ST. PAUL – The most militantly conservative Republican National Convention in the history of the republic cheered itself hoarse Tuesday night for a pro-choice, pro-civil rights, pro-labor, pro-environment champion of anti-global warming initiatives who hailed the accomplishments of Bill Clinton's presidency.

Such are the vagaries of this strangest of all national conventions that it was a member of the Senate Democratic Caucus who finally focused the attention and energy of the gathering on the campaign to prevail in what he described as "no ordinary election."

And such are the vagaries of Connecticut Senator Joe Lieberman's strangest of all political journeys that the man who just eight years ago accepted the Democratic nomination for the vice presidency on Tuesday night, endorsed a Republican candidate for president with whom Lieberman disagrees on many issues and a Republican candidate for vice president with whom he disagrees on almost every issue.

What gives? It comes down, pretty much, to Iraq.

Lieberman, who serves as an independent but identified himself to the delegates as a Democrat, shares McCain's commitment to the neo-conservative approach to foreign policy that McCain suggests may require a hundred year commitment to the occupation of the Middle Eastern land.

"What we need most is not more party unity in America but more national unity! Especially at a time of war, we need a President we can count on to fight for what's right for our country -- not only when it is easy, but when it is hard," argued Lieberman. "When others were silent, John McCain had the judgment to sound the alarm about the mistakes we were making in Iraq. When others wanted to retreat in defeat from the field of battle, when Barack Obama was voting to cut off funding for our troops on the ground, John McCain had the courage to stand against the tide of public opinion and support the surge, and because of that, today, our troops are at last beginning to come home, not in failure, but in honor!"

While that statement was inaccurate – Obama never voted "to cut off funding for our troops on the ground" – it was the applause line of the night.

The delegates, alternates and assorted hangers-on loved Lieberman not just for endorsing their ticket but for attacking the Democratic standard-bearer. The senator had once declared that he would not attack Obama – a colleague who barely two years ago identified Lieberman as his political mentor – did not hesitate to echo McCain campaign talking points about the Democrat's supposed inexperience.

"Sen. Obama is a gifted and eloquent young man who can do great things for our country in the years ahead," Lieberman said. "But eloquence is no substitute for a record -- not in these tough times."

For all of Lieberman's talk about how "country matters more than party," it was the red-meat partisanship of his unblinking endorsement of his friend and neo-conservative "soul-mate" McCain but his unapologetic embrace of Palin that wowed the crowd.

"It's not like Joe Lieberman is just one of 100 senators. This was the pick of the Democrats for the vice presidency just eight years ago," said Laurie Forcier, the chairman of the Eau Claire County Republican Party in western Wisconsin. "His knowledge of foreign affairs, his knowledge of intelligence, is why Al Gore picked him for the Democratic ticket in 2000. And, now, here he is saying that Barack Obama is just not ready to be president."

Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, R-Georgia, offered another variation on the sentiment. "Lieberman was, after all, the nominee for vice president with Al Gore. And here he is saying Barack Obama is wrong on the issues, wrong for America. That's remarkable."

Perhaps the most remarkable moment in Lieberman's address -- which capped a night that saw President Bush address the convention via a video link while former Tennessee Senator Fred Thompson cleared his throat 70 times while choking out a recollection of McCain's POW history – came when the Connecticut senator told Republicans who despise all things Clinton that Obama compares unfavorably with the last Democratic president.

After suggesting that "Obama has not reached across party lines to get anything significant done, nor has he been willing to take on powerful interest groups in the Democratic Party," Lieberman – who famously condemned Clinton's sexual irresponsibility in 1998 – told the Republicans that "the last Democratic President, Bill Clinton… stood up to some of those same Democratic interest groups and worked with Republicans to get important things done like welfare reform, free trade agreements, and a balanced budget."

The delegates did not quite know what to do.

They were not inclined to hail a reference to Bill Clinton.

But they wanted to cheer an attack on Barack Obama.

So they applauded the 2000 Democratic nominee for vice president for putting his neo-conservatism ahead of his party.

