Posted on 12/12/2004 6:20:24 AM PST by Liz
Can Joe (I'll-say-anything-to-win) LIEberman be trusted?
Silly question.
LIEberman won his Senate seat by outright lying about his abortion position.
Getting elected on the backs of the innocent unborn is not something that would inspire confidence in a position requiring utmost integrity.
If Joey would go to the lengths he did to get the pro-life vote - lying smackdab in the face of pro-lifers, telling them what he knew they wanted to hear - he is surely capable of promising just about anything he thinks people want to hear.
Abortion separates the men from the boys. As a radical pro-abortion advocate who voted six times for partial birth abortions, Joey proved himself to be a pimple-faced adolescent who fools the folks into thinking he's at the library when he's out smoking weed with the rest of the nerds.
Appoint him to HomeLand Secretary?
I wouldn't trust him to walk my dog.
In Sept 2000, The Washington Times reported how Lieberman, a staunch pro-abortion candidate made a pro-life pledge to religious leaders.
EXCERPT: Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman is a staunch supporter of abortion rights now, and even voted (six times) against a ban on partial-birth abortion, but Catholic leaders in Connecticut remember another Joe Lieberman.
He called on the state's archbishop with a pro-life pledge 12 years ago, when he was first a candidate for the U.S. Senate.......(and) met with Archbishop John F. Whealon of Hartford to seek Catholic votes in the final stretch of his 1988 Democratic bid to oust 18-year Sen. Lowell P. Weicker Jr., a Republican who supported abortion rights.....
"Joe was very liberal, like Weicker, but we had a poll on abortion that showed which way the wind was blowing," says Daniel Cosgrove, then the Democratic town chairman in Branford, Mr. Lieberman's hometown.
The poll showed anti-abortion sentiment outweighed pro-choice views in urban areas throughout Connecticut. "In the Waterbury area, it was more than any, 12,000 [more] against," Mr. Cosgrove says.
"He expressed himself against abortion, all suicide, and euthanasia. His position on that definitely was well received by the archbishop and priests" religious leaders said.
In fact, Mr. Lieberman's pro-life assurances were so convincing that Archbishop Whealon arranged for the Democratic candidate to meet with Catholic priests throughout the state shortly before the November 1988 balloting. Mr. Lieberman's expressed pro-life views in those meetings, Father Berry said. "That probably was not insignificant" in the November 1988 election outcome, he said.
That's not at all surprising. Which is the reason abortion at this time, could never be outlawed without exceptions.
However, I believe one day abortion will be viewed with the same disdain with which we view slavery today.
Based on my comment in post #152, I would prefer to see Lieberman, who will probably never win the Democratic primary for president (or serve in another high elected office for that matter), as head of the DHS, than Giuliani.
LOL "Doom on you, Motherf******!!!"
I don't really understand your post, as Mineta is already there, as Secretary of Trnsportation. How does Spectre make our border situation worse? It sucks now. I'm just suggesting the military solution to a bad nco or officer, promote them to where they do the least harm.
The only way I would support Lieberman is if, we could wind up with a Republican Senator in his place. Not likely in Ct.
That's not Elmer Fudd, That's Mortimer Snerd an Eger Bergen puppet.
Yeah, but my Elmer Fudd URL was taken down. Snerd happened to be handy.
Considering that Zig Zag Zell Miller also voted for Gore in 2000, does mean freepers will stop worshipping the grounds he walks on and suggesting he is the ideal person for a cabinent post or even the presidency?
Ah, didn't think so.
You see, I don't work on the Peter Principle. I haven't read the book, but I understand the concept. IMO, you do not promote the incompetent, period. The fact that anyone would consider putting Lieberman in the position of HSC to get his Senate seat is ludicrous. Obviously, I am not a politician. For some reason, I would expect better of President Bush and this administration.
While some think the position is not that important, I consider very important. If it's not important, then why even have a HSC? Rather than play politics with the seat, just get rid of the position. It would save the taxpayers money and embarrassment to this administration, if they are shown using the seat for political gain.
The reason we have a Dept. of Homeland Security is, The Democrats and the lapdog MSM were going to make political hay if we did not. All it did was add a layer of bureacracy on top of what was there. Remember the Dem mantra, Enlarge the central government.
A position is only as good as the person you put in it. If they want to make it a dummy position for political purposes, then put a dummy in it. If the position is to be of any value, then put someone in that may be valuable in finding methods to combat terrorists in our "homeland".
Sorry! No matter how good the mayonaisse, You're still not going to get good chicken salad using chicken$41t as the basis.
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.