A few credible sources are floating the idea that Sen. Joe Lieberman is going to be John McCain’s pick for VP. Political strategists often float ideas to get a feel for the public’s reaction.
Here is my public reaction: No.
Why on earth would the Republicans pick a liberal Democrat to be on the ticket? Winning isn’t worth that, if that is what winning takes. Sure, he supports the Iraq war but what else? Seriously?
Nothing else, at least nothing that the party as stood for since the early days of Reagan’s first term. Let’s look at his record on a few issues that conservative Republicans are interested in.
Abortion - most conservatives are for eliminating it. Mr. Lieberman takes the safe, legal and rare approach but his record says otherwise.
- Rated 100% by NARAL, indicating a pro-choice voting record. (Dec 2003)
- Rejected partial-birth ban since it ignored maternal health. (Oct 2000)
- Voted NO on defining unborn child as eligible for SCHIP. (Mar 2008)
- Voted NO on prohibiting minors crossing state lines for abortion. (Mar 2008)
- Voted NO on barring HHS grants to organizations that perform abortions. (Oct 2007)
- Voted NO on criminal penalty for harming unborn fetus during other crime. (Mar 2004)
- Voted NO on banning partial birth abortions except for maternal life. (Mar 2003)
Energy - Drill here, drill now, pay less?
- 50% Excess Profits Tax on oil companies’ undeserved profit. (Oct 2006)
- Support Alaskan Natural Gas Pipeline; opposes drilling ANWR. (Nov 2003)
- Accept some American responsibility for global warming. (Nov 2003)
- Destroying pristine ANWR not worth 6 months of oil. (Oct 2000)
- Save 3 mpg and we conserve same as drilling Alaska. (Oct 2000)
- Voted YES on disallowing an oil leasing program in Alaska’s ANWR. (Nov 2005)
- Voted YES on banning drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. (Mar 2005)
- Voted NO on drilling ANWR on national security grounds. (Apr 2002)
- Designate sensitive ANWR area as protected wilderness. (Nov 2007)
Immigration - wouldn’t it be nice to have a person on the ticket to balance McCain’s views?
- Voted YES on continuing federal funds for declared “sanctuary cities”. (Mar 2008)
- Voted YES on comprehensive immigration reform. (Jun 2007)
- Voted NO on declaring English as the official language of the US government. (Jun 2007)
- Voted NO on building a fence along the Mexican border. (Sep 2006)
- Sponsored comprehensive immigration reform, without amnesty. (May 2005)
- Provide funding for social services for noncitizens. (May 2006)
- Rated 0% by USBC, indicating an open-border stance. (Dec 2006)
I’m not saying that Sen. Lieberman is a terrible person or a flaming left-wing libnut. He is a middle to left Democrat. Don’t believe me? Let’s ask Sen. Harry Reid.
But Reid said he would continue to resist calls from the Democratic Party’s base to strip Lieberman, now an independent, of his Senate positions for his disloyalty.
“All my close votes, he’s always with me, whether it’s the budget or energy issues,” Reid said. “No matter what it is, he’s always with us. He just does not vote right on Iraq. … Why would I want to throw away a good vote?“
That is my point. Sen. Lieberman is a Democrat, sides with Democrats and votes with Democrats. Harry Reid is the Majority Leader of the Senate because of Joe Lieberman.
If John McCain does pick him to be his running mate, it will be a slap in the face to every citizen and office holder that is a Republican.
Just say no to Joe.
Filed Under Front Page, National ·
Comments
54 Responses to “Just Say No To Joe”Search
Our Sponsors
Poll
Loading ...LST Book Club
-
Defending Identity: Its Indispensable Role in Protecting Democracy
by Natan Sharansky -
Fear No Evil
by Natan Sharansky -
The Case For Democracy: The Power of Freedom to Overcome Tyranny and Terror
by Anatoly Shcharansky -
The Jewish State: The Struggle for Israel's Soul
by Yoram Hazony -
Bobos in Paradise: The New Upper Class and How They Got There
by David Brooks -
Snobbery: The American Version
by Joseph Epstein -
A Conflict of Visions: Idealogical Origins of Political Struggles
by Thomas Sowell
Absolutely NO to Lieberman or any other pro-abortionist. Even if doing such would win the election (which i’m convinced it would not) we the conservatives will lose in the end.