It wasn't bipartisanship that excited the conventioneers. It was the fact that the man Democrats once nominated for vice president was mouthing Republican talking points.

"We worked hard to beat Joe Lieberman eight years ago," said delegate Laurie Forcier. "But now we love Joe Lieberman because he's working with us to beat the Democrats this year."

Comments (44)

1. The biggest mistake dems made not supporting Lamont big time over Lie berman. Lie berman helped the new con repub dic'tator supporters torpedo Gore way back when and Lie berman is now torpedoing Obama. Gore sure as hell didn't get anywhere close to campaigning for Lie berman like he's done for Kerry. And for good reason.

   Bottom line, new con repubs don't give a shit about social issues, it's now, has been, will be-- and forever corporate war profiteering greed and the control of it via petty dic'tatorship and/or the unitary executive. It's the same thing.

   And Lie berman is all for dic'tatorship.

   Bomb bomb bomb bomb bomb bomb bomb bomb bomb bomb bomb bomb bomb bomb bomb bomb bomb bomb bomb bomb bomb bomb bomb bomb bomb bomb bomb bomb bomb bomb bomb bomb bomb bomb bomb bomb bomb bomb bomb bomb bomb bomb bomb bomb bomb bomb bomb bomb bomb bomb bomb bomb bomb bomb bomb bomb bomb bomb bomb bomb bomb bomb bomb bomb

   Posted by hsuBfools at 09/03/2008 @ 02:03am

2. It wasn't bipartisanship that excited the conventioneers. It was the fact that the man Democrats once nominated for vice president was mouthing Republican talking points.

   EUREKA!

   frankgrunts is joe lieberman.

   Posted by frosty zoom at 09/03/2008 @ 02:16am

3. You know, I told myself I was going to watch this Republican convention, see what they had to say, se if there was anything of substance 'there'.

   Then Joe literally put me to sleep...it was that boring! A speech completely devoid of anything even resembling substance...let alone excitement. My lord, anyone who ever said Al Gore was a boring Democrat...NEVER tried to sit through a Joe Leiberman speech!

   The only thing that woke me was my kids laughing. At all the OLD people in the audience! At the cameraman searching desperately for the right angle to show the very few younger 'kids' without them being surrounded yawning geezers (Jeez, a shot of 2 young adults - taken nearly from the floor - with nothing but the ceiling in the background!) And mostly, at the distinct lack of people of any color, the few of whom basically stuck out like sore thumbs in a sea of plump white flesh.

   Posted by Lillian at 09/03/2008 @ 03:46am

4. Oops...correction...should have been 'Lie'-berman

   Posted by Lillian at 09/03/2008 @ 03:47am

5. "Country first."

   Aye, but which country?

   Posted by sloper at 09/03/2008 @ 04:13am

6. John Nichols wrote that Joe Lieberman's statement about Barack Obama's having voted to cut off funding for our "troops" (sic) in Iraq was "inaccurate". Obama either voted for or against the funding. If, as I believe, he voted FOR the funding then the statement is not inaccurate. It is false! Why such inaccurate and timerous language.

   We don't know that the statement was a lie. Lieberman may have been mistaken - though I would think he would have been more careful. Still, this is not an assertion with a gradation of possibilities. It is true or false, and in the present case false! That much is certain.

   Posted by goedel at 09/03/2008 @ 04:14am

7. Lieberman, much like McCain, has sold himself to the highest bidder. Don't any of you rethug types question how McCain could all of a sudden embrace the same people he spent most of his politcal career fighting against? Same goes for Lieberman.

   Both men are guilty of selling out to get into a high office. All they have to do is exactly what those people who bankroll their asses tell them to do. Hence, McCain selecting Palin over the guys he really wanted to select. What a strong, bold leader he's shaping up to be.

   Posted by Wolfgang1 at 09/03/2008 @ 07:24am

8. What a strong, bold leader he's shaping up to be.

   Posted by Wolfgang1 at 09/03/2008 @ 07:24am

   Forgot to mention honorable/patriotic/sacrificing man with impeccable integrity....NOT!

