Showing posts with label Liebermann. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Liebermann. Show all posts

Friday, November 09, 2007

LIeberman May Vote Republican...Again....


Joe Lieberman, one of too few sensible Democrats, is lashing out at the Loonatic Left fringe that has hijacked his (former)Party:
he 2008 Democratic candidates are beholden to a "hyper-partisan, politically paranoid" liberal base that could endanger the final nominee's chances of winning next year's presidential election, Joe Lieberman, the former vice-presidential Democratic candidate, said yesterday.

In his most outspoken attack on fellow Democrats since he was unsuccessfully challenged last year by Ned Lamont, a liberal Democrat, for his Senate seat in Connecticut, Mr Lieberman yesterday said he might not vote for the Democratic presidential nominee next year.

from the Financial Times:
The 2007 Weblog Awards

Saturday, April 21, 2007

A Cup of Joe for Harry Spineless Reid

Joe Lieberman, the only principled Democrat left in public office Independent Senator, blasted the seditious and traitorous speech of Harry Reid, who basically has surrendered to al Queda by saying that the War in Iraq is lost (see previous WMD stories).
With all due respect, I strongly disagree. Senator Reid’s statement is not based on military facts on the ground in Iraq and does not advance our cause there.

Al Qaeda’s strategy for victory in Iraq is clear. They are trying to murder as many innocent civilians as possible in an effort to reignite sectarian fighting and drive us to retreat from Iraq.

The question now before us is whether we respond to these terrorist attacks by running away as Al Qaeda hopes - abandoning the future of Iraq, the Middle East, and ultimately our own security to the very same people responsible for this week’s atrocities - or whether we stand united to fight them.

This is exactly the wrong time to conclude that we have lost the war in Iraq, or that our new strategy has failed. Instead, we should provide General Petraeus and his troops with the time and the resources to succeed. We should not surrender in the face of barbarism
UPDATE: Previously on WMD...here, and here (includes video of Reid's statement).

Thursday, February 22, 2007

BREAKING NEWS: Lieberman Says War Vote Could Prompt Party Switch

From The Politico:
Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman of Connecticut told the Politico Thursday that he has no immediate plans to switch parties, but suggested Democratic opposition to funding the war in Iraq might change his mind.

Lieberman, a registered independent who caucuses with Democrats, has been among the strongest supporters of the war and President Bush’s plan to send another 21,500 combat troops into Iraq to help quell the violence there.

"I have no desire to change parties," Lieberman said in a telephone interview. "If that ever happens, it is because I feel the majority of Democrats have gone in a direction that I don't feel comfortable with."

Asked whether that hasn't already happened with Iraq, Lieberman said: "We will see how that plays out in the coming months," specifically how the party approaches the issue of continued funding for the war.
Editor and Publisher has a bit about a TIME Magazine piece on this subject as well...
"Independent" Sen. Joe Liebeman receives a mini-profile titled "What Joe Wants," a key question since he is "the Senate's one-man tipping point." Republicans, the magazine says, are "courting him" and Lieberman "has been indulging in some fairly immodest political footsie."

Lieberman calls jumping to the Republican side, and tilting the Senate, "a remote possibility," which means there's at least a chance of that. Time seems to push Lieberman in this direction, as the article concludes: "Lieberman's GOP flirtation has its risks--and a time limit....The longer he waits to capitalize on his moment, the greater the danger that he'll be tagged as one of those politicians for whom having power is more important than using it."
The Democrats have overplayed their hand...again. The Democrats have a tough choice ahead: appease their anti-war, ultra-liberal, Bush hating base or keep control of the United States Senate. Any takers on which they will choose?