#1 said ” Absolutely NO to Lieberman or any other pro-abortionist. Even if doing such would win the election…”
to which I say…a single issue voter ( or plank) loses EVERY time…
so I assume Obama and the night mares he will bring is a better alternative, right?
I suspect that this is a setup. Lieberman’s name is being thrown out there to scare the crap out of all the conservatives, so that whoever McCain actually announces will look like a solid Conservative by comparison to Lieberman. We will all heave a sigh of relief and be happy that he didn’t pick Joe instead of bitching and monaing about how whoever he picks isn’t conservative enough.
On a completely different note, is abortion really the absolute number one issue that defines conservatives? Your list starts there…and it seems “pro-life/pro-choice” is the first position alot of “conservatives” go after above all others. Does a strong national defense, fiscal responsibility, and small government really come after the abortion issue in how we should judge our candidates? Are we really becoming a one issue party?
I agree with #3, the panic about Joe and his politics will make the next choice look good. Think about the women Bush nominated for the SC. After Joe, Romney, who I think he is going to pick, is going to look very good.
McCain should pick a rock-ribbed conservative like Duncan Hunter or Tom Tancredo to by his VP… that way, when Barack Obama becomes President, at least Republican citizens and office-holders won’t have suffered the indignity of having been politically slapped in the face.
I like Joe, he seems to stand up for what he thinks and believes in. He’s not the right choice for VP, but he could be an excellent cabinet member in several different capacities. I can’t wait and see what happens next. You have to admit, they are making it interesting!
carbon-credit #2;
McCain has a history of disturbing liberal views. He restricted our free speech w/ McCain-Feingold campaign reform. He fought valiantely for Comprehensive Immigration Reform. He most recently favors taxing carbons (ever hear of “carbon-credit”
? )
If abortion was the *only* issue in the VP, I probably could pass it through. But not on McCain. I’ve made it abundantly clear posting on LSt that i will not vote for McCain unless he picks a solid conservative VP. I’ve held this position ever since the Primaries. Actually, I told myself I “won’t” vote for McCain if he won the Primaries. So my position is improving on my support for McCain. But picking a pro-abortion VP is not acceptable to me.
In case you or anyone else makes the case that a vote for anyone else is a vote for Obama let me respond saying that I do not vote against anyone; but for someone. that someone has to be the best conservative candidate I can find. I don’t care which party he may belong, the issues are the most important for me. I inhereted the two party system (as its evolved, not how our country was founded) so if a vote for anyone else will result in an Obama presidency, than its the fault of the system, not me. I realize the consequences but I say let the chips fall where they may. Do what you think is right and ultimately right will will. There may be set backs; but it will triumph.
#6;
AGREED!!!
No to Joe, yes to Sarah Palin (or some other pro-life candidate).
If McCain doesn’t want to be a REPUBLICAN President why didn’t he run Independent and then he could chose Joe Liebermann. I sure hope this was a test ballon because the answer is a H*LL NO!!! Balance the ticket with a real conservative unless you want to make it harder to win. McCain should win but not if makes stupid decisions like that he won’t.
Joe Blowz
BillF,
My list started there because it was first on the Issues page. And the alphabet, I suppose.
For many conservatives, it is # 1. For most? I don’t know.
For this conservative, if a person is unable to recognize that we are endowed by our creator with certain unalienable rights, the first of which is life, and those rights are clearly, fundamentally and irrevocably linked to the very creation of this nation, then that person has demonstrated to me that they have no moral authority to lead on ANY issue.
