Subscribe by RSS
(1 votes, average: 5 out of 5)
Loading ...Visit the You Decide 2008 Store »
(1 votes, average: 5 out of 5) Loading ...Visit the You Decide 2008 Store »
Related Posts:
- Joe Lieberman Positioning Himself for Change
- Lieberman Endorses McCain - Video added
- Hillary, McCain Enjoy Support Amongst Democrats
- Monday Night Roundup, John McBush
- McCain struggles to court former Bush donors
- Did the New York Times make McCain stronger?
- McCain Plotting His Iowa Comeback
- Video: McCain’s Recent Gaffe
- Disgruntled Republicans Returning to McCain?
- Video: McCain, Romney Campaign Together in Utah
Note: The comments section below contains
opinions and views from the online community at YouDecide2008.com, read
at your own risk! Please don't assume that YouDecide2008.com agrees with
or endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand, this is an open forum. Be
respectful or posts will be removed.
22 Responses to “Joe Lieberman being vetted as McCain VP”
Leave a Reply
Visited 909 times, 3 so far today
Loading ...
IT is either liebermann or it is a minority or a female and i dont minde liebermann either if he can win mccain this election, ill take it.
Lieberman has done a great deal to ensure that McCain stays on the campaign, doing a lot for his alleged bipartisanship and even correcting gaffes of the republican nominee, like the al-qaid one. i think he has secured some sort of affiliation with a possible mccain administration, whether he is his vp or not.
Picking Leiberman is an example of the Hotelling Law (principle of minimum differentiation).
Think about it. Republicans had very little hope going into this election because of the widespread feeling Bush’s policies were a failure and that we need anything but more of the same. No matter what. (Not my opinion but certainly widespread in the press and a lot of voters.)
Obama has capitalized on this by saying he is the candidate for change, but has done it from an extreme and even radical liberal position.
Now as a moderate candidate, McCain can win conservative and moderate votes to balance out the emotional cry for change. If Lieberman is the VP candidate, that may also win a few more moderate democrats, leaving Obama with those that are inspired by his speeches, naive voters that just want change or don’t know Obama’s positions are so far left, plus radical liberals who do believe in his policies and philosophies.
Why cater to conservatives in the choice of VP? Pick a candidate that will help win the Hillary supporters. Very few conservatives are going to pick a radical liberal over a moderate Republican, no matter how frustrated they are that he’s not a conservative candidate. The only concern would be how it affects the funding… moving to the left, is he going to still be able to get an influx of financing to carry the campaign?
But Lieberman is a well-respected politician who apparently has as much principle as anyone out there, he will gain moderate Democrat votes, he has a well-known name and he supports the war on terror. Seems like a pretty good choice to me.
Conservatives like myself like liebermann is some ways for his support of the war, and also he is a great guy and has never said a bad thing once in his whole political life. HE will get many democrat votes and indepedent. He was betrayed by his party but still won his seat back as an indepedent. I believe him and McCain are a perfect match because Liebermann could step in as president if anything happened to McCain.
BobR, I believe the choice iin liebermann will win McCain the presidency for the liberal and indepedent votes will be in great amounts, and you are very right about conservatives. As a conservative i do not like McCain as some others, but i would much rather have him over Obama and ultimately every conservative is going to see that when they go to vote, which they will.
I thought Lieberman was already on the shortlist for VP and has been for some time? Lieberman’s a nice guy but a bad choice for McCain.
Just because the Democratic party abandoned Lieberman and Lieberman turned Independent doesn’t mean Independents and Democrats will aotumatically go for Lieberman.
In Lieberman’s own words “I agree more often than not with Democrats on domestic policy. I agree more often than not with Republicans on foreign and defense policy.” It’s the foreign and defense policies that aren’t going in the GOP’s favour.
I believe he should pick a women. Lieberman should play some part and would make a great vice but I still think he should pick a women or minority.
I’ve been amused at the Weekly Poll here on site that has a McCain/Clinton ticket leading at the moment. *L*
I’m OK with Lieberman, I don’t think McCain’s running mate will be as major an issue as Obama’s in swinging votes. McCain hasn’t seen a lot of bumps in the road like Obama has. He is who he is, and it’s been pretty much “steady as she goes” for him. Obama’s had a lot more ups and downs with the Wright thing, bittergate, etc.
Ups and downs? I think you’re right there Babs, his problems have been more publicized. But I wonder something, work with me on this: why is it that Obama’s trail has been the most irregular and yet he has been REGULARLY above McCain on the polls? I know you will say that it is a narrow lead… but a lead nonetheless. Why is that?