   Posted by Wolfgang1 at 09/03/2008 @ 07:26am

9. Hello Wolfgang1,

   Fascinating stuff. You said "All they have to do is exactly what those people who bankroll their asses tell them to do. Hence, McCain selecting Palin over the guys he really wanted to select"

   Amazing!

   1. Who did McCain really want to select? Enlighten us.

   2. How would you know who McCain wanted to select? Do you have conversations with John McCain, where he confided in you?

   3. Who among the people that "bankroll" John McCain was the person or group that ordered him to pick Sarah Palin? Where is your documentation or "proof" for this? Do you have a transcripts of the conversations?

   Whenever I or another conservative says something people like Brunowe, crabwalk, Lillian (she is back now), etc. want "proof".

   Where is your proof for all your concepts? Or is it just your opinion. If it is then fine, but say so.

   Posted by sjchermak at 09/03/2008 @ 08:00am

10. I didn't like ol' Joe as democrat. I don't like ol' Joe as an independent, and I will not like ol' Joe as secretary of defense for ol' John. These two ol' characters want to take over the middle east and turn it over to Isreal.

    Posted by lachatte at 09/03/2008 @ 08:33am

11. Hey Joe,

    Ever here of a toothbrush? Whew!!!

    Posted by BigAndy at 09/03/2008 @ 08:35am

12. Posted by sjchermak at 09/03/2008 @ 08:00am |

    I had to break these links up because they were too long. Just eliminate the spaces.

    Here are his considerations for VP as of July.

    http://www.bizjournals.com/atlanta/ stories/2008/07/21/daily85.html

    Here are McCain's major backers...financially speaking.

    http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/ contrib.php?cycle=2008&cid=N00006424

    Posted by Wolfgang1 at 09/03/2008 @ 08:42am

13. It's about making the pie bigger.

    Posted by Darin_the_Troll at 09/03/2008 @ 08:34am

    Durwood, If it was about making a bigger pie, you wouldn't be cutting the money going to the poor now would you. Evidently there's only so much "pie" to go around and the wealthy of this land are getting the lions share of their pie. They need to learn to share much like I have to tell my daughters on a daily basis. But, my duaghters are both less than 10 years old, what is the excuse of the ultra wealthy?

    Posted by Wolfgang1 at 09/03/2008 @ 08:45am

14. But wasn't his dear frrriennnndsss McKeating5 before he was McMAV before he was McCave before he was McPOWhowmanyMANSIONS?

    The new leader to the new con repub unitary exec... better known as a dic'tator, for the will of the corporate MIC war profiteering elite.

    A dic-- dic'tates, qualifications are an illusion; merely a flimsy facade that the MSM is too fearful to report on, so it obsesses on a pregnant 17 yr old.

    Only the greediest new con repubs need remain.

    Everyone else-- fodder.

    Lie berman is a spineless role model; bends over sooo easy.

    See you can do it too.

    Bend over for dic'tatorship.

    And don't forget to smile and enjoy.

    Posted by hsuBfools at 09/03/2008 @ 08:52am

15. Where is your proof for all your concepts? Or is it just your opinion. If it is then fine, but say so.

    Posted by sjchermak at 09/03/2008 @ 08:00am

    I'll make it easier for everyone. This is from the links above.

    Contributor Total Merrill Lynch $293,010 Citigroup Inc $251,851 Goldman Sachs $223,995 Morgan Stanley $212,821 AT&T Inc $187,673 Blank Rome LLP $175,326 JPMorgan Chase & Co $169,625 Greenberg Traurig LLP $154,687 Credit Suisse Group $144,525 Bank of America $120,625 Pinnacle West Capital $119,250 Lehman Brothers $115,800 UBS AG $114,315 US Government $112,101 Wachovia Corp $110,462 PricewaterhouseCoopers $109,270 FedEx Corp $108,253 Hess Corp $95,050 US Army $92,007 Blackstone Group $91,500

    The copied link below was posted July 25th in the Atlanta Business Chronicle. Here' the title:

    Friday, July 25, 2008 McCain VP short list: Pawlenty, Powell, Romney, Lieberman, Ridge, Palin

    Republican presidential candidate John McCain's short list of vice presidential possibilities has been essentially narrowed to six, according to a source familiar with the search.