So the question is not “Are we really becoming a one issue party”. The question is: are we willing to elect leaders that find it perfectly acceptable to spit on the Declaration of Independence to achieve political gain by ignoring our most fundamental of rights - the right to life? If the answer is no, as it is with me, then all other issues are moot. If the answer is yes then you must do the dance of moral relativism where human beings are nothing more than animals with a higher brain function.
#5 boss,
I don’t think that McCain should or needs to pick a Tancredo or Hunter. Tisn’t the year for hard core conservatives.
But he could at least stick with the party that he belongs to. A middle to right Republican would bring just as many votes as Lieberman would, without slapping anyone in the face.
It seems like McLame enjoys sticking it to conservatives and he apparently thinks he has the conservative base sewed up in this election. McLame is almost as incompetent as BO when it comes to being president. Why don’t we have a superdelegate situation where we could nominate someone else at the convention?
Respectfully #14 Ginormous Joll–
I’m curious to hear who folks around here think McCain could pick, other than Lieberman, who…
(a) Would be acceptable to most Republicans & conservatives; AND WHO ALSO…
(b) Is as well-known and attractive to independent or “not-particularly-partisan” voters who may not be liberal Dems but are sick of Bush/Cheney/DeLay Republicanism
That is the issue.
A well-fed and satisfied conservative and loyal Republican base that is happy with the VP pick but only adds up to 49% of the vote on Election Day doesn’t do McCain squat.
He needs 50% plus one. He’s running for President. His job is to win.
The campaign’s logic, if they go ahead and pick Lieberman, is that for all the foot-stomping and pouting that will occur among the Hard-Right, in the end most will still reluctantly vote for McCain because they can’t tolerate the idea of Barack Obama trying to lead our nation during a time of war and with Supreme Court nominees at stake.
Blog commenters will insist furiously that that isn’t the case, and that THEY sure as Hell won’t vote McCain/Lieberman… but come Election Day, if it looks like Obama might actually win, we’ll see.
On the other hand, Lieberman is tremendously popular among not-particularly-ideological voters who just want their government to be run effectively, by honorable and decent men who are more concerned about acting out of common sense than crass political partisanship.
After 8 years of Clinton and 8 years of Bush, a competent “National Unity” government is attractive to an awful lot of people… especially when the alternative is an inexperienced, egotistical elitist who may be a nice enough guy in some ways but is clearly in over his head.
Look, if someone sees a way to win by only getting conservative Republicans to vote for a candidate, I’m all ears. You might of noticed lately, however, that there are fewer of us around then before. (Or maybe you haven’t noticed, in which case you aren’t paying very close attention.)
So I ask again– if not Lieberman, who can appeal to enough independents and non-partisans to put McCain over the top among a sick-of-the-GOP electorate?
#16 Rhino-humper
(a) Romney pops up first. He is middle of the road to right leaning.
(b) Romney fits this description very well.
But I think that your premise is wrong. You don’t need 50%+1 in votes. You need 270 electoral votes. And I don’t see Lieberman being any more effective than Romeny in FL, OH or PA. Neither will swing his home state.
Which states do you think Lieberman can help with that Romney can’t?
But then again, I probably haven’t noticed that conservatives aren’t as popular as people once thought they were because I probably haven’t been paying attention.
David;
That’ll be me if McCain picks a pro-abortionist as VP (desisively voting against McCain).
This is where I would say he shouldn’t seek out independent, non-partisan voters. He should seek out the best conservative possible. Hunter would be a fabulous choice and may, arguably not, but may put California into play. Though I’d be happy if he puts Hunter in his cabinet, especially one involving national security. I think Romney would be a great choice. Jindal would be great but frankly I’d like for him to remain in Louisiana and help that state along conservatively. his time for national office is sure to come. Pawlenty would be a good choice as well. But I regress to Romney. Overall, he seems to be the best choice. Rallying the conservative base will push him over the top. Not by seeking moderates.
Besides, how else will you get MikeS out of the wood works to post articles about the crazy original Mormon leaders?
