans for Democratic Action. They gave him a 75% for 2006. Compare that to Rockefeller or Bill Nelson who both got 60%. And both those ratings likely included his war votes, so his numbers would be even more liberal if the calculations were made on everything but the war votes. Forget the ratings and actually look at the voting record! http://www.votesmart.org/voting_category.php?can_id=53278 Here is a slice: Civil Liberties and Civil Rights (Back to top) Date Bill TitleVote10/16/2007Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act of 2008Y 10/01/2007National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008Y 09/20/2007Expressing Support for General Petraeus and All Members of the Armed ForcesY 09/20/2007Expressing Support for All Men and Women in the U.S. Armed ForcesY 09/19/2007Habeus Corpus for Detainees of the United StatesN 09/18/2007District of Columbia House Voting Rights Act of 2007Y 08/03/2007Foreign Intelligence AcquisitionY 07/26/2007Implementing the 9/11 Commission Recommendations ActY 07/26/2007REAL ID FundingY 07/19/2007Sense of... So, you would rather look at a hand full of votes in one year instead of his lifetime voting record? I guess you are free to draw your own conclusions, but it still doesn't make it a fact. By your standards, only the most liberal of democrats could even be considered moderates. Like I say, it a "slice" but the whole voting record is there, go see it for yourself. |
View the Top Clips from December 16, 2007
Embed This Clip In Your Site...
|
|
|
|
