Monday, December 17, 2007

More Evidence Lieberman's Not A Democrat


I hate to say I told you so, but last August 8th I predicted that Joe Lieberman would support a Republican for president in the 2008 election. It just made sense because he votes with the Republicans far more than he does with the Democrats. He has also supported Bush's war in Iraq as well or better than any Republican has.

Now, it looks like that prediction is going to come true. Lieberman is scheduled to announce today that he is supporting Republican John McCain in the presidential race. He couldn't even wait for the general election. He's jumping right in the middle of the Republican primary race.

One of his advisors said that Lieberman believes that McCain "has the best chance of uniting the country in it's fight against Islamic terrorism." The advisor went on to say that Lieberman will continue to caucus with the Democrats.

I must admit that this situation has me confused. Why do the Democrats allow this turncoat to caucus with them? I think immediately after the last election, Democrats thought if they allowed him back in their caucus, he might actually vote with them once in a while. But he dashed those hopes quite a while ago.

Lieberman is not a Democrat. He is a Bush loyalist. Both his beliefs and his voting record show he would be much more comfortable in the Republican Party. The only reason he has run as a Democrat is because he represents a heavily Democratic state (Connecticut).

Now that he has involved himself in the Republican primary, it is time for Congressional Democrats to face facts. Lieberman has no business caucusing with the Democrats, and they should withdraw that privilege.

Let him caucus with his Republican brothers.

5 comments:

  1. Lieberman is a Jew. Perhaps he is more interested in the survival of Israel than petty partisan bickering. Perhaps he supports the war on Islam, as do conservatives as to support the cowardice of libs would be death for Israel. Why can't a Democrat be for ending tyranny?

    ReplyDelete
  2. I would like to end all tyranny -- not replace one tyranny for another.

    ReplyDelete
  3. So democracy is tyranny? Even a republic is tyranny? You are very confused.

    ReplyDelete
  4. What democracy are you talking about? I hope you don't mean the puppet government Bush installed in Iraq.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Well no sense in debating the purple thumb thing. The government there is far from perfect, but again, tyranny? Compared to Saddam? That is just not right.

    ReplyDelete

ANONYMOUS COMMENTS WILL NOT BE PUBLISHED. And neither will racist,homophobic, or misogynistic comments. I do not mind if you disagree, but make your case in a decent manner.