Let me admit straight up that that headline wasn’t my idea. It’s lifted straight from a Wall Street Journal editorial today, which chides both left and right — especially the right — for their antagonism toward my man Joe.
The specific occasion is the chatter about Lieberman as running mate for John McCain. While justly dismissing the hysterical reaction such talk generates on the right, the WSJ agrees with me that veep candidate would not be the best role for the independent from Connecticut. More coincidentally, the newspaper suggests a role that I had been thinking of in connection with Mr. Lieberman not an hour before I read the editorial:
Our own view is that Mr. Lieberman would make a fine Secretary of
State, and that, given the political risks, making him vice president
would probably be too great an election gamble. But Mr. Lieberman’s
national security credentials are first-rate…
Good thought, there. Perhaps Mr. McCain should talk it up.
Related Posts
Brad, you may be right but wouldn’t it nice to have at least one republican in the race. I am sure that Obama is going to pick a democrat. That would make three dems in the prez and veep sweepstakes. So, I think that McCain should pick a REAL republican if he expects the conservatives to vote for him.
I blogged about this last night. http://rightcrosspuns.blogspot.com/2008/08/difference-between-keynote-cabinet.html
After the Dems win 5+ additional seats in the Senate ole Joe will no longer be welcome in the Democratic party. Good riddance.
Nice exerpt article about an issue you won’t see in the MSM. Apparently the veteran John McCain really isn’t that much of an enthusiast when it comes to veteran’s affairs:
A BUZZFLASH NEWS ANALYSIS
by Amy Weiss
Senators John McCain and Barack Obama brought veterans’ issues to the forefront in the presidential race as they addressed the Veterans of Foreign Wars (VFW) in Orlando this week. A response to McCain’s remarks from the Democratic National Committee shows that, despite his pro-veteran rhetoric, McCain voted 27 times against veterans’ health care needs; he has called the new GI bill “too generous”; and McCain misrepresents his own voting record compared to how key veterans groups have rated it. McCain’s rhetoric is at odds with his voting record.
It would seem as though John McCain should pick someone relatively young as his running mate. He’s vulnerable to the age issue and that would help alleviate to some extent that concern among the undecided voters. Perhaps the governor of Florida (I believe his name is Crisp?) would be a good pick for McCain.
Lieberman would be perfect for McCain, the
latter having been completely bought and
paid for by AIPAC.
> It would seem as though John McCain should
>pick someone relatively young
Aside from Strom Thurmond, who would that exclude?
Surely you’re not suggesting that we should disqualify Strom. Where are you from, boy?
Seriously, though, while y’all can converse about whatever you choose, note that my post said (and the WSJ quote reinforced the idea) that Lieberman should NOT be the veep candidate. Both I and the editorial in question suggested him for Secretary of State. Just in case y’all wanted to comment on THAT.
I wonder if Holy Joe can remember how many multi-million dollar homes he owns?
John McSame certainly can’t. Mark my words, the implosion has started.
The incompetent, senior moments will soon be too many to count and too obvious for Brad to ignore as he’s done so far.
Let’s hope there isn’t any cabinet post position in Lieberman’s future. I’m pretty sure he won’t have any significant committee assignments. Harry Reid is stuck with him until January but by golly he needs to get rid of him once the Senate goes solidly for the Dems. What were the people of Connecticut thinking back in ’06? Surely there is some buyer’s remorse.
Here’s an interesting theoretical question bearing upon my ongoing "civility" campaign — how do y’all feel about me allowing comments from someone who is, say, openly racist and/or anti-Semitic, and yet signs his remarks with his full name? I mean someone who, hypothetically, is known for such remarks as:
Ok by me. And let’s bring back Mary R while we’re at it. (It won’t even allow the full name to be posted)
First, the unperson you mention has actually been back, multiple times, under new pseudonyms. Whenever this happens, I’ll keep an eye on him/her for awhile, until the classic antisocial behavior reasserts itself, then ban the new persona as well.
A silly process, really, which I can’t help but mock in Orwellian terms (as I just did). But some people insist upon showing their fannies until they have made themselves unacceptable in polite society, to put it more in (sort of) Jane Austen terms.
I think maybe I’ll institute a new process, modeled on the Chinese one featured in Nicholas Kristof’s video, for people I’ve thrown out in the past who want back in. The really charming thing about the Chinese process is that they use this new "openness" to dissent to help them identify whom they want to lock up: If you want to protest, you must be someone they want to lock up. It’s very convenient for the Chinese gummint…
— Hugs and Kisses,
Big Brother
I don’t have a problem with people expressing their opinions. I don’t have a problem with them labeling a specific action or opinion as “racist,” or whatever, as long as they have a genuine source or reason for their description.
What becomes problematic is when they label people they disagree with as “socialist,” “liberal” or whatever. [I know, I know, “liberal” actually means something different by definition, but the truth is that it is a kind of catch-all for some people. Kind of like my grand-kids: the worst term to describe anybody is “cheater,” so that is what they use when they are really mad at each other.]
Labeling people, shoving them into a drawer (German expression–don’t know our equivalent — in eine Schublade schieben) is a kind of personal attack, is belittling and arrogant, and makes dialogue about issues nearly impossible–the person becomes the issue.
Anyway, that’s my opinion.
My biggest ongoing problem with Joe Lieberman is the complete coloring of his perspective on most issues based on his positions on the State of Israel. His entire foreign policy, as well as his support of McCain are tied to the Arab/Isreali conflict. He has no balance or broad perspective on foreign policy issues.
>My biggest ongoing problem
>with Joe Lieberman is the
>complete coloring of his
>perspective on most issues
>based on his positions on
>the State of Israel.
Wow! No kidding, pal! Have you ever heard
of AIPAC?
What do you want me to do now? Come by and
clean your house too? Pleeze…give me a
break!