It’s a non-rethorical question, by the way.
I think people would want to know anything about Obama more than McCain because, well, he is just more of a public figure nowadays. That doesn’t mean he is more loved by the media. Just more publicized.
The media follows rating. Right now John Edwards Scandal has put Obama and McCain in the background.
Hagel vs Liberman on meet the press.
http://www.youtube.com/wa.....I&NR=1
O.S.
“Conservatives like myself like liebermann is some ways for his support of the war, and also he is a great guy and has never said a bad thing once in his whole political life.”
Man you raise my eyebrows to the top of my head with that one.
There is no such thing as a politician who has never said a bad thing once in their whole political life.
Gawd Joe Lieberman is such a monotoned boring speaker he reminds me of the teacher in Ferris Beullers Day Off http://www.youtube.com/wa.....LieHoAly0o
The clip Dreadsen is quite interesting.
Kinda funny how Lieberman makes the connection of 9/11 and Iraq and fails to mention 9/11 and Saudi Arabia, the country where Bin Laden is from and the country where 15 of the 19 hijackers are from.
I like how Chuck Hagel pulls him up about mentioning his children and grand-children and how he doesn’t have a market on that. That reminds me of how some Republicans try and corner market patriotism, religion and supporting the troops, and if you don’t agree with everything then you’re an heathen anti-American scumbag.
I also like how Hagel makes the obvious point that it should be the Iraqi people who determine the fate of Iraq, and I think that’s something Obama should really be plugging on this campaign.
What do people think about Hagel as Foreign Secretary for Obama?
Nzpudding
Ferris Beuller teacher actually speaks faster!
I think ex GOP senator Gilchrest would be good for Foreign Secretary. Hagel would be good Secretary of Defense or Foreign Secretary.
Gilchrest made a full illustration of how diplomacy has worked in the past and it can work now. And neither one of them endorsed McCain.
Hey i want you to take a look at this. Lot more on Gilchrest and Hagel.
http://blog.myspace.com/i.....F896598148
One thing Obama has to do as far as his being a “uniter” talk is he has to show it but making it obvious he is going to put some people across the aisle in his cabinet
I think he’ll end up as McCain’s VP choice. Somehow he seems less controversial than Mitt Romney or Mike Huckabee.
I want McCain to pick Powell, Hagel and then Liberman in that order. It would satisfy my conservative viewpoints and require the next president to actually talk to our enemies, if for no other reason than to clarify why we are enemies.
For that matter I would love a Hagel/Powell presidential ticket it would matter very little which one is on top to me, guess that would have to wait though huh.
Lieberman would be a good pick for him. When McCain was nominated, it was pretty clear that a primary appeal of his candidacy is that he’s pretty independent-minded in a year when being republican is hard. That means he’s capturing a lot more independents than most other republican candidates probably would. But he’d be the oldest serving president, and lots of voters are just a little nervous about his health. Therefor, to reassure his voter block, he has the unique challenge of needing a VP with basically the same appeal as his, who they would be very comfortable assuming presidency if needed. Lieberman basically meets that challenge, being another particularly independent-minded politician with a long history of bi-partisanship to stand behind.
It would be kind of funny really, the republican that most conservatives dislike running with the ex-democrat that most democrats have always take issue with. They’d be a memorable pair
Todd
You agree with what Powell has said about the war?
Do you also agree with Hagel being one of the republican sponsors on the phase 2 of the senate intelligence report?
This just surprises me because Hagel and Powell aren’t on the same page with McCain at all. Hagel hasn’t endorsed McCain and he’s not even going to the convention. Powell has said so many great things about Obama. Even said he didn’t know which of the two he was going to endorse. And there are more rumors that Powell may endorse Obama. These two guys would be tragic choices for McCain. That would be like Obama picking Lieberman himself!
I don’t know Dreasden. I believe that Powell and Hagel would give McCain some conservative credibility. Powell has advised both Obama and McCain on several issues so I don’t know if you can read to much in media reports of his endorsing Obama or McCain at this point. On the war you have to try to figure Powell out on that one. Do you believe he supported it with a quote like “Saddam Hussein must be dealt with” or against it when he said “the intelligence on Iraq was less than solid”, I guess individuals would have to decide that one.
