Joe Lieberman’s endorsement of John McCain dramatizes the Arizonans status as the one Republican most in tune with the UnParty. To quote from Sen. Lieberman’s statement:
"I know that it is unusual for someone who is not a Republican to endorse a Republican candidate for President. And if this were an ordinary time and an ordinary election, I probably would not be here today. But this is no ordinary time — and this is no ordinary election — and John McCain is no ordinary candidate.
"In this critical election, no one should let party lines be a barrier to choosing the person we believe is best qualified to lead our nation forward. The problems that confront us are too great, the threats we face too real, and the opportunities we have too exciting for us to play partisan politics with the Presidency.
"We desperately need our next President to break through the reflexive partisanship that is poisoning our politics and stopping us from getting things done. We need a President who can reunite our country, restore faith in our government, and rebuild confidence in America’s future.
"My friend John McCain is that candidate, and that is why I am so proud to be standing by his side today…"
Does anyone else on the Republican side have UnPartisan potential? Sure, to differing degrees. Rudy Giuliani has certain appeal across party lines, and one of our commenters had it right when he compared Mike Huckabee to Jimmy Carter (Lee didn’t mean it as a compliment, but that doesn’t make the comment less true).
But Lieberman definitely gave McCain a big leg up in this regard.
That said, who on the Democratic side is most likely to appeal to UnPartisans? This is a tricky question. David Brooks (who, as you will recall, wrote of the McCain-Lieberman Party last year) framed part of the dilemma well in a column that will run on our op-ed page tomorrow. One the one hand, Hillary Clinton has been a significant bipartisan force as a senator:
Hillary Clinton has been a much better senator than Barack Obama. She has been a serious, substantive lawmaker who has worked effectively across party lines. Obama has some accomplishments under his belt, but many of his colleagues believe that he has not bothered to master the intricacies of legislation or the maze of Senate rules. He talks about independence, but he has never quite bucked liberal orthodoxy or party discipline.
All very true. On the other hand, Barack Obama is the guy who wants to be president of all of us, while Mrs. Clinton tends to attract those who want to "take back" the White House for their partisan faction:
Some Americans (Republican or Democrat) believe that the country’s future can only be shaped through a remorseless civil war between the children of light and the children of darkness. Though Tom DeLay couldn’t deliver much for Republicans and Nancy Pelosi, so far, hasn’t been able to deliver much for Democrats, these warriors believe that what’s needed is more partisanship, more toughness and eventual conquest for their side.
But Obama does not ratchet up hostilities; he restrains them. He does not lash out at perceived enemies, but is aloof from them. In the course of this struggle to discover who he is, Obama clearly learned from the strain of pessimistic optimism that stretches back from Martin Luther King Jr. to Abraham Lincoln. This is a worldview that detests anger as a motivating force, that distrusts easy dichotomies between the parties of good and evil, believing instead that the crucial dichotomy runs between the good and bad within each individual.
Then, of course, there’s Joe Biden, who has more experience working effectively across the lines toward pragmatic policies than either of them. Unfortunately, David Brooks isn’t writing about Sen. Biden, and too few are thinking about him. But he certainly deserves the UnParty’s careful consideration.
I’m sure that’s a great comfort to him, don’t you think?
Related Posts
Well, you know that I’m going to say Obama. But from what I hear, he has a good outlook on Iraq. He says he’d be out of there in 15 months or so. He also says he’d take the army to Afganistan and win there (as we could/should have done several years ago had we not gone into Iraq). He also wants to work on Dafur. He also talks about using diplomacy (unheard of in this administration). Reconciliation and hope; those words sound good, and I think he has the intelligence and will to do it.
I keep meaning to do a little more research into Obama’s Iraq position. Sometimes it sounds just as you present it. But then, wasn’t he one of those who refused to say that he’d have all our troops out by 2013? That’s the way I recall it — and of course, I found that to be encouragingly realistic.
If I don’t get around to sorting that out in the next couple of days (I can’t stop to do it right now; gotta get tomorrow’s pages out), please remind me.
Joe Lieberman’s endorsement of McCain doesn’t surprise me at all. Look at his recoed regarding the Middle East. If Israel nuked Saudi Arabia for harboring Wahabi adherants, he would defend it. He is so blind to Israel’s “disproportionate” responses to provocations, and its own provocative actions, he lets it color most of what he does. McCain fits best with his aggressive view of foreign policy – the same arrogance he supported in Bush that has gotten us into the international peril we are now facing.
I certainly support you on you view of Biden as being The Guy. Unfortunitely, in a campaign that focuses little on issues and greatly on style, personal issues, and electioneering, Biden is barely heard. The coverage of this election is causing the candidates to dumb down their own approaches toward sloganeering, character innuendo, and stylistic BS. Thanks for mildly mentioning issues, but the sweeping generalities have become a mantra that drowns out any deep look at issues and proposals.
Barack Obama is the guy who wants to be president of all of us?
Meaning what, he would consider us all, when Hillary would consider only Democrats?
Do you honestly believe ANYONE could become president without a mountain of political debt that comes due the day they take office?
That’s what parties are all about: one set of good ol’ boys and girls against another. The system itself is tailored to consider party. We have a majority leader. We have a minority leader. There is no plurality leader. There is no Unparty.
No matter how symbolically significant Lieberman’s endorsement of McCain might be, his nod sounds the death knell for McCain’s candidacy. There are two sides, two opposing sets of people, two parties. There is no middle, because there there is no us.
Barack Obama is the guy who wants to be president of all of us?
Meaning what, he would consider us all, when Hillary would consider only Democrats?
Do you honestly believe ANYONE could become president of everyone without owing a mountain of
political debt to a good many people that comes due on inauguration day?
That’s what parties are all about: one set of good ol’ boys and girls against
another. The system itself is tailored to consider party. We have a majority leader.
We have a minority leader. There is no plurality leader. There is no Unparty.
No matter how symbolically significant Lieberman’s endorsement of McCain might
be, his nod sounds the death knell for McCain’s candidacy. There are two sides,
two opposing sets of people, two parties. There is no middle, because there, there
is no us.
He’s probably said both, because Obama seems to be able to distinguish between what’s happening and what he wants to happen, and is able to think about possible contingencies. That’s one reason I find him refreshingly reasonable.
The only UnParty candidate is Ron Paul. He is the only candidate willing to obey the law of the land. The other candidates are telling you how they plan to get around it.
The Constitution is set up to accomplish anything. The problem is it takes a supermajority to make big changes. This is way to much trouble for the Masters of the Universe, the banks, the globalists, the robber baron corporations and their ilk. They own the media which is why they will try to ignore or destroy anyone who speaks of constitutional government.
What about Bill Richardson? As Governor of New Mexico, he has executive experience; as Energy Secretary, he has domestic policy experience; as Ambassador, foreign policy experience and as a Congressman he must have learned the art of compromise. He also has broken ranks, demonstrated by the fact that the NRA (yes, the National Rifle Association) endorsed his gubenatorial bid.