Newt Gingrich endorses Joe Lieberman

[indictrichardperle]

Just now on Faux, Newty screeched "Joe Lieberman is the only democrat with the courage to charge in to the lions den of left wing anti-war activists and support this president, all the other democrats are following Howard Dean's lead".

Gingrich is an errand boy over at AEI, is there any doubt who Holy Joe is working for ? Hannity and Gingrich both praise Holy Joe...........:puke:

Biden and Lieberman, with dems like these, who needs........

[roguevalley]

1. BWAHAHAHAHA!

Say goodnight, Joe.

[dudeness]

2. Oh Dear ..that cannot be good, can it ?

n/t

[dean4america]

they can both ...

go F themselves. And I mean that in the utmost sincerity :)

[Jacobin]

3. Bwaaahahahahahahaha

Newtie taking up for one of his own.

nuff said.

[dolstein]

4. Guess it proves even Gingrich can't be wrong all the time

Although in fairness, John Edwards and Dick Gephardt haven't backed away from their support of the war resolution, they've merely shifted emphasis. John Kerry, on the other hand, has shown little of the courage he displayed in Vietnam.

[Jack Rabbit]

34. Gingrich is factually correct

Lieberman is continuing to support Mr. Bush's war. In that, Mr. Gingrich correctly states a fact.

However, I would take exception to calling such a stand courageous. Supporting a policy predicated on a pack of lies is no demonstration of courage. It's a demonstration of gullibility.

If Lieberman and the other "Blair Democrats" want to look more presidential, they should start by being contrite. Each of them should say:

I believed Mr. Bush when he said Saddam posed an immanent threat; I was wrong to believe such a liar; I'm sorry. I was misled like most other Americans.

Then each of them can tell us how their going to get us out of this colonial quagmire that, by being so gullible, they helped to create.

[Gore1FL]

46. I think it is courageous. -- stupid, but courageous

To run in support of the failing policies of the person you are running against is very courageous (in a suicidal way) -- just dumb as hell, counter productive, and lacking all evidence of leadership.

I do assert there is nothign more courageous than making yourself a laughingstock on the national stage. For that Lieberman is a brave man.

[Jack Rabbit]

50. What you are describing is not courage

It is foolishness.

And suppose these men simply wet their fingers and held them to the wind to determine their position last fall? hat should we call that? It certainly isn't courage, either.

What should bother us is that it was quite likely the case that the "Blair Democrats" were cowed by public opinion polls and took a position that they knew was wrong. I and many others who marched against the war last winter did so not as knee-jerk pacifists but armed with informed opinion. We knew that Saddam had no ability to threaten his weakest neighbor and that he had no ties to al Qaida. We knew that intelligence was being culled and cooked to support the war effort. We knew that contracts for the reconstruction of Iraq were being awarded without bidding to Mr. Bush's corporate cronies. We knew that the plan was to seize Iraq and sell it out from under the Iraqi people and burden them with bad debt. The idea that Bush -- who sits in the White House as a result of fraud and manipulation, not a free and fair election -- would even seriously think about bringing democracy to Iraq is ludicrous.

Bush's vision of Iraq is one where US multinatinal corporation loot Iraqi resources. When Lieberman, Gephardt, Edwards and Kerry voted for the war resolution, they voted for that vision.

As a consequence, half of the army's combat divisions are in Iraq not to make America safe from terrorism (since Saddam had no association with al Qaida), but to protect the business opportunities for US multinational corporations. This is colonialism, not nation building. Meanwhile, we should ask: Where is Osama? The invasion of Iraq did nothing to weaken him. If anything, it created opportunities for him.

The information on which I based the conclusion that the war in Iraq was a colonial diversion from the war on terror was just as available to the Blair Democrats as it was to me. Granted, it involved going beyond the US mainstream media into foreign sources like the Guardian Unlimited (UK) and the BBC, anti-establishment sources like Pacifica radio and Greg Palast and sources on the fringe of the establishment like The Nation and The Progressive. If one got his information from CNN or MSNBC, one may as well have just gotten it from Fox News or Rush Limbaugh.