I agree with Powell on the fact that he said if we were going to do it we should have used overwhelming force. I also agree with the statement that once we break it we own it (thats why I believe Democrats should have impeached Bush or shut up) either way we were/are there and have to fix it now. I also believe we needed to attack Saddam because of his terrorist ties as I have explained in other post. So to me the fact that he was a terrorist was reason enough to invade and Bush should have simply said that.
Now Hagel is a conservative who was for the war before he was against the war and once stated plainly that he and his colleges in the congress should have demanded more and done more to learn the facts (so they are culpable also). I agree with that analysis. I disagree with his belief that it was turning into another Vietnam and wonder why he voted for the war if he felt he didn’t have enough info (like the dems). I support his signing on to the intell report because I believe he truly feels what it says is true but I have problems with the actual report (I feel it is a partisan report overall).
But here is the difference between Powell Hagel and 98% of the democrats. Hagel and Powell are social conservatives who are not afraid to call it like they believe it is. They believe in less government overall and less taxtion. I have no doubt that if need be neither Powell or Hagel would have any problems dealing with Iran or more importantly Saudi Arabia, and I could be confident in the way they did it. Obama just can’t do that. I would also have no doubt about their approach to the economy.
All I want is a social conservative president who will also make it clear we are not patsy’s for the world to abuse. Countries have no problems signing us to protectionist treaties or taking our money but they want to call us bullies when we go to war, I say they can’t have it both ways. I want a man who is a man’s man (a don’t push us person). Or a women who would rather love you but has no problem picking up the broom and chasing you with it if she needs to.
I am sorry but the only two Dems like that are Nunn and Biden and as long as Obama is # 1 on the ticket I will not support them. Clinton is more conservative on terrorist than Obama so where does that leave us in the future ?
Those are good defenses as to why those two are admirable politicians, but unfortunately it doesn’t address the question as to why they’re likely to run as VP with a president that holds some substantial position differences with them - some of them primary to his campaign. I’m afraid I think you’re going to be pretty disappointed when the announcement comes.
I like your picks though. If it’s an Obama / Biden ticket, I’ll be a very happy boy, but I’m not getting my hopes up.
Todd
Powell
http://youtube.com/watch?v=-b32CpmZVYc
Powell again
http://youtube.com/watch?v=2ZTLmOoPzjs
Powell said those things because as he said in the video there were burn notices on the intelligence he had and those notices were well aware of before they sent him. They didn’t inform him that his intell was bogus. Him being misled himself is why he resigned. He would never be a VP on a foreign policy that he doesn’t agree with.
So Todd a question
Do you believe that if the intelligence that was given to congress was contradicted by available intelligence at the same time that it was okay to suppress the other intelligence
since he was going to do a good thing? So the end justifies the means?
What we don’t have in any of the candidates is a tell it like it is on why we have problems in the Arabic countries.
http://www.youtube.com/wa.....ruOg4601vs
that is Ron Paul. I don’t think War, war and more war. Or doing other countries like Clinton did Iraq with sanctions which killed 100’s of thousands in Iraq is the way to go.
Did blow back cause 911 like Ron Paul said?
http://www.youtube.com/wa.....jqGBBFiowE
Ok this is the meat of the argument that separates us. The first video appears to be very clear and unambiguous. We hear and see the same thing but we disagree on what it said. You watch the video and hear Powell saying he was against the war or he tried to stop it (I guess). What I hear is Powell saying he advised Bush to go through the UN and when he did “I was with him”. He said we would have to own it and be responsible and that post invasion planning was poor at best. The first video says nothing more than that to me.
The second video is also a hard sell for me. Now I do not want to slam Powell, because I like him, but I will state this once again. If the entire congress (not just Republicans but the Dems also) can be lied to or manipulated we are truly in a sad shape. To further that, if the the Secretary of State and FORMER JOINT CHIEF OF STAFF can be manipulated into war by a president and vice president- who are greatly and widely criticized as being stupid then we are all doomed. If we are to believe that Bush and Chaney manipulated all this info then we should readily admit that our ENTIRE congress has no right to be on Capital Hill. We are saying that ALL of them are void of any common since and/or ability to do the job we sent ALL of them there to do. I ask you this-If a U.S. SENATOR and REPRESENTATIVE cannot find any reason whatsoever to vote against this war, despite the fact they hold the most powerful positions in this country, sit on intelligence committees, over site committees and foreign relations committees (which affords them to hear extensive testimony over years and years on all kinds of intelligence issues) then you are right we need a massive investigation. I want to know HOW Bush and Chaney shut down every bit of information which opposed the war effort and fabricated new info without any truth getting out. I believe it is factually impossible. The democrats who voted for war did so out of politics and are criminals themselves if we go for the Bush/Chaney lie thesis. I welcome an investigation, on ALL of them.
