Posted on 07/05/2006 8:47:07 PM PDT by bitt
the enemy of my enemy COULD be my friend...
Just imagine the DemocRAT infighting if the Gore-Lieberman ticket had been elected.
Hey Joe, where you gonna run to now
Where you gonna run to
Hey Joe, I said, where you gonna run to now
Where you, where you gonna go
Baloney. Lieberman is one of the most liberal members of the U.S. Senate. His 2005 ACU rating (8) was actually lower than Hillary Clinton's (12).
The question I find myself asking is not: "Why are so many Democrats sabotaging Lieberman's campaign?" -- but: "Why do so many Republicans insist on calling this flaming @sshole a freaking 'moderate?'"
This is not true. Lieberman did so at the Dem convention in 2004.
They're (kook left) afraid that Joe is a Zell.
Joe is no Zell obviously, but it is enough to scare the moonbats out of them.
And 18% don't vote? What do they say when forced to make a choice?
I don't dislike Lieberman, think he is a decent man. He did what all politicians do when seeking power, he went along with all of Gore's agenda.
If he were not pro-abortion he might make a good Republican.
They may be marching off a cliff (let's hope so). Joe had the audacity to take a different, more rational route (as far as Iraq is concerned).
To Avenge Yasser Yarafat.
If he loses the election in November, Lieberman will make a good cabinet member in this or a future Republican administration.
His support for the War On Terror. He don't tow the kook line, so he needs to be done away with. What we're seeing is just that.
Lieberman's best bet might be to try and run for the nomination after all. He might lose, but if the Hildebeast's star continues to burn out with the party faithful that would leave Gore and Kerry to battle it out with the other dwarves. It would be the ultimate irony if Lieberman could emerge as the voice of reason after those two destroyed each other.
Because they believe his liberal positions on (most) issues are "moderated" by his hawkish stance in the WOT. You're right -- Joe's no moderate. But he's got his head on straight when it comes to dealing with Islamists.
My guess is the dems are peeved at Joe for straying from the plantation and cozying up with GWB and the administration on some past issues.
It seems there are only a few dems who are ALLOWED to do that. Such dems must also mercilessly trash GWB on other issues at the same time even while they are working with him on some issues ( a la kennedy and clinton. )
Like him or not, Joe is a gentlemen, so unlike the others named above.
He's good on the war, but on every other issue he is a liberal Democrat. That his own party has rejected him only emphasizes how unbalanced they have become on the issue of the war.
Consider a defeated Lieberman. Think about a high energy ex-Democrat who wants to help his country. Think about a sizable book with many, many details about his life as a Democratic insider. Think about Hannity & Colmes & Lieberman.
I don't think a loss by Joe would be all that bad, no, not at all. In fact, it might be the worst nightmare for the Dims since Zell retired.
I have a vague recollection of him? He was some arab guy of little consequence right LOL? :)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.