BigJolly;
Since we’re taling about the disatisfaction of the GOP, shouldn’t that be a RHINO humping (scre*ing) David/conservatives over?
PS, I DO know the history behind David’s proud title.
Darren10,
Dude. Put the pipe down. Hunter could possibly bring California into play?
Sheesh.
Jindal has the same problem as Obama - no experience. Pawlenty has no name recognition.
The Boss is mostly correct in his analysis. I just don’t think that Lieberman brings any advantage whatsoever when compared to Romney.
#20;
Ok, so I’m dreaming a bit. I did say “arguably not” regarding putting California into play. I agree with jindal but his grasp on reality blows Obama away. i’ve no doubt Jindal would sway many on the national level. But, as I said earlier, I’d rather him remain in Louisiana. His national time will come. Pawlenty is indeed not known but…
a) What nationally-known VP would you say Obama will pick?
b) Pawlenty, like Jindal, would do well in any national forum/debate.
Both Jindal and Pawlenty would ralley the conservative base which I argue is the key for McCain’s success; it is not seeking out moderates.
I totally agree with you that Romney’s the best choice for McCain.
Phew, I get smart when i put down my pipe. I need intervention and quick.
#18;
Let me clarify because as I posted previously in #7, I seek to vote for a candidate, not against another one. So what i meant is that I’ll desisevely choose NOT to for for McCain; but a third party or write in.
Obama will pick Bayh, definitely putting Indiana into play, which has been a safe Red state. Hunter couldn’t put California into play even if he was married to a Kennedy. In fact, he may even hurt McCain in California. Ask yourself this, if Hunter had won the nomination would California go Republican in November? Absolutely not.
#17 Fat & Happy,
50% plus one is just political biz lingo for “gotz ‘ta win” so yes, the issue is the Electoral College.
Romney is very nice, I could easily have voted for the guy at the top of the ticket, would love to work for him, will be delighted if he’s picked.
That said, I think it’s worth noting…
(a) How quickly the conservative GOP base can accommodate itself to previously heretical ideas… it wasn’t that long ago that many (I’m not saying you) would have blasted Mitt as a COMPLETELY unacceptable, flip-flopping, blow-dried phony who thinks Satan is Jesus’ brother. Just saying.
(b) For all of Romney’’s exposure during the GOP primary, he doesn’t have much of a constituency outside of people who were already going to vote Republican anyway. So yeah, he’s acceptable to conservatives (now) and that’s no small thing, but go back to the issue of “not-particularly ideological/partisan” voters–how attractive is Romney to them?
I’d say Romney is “fairly” attractive to that (very large) group… he’s handsome, seems like a nice man, clean-living (don’t have to worry about him embarrassing us), economically successful (maybe he can turn the economy around).
So that’s all well and good… but I don’t see Romney being a game-changer with a lot of folks.
(c) Who can Lieberman attract?
Well to begin, just to be blunt, Jews. Lots and lots and lots of Jews, who happen to be disproportionately active in politics (both in voting and giving money) and who also happen to live disproportionately in… Florida, and Pennsylvania and Ohio and New York, etc.
Also remember, in this case it really is a zero-sum game in the sense that every Jew giving a buck or a vote to McCain is one less Member of the Tribe helping tug the rope for Obama.
Yes, Lieberman as VP will stop some otherwise GOP voters from pulling the lever for McCain… but not as many as some are threatening to do so today, and of those that remain you need to count the gained Jewish votes against them.
Let’s say McCain, even with every Jew in America, is still at a net-loss because of depressed GOP enthusiasm.
How many independent, non-ideological Gentiles does McCain bring in because they know Lieberman and they like Lieberman? They’ve been familiar with him for years… back in 2000 they already went through the exercise of taking the man’s worth and judging him. They might not share his opinion on this or that, but he seems like a decent guy.
And how thrilling would it be to flip a big electoral finger to both the Democrats AND the Republicans! We’re sick of all the a-holes on BOTH sides, and now we finally have the ability to cast a “protest vote” against business as usual in Washington, both Left and Right.