No I do not believe that IF false intelligence was used in place of correct intelligence that it is OK nor do I believe the end justifies the means. As I said before Bush or any other congressperson should have educated themselves on the true threat and made that argument to the people. Iraq was a threat, that is simply the bottom line. The Bush lied crowd seems to be willing to totally ignore democrats part in the Iraq “game” and the fact that Democrats want total exclusion from the blame game. Investigate them ALL when Pelosi and Ried demand that Democrats AND Republicans be held accountable we can start talking. When we admit that congresspersons are a lot more resourceful than democrats wish to admit I will join the GET’EM crowd. Until then I want to do as Powell said and fix it.
Now Paul, here’s my deal with him. I support EVERYTHING he says EXCEPT his isolationist views and his ignorance on the terrorism. He has good economic policy but We need to fix Iraq and then get out not just leave. We need to admit that terrorist are dangerous especially when they are motivated by religion and we need to understand that America stepping aside does not mean the world will turn into paradise. Paul referred to Woodrow Wilson but he fails to understand that his isolationist views before WW I were partially responsible for Germany’s actions. I agree with the blow back theory but to say it caused 911 is once again ignoring the religious aspect of terror. That’s like saying the extremist are right in hating Jews and infidels because they are Jews and infidels. It also releases them from what you demand we live by–communication instead of killing.
Paul was speaking some truth when he was booed hard in the debates. That however is an American problem not a Bush/Republican problem as Kennedy and Carter were the ones who gave the most support to the Sha of Iran when they overthrew the legitimate Iranian government and installed the Sha, for oil access.
I would vote for Paul before I would vote for Obama ! but major wars were/could be linked to America standing back and removing itself from world problems also. If Paul modified his stance on religious based terror (which I have explained is different than Iranian political based terror) I would consider voting for him b/c he is more conservative than McCain on every other issue that I know of.
Indi keep in mind I said I would like Powell or Hagel to run not that they should or would although I believe they could back McCain if he could convince them he wants a managed exist which left a under control Iraq.
I will still argue that you guys need to separate Bush’s Iraq from McCains Iraq. They are different in that McCain has to get us out not get us in. You should not say that because McCain wants to leave after the job is completely done he is cloning Bush policy, I think we can all agree Bush had no thought out exit plan. We should be able to agree McCain or Obama needs to ensure a safe Iraq with a viable government which will not take up arms against the U.S. when we leave.
Todd, your last paragraph touched on a subject that came forefront to me this morning in a statement made by Obama. Here’s what he said:
“Our job in this election is not just ‘win,’ although I’m a big believer in winning,†Obama said during the rally. “I don’t intend to lose this election. John McCain doesn’t know what he’s up against.â€
“He can talk all he wants about Britney (Spears) and Paris (Hilton), but I don’t have time for that mess,†Obama said.”
Now tell me, isn’t Obama - who cannot manage to say McCain’s name without adding Bush to it - attacking McCain’s character each and every time he does that? I find Obama’s statement offensive and crass on several levels, but that point struck me as very hypocritical.
That’s all Obama has been the entire process Babs, He did it with Clinton (and I can’t stand her) and now he is doing it with McCain.
To me the double standard of all is pointing out that McCain doesn’t want him because he doesn’t look like the other folks on our money. This is a clear message calling McCains racial thinking into question. The real BS came after McCain’s response when Obama accused McCain of introducing race in the election. Obama’s obviously tried to flip the race baiting comment. He might as well just said ‘hey I’m black they don’t want me” and then said McCain was a racist for pointing out Obama said he was black.
When he said They i believe he was talking about the Right in general. And if you look at the emails and internet websites going around i see a lot of racial hate on Obama.
Todd protesters at the DNC
http://www.youtube.com/wa.....eAR52_0_w4
So Todd do you think that the reason the Dems are not going forth with any investigation is because once the investigation rolls out Pelosi and a whole bunch of other Dems will be getting handcuffed along with Bush and Cheney?
I also want to know what you think should be done to prevent this from happening?
http://www.crooksandliars.....ate-floor/
You might have to down load it. Dick Durbin talks about how he was sworn to secrecy on some bull. Do you think that there should be some changes made so that a senator doesn’t have to keep a secret about something this damaging? Or should he get arrested along with the rest of them?