Carol Platt Liebau: What a Guy

Tuesday, June 20, 2006

What a Guy

So Al Gore is declining to endorse Joe Lieberman in his reelection bid, on the grounds that he doesn't endorse in primaries (he's conveniently forgotten the whole Howad Dean debacle, apparently). What a guy. It's not like Lieberman has changed in essentials from the man he was when Gore chose him as a running mate in 2000.

So what happened? Did a grown man (Gore) change his views that much in that short a time? Or was his decision to choose Lieberman a purely political one -- he was so eager to win and so opportunistic that he'd select a man he fundamentally disagreed with to take over if something happened to him? Or is he being opportunistic now -- so eager not to upset the crazy netroots that he's willing to throw his erstwhile running mate overboard?

Whatever the explanation, it doesn't say anything too good about Al Gore.

13 Comments:

Blogger CAB said...

I'll never forget a coworker in the 1990s, a environmentalist and progressive, vehemently exclaiming that he did not trust the Clintons, that they were "users." The only reason he voted for Bill Clinton was because of the Gores -- people of real principle! Hmmm. I suspect this fellow doesn't care for Senator Lieberman's support of the GWoT but I'd like to think he and other fair-minded men of the left are reevaluating Gore.

10:27 PM  
Blogger Righty64 said...

The reason you are seeing cretins like Al Gore throwing true patriots like Senator Lieberman overboard is because the Democratic party is being taken ovet by radical socialists. We can not even call them liberals any longer. Look at what Mr. Gore says we should do to stop "global warming." Accept the Kyoto Protocals while Red China and India do not have to. That would give thir economies a jump start to catch and overtake ours. We will become nothing more than a warmed over creaking economy like any of the European nations. Men like Mr. Gore are disengenious at beat and trators at their worst.

10:29 PM  
Blogger Pete said...

Sadly, I hail from Connecticut. I'm a Republican who cast one of the votes for Lieberman to defeat the RINO Llowell Weicker. Later, Weicker became Governor and gave us the state income tax - payback is a bitch! Anyway...

I find it sad that Lieberman, who has some excellent positions - and some not so excellent, is being chased by a clown whose claim to fame is - let's see what was his claim, again? - Oh, yes, the Iraq situation is immoral. Get out now! That's ALL Ned Lamont has. Unless you also want to count Llowell Weicker's endorsement. Whooopie!!! And the Democrats here are only favoring Lieberman by about 15 points, which is down from 60 at the start.

My biggest beef with Lieberman at this time was his 180 on many of his prior positions to run with Algore in 2000. So his 'principles' are shakey according to the direction of the wind - but how many politicians are the exact same way on both sides of the aisle?

I think after all Lieberman has done in, and for Connecticut, if he has to run as an Independent to keep his seat, it would be a very sad commentary on the Democratic Party. At least here in CT - but it looks like this is a country wide problem for the Democrats. You must be a radical socialist to secure position and support in the party.

You lefties here - doesn't standing up for America count for anything anymore? Do you have to trash good men/women and your country EVERY time you disagree with a policy or action taken by your political opponents? Where is YOUR common sense? Oh, never mind - that's a moot question.

5:04 AM  
Blogger Mr. Twister said...

Yeah, I remember back in 1998 when Ronald Wilson Reagan refused to endorse George H.W. Bush in the Republican primaries.

So, Carol, Did a grown man (Reagan) change his views that much in that short a time? Or was his decision to choose Bush a purely political one -- he was so eager to win and so opportunistic that he'd select a man he fundamentally disagreed with to take over if something happened to him?

Oh hypocrisy, your name is Platt-Liebau.

7:13 AM  
Blogger Pete said...

Actually, twisted, I think you are referring to 1978.

I, for one, was very disappointed the Bush 41 became Reagan's running mate. I personally think it was the backroom power makers who decided for Reagan who his VP would be. You may remember the smoke-filled back rooms where the money talked even in Democratic campaigns. Sorta the rule of the road, years ago.

I wanted Reagan to take Phillip Crane of Illinois - who had an excellent record of lower tax, less government, but defend America policies than George the 1st did. And I didn't like George's promoters, but that's all history now.

7:37 AM  
Blogger Dittohead said...

Prior to becoming Reagan's VP...

Bush attacked Reagan as being 'too' conservative, labeling the latter's supply side-influenced plans for massive tax cuts as "voodoo economics." Bush had declared he would never be Reagan's VP.

So what happened? Did a grown man (Bush) change his views that much in that short a time?

8:11 AM  
Blogger COPioneer said...

I have to semi-agree with some of the left-wing nuts here...I think it's fine for them to change their views. There are good reasons to change views sometimes. Politicians don't like to do it, because they get tarred and feathered with fun quotes like "I voted for the war, before I voted against it!"...that one is priceless.

8:29 AM  
Blogger wrabkin said...

You right-wingers might want to read your own posts if you don't understand why Democrats -- including Al Gore -- are deserting Lieberman.

You see, you all love him. And it's not because of that fab hair. You love his political positions. You agree with them.

Which means that Lieberman's political positions are essentially Republican positions.

And now you're trashing Democrats for failing to support a Senator (from a solidly Democratic state!)who supports Republican positions.

Of course we reject him. He is no longer a Democrat. And there is no life-long right to serve in Congress. Every member serves at the pleasure of their constituents. (Well, except for the Ohio Republicans, who have figured out ways around that little problem...)

You guys are gunning for Lincoln Chafee for many of the same reasons, and I'm not chiding you for it. You think he's too liberal, you want someone who believes what you do. What's wrong with that?

I mean, aside from the fact that Lieberman is from a safe Democratic state, so the Dem primary winner will almost undoubtedly take the seat -- and Chafee's primary loss will probably give his seat to a Democrat. But I've got no problem with that, either.

9:29 AM  
Blogger Mr. Twister said...

Pete wrote, "I personally think it was the backroom power makers who decided for Reagan who his VP would be."

OK, fine. So that leaves us with three options (according to Pete and Carol).

Ronald Wilson Reagan was a flip-flopper.

Ronald Wilson Reagan was an opportunistic political hack.

-or-

Ronald Wilson Reagan was a puppet of "backroom power makers."

I think I have to agree with Carol--Whatever the explanation, it doesn't say anything too good about the Gipper.

10:37 AM  
Blogger Greg said...

I like exactly ONE of Lieberman's policies:

He wants America to WIN the war!

1:46 PM  
Blogger wrabkin said...

Win the war. That's great.

What does it mean? Seriously, how do you define "victory" in this scenario?

2:55 PM  
Blogger COPioneer said...

Kill the islamofascists where they stand. Before they kill us.

If this were June 6th, 1944, the left wing would have started learning German instead of fighting for freedom.

8:19 AM  
Blogger wrabkin said...

Copioneer --

Until we invaded Iraq, there were no "Islamofascists" there. Because Saddam shared your ideology and killed them before they could pose a threat to his regime.

They were, however, in Afghanistan. And because we pulled most of our troops out of that country to invade a sectarian dictatorship, they are back in force. The Taliban is on the offensive, taking over more and more of the country... and we can't do anything about it because we're mired in Iraq.

What a brilliant strategy. But then, I guess any strategist whose major strategic goal is "I wanna kill!" is probably not the best judge of anything more advanced than kindergarten playground wars.

7:20 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Google