Senator Joe Lieberman....... a truly good man
Thoroughly Impressed with Senator Joe Lieberman's comments today on Hannity and Colmes in wake of the sucessful Iraqi election. It is clear to me that his comments, when juxtaposed with those made by Senator Kerry and Senator Kennedy today, show that he would have been an infinitely stronger presidential candidate than Kerry proved to be. In this humble blogger's opinion, the Democratic Party would gain an immeasurable amount by putting their faith in their former Vice Presidential candidate from Connecticut from this day forward. I may not agree with all of his policies, but he has shown an innate ability to put partisanship aside at the crucial moments.
Barak Obama famously spoke at the Democratic Convention about unifying the country. Joe Lieberman, more so than anyone else who ran for president on the Democratic side, is CLEARLY a unifier. I already respected Lieberman. After all I felt highly enough of him to vote for him in 2000. This served as a reminder of why. I wouldn't vote for Al Gore today, but it would not be the end of the world if Lieberman had some heightened power in the government.
As Senator Lieberman said today [and I paraphrase] "It used to be American policy that partisanship ended at the American borders. I wish it were still that way today because this is a truly glorius day. The families of the fallen soldiers in my state have all told me not to have the troops pull out. They don't want to feel like their sons and daughters death was in vain. Today is proof that it was not in vain and that their honorable service has been rewarded."
Barak Obama famously spoke at the Democratic Convention about unifying the country. Joe Lieberman, more so than anyone else who ran for president on the Democratic side, is CLEARLY a unifier. I already respected Lieberman. After all I felt highly enough of him to vote for him in 2000. This served as a reminder of why. I wouldn't vote for Al Gore today, but it would not be the end of the world if Lieberman had some heightened power in the government.
As Senator Lieberman said today [and I paraphrase] "It used to be American policy that partisanship ended at the American borders. I wish it were still that way today because this is a truly glorius day. The families of the fallen soldiers in my state have all told me not to have the troops pull out. They don't want to feel like their sons and daughters death was in vain. Today is proof that it was not in vain and that their honorable service has been rewarded."
posted by Mark at
1/30/2005
14 Comments:
Just thought I'd let you know that mentioning "Hannity and Colmes" in the first sentence of a post is a guaranteed way to lose a certain percentage of your readers...all I see is "blah blah blah Hannity and Colmes blah blah blah..." and click.
;^)
-LB
By
Anonymous, at 10:29 PM
Gotta disagree with you here, Mark.
As a person with conservative leanings, it doesn't surprise me that you'd be interested in Joe Lieberman, just as I like John McCain a great deal.
But from a Democratic Party persepctive, this is a disasterous idea. Lieberman is a DINO, who has been rather hawkish on the war and basically moderate in policy. This is why he's attractive to you, but his problem in a national campaign in 2004 would have been being eaten up by "If he agrees with me on everything, then why should you vote for him."
I like Joe, I think he's a nice guy, and I think he's articulate, but he's a debacle of a national candidate.
Don't get me wrong: So was John Kerry too. We just didn't know it until it was too late.
By
Dylan, at 10:34 PM
Lori,
Yes I saw Lieberman on Hannity and Colmes but I also saw Kerry's entire interview on Meet the Press.... it may be shocking to know that I use my remote control frequently. LOL. I hope that you were kidding and you at least finished reading my post. Colmes is a liberal....albeit a really crappy one....but I figured if there was ever a show you'd watch on Fox News it might be that one. I must confess though....Colmes is a bit of a farce....you'd think they could find someone a bit better to represent the liberal viewpoint.
Still it's not as if Colmes or Hannity put words in Lieberman's mouth....he has certainly proved more than capable in expressing his own viewpoint.
By
Mark, at 10:46 PM
Dylan,
you have a point about Lieberman's views on the Iraq policy. Perhaps they are/were too closely in line with Bush's to create the differentiation necessary to present the Senator as a viable alternative to Bush. But as critical an issue as this is, it still only represents one core issue. Lieberman and Bush certainly do not agree on everything, and I havelittle doubt that in a campaign Lieberman would show no hesitation to highlight the differences.