    Factions within McCain's campaign are pushing for their favored candidate. The campaign has also been vetting potential running mates and polling voters, especially in battleground states, on their viability.

    They include:

    Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty former U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin U.S. Sen. Joseph Lieberman, I-Conn former Pennsylvania governor Tom Ridge.

    Posted by Wolfgang1 at 09/03/2008 @ 09:00am

16. "The biggest mistake dems made was not supporting Lamont big time over Lie berman," said "hsuBFools."

    Amen to that!

    "Eloquence is no substitute for record," Senator Lieberman carped. Yes, and this statement is interesting for two reasons.

    First, Lieberman's record, if one ignores the Iraq War, is mostly the same as Obama's.

    Second, as "Lillian" has attested, Lieberman is nowhere near as eloquent as Obama.

    So poor Joe Lieberman has managed to put down himself - twice. He is a pitiable man, but of course I shall feel more comfortable pitying him once he is no longer in office.

    Posted by JakobFabian at 09/03/2008 @ 09:04am

17. Nichols wrote:

    " Obama never voted "to cut off funding for our troops on the ground"

    He didn't? Then there's an awful lot of confused lefties here at the Nation, I think.

    Posted by pontificus at 09/03/2008 @ 09:13am

18. Oh, PUH-LEEEEEEEEEEEEEZE, let FRANKGRITS show up and praise, even defend Joe Lieberman on this thread!

    That would be Christmas in September for me! The final snapping of sanity in FG's mind as he turns "pro-Lieberman" after saying this...

    "Joe Lieberman turned his back on his constituents."----Posted by FRANKGRITS 08/04/2006 @ 4:16pm

    Posted by Maskdelta at 09/03/2008 @ 09:13am

19. BTW, Lieberman flat out LIED.

    He said Obama has "never reached across the aisle" on anything of significance, which is totally false. Lugar and Obama worked on WMDs, Indian nuke exports together.

    As for his "funding the troops", of course that's the same bait-n-switch trick too. Obama (and many other Dems) wanted a PLAN (not even a time-table) for how we withdraw from Iraq...and since Bush didn't KNOW of one (much less want to come up with one), it was passed to avoid his veto.

    Posted by Maskdelta at 09/03/2008 @ 09:16am

20. Posted by Wolfgang1 at 09/03/2008 @ 08:45am

    Wolfie, if your logic held true, communism would not have fallen. Societies don't benefit by making everyone share their pie equally. What happens when you income redistributionists take over is there's no pie at all for anyone, ala Cuba, North Korea, and the old Soviet Union. You need to wake up past your 19th century slumber.

    Posted by pontificus at 09/03/2008 @ 09:18am

21. Posted by Wolfgang1 at 09/03/2008 @ 09:00am

    Hey Wolfie, why don't you dig up a list of Obama's contributors and compare and contrast them with McCain's. Then you can explain to us the fundamental difference between oil companies contributing $1 million to McCain and $600,000 to Obama.

    Posted by pontificus at 09/03/2008 @ 09:25am

22. "John McCain had the courage to stand against the tide of public opinion and support the surge, and because of that, today, our troops are at last beginning to come home, not in failure, but in honor!" said Senator Lieberman.

    For those of us who remember Nixon, there is a Nixonian ring to this rhetoric. Remember that Nixon's chaotic exit strategy during the later years of the Vietnam War carried the propagandistic title "Peace with honor."

    It is instructive to take note of how the word "honor" is used here in contrast to "failure." If the troops return under conditions set by Democrats, then they will return "in failure." If they return under conditions set by Republicans, then they will return "in honor."

