Posted on 01/28/2007 10:12:10 AM PST by elhombrelibre
HARTFORD, Conn. - Senator Joe Lieberman said Sunday he may vote Republican in next year’s presidential campaign, possibly widening a divide between him and Democrats he once represented as the party’s vice presidential nominee.
Lieberman, who was elected last November as an Independent after losing the Democratic nomination to Greenwich businessman Ned Lamont, said he will consider all presidential candidates regardless of party.
Asked if he might vote Republican in 2008, Lieberman, the Democratic vice presidential nominee in 2000, said, “I am, because we have so much on the line both in terms of the Islamist terrorists, who are an enemy as brutal as the fascists and communists we faced in the last century, and we have great challenges here at home to make our economy continue to produce good jobs, to deal with our crises in health care, education, immigration, energy.
“Party is important, but more important is the national interest,” he said on “Fox News Sunday.”
He said he will “look at all the candidates and then in the end, regardless of party, decide who I think will be best for the future of our country.”
“I agree more often than not with Democrats on domestic policy,” Lieberman said. “I agree more often than not with Republicans on foreign and defense policy. I’m an Independent.”
“So I’m open to supporting a Democrat, Republican or even an Independent, if there’s a strong one,” Lieberman said. “Stay tuned.”
A call to a spokesman for Lieberman was not immediately returned.
He's from the Harry Truman, Scoop Jackson, Pat Moynihan wing of the Democratic Party.
No, just find disdain with it, rebut it, and understand how to vote appropriately.
Actually, I think it is time to question their patriotism, and I was mocking this tendency they have to say fond things for America's enemies, their plans, their goals, and then feign as if their patriotism is being questioned when someone objects. Most of them are not patriots. Wanting your country to lose wars to mindless mass murderers is not patriotism. Wishing for another denouement like Vietnam is not patriotism.
No it isn't, it is however a rabid want for political power at any cost that is never an issue of focus by the media worthy of attention.
Because my number 1, 2, 3, etc. issue is the war on terror, I'd gladly vote for a Rep./Ind. presidential ticket with Joe Lieberman in the VP spot.
I'm mocking the Liberals, not you. Their complaint about people questioning their motives and patriotism rings very hollow with me for the same reasons you state.
Actually, he's from the FDR wing of the party...but even FDR knew that fascism had to be defeated...something today's Democrat party adherents fail to understand.
Interesting thought, but considering FDR's approach to Stalin I'll stick with him being from the Truman wing. And the majority of the Democrats are now from the Henry Wallace, George McGovern wing.
Interesting thought, but considering FDR's approach to Stalin I'll stick with him being from the Truman wing. And the majority of the Democrats are now from the Henry Wallace, George McGovern wing.
Yes, tone is often hard to catch.
No he's not, he votes exactly like Ted Kennedy.
He has only one reason to vote for, and that is the war on terror, everything else he votes exactly like Ted Kennedy and Hillary.
That's his only good point.
Ehh, math in terms of numbers of races favors the D's, true, but as far as vulnerable seats? I'm not sure.
The R's have 3 seats that appear vulnerable, Colorado, New Hampshire, and Minnesota. But when you look closer, only Colorado is really that endangered barring another D wave. In both New Hampshire and Minnesota, the D's either don't have a candidate (NH), or have a really bad candidate who will probably win the primary (MN - Al Franken).
On the flipside, the R's are probably favored in Lousiana, and, while South Dakota is unpredictable at this point, we are dead even at worst if Rounds runs. Another race that could be a tossup is Montana, where Baucus has poor approval ratings, and if either former Gov. Raicoit or Rep. Rheberg run, it would be a coin flip..
Liberman is a coalition of one.
I agree with you that Landrieu is probably done and that Johnson's seat is unpredictable, but I think Baucus is probably safe. Montana is trending badly of late and the last poll I saw (from just after the '06 election) had him at 72%. Of course let's hope the GOP knows better than to nominate a gay hairdresser against him this time...
I'm not sure what you're saying he's not, but if it's my comparison of him to a Truman Democrat I'd say Truman was pretty Liberal too in his time on domestic issues.
Maybe this will mean that the Dhimmi Senators will think twice before committing treason by thought, word and deed. Who am I kidding? They won't.
I guess, however, we need them to keep exercising our mental muscles and to entertain all the beloved "lurkers!"
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.