You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Submit your comments on this article
Home Front: Politix
Lieberman hails McCain's record, criticizes Obama
2008-09-03
ST. PAUL, Minn. - Sen. Joe Lieberman, the Democratic vice presidential pick eight years ago, on Tuesday criticized Barack Obama's national security record and hailed Republican candidate John McCain's, a clear boost to the GOP. Playing his former party's spoiler, Lieberman called McCain — not the Democratic nominee Obama — the best choice to lead the country forward. The Democrat-turned-Independent said that while Sen. Obama was voting to cut off funds for troops in Iraq, McCain took the unpopular position to support a surge in troops.

"Because of that, today, our troops are at last beginning to come home, not in failure, but in honor," Lieberman says in excerpts that were released in advance of his speech Tuesday to the Republican National Convention.

Lieberman was scheduled to address the second night of the Republican meeting just eight years after he stood before a cheering throng at the Democratic National Convention in Los Angeles and accepted the nomination as Al Gore's running mate.

These days, he often calls himself an independent. But in excerpts released ahead of his address to the GOP crowd, he referred to himself as a Democrat who's opted to put politics aside during wartime. "I'm here tonight because John McCain is the best choice to bring our country together and lead our country forward. I'm here because John McCain's whole life testifies to a great truth: being a Democrat or a Republican is important. But it is not more important than being an American," he said.
Posted by:Steve White

#11  I was angry at the commentary afterwards. After the DNC, as an example, after Clinton spoke, we heard how Clinton really nailed it etc., after the RNC, criticising the speeches about how if they are going to pull this off they're going to have to blah blah blah, critiquing the speeches with all that was wrong with them.
I liked both speeches, Thompson I thought really spoke well, and I liked the end of Liebermans speech. I'm looking forward to tonights speech by Palin.
Posted by: Jan at work   2008-09-03 19:52  

#10  Tonight's is the only speech that matters.
Posted by: Nimble Spemble   2008-09-03 15:25  

#9  Being an independent with an extreme distrust for both parties (OK, I do trust the donks to do the wrong thing nearly every time), I did like Lieberman's call for non-partisanship. Over the past few years I'd been coming to the conclusion that the party system is basically flawed, with party politics and goals taking precedent over national needs. It was gratifying to learn G.Washington had the same concerns, if frustrating to know there's no practical solution that has been found in 200+ years. As soon as people band together for common cause, there's always some moke who sees it as a vehicle for his own power. I think we're back to term limits as a bandaid.

Anyway, my goal is to find candidates strong on national defense and willing to kick the parasites' butts, even if thy're in their own party. It looks like we have that in McCain/Palin. I disagree with a number of things McCain has done politically and I don't agree with some of Palin's positions, but they are both honest and that's all I really need.

A naive view of democracy is that you get to vote for who you want. The reality is you usually only get to vote against who you don't want. This time around, it looks like I get both.
Posted by: Mercutio   2008-09-03 14:59  

#8  The dhimocrat's speeches had about as much substance as a rice cake.
Last night's speeches were the Yankee pot roast.
Yum...
Posted by: DarthVader   2008-09-03 13:11  

#7  Re: 'soaring oratory, even if the message lacks substance' -- exactly.

as a longstanding member of Toastmasters, i've heard my share of soaring but content-free speeches. Being able to speak well is good, but if you don't have something to say...
Posted by: Querent   2008-09-03 13:07  

#6  If he'd been that effective in 2000 Gore likely would have won the race.

Yeah, but in 2000 he had to talk about Gore. That'd be quite a burden.

Truthfully, though, I watched Liberman and Thompson and neither one of them exactly rocked the house. I guess after the "soaring oratory" we heard at the DNC I was expecting a bit more pizzazz, a bit more razzle-dazzle. But that's kind of a shame, isn't it? People want to hear soaring oratory even if the message itself lacks substance.
Posted by: Ebbang Uluque6305   2008-09-03 12:40  

#5  So Senator Obama was not really for immediately and completely turning our back on Iraq, even though Candidate Obama has made that a centerpoint of his campaign? Useful information, that, Fat Sam.
Posted by: trailing wife    2008-09-03 10:43  

#4  Obama cast at least 10 votes for war-funding bills before voting against one last year, after Bush vetoed a version that contained a date for withdrawal from Iraq.
Posted by: Fat Sam   2008-09-03 10:29  

#3  Mr. Wife said it was a very good speech. He liked Fred Thompson's speech as well.
Posted by: trailing wife    2008-09-03 08:09  

#2  When Lieberman said that Obama tried to stop funding for our troops in Iraq I was enraged.
If anything should disqualify a person from being Commander-in-Chief, the refusal to support the troops against terrorists hiding behind civilians in Iraq is it.
May Obama never be my son Track's Commander-in-Chief, now that he is heading for Iraq.
"Country First", party second is my war cry!

Obama must be defeated before he get's my son killed.
The US Presidency is not for selfish elites.
And I, Sarah Palin, approve this message.
Partial funding for this message was provided by NPR and generous members like you.


Posted by: Todd Palin for the McCain/Palin ticket   2008-09-03 01:51  

#1  He was quite good in a very Joe Lieberman kind of way. If he'd been that effective in 2000 Gore likely would have won the race.
Posted by: AzCat   2008-09-03 01:21  

00:00