I suspect there are lots and lots of those people out there. And a national unity ticket excites them in a way Mitt Romney just won’t.
Which doesn’t, btw, mean Lieberman is the way McCain is going to go, or even that it will pay off and work if he does. I’m just laying out the logic.
Anyway, we got one name (Romney) and a case made for why he’d be better strategically than Lieberman; anyone want to put forward somebody else?
(btw, if I had your backyard and a humidor full of stogies like you do, I wouldn’t be paying attention either)
23;
OK. Now I’m offically embarrassed for expressing my fantastic hopes.
It appears my devastating logic has killed all the fun around here… apologies.
Still waiting for another name besides Romney…
Dude, give me a break. I’m looking up % of Jewish population by state, crossing that with Bush’s margin of victory in 2004, putting it into a crosstab and gonna tell you you’re wrong.
Can’t you wait five freaking minutes?
RE: McCain choosing a pro-abortionist for the sake of victory
This comment is heavily based on ideas David sent out to float around. The basic premises for McCain to chose a VP primarily for securing election victory for the White House. The predominant name given here is Joe Lieberman. The very name given to start this thread.
The argument in favor of a McCain/Lieberman is that the liberal senator can pull in moderates and more liberal voters who would not otherwise vote for McCain. Acknowledging the fact that putting a pro-abortionist on the GOP ticket would indeed irk many conservatives who are strongly anti-abortion/pro-life. But Lieberman’s name would offset whatever loss McCain will see from conservatives and thus help win him the election. Here’s my take.
The logical end of this reasoning is that it is more important for a political party to win than for We The People to stand for principle. Of course everybody has to compromise in the political process. Nobody will ever appease everything you stand for. Theoretically that’s possible but I can’t think of any person which I like everything about. In the political world, Duncan Hunter by far came closest to achieving that, but I don’t agree 100% with him. 99% perhaps, but not 100%. Even conservatives have to compromise in their beliefs and support someone as the best choice. To me it is far more important to stand on issues than for a political party. Even if that political party largely favors your views as the Republican Party does for me, a conservative should still not vote for that party just to give that party a win. People need to decide what is right and stand by it. That means to stand by a candidate over a party when needed.
Now, despite how I hold as sacred human life the fact of the matter is that abortion is legal and I do believe in obeying the laws of the land. So, if abortion was the ONLY issue to deal with on the VP, I could theoretically support the ticket despite my disagreement with abortion. But another fact of the matter is that McCain has done many things that go against the conservative ideals. The majority of ideals I agree with. Listed above is BigJolly’s summary of some of the things McCain, by imference, has done that are less than conservative. So at this point ANY pro-abortionist on the GOP ticket would kill my support to vote Republican; especially that pro-abortionist, Joe Lieberman, has a very solid liberal past.
If conservatives support such a ticket, than what victory is possible? Even if the Republican wins the elections, is that a victory? Is putting liberal-leaning folks in the White House a “victory”? It may be chalked up as a Republican win, but I’d argue that it’s not a victory. By voting for a candidate just because he’s better than the other one is essentially saying that it is OK to by lousy. It’s OK to *not* stand by anything morally or ethically good. You essentially give your blessing for bad to win. Just because the bad you voted for is not as bad as the other bad, it’s still bad. What good is it to vote Republican if all they do is get worse? A liberal/moderate Republican win is only temporary. It will open the door for the liberalization of the Party. So what good is the Party if it’s liberal or bad?
Let’s suppose you the conservative fought long and hard to eliminate legalized abortion in the US. Indeed gains have been made. Bush in particular has been a very strong President against abortion. Then you say you’ll support a VP who is pro-abortion. Does this not threaten to nullify all you have gained? Would not that essentially teach others that a party win is more important than holding one’s self to moral values? If so, does not that go against one of the very core issues found in conservatives? Conservatives have become identified with following moral values. So if that’s a core value, you just threw it away by supporting a person on a presidential ticket who is pro abortion. Supporting him for the sake of a Republican victory. It goes against conservatism in general thus being part of the reason conservative numbers may be dwindling.
