McCain’s Looking For Some Joe-Mentum
Cross-Posted to The Debate Link
CNN’s political ticker reports that Connecticut Senator Joe Lieberman (I-CT) is going to endorse fellow pro-war Senator John McCain (R-AZ) tomorrow.
I’m not sure anyone should find this surprising. Lieberman is not exactly enamored with the Democratic Party after primary voters dumped him 2006, and the Party is likewise not thrilled at Lieberman’s increasingly reactionary conservative stances on foreign policy. The odd thing, in a sense, is that Lieberman isn’t that conservative on other issues. He’s certainly not a liberal icon, but outside of foreign policy and business regulation, Lieberman is pretty well in line with the rest of his party. But over the past several years, it’s become increasingly clear that a hawkish foreign policy agenda is his political raison d’être. The endorsement of McCain is the culmination of that shift.
So will it matter? Back to CNN:
This endorsement could help emphasize McCain’s national security standing, show he is able to work across party lines, and perhaps help persuade independent voters in New Hampshire to support his presidential bid.
Possibly true — I think in New Hampshire, particularly, Lieberman might have some sway on the independent voters (who can vote either in the GOP or Democratic primary). But by and large, I’m not convinced it will have much impact. A candidate needs more than New Hampshire to win a nomination, and I don’t see Lieberman’s influence extending beyond that neighboring state’s quirky political climate. Lieberman isn’t an influential Democrat anymore — in fact, he isn’t a Democrat at all anymore. He gets to be this year’s Zell Miller, and I don’t really think ol’ Zell ultimately had a big impact in 2004.
opinions powered by SendLove.to
13 Responses to “McCain’s Looking For Some Joe-Mentum”
Joe Lieberman is a Democrat like ME – a liberal hawk. I’d prefer him to most of the presidential candidates my party is currently presenting.
Well, there’s one vote for the McCain-Lieberman ticket.
I’m thinking there aren’t enough to make much impact, though.
…when will the Broder column arrive…I am breathless with anticipation. Just when you think McCain was starting to come back, he takes on this bloated freight – the only one who respects Leiberman’s opinion anymore is Joe Leiberman.
Holly,
When did you become a blind supporter of Bush’s Iraq policies? Because that’s the kind of ex-Democrat that Joe Lieberman is.
Holly No Democrat considers Lieberman a Democrat any more, especially after endorsing a Republican war hawk.
Why is Liberman subject to lies and slander simply because he isn’t so stupid he ignores the Iranian threat and prefers appeasement of our adversaries?
DLS – because Lieberman lies and slanders ABOUT the Iranian threat.
Folks, you vastly under-estimate the threat from Iran.
It’s denial or dishonesty — but they’ll be the first and loudest to complain We Didn’t Do Something if Iran commits an especially newsworthy attack of some kind, sets off a nuclear bomb, et cetera.
Just because some of us don’t want to just go bombing “those brown people” willy-nilly (which is, let’s face it, what “hawks” want to do), doesn’t mean that Iran is being underestimated by the rest of us who are rational. I have this feeling that if Lieberman were president, he’d have nuked Iran already. Force is not the answer to every ill in the world and being judicious about the use of force is not “appeasement of the enemy”. A comment like this normally isn’t like me, but sometimes I just get so sick & tired of the “hawks” who don’t believe in diplomacy (when they always feel that “the enemy” is lying, how can diplomacy work?) and seem to think that anyone who does is another Hitler-appeasing Chamberlain. I never heard the “hawks” scream for invading, bombing, nuking North Korea when they were working on their bomb. Is there any “hawk” that seriously thinks that Kim Jong Il is more trustworthy than the mullahs? Someone please explain how aggression to Iran is justified when North Korea gets negotiations.
Joe Lieberman is pretty smart. The Left (of which I am a part) characteristically underestimates the danger from Iran. Persians, BTW, aren’t any browner than we Jews. They are not Arabs.
I might have to turn in my membership in the “liberal hawk club” after this comment, but….
I think Iran, being a state, is containable via the normal modes of state-craft. It has historically proven itself quite amenable to diplomacy, on those occasions where we’ve cared to use it. Is it dangerous? Sure. Is it infinitely more dangerous when the U.S. seems hell-bent on a military confrontation with it? Absolutely. I hate to say it, but Iran’s policies vis-a-vis the United States have fit the mold of a rational actor rather well (its policies towards Israel, by contrast, significantly less so). With regards to any emerging threat of war between the US and Iran, most of the pressure has been coming from our end, and McCain and Lieberman are keeping the heat on.
I certainly hope that Iran “is containable via the normal modes of state-craft” but think that the heat needs to stay on.