We should expect out congressmen to be more informed than they acted in this affair. The Blair Democrats have no excuse for siding with Bush. It is time for them to be contrite.

[Liberal Veteran]

5. Wrong question.....

The question is not which democrat would you pick, the question is "will you vote for Joe Lieberman for President if he gets the democratic nomination". If the answer to that is anything other than a resounding "YES!", then who gives a flying fuck about their "endorsement"?

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

6. If anything that makes me wonder if they aren't trying to ruin Lieberman's

chances.

They KNOW Newt endorsing ANY Dem would be a death knell to his campaign with party faithful.

I don't blame Lieberman for what Gingrich says.

[Terwilliger]

25. all the Repukes like Lieberman

he's one of theirs

[dolstein]

28. Factually untrue

All you have to do is look at what happened in 2000. Sure, Republicans had a few kind words to say on the day his selection was announced, but within 24 hours, Republicans were going after him the same way they were going after Gore. And why should this surprise anyone? After all, Lieberman and Gore agreed on about 95% of the issues.

I think Lieberman could attract support among certain disaffected Republicans -- particularly those who are liberal on social issues but hawkish on defense. But the undeniable truth is that Lieberman is simply too liberal on social issues for the overwhelming majority of Republicans.

[Terwilliger]

well, dolstein, I've heard scads of support for Lieberman

in conservative circles

Maybe they see in him as a real loser who will lose to Bush in 04. Could be.

[Woodstock]

54. Agree

Could it be the Republicans are sensing Bush is in trouble, and trying to find someone to semi-champion who would be least offensive to them? I think to underestimate the number of disaffected Republican pundits would be a mistake. They are putting on a brave face, but there is unrest with Bush's policies.

[PaDUer]

45. yes, because

they know bushie can kick his butt..Take note, they're supporting ANY D candidate that they know can't win..

[friendofbenn]

7. haha

n/t

[frank frankly]

8. Newt's our new Secretary of State, right?

in Lieberman's cabinet, I mean.

PNAC and AEI have many tentacles.
(no offense to any creature with tentacles)

[ComerPerro]

9. Today I saw Hannity

attack the Democratic candidates for only having negative things to say about Bush.

A message to lurking FReepers (because I know you are here):


BUSH IS A FUCKING MORON!!!!

He is also a drunk, a drug user, an insider trader, a liar, and a coward.

It is not the responsibility or "patriotic duty" of those running against Bush to support him.

It is not anyone's patriotic duty to support that murderous assclown.

This "my president, right or wrong" shit has got to stop.

Where were you assholes when Clinton was in office? Oh yeah, you were attacking him all over the airwaves and trying to impeach him. In fact, he tried to pass anti-terrorism legislation as early as 1996, but you assholes (Lott, Hatch) dismissed it and laughed it off as a "phony issue".

You know what you call a country in which no one speaks out against the leader? Its a dictatorship.

I know you hate democracy, but try to deal with it.
Because I know that you assholes will be foaming at the mouth and spewing hate speech as soon as the White House is rightfully restored to a Democrat.

[Joseph Conrad]

10. Speaking of Hannity...

Why is Colmes so docile and submissive? Once this peace protester came on the show, and he was giving him hell. Fair and balanced my ass.

[acerbic]

15. The simple, obvious answer: it's the job he gets paid for.

Why is Colmes so docile and submissive?

[Liberal Veteran]

16. Because it's not Hannity and Colmes.....

It's Hannity and Colmes as Al Franken pointed out.

[frank frankly]

12. right on!

yes, freeper's beware...you've saddled your hitch to a wagontrain of Nazis. hope you all are making over $250,000 a year!

nice work, comerperro, for saying it loud.

[Unforgiven]

13. Yes,Yes,Yes!

No truer words were ever spoken!