    How do Republican conditions differ from Democratic conditions? That, alas, is information that we are not privileged to know. But McCain's "hundred year" slip indicates clearly that under the Republicans' (and Lieberman's) conditions, the troops who do eventually return "in honor" will be comparatively reduced in number.

    Posted by JakobFabian at 09/03/2008 @ 09:27am

23. $1 million to McCain and $600,000 to Obama.

    Posted by pontificus at 09/03/2008 @ 09:25am

    Ponti, that's one is easy. Notice that they contriubted more to McCain by a factor of 1.67?

    These companies are not stupid. They want to be though of as a friend to both sides, so they contribute to both sides, but they make the direction the lean in pretty obvious by giving more to "their man".

    I think all of us Americans are duped into thinking we are being represented by the people we vote for. Big money is what is being represented, not your ordinary Americans. Occasionally, it works out for the common good of all, but then sometimes it doesn't. Lately, it's been working out for the wealthy quite nicely, but not so good for the rest of us.

    Posted by Wolfgang1 at 09/03/2008 @ 09:36am

24. "Wolfie, if your logic held true, communism would not have fallen. Societies don't benefit by making everyone share their pie equally. What happens when you income redistributionists take over is there's no pie at all for anyone, ala Cuba, North Korea, and the old Soviet Union. You need to wake up past your 19th century slumber."

    Actually, societies do benefit when you try to move towards equality of pie distribution. Who does not benefit are those who are losing pie. At least this is true if you don't engage in vapid analysis. The USSR was not an example of this, and thank babbling christ it failed. On the other hand, I would say this country was clearly at its best after World War II when we were doing something more towards evening things out. The other examples you gave are the usual where you actually had people just offering alternatives to our economic dominance, although not necessarily alternatives that are about sharing power and wealth, unlike we were doing in this country.

    Posted by onthehelm at 09/03/2008 @ 09:48am

25. Wolfie, if your logic held true, communism would not have fallen.

    Posted by pontificus at 09/03/2008 @ 09:18am

    Ponti, Communism fell in the Soviet Union due to corruption in the system. The Soviet Empire collapsed because of the huge military budget they were trying to sustain.

    Does this sound familiar? We are on the same trajectory if we don't get our act together. The U.S. economy can not continue to finance the military industrial complex the way we have been.

    I don't think we can shift our economy over night, but presently, our military expenditures are rapidly approaching a socialistic system. We're not that much different than our old arch rival the Soviet Union.

    Our leaders in D.C. need to step back and look at what we have going for us besides oil in other countries and our military.

    If you look at the technological univeristies in the U.S. you'll see that all of the countries of the world are sending their students here to get an education. Why, because we have the best technological schools overall in the world.

    We should use that technological advantage to build things other than weapons systems built to protect the very oil countries that are screwing us over.

    We could build a modernized U.S. infrastructure, find other energy sources and become way more efficient with existing fuels than we are now. But, we'll never get there doing business as usual.

    We need an administration that will think outside the D.C. box. We also need an administration that will move forward, not backward in time.

    Posted by Wolfgang1 at 09/03/2008 @ 09:49am

26. Whenever I or another conservative says something people like Brunowe, crabwalk, Lillian (she is back now), etc. want "proof".

    Where is your proof for all your concepts? Or is it just your opinion. If it is then fine, but say so.

    Posted by sjchermak at 09/03/2008 @ 08:00am | ignore this person | warn this person

    .

    And of course, in pretty much every case, Sjerk has argued vociferously AGAINST supplying support or proof of kind for bis blatantly partisan blatherings. When cornered, he'll offer up Limbaugh...maybe.

    Conversely, Wolfganag just offered up enough 'proof' to anyone capable of getting more than one brain cell to fire atthe same time...

    ...which naturally won't be enough to affect Sjerk in the slightest.

    Posted by Lillian at 09/03/2008 @ 09:51am

27. To buttress Wolfgang's point about McCain not having his preference re a VP pick, this from the NYTimes http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/02/us/politