Republican Lieberman?

[langeweile]

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/10/p...&ex=1134795600&partner=MYWAY&pagewanted=print

Maybe he is going to switch parties and run as VP...

 

[Truncador]

I wonder if this isn't a sign that the old-school, Jewish liberal elite of the Democrats is finally going to break with the party once and for all over the Middle East.

 

[Don]

No surprise. Many libs have accused Leiberman of really being a moderate Republician for years. Remember Michael Moore's "ABL" (Anyone but Leiberman) campaign in '04 during the Democratic primaries.

Leiberman is a moderate.... which is why I actually like him somewhat (though I disagree re: Iraq). I like those moderate mavericks like him and John McCain (who I agree with re: Iraq) - who is being the same headache on the Republican side. Murtha, Guliani, The Govenator are other moderates.

 

[papasmerf]

Wait till you see the strange bed fellows together next week. Will make alot of people wonder WTF. But hey it is politics.

 

[papasmerf]

Were I a D I'd trade Lieberman for McCain.

Were I an R I would trade Mc Cain for a cold beer

 

[maxweber]

Sold!

Were I a D I'd trade Lieberman for McCain.

I am a Democrat, more or less -- and so would I!

MW

 

[Asterix]

Were I a D I'd trade Lieberman for McCain.

And throw in another politician to be named later.

 

[Don]

Were I a D I'd trade Lieberman for McCain.

That's an interesting comment because I used to like both fairly equally (though I am more a McCain supporter for now) but I always felt McCain was always a bit more to the right than Leiberman.

 

[Don]

I'm bewildered how the Republican organization turned their
backs on him. His resume is superb. Yet they trashed him.

You should know that it is politics.

Replace McCain and Republican in your above statement with Leiberman and Democrats. While Dean called him out publically, many Dems have been slamming him more privately for quite some time. Both guys are getting slammed by their respective parties because they are going against the grain to stand up for what they believe in. If you are a hard 'R', you like Leiberman right now and dislike McCain. If you are hard 'D', you like McCain and dislike Leiberman.

I'm neither so I like 'em both!

 

[maxweber]

dog bites man

I'm bewildered how the Republican organization turned their
backs on him. His resume is superb. Yet they trashed him.

No mystery. As the McCain-Feingold bill shows, he is in favour of at least some limits on the prerogatives of the wealthy, and committed to other things besides increasing their wealth and power. Hence, an instant undesirable; doesn't get it.

MW

 

[arclighter]

The neo-con history. They were a group of Jewish intellectuals from NY.
Originally democrats that morphed over decades. Supported Scoop
Jackson in the 70s then shifted over to support Reagan. Their concern
was and still is the survival of Israel from the threats of the Arab League.
William Kristol of the Weekly Standard is their primary spokesman today.
They became major players in the present Administration and influenced
the invasion of Iraq. Definitely Zionists. Apparently, Lieberman is sympathetic
to their cause. Not surprising, at all.

http://www.wrmea.com/archives/May_2004/0405020.html

Boy you sure are up on those neo-cons. O.K DQ here is your challenge. You maintain that the present administration is significantly influenced by the neo-cons. Could you please name some names? Those named have to have legitimate ties to the neo-con movement, ala Paul Wolfowitz (no longer with the administration). Tick. Tick. Tick.

 

[*d*]

Boy you sure are up on those neo-cons. O.K DQ here is your challenge. You maintain that the present administration is significantly influenced by the neo-cons. Could you please name some names? Those named have to have legitimate ties to the neo-con movement, ala Paul Wolfowitz (no longer with the administration). Tick. Tick. Tick.

"Tick. Tick. Tick." -how annoying
Here's a few for you. Dick Cheney and wife Lynne, Zalmay Khalilzad, Donald Rumsfeld, Jed Bush, Richard Perle, Richard Armitage up until Feb./05 and Lewis Libby until Oct./05.

 

[arclighter]

"Tick. Tick. Tick." -how annoying
Here's a few for you. Dick Cheney and wife Lynne, Zalmay Khalilzad, Donald Rumsfeld, Jed Bush, Richard Perle, Richard Armitage up until Feb./05 and Lewis Libby until Oct./05.

How predictable. You googled PNAC and found some of the original signers who are also associated with the GWBA. Agreeing with PNAC's Statement of Principle doesn't make you a neo-con.

Did you read DQ’s little history lesson? Neo-cons are essentially war liberals, ala Scoop Jackson. Your list more closely resembles war paleo-cons, or as I like to call them freeper-cons.

Ps Good luck googling your answer to this one, my friend.

 

[*d*]

How predictable. You googled PNAC and found some of the original signers who are also associated with the GWBA. Agreeing with PNAC's Statement of Principle doesn't make you a neo-con.

Did you read DQ’s little history lesson? Neo-cons are essentially war liberals, ala Scoop Jackson. Your list more closely resembles war paleo-cons, or as I like to call them freeper-cons.

Ps Good luck googling your answer to this one, my friend.

Bullsh*t
Paleo-cons are small in number and mostly led by Pat Buchanan. They're isolationists(unlike the Bush administration) and claim the present Republican party is overrun with neo-cons. Neo-cons are interventionists and very much followers of the pro-war PNAC principles and are in opposition to liberalism.

 

[maxweber]

putting the "con" in "neo-con"..

O.K DQ here is your challenge. You maintain that the present administration is significantly influenced by the neo-cons. Could you please name some names?

The ties don't have to be presently active for "significantly influenced" to obtain. Harper's last year had a thoughtful article on the importance of Leo Strauss's ideas for the neo-con movement generally. The late professor died some years ago; so what?

In any case, make lists of people who do or do not fit a certain arbitrary label says little, and proves less.

MW

 

[arclighter]

Bullsh*t
Paleo-cons are small in number and mostly led by Pat Buchanan. They're isolationists(unlike the Bush administration) and claim the present Republican party is overrun with neo-cons. Neo-cons are interventionists and very much followers of the pro-war PNAC principles and are in opposition to liberalism.

That is why I said WAR paleo-cons, i.e. domestic policy conservatives that believe pre-emptive military action should be left on the table. I believe my freeper-con label best describes this political ideology.

Remember, we are talking about ideology, not reality. In reality, the GWBA as been very “liberal” on the domestic front as evidenced by the huge increase in entitlement spending.

 

[arclighter]

In any case, make lists of people who do or do not fit a certain arbitrary label says little, and proves less.
MW

And this is distracting us from our more important work here at terb?

 

[*d*]

That is why I said WAR paleo-cons, i.e. domestic policy conservatives that believe pre-emptive military action should be left on the table. I believe my freeper-con label best describes this political ideology.

Remember, we are talking about ideology, not reality. In reality, the GWBA as been very “liberal” on the domestic front as evidence by the huge increase in entitlement spending.

I've heard of anti-war paleo-cons but never war paleo-cons. And freeper-con relates more to their position on the domestic right to bear arms than on foreign policy.

 

[papasmerf]

I've heard of anti-war paleo-cons but never war paleo-cons. And freeper-con relates more to their position on the domestic right to bear arms than on foreign policy.

how about english instead of NEO_POLITICO BULLSHIT?

 

[*d*]

how about english instead of NEO_POLITICO BULLSHIT?

You're right. That's my point. Its simply neo-con, not the war paleo-con or freeper-con bullsh*t that arclighter has dreamed up.