"... downright puerile." Exactly! Yet Lieberman is a stupid real grownup. Sorry if such bluntness offends, but it's the truth. He'd be a stupid man with quite a lot of power behind him in the support of the American people. For all that he's a Jew (which is a good thing, in my opinion), he's a stupid grown up who hasn't figured out a lot of things. And he was willing to be vice president to a horrific moron like Al Gore. ANYBODY who worked to put that man in the White House is a traitor!! ;^) Only half-kidding on that, and it's worth pondering when weighing the vaunted "nobility" of Lieberman's character.
For the sake of our country, it is of immense importance that he be defeated.
If our nation has reached that fragile point, we're done for anyway. I think it's worth fighting for this country, and the thing that is hurting this country isn't the Democrat party, it's Liberalism. When Liberalism is wins elections, we have Amerca in 2008.
There are no "perhaps" with Lieberman -- he'd advance Liberalism by leaps and bounds with support on all sides and be "respected."
There's a chance with Obama because Obama is NOT a grown-up and the world and America would know it and resent it, no matter what the media does. He would likely be unpopular fast, and divisive, because so many Democrats dislike him. I think there's a pretty good chance this nation can survive Obama, who would be a one-term guy.
There is pure CERTAINTY with McCain and, say, Liberman, or Romney for that matter, that liberalism would gain power in the hands of "grown ups" weilding all that government power more "responsibly" than Democrats.
There isn't any chance that this nation can survive Liberalism. It might survive if liberalism starts losing elections, in particular Republican elections. Yet I maintain that it's come to the point that liberalism so dominates Republican philosophy that a guy like Joe Lieberman (!!) is a legit possibility!
It's all moot. Dems will elect McCain because Obama is as bad as Hillary would have been, and had she won the primary, McCain still would win because of Democrats.
If our nation has reached that fragile point [that it is immensely important that Sen. Obama is defeated], we're done for anyway.
It's really hard to argue with that. I would just say that we appear, indeed, to be in a state of national decline; and that is a pretty fragile state. And although national decline, like death and taxes, is inevitable, it can certainly be postponed. I think Sen. McCain (acting in the capacity of President McCain) would be much better equipped--from the standpoints of judgment, temperament, courage, and philosophical leanings--to arrest that decline, however temporarily, than the junior senator from Illinois would be.
There's a chance with Obama because Obama is NOT a grown-up and the world and America would know it and resent it, no matter what the media does. He would likely be unpopular fast, and divisive, because so many Democrats dislike him. I think there's a pretty good chance this nation can survive Obama, who would be a one-term guy.
You could be correct in this analysis. I am unwilling, however, to predicate America's fate upon this assumption. So many Democrats are viscerally anti-Republican (in fact, rabidly so) that they would continue to support a squishy Europhile--and enthusiastically so--as he proclaimed an updated version of "Peace in our time," a la Neville Chamberlain.
The operative question, really, is whether independents--the all-important "swing" voters--would grow weary of a President Obama in sufficient numbers to render him a one-term wonder. And on this matter, I confess that I really do not know what to expect.
There isn't any chance that this nation can survive Liberalism.
In the long term, that is certainly true. Liberalism, as the term is typically used today (which is not to be confused with its older usage, as in "liberal democracy") is merely a euphemism for social democracy--which, in turn, is a euphemism for democratic socialism. And socialism, even in its least malignant form (I will not call it a "benign" form; it is not), is unsustainable, over the long term. Which is why most European welfare states are already in deep fiscal trouble.
But the most immediate threat with which we are faced is not socialism--its corrosive effects and inherent unworkability take awhile to become fully apparent--but Islamofascism, whether of the Sunni variety (think: al-Qaeda) or the Shiite variety (e.g. the mullahs in Tehran). And I simply cannot imagine a President Obama facing down these threats in a determined and courageous manner. I believe he would more likely become introspective, and ask himself what America had done to create such hatred among these people; and then he would take whatever steps he thought necessary to mollify them.
A President McCain, on the other hand, would not be likely to be seduced by such blame-America-first thinking, in my opinion.