I think it’s long past time that we trade the Democrats Sen. Chucky Hagle (R-NE) for Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CN). Straight up trade.
I’ll bet most Democrats would jump on this too.
Hagle has long been a shill and mouthpiece for Democratic talking points. Like yesterday where he repeatedly attacks Sen. McCain from one side of his pie hole while praising Obama with the other.
If the Dems won’t trade us Lieberman for him, I think the people of Nebraska need to do the rest of the GOP a favor and retire this man.
Meanwhile, Sen. Lieberman has written a fantastic column in the Wall Street Journal wondering “what happened to the Democratic party?”
…this was the Democratic Party of John F. Kennedy, who promised in his inaugural address that the United States would “pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, to assure the survival and the success of freedom.”
This worldview began to come apart in the late 1960s, around the war in Vietnam. In its place, a very different view of the world took root in the Democratic Party. Rather than seeing the Cold War as an ideological contest between the free nations of the West and the repressive regimes of the communist world, this rival political philosophy saw America as the aggressor — a morally bankrupt, imperialist power whose militarism and “inordinate fear of communism” represented the real threat to world peace.
Replace “communism” in that last sentence with “black people” and you pretty much just described Michelle Obama’s world view to a tee.
Though I think it’s a bad idea, I wouldn’t be surprised to see Sen. Lieberman as McCain’s VP pick:
Far too many Democratic leaders have kowtowed to these opinions rather than challenging them. That unfortunately includes Barack Obama, who, contrary to his rhetorical invocations of bipartisan change, has not been willing to stand up to his party’s left wing on a single significant national security or international economic issue in this campaign.
In this, Sen. Obama stands in stark contrast to John McCain, who has shown the political courage throughout his career to do what he thinks is right — regardless of its popularity in his party or outside it.
John also understands something else that too many Democrats seem to have become confused about lately — the difference between America’s friends and America’s enemies.
Tell me it doesn’t sound like he’s already campaigning for McCain and against Obama.
The best and most important line quote from Sen. Lieberman, though, is this one:
Mr. Obama has said that in proposing this [meeting with the terrorist leaders of our enemies], he is following in the footsteps of Reagan and JFK. But Kennedy never met with Castro, and Reagan never met with Khomeini. And can anyone imagine Presidents Kennedy or Reagan sitting down unconditionally with Ahmadinejad or Chavez? I certainly cannot.
That’s because they wouldn’t have.
______
UPDATE
Marc Ambinder thinks Lieberman might be getting ready to ditch the Democrat in “Independent Democrat”.
The trade’s a good idea. Wish Obama would lift Sebelius from our shoulders here in Ks. but I guess that’s too much to hope for.
Lieberman for VP?…
There is no question that McCain would lose a lot of the conservative base if he made this decision, but would it be cushioned by how many independent, middle-of the roaders he could possibly gain? The logic of this option is being discussed. Perhaps…
The best part of the WSJ article was in the very last paragraph: “no people in history have ever survived, who thought they could protect their freedom by making themselves inoffensive to their enemies”.
I’ll bet most Democrats would jump on this too.
Sometimes trades help both teams. The Dems would jump all over this one. They might even throw in a third round draft choice.
Lieberman’s article is childish and moronic. Reagan negotiated with Gorbachev, but I guess in joe’s world that really didn’t happen. In joe’s world, the history of US politics from 1776-2000 (long on diplomacy, short on unilateralism) is meaningless. What matters is only the bush-cheney legacy of “you are either for us or against us and if you’re against us, we attack”. This foriegn-policy-as-first-grade-boy approach has a) emboldened our enemies (chavez and ahmadinejad were nobodies in 2000), b) reduced our leverage with other ne’er do wells like mugabe and kim jong il, and c) left the global leaders of al-queda to roam free in a new country. Joe’s for more of that? You can have him. You’ll have to reinstate the draft, of course, because we don’t actually have enough soldiers to attack everybody he wants to attack. And of course the current republican party wouldn’t want somebody who is intimately familiar with the american military and an expert in foriegn affairs on their side because the GOP has become the “let’s not cloud the issues with facts” party. Good luck with that. Let’s see how well you do in the fall elections.
Lieberman has experience. Obama does not. Lieberman speaks truthfully. Obama does not. Lieberman has the strenth of his convictions. Obama does not.
Why would anyone in the world even think of electing this guy Obama? “I’m resigning my church for the benefit of its members.” Huh? At least Wright was honest when he said what he believes. Obama is highly dishonest.
Not sure if Lieberman will be the VP but he’ll make a great Secretary of State. That’s where McCain should slot him after beating this absolute clown Obama.