This is where conservatives should stand strong. Vote for conservative agendas. Seek the candidate who has a platform that most represents you the conservative and vote for him. By not doing so, by voting simply to help a party win an election, you’ve gained nothing meaningful, only temporal. If conservatives conclude that their values are what’s best for the country, as I certainly believe, than hold to those values. Don’t hold to the Republican party; but conservative ethics and mores. That’s where true victory lies. That’s what will bring meaningful leadership and national policies.
BigJolly;
That’s a lot of work. You have my envy.
What the data show is that even if 100% of the Jewish population in those four states you mentioned were to vote Republican, it wouldn’t change the outcome. And obviously, 100% of any group doesn’t vote.
I understand about the political activism and such but I don’t think that Lieberman changes the outcome of the election any more than Romney does. On top of that, you would have, IMO, a better VP, one that could step up if something were to happen to McCain and support the Republican party, not the dems.
Jewish population by state taken from Jewish Virtual Library.
Jewish %
Jewish %
Bush Margin
Change if
Total Votes
of Total Pop
of Total Votes
of Victory
100% Jewish
Florida
7,603,576
3.67%
279,285
380,978
660,263
New York
7,388,621
8.40%
621,001
(1,351,713)
(730,711)
Pennsylvania
5,768,420
2.29%
132,207
(144,248)
(12,041)
Ohio
5,625,467
1.26%
71,130
118,775
189,905
And now I must head to the remote. It is Thursday night and I have a date! Cheers.
Sorta like when William Miller brought the Catholic vote and the State of New York into play for Goldwater?
Picking Lieberman would send a signal to many independents and moderates that they can come into the GOP tent and be welcome.
Lieberman would also add a good amount of fuel to the argument that McCain is more interested in governing than playing party politics, something I think would appeal to many politically active independents. It also puts a pretty big stab against the argument that McCain will be a Bush 3. I’m not in favor of having Lieberman as the VP, but I can definitely see the logic behind it. McCain and Lieberman have a history of working together to further ideas from both parties.
…and tell the folks that believe it is morally reprehensible to halfway deliver a full-term baby, stick scissors into the base of his skull, and suck his brains out that they are no longer welcome.
Joe Lieberman is a politician first and a politician last.
And that is the long and short of it!
Mr.Lieberman does not have the word ‘ loyalty ‘ in his vocabulary.
In order to achieve his ends he left his party and got re-elected with the help of some Republicans.
But did he join the Republican Party?
You know the answer to that!
To put it mildly, Mr. Lieberman is a snake in your sleeve
Kindly add my name to your ever growing list of those who say ‘ hell no Joe”
…unless, of course, they are willing to accept infanticide.
I don’t want babies killed as the next guy.
Yes, there is a but!
But the right to decide must be left to the woman involved.
After all it’s her body and Govt should be kept out of this decision.
Rahman, a different interpretation, and one I think Independents would side with, is that Lieberman decided to stick with his principles and leave a party he had been apart of for a long time, and then chose to caucus with the party that most closely mirrored those beliefs. Again, I am not a Lieberman supporter and would rather have McCain choose a VP that was strong on smaller government, lower spending, strong defense, pro-life, etc, but there are my desires and there are realities.
#37;
What about the baby? What choice does he or she get to make?
#32;
And hurt conservatism. No thanks.
But back to this “single issue voter” straw man. Abortion is not my litmus test, it is an indicator. A Democrat’s position on abortion is simply a symptom of a deeper pathology. Accompanying that position are a whole host of other positions that are unacceptable to conservatives including regressive taxes, weakened national defense, penalizing businesses, appointing activist judges, and increasing the size of government, to name a few. The only common ground between Lieberman and the conservative platform is his support of a strong defense. That’s commendable, but not enough for me. No thanks.