And a tip of the Hat and an Ice cold brew for you! :-)

[Wwagsthedog]

21. Did you forget deserter?

I guess that can fall under the category of coward.

[laconicsax]

42. Drug user is too tame.

Coke-head cuts to the point better.

[VOX]

11. This says more about Holy Joe that it does Newt...

And the kind of disservice that Lieberman does to Democrats by running from what is basically a right-wing script.

From Newt, I expect this bullshit. As for Lieberman, I can only say change your affiliation, Joe, and be done with it.

[ProudGerman]

22. Joe won't change his affiliations, and the GOP doesn't want him to either

What is the only thing politically that has worked for the Republicans recently? Besides the general populace having the attention span of a gnat....and possibly the IQ as well. Oh yeah, forget that whole election fraud thing for the moment.

Lack of choice. That is the only thing that has worked for the Pugs. Election 2000, the general populace through reasons I won't get into here, scratched their heads trying to figure out a difference between El Kabong! and Gore. Mid term elections, the Democratic party's message was, "we're just like them....only less so".

That was what the Pugs were going up against. It's telling that even with that kind of , ahem, stiff competition they only managed to squeak by in both cases. This is why they so desperately want Lieberman to win the nomination. They'll say to America, you didn't want him as VP, why make him the head honcho? They'll say, he's just like our guy, why vote for him when our guy already knows the ropes and uhhhh stuff?

If whoever gets the nomination actually is different from Captain Pretzel, they know they can't win. Especially if the nominee actually campaigns against the man that should not be.

They want to run against Bush-lite.

[teknomanzer]

14. Well that seals the deal for me.

If GINGRICH says that Joe is the man - then shit I'm on board. Who better to advise Democrats on who to throw thier support to than the bastard Repuke who pushed the contract on America and ushered the neo-con coup upon our nation.

If there was any doubt that Lieberman is worth a shit to our party, I think it has been dispelled now.

[madrchsod]

18. gingrich-

ex-liberal college prof turned republican,lieberman-ex liberal turned republican toady

[JHB]

55. When was Newt ever liberal?

:spank:

[madrchsod]

17. joe has been the repubilcans

boy since they ordained him on the rnc website last month. the dnc should have a talk with joe

[frank frankly]

19. Joe, you are making us sick.

I really think Joe's behavior now should help explain why Gore didn't do better (although he won) in 2000. To all Gore purists-explain why he picked this patronizing, insufferable, awful, piece-of-shit politician???

Is there actually such a thing as a Joe Lieberman fan?

[dolstein]

26. Speak for yourself -- he's not making me sick

Personally, I find it refreshing to have a Democratic candidate who isn't afraid to take stances that may ruffle a few feathers among certain Democratic constituencies. Now Joe is, without question, a solid Democrat. Even a cursory examination of his record on civil rights, the environment, labor issues, consumer rights, etc. makes this perfectly clear. But Lieberman, unlike many other candidates, seems to recognize that what's good for the country isn't necessarily what's good for interest group A or interest group B.

[frank frankly]

29. excellent point

I hear you on the crucial role of debate and dissent--it is always good to stir the pot. I understand you can't fight facism with facism.

[jiacinto]

30. Why do you bother reasoning with these folks

They aren't interested in the truth when it comes to Lieberman. They just aren't.

[frank frankly]

32. sure Lieberman is bought, sold, evil, and self-righteous

and his supporters may all be corporate shill lootocrats or insane or just different-minded, but i don't want to be an a**hole about it, especially cause Joe aint going nowhere

[IndianaGreen]

31. George Wallace and Orval Faubus were also Democrats

But Lieberman, unlike many other candidates, seems to recognize that what's good for the country isn't necessarily what's good for interest group A or interest group B.

You are right, Joe believes that what is good for him, and his corporate sponsors, is also good for the country. So much for Senator ENRON!

