Gore endorsing Dean, not Lieberman (Lieberman loses respect for Gore)

msnbc ^ | 12/8/03

[kcvl]

"I was surprised," Mr. Lieberman said of Mr. Gore's decision as he arrived at a fund-raiser on West 22nd Street in Manhattan last night with his wife, Hadassah.

Mr. Lieberman went on to assert that he was staying in the race, and he took a swipe at Dr. Dean, saying, "But I am more determined than ever to continue to fight for what's right for my party and my country and to move both my party and my country forward, not backward."

Pressed by reporters on whether Mr. Gore's endorsement mattered, he chuckled and said, "More tomorrow."

In a written statement earlier in the day, Mr. Lieberman pointedly noted how he had remained loyal to Mr. Gore. "I have a lot of respect for Al Gore," he said. "That is why I kept my promise not to run if he did."

Even after Mr. Gore's intentions had spread through news reports early yesterday evening, Jano Cabrera, Mr. Lieberman's chief spokesman, said that Mr. Gore had not called his onetime running mate to alert him. But Mr. Lieberman's aides said the campaign was not caught completely by surprise because officials had been hearing rumors of an endorsement of Dr. Dean for days.

Mr. Lieberman and his aides said he would not change his strategy, which is to try to place third or better in the first primary state of New Hampshire and then go on to win a significant number of states on Feb. 3, when the primaries move to the South and the West.

Still, there were signs the Lieberman campaign was scrambling. His aides decided to keep the fund-raiser closed to the news media last night, after considering opening it for coverage, and canceled a campaign event planned for this afternoon before a Democratic debate in New Hampshire.

On Sunday, Mr. Lieberman was in Florida remembering the bitter 36-day recount there when the contested presidential election of 2000 stood in the balance.

He reminded a crowd of Democrats how close it had been until a 5-to-4 decision of the Supreme Court sealed George W. Bush's victory. "We got mad, didn't we?" he said. "Now let's get even."

[OldFriend]

You are mistaken about his unwillingness to disenfranchize the media. While saying he was unaware of the move to do so, it later was acknowledged that he was at the meeting where the plan was hatched with the lawywers. The man is incapable of tellng the truth on ANY issue and is not to be trusted.

[mewzilla]

Howie's toast. The Toons now have him lock, stock, and barrel. The only question now is what do they have on Howie that's given them such excellent leverage? Inquiring minds want to know....

[OldFriend]

It was acknowledged that LIEberman was at the very meeting with the attorneys as they plotted to disenfranchize the military votes. The plan was to contest Florida and create mayhem. They succeeded!

[OldFriend]

In order to 'pay' for the reduction in marginal tax rates, Reagan raised taxes on (evil) corporations by about $200,000,000.......if I remember correctly. He also spent $3 for every $1 taken into the treasury.

[bc2]

America already has one openly and actively socialist party. That is the Democrats. I want the Republicans to act conservative, to protect and defend the Constitution, and to not grow the government and it's control over every aspect of our lives at an equal (or even faster) pace than the socialist Democrats are doing.

No one and nothing is perfect, and I'm far from an idealist, but I do see the Republicans catching up with Democrats as far as increasing size and scope of government, their socialist regulatory policies, gun controls, etc. I will credit Bush for what is certainly a symbolic late-term abortion ban, but there are many faults.

One would expect that when Republicans have a majority, we can push a lot of judges, policies, etc through the Congress. But that still hasn't happened. When Republicans are the minority party, the government is gridlocked, and at least the Republican Congress acts conservative.

I have enough common sense to see that it is the shift to the left, in a stupid attempt to "increase the big tent" that has led to to this increase in American socialism. Adopting more of the same tactics is akin to treating a papercut with a chainsaw.

[NarniaSC]

Lieberman Lifetime ACU Rating: 20

For comparison, Zell Miller, Ben Nelson, Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins are all 50-60.

http://www.acuratings.com

[Southack]

Dealing with reality bothers you, somehow?

Lieberman remains in the Senate no matter what at this point.

You can let him remain a Democrat, where it will cost us more money, pork, and favors to overcome Democratic Party filibusters (your preferred option, I presume), or else you can offer him a plum like a Senate committee chairmanship and have him caucus with Republicans.

But either way, Lieberman remains in the Senate. It's just a question of what sort of power is used to buy his votes that remains...

Presuming, of course, that you **want** the Senate to approve Bush's privatization of Social Security, Bush's judicial nominees, school vouchers, and a comprehensive Energy Bill in the next legislative session.

[bc2]

Posting the same thing isn't going to convince me that wrong is somehow right.

[Southack]

What part of "Lieberman will still be in the Senate" are you having difficulty understanding?

[bc2]

what part of "but that doesn't mean we have to take him and his policies in, too" don't YOU understand?

is this the GOP we're talking about, or the DNC?

[Southack]

"but that doesn't mean we have to take him and his policies in, too"

The GOP has to come up with 60+ votes to overcome filibusters. The GOP has 51 Senators. If you don't want Lieberman, then *which* 9 Democratic Party Senators *do* you want to vote with you to get our most controversial judges and policies approved (or do you just want to deny that filibusters and minority Parties have any power)?

[bc2]

there is a difference between getting enough democrats to break a filibuster, and opening the "big tent" up to socialists like Joe Lieberman.

That is what I am saying. There are plenty of folks on both sides of the aisle who vote across party lines on many issues, without joining the opposition's party.

You seem to think it a better idea to just adopt the liberals into the GOP for the long haul.

[Southack]

"There are plenty of folks on both sides of the aisle who vote across party lines on many issues, without joining the opposition's party."

Then you must be absolutely THRILLED by how many Democrats are voting with us to approve our judges...

[bc2]

well, if your only answer is to recruit these commies to the GOP, don't be surprised when we get higher taxes, more govt spending, more gun control, more pro-aborts, more regulations, etc...

[Southack]

"don't be surprised when we get higher taxes, more govt spending, more gun control, more pro-aborts, more regulations, etc... "

What are you smoking?

We've banned Partial Birth Abortion, cut income taxes at least twice, given three raises to our military, reformed Medicare with half a dozen Privatization options, repealed the gun control law that prohibited arming our pilots, and cut our CO2 and "ergonomic" home office regulations.

Have you been asleep for the past three years or what?!

[69ConvertibleFirebird]

Will the media have similar s if Dan Quale endorses Bush?

Gore is a loser, ex-VP. Who cares who he wants to win.