#34;
And, like I said, a Republican win under these conditions is not a victory. It’s a huge step bakcwards from where we should be as a nation. Advocating an abortionist to add to the McCain ticket for the sake of winning the election (a) will NOT bring a win for McCain (can anyone point to me where a candidate won an election by going against the core base of the party he represented?) (b) (even if he did win) conservatives will lose big time.
#41;
Ditto!!!
David;
This was fun after all!!! I’ll come back tomorrow.
Conservatives will show up to vote anyway? I think there is a pretty good track record of the republican base staying home.
So the big “get your base out” campaigns are really not that important after all? Or is it the center-left is McCain’s base?
#45;
Conservatives WILL vote if they have a conservative choice. So it’s that McCain’s personal base is center-left. The GOP’s base is more to the right. McCain’s recent popularity surge is no doubt the conservative answers he gave during the Saddleback Forum.
I’m going to go out and vote, make no doubt. The question for me is WHO I’m going to vote for. It’s definitely not Obama.
#30 BJ, You nailed it in cautioning who as VP would take McCain’s place if something should happen to him. Who indeed will be the person only an MI, dissecting aneurysm, massive stroke, etc., away from the Presidency? This time around especially we are not electing an also-ran for VP. No pun intended, but that is the elephant in the room.
I would feel safe with Romney or Fred Thompson (though Fred is most unlikely to be chosen).
Pardon my naive ignorance as I am yet a child but…why on EARTH would a Republican even CONSIDER choosing a Democrat as a VP? Has this ever been done before and I slept through that part of school? Is it really worth enough grief that McCain would actually seriously consider it?
#41…then don’t vote if Joe is picked as VP…yea, that’s smart…
#49 - intelligence has nothing to do with it. It is principle. As Adee points out, we are voting for a man who just turned 72 this week. Its not a stretch to say he has a much higher probability than normal of not serving out a full term. This makes the VP pick more important than normal. Why on earth would I want to vote for a man who has voted against the things I believe in (except strong national defense) his entire career?
It’s looking like John Edwards may have been partially right with his “Two Americas” schtick. There seems to be three Americas. There are the ones that want to turn our country into a socialist cesspool as quick as possible. Then there are those that want pull us back to the vision of the founding fathers. In the middle there are a large number of people that don’t recognize the motives of the other two and keep yammering on about bipartisanship. That is what has lead us to the point where a Republican candidate is even considering a liberal for a running mate.
Everyone has a line they will not cross. For many, John McCain is the line. I have spoken out many times here that I think that is a bad idea. It appears my line is John McCain picking a liberal as a running mate.
I can’t believe McCain would even considering doing this, but anything is possible these days. It will be interesting, but I honestly don’t think it will happen if he really cares at all about the GOP.
#48;
When our Republic was first created Senators voted for President. The candidate that received the most most became President and the candidate who got the second most votes became the Vice President. So in the early years of our history, having a President from one party and a Vice President from the rival party was common. Now, after the election evolved to the presidential candidate choosing his runnig mate, I’m not sure if there ever has been one who pick his VP from the rival party.
41 Hamous,
I wasn’t specifically talking just about Lieberman with the single issue question. I am just observing the freakout that seems to be going on nationally over the idea that McCain could choose ANY pro-choice VP. It got me to wondering if a Ronald Reagan clone came along who held all of Reagan’s positions except he was pro-choice, would he be able to run for president as a republican or would he get shot down in the primaries due to his pro-choice views? I know you think there are plenty of other issues to consider with a candidate, but the one that seems to always come up and get people the most irate is abortion. I honestly think there is a sizable portion of the republican party that could agree with a candidate on every other issue except abortion and they wouldn’t vote for him because of that one issue. The only other issue I can think of where I could say that would be gun control…I would be a single issue voter if I disagreed with a candidate on gun control.
The only person I can think of that would come close to that description is coincidentally another one of McCain’s buddies, Tom Ridge. He’s no Ronald Reagan, though.
I think my point was that if a person is not even willing to ban partial birth abortions they will be wrong on a host of other issues important to conservatives.