[dolstein]

41. Funny you should mention Wallace and Faubus

In case you weren't aware, Lieberman was involved in the civil rights movement during the 1960s. Here's a link to an article Lieberman wrote as a college student explaining his decision to go to Missippi to register blacks to vote:

http://www.joe2004.com/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5732&news_iv_ctrl=1001

Anyone who reads this article would know better than to compare Lieberman to Wallace and Faubus.

Despite the constant claims from DU'ers that Lieberman is a corporate whore, the truth -- spelled T-R-U-T-H -- is that Lieberman has always gotten higher marks from labor organizations than from business organizations.

As for the Senator ENRON charge, the fact -- that's spelled F-A-C-T -- is that roughly half of the Democrats currently serving in the Senate received contributions from ENRON. Joe Lieberman received $2000, the same amount received by Chris Dodd, John Rockefeller and Evan Bayh, among others. Bob Graham received four times as much money from ENRON, yet I haven't heard you are anyone else refer to Bob Graham as Senator ENRON. I wonder why. And what Lieberman received is a pittance compared to the nearly $22,000 Charles Schumer received.

Link: http://www.opensecrets.org/alerts/v6/enron_cong_senate.asp

[IndianaGreen]

48. Lieberman involvement lasted one summer

He then spent his time keeping his student draft deferment in 1-S status.

[TheYellowDog]

56. Where were you then, IG?

:shrug:

[JNelson6563]

47. Indeed!

This war with Iraq is so very good for our country, and the rest of the world!!

Julie

[Andy_Stephenson]

20. It is now official.

Joe is a Republican.

[lindashaw]

23. Oh, gawd!

[Bake]

24. With any luck this will kill Holy Joe's candidacy

Not that he hasn't been trying to do that himself, or anything.

Bake

[Khephra]

27. ROTFLMAO!

Lieberman has a VP pick finally!

:evilgrin:

[robsul82]

33. Well, my first thought...

Lieberman/Gingrich 2004!

Later.

RJS

[TheYellowDog]

35. Come on

He's not endorsing Lieberman, he just wants Lieberman to be the nominee so Bush can destroy him. And Bush would, because although I would vote for Lieberman, the man has almost no charisma And quite frankly, he's boring.

[Jack Rabbit]

36. Which of the two do you mean?

(T)he man has almost no charisma And quite frankly, he's boring.

That statement fits either.

Bush would win such a contest becasue, to paraphrase others, if presented a choice between Bush and Bush Lite, the voters will pick the real thing.

[maxanne]

37. the kiss of death

from the prince of family values. That's reason enough not to vote for Lieberman right there, in case anyone was addled enough to consider it.

[ButterflyBlood]

38. and people still defend Lieberman

sheesh

[Andromeda]

39. That figures...

Why doesn't Lieberman just formally change his party affiliation. I always thought Zell Miller was the worst Dem senator but I think Lieberman has outdone him.

[stickdog]

40. Slimy repukes endorse 'Loserman.' News at 11. (NT)

[indictrichardperle]

43. meanwhile , back at the ranch.......

:D

Really, how can Lieberman's "fans", all two of them, defend his incessant bashing of all things Democrat ? Its really a blatant betrayal of the Democratic party and its base, its indefesible.

[PaDUer]

44. OH shit!

Birds of a feather! Time for someone to tell him to get off the stick already!

[Cat Atomic]

49. Leiberman's in a tight spot.

The only people who'd ever support his "god & war" stance are too racist, anti-semitic, or just plain Republican to ever actually vote for him.

[MissMillie]

51. Why isn't he endorsing *?(n/t)

.

[buddhamama]

52. no fan of Lieberman

but it does take some courage to standup for what you believe, however unpopular and 'wrong' it is.

[Woodstock]

53. Ha ha ha ha ha ha!!!

Thanks for the laugh! I needed a smile, that one will keep me going for a while. :)

[DEM FAN]

57. Pretty Soon BUSH Is Going To Endorse Lieberman

:-(