For example, just because Lieberman was happy to see a smoother than expected election process today doesn't mean that he agreed with every decision made in the process that ultimately lead to this day. It's simply that he's putting some of the differences aside to enjoy what is inarguably an historic moment in Middle Eastern history. If this putting differences aside philosophy is frowned upon by the Left, then I ask you what did the left find so inspiring about Obama's speech.
You'll be hard pressed to find somebody who doesn't beleive that Obama's was the best speech at the Democratic COnvention. If this is the case, then given that Obama's plea was for unity, then how on earth would Lieberman's stances be disasterous for Democrats.
Do you Dylan beleive that Obama's speech, while moving, was ultimately misguided? Based upon your comments it appears that way. Clarify please. Of course I invite any and all other readers of this blog to chime in.
By
Mark, at 10:57 PM
Oh and Lori....you're still the coolest. Even if you don't read my posts. :-P
By
Mark, at 10:59 PM
Sean Hannity is a douchebag.
I mean, I'll listen to Michael Savage for the sheer entertainment value of his bluster, but I can't stand Hannity. Something in his voice and tone just make me want to slam his head in a door.
He's on my short list of people I'd like to see crammed into a rocket and fired at the sun.
--Matt
By
Anonymous, at 11:00 AM
Don't hold anything back Matt. Tell us what you REALLY think LOL.
By
Mark, at 11:32 AM
Actually, I wasn't kidding. I REALLY didn't read your post. I saw "Hannity and Colmes" and my politics alarm went off and I thought "I am just not in the mood for this." What can I say, it's a girl's perogative.
I've had my fill of politics for a while. And I've given up television until further notice. Just need a mental filter for a while. I'll get curious and return some day, but the world won't stop turning and people won't stop doing cruel and inhumane things to each other and politicians won't stop being slimeballs just because I've sworn off televised news.
I decided it was time to spend more time gardening, reading inspirational things, spending time with my loved ones and just generally sending out some POSITIVE energy for a change.
That's just me. Keep the political blogging going...that's what's great about our country--the freedom to write what you want to without fear (or at least it used to be what's great about our country...).
--Lori
She Who Wants Some Peace, God Damnit. ;^)
By
Anonymous, at 10:05 PM
Sorry it took so long to get back here...
You raise a red herring here, by bringing up Obama. His speech wasn't about unity as in "We should all just get along", it was about Red America or Blue American not being able to be viewed as a monolith. In other words, we, as individuals, are so much more than simplistic labels.
THAT was the real message of Obama's speech. Not "We should be united" but "There is so much more to us than our differences."
Sadly, I fear Lieberman's views are more about aquiescing. You can call that unity if you want, but what it really is is "Since the Republicans are in power, we should try to get along." I like Lieberman, I think he's a nice guy, but I think, as a Democratic politician, he's merely adequate.
Also, everything Lieberman says right now needs to be taken with a grain of salt. There are loud rumblings that Rumsfeld is going to resign, and Lieberman feels like he might be able to step in. If you haven't been hearing the rumors for a few months, I know this seems ludicrous, but it is something that has been out at least since the election.
By
Dylan, at 1:04 AM
Mark, don't think you can charm me into reading your posts by saying I'm the "coolest". I'm immune to your silly British charm. I AM enjoying reading the commment sections of the posts I boycott....very interesting.
A question: does it ever bother you that most of the people you admire (except for your dad) have VERY different political views than you? Do you ever think "maybe it's me?" ;^)
But Mark, you're still TOTALLY (gag) the coolest, even if you ARE more conservative than my grandmother.
--L
By
Anonymous, at 9:41 PM
Immune to my british charm eh? hmmmm ... not sure what to say about that. You must have expertly swallowed a "capsule" or a "tablet" to gain immunity because I swear it wasn't always that way. Darn the pharmaceutical companies and their "progress" ! I think I liked it better when you weren't immune. :-P
By
Mark, at 10:46 PM
Dylan a statement lke "there is so much more to us than our differences" ... Doesn't a reasonable person interpret that to mean "let's focus on our similarities and unify?"
The democrats have a choice..they can react by moving eaven further to the extreme left, or they can react by moving to the center. What's readily apparent is if they don't move, then they're dead. What ISN'T readily apparent is which direction they should move to be most effective.....and obviously the direction is where you and I differ. I suppose we'll wait and see.
Dylan, when John Kerry was interviewed on Meet the PRes this weekend, he was asked "if you didn't believe, as you outwardly stated during the primaries, that Howard Dean was fit and prepared enough to be a legitimate president, do you believe he is fit and prepared enough to be the head of the DNC?" Kerry answered "Sure he is" but wasn't really able to explain himself as to why Dean could be qualified for one but not the other...... I think that's a problem because I am assuming Kerry felt Dean's viewpoint was too extreme to have a shot at winning the presidency. If Dean takes over, then the WHOLE PARTY, with Dean as its leader, may fulfill Kerry's fear. Just a thought...
By
Mark, at 10:53 PM
Begin novel
Alright, point by point...
>>Dylan a statement lke "there is so much more to us than our differences" ... Doesn't a reasonable person interpret that to mean "let's focus on our similarities and unify?"<<
No.
Ok, just kidding, I'm not going to leave it at that... First let me say that I don't want to be misunderstood; Unity is good. It isn't, however, something that the Democratic Party should strive for at the expense of our core values (The Republican Party wouldn't either)... Obama's speech was about there being more to us that red or blue... We are not binary. And how come everytime a Republican says that Democrats need to strive for Unity, they always seem to imply beneath their statements that that means the Democrats should come to them.
>>The democrats have a choice..they can react by moving eaven further to the extreme left, or they can react by moving to the center. What's readily apparent is if they don't move, then they're dead. What ISN'T readily apparent is which direction they should move to be most effective.....and obviously the direction is where you and I differ. I suppose we'll wait and see. <<
I disagree completly. Certainly these two choices are out there to be taken, but there are more than those two choices. The third, and hopefully the one the party will take will be to stick to what our core values are and fight for them more forcefully. The problem with the Party over the past few years 6 years or so hasn't been the position we hold on a particular political x-axis, but how forcefully we fight for the position we are on. That is why I became involved with the President Boxer blog, not because I think Boxer is the best candidate for President in '08, but because she and Howard Dean are the only two people who have been willing to stand up and fight for their party without regard to their own repuatations. The Republicans have been good at it for a long time. We haven't been that good at it, and that needs to change.
>>Dylan, when John Kerry was interviewed on Meet the PRes this weekend, he was asked "if you didn't believe, as you outwardly stated during the primaries, that Howard Dean was fit and prepared enough to be a legitimate president, do you believe he is fit and prepared enough to be the head of the DNC?" Kerry answered "Sure he is" but wasn't really able to explain himself as to why Dean could be qualified for one but not the other...... I think that's a problem because I am assuming Kerry felt Dean's viewpoint was too extreme to have a shot at winning the presidency. If Dean takes over, then the WHOLE PARTY, with Dean as its leader, may fulfill Kerry's fear. Just a thought... <<
I think this speaks more to Kerry's ineptitude than Dean's. I was so disillusioned by Kerry's performance on MTP this weekend. He was inarticulate, he had nothing new to say, and he also admitted to treason when he said that he was in Cambodia giving arms to the Khymer Rouge (they were on the other side)... I actually cringed when he stated, verbatim, the "I made a mistake in the way I talked about the war, President Bush made a mistake in the way he went to war" line. Blah, obviously someone never learned that variety is the spice of life. Kerry's statements on Dean came off to me more as an inability to square his own ideas about Dean in his head than to Dean's ability to lead the party. Dean has punch, and fight, and that is exactly what this party needs.
End novel
By
Dylan, at 12:49 AM
I could SO make an "innoculation" comment...but I'm not going to....
L
By
Anonymous, at 10:57 AM
Post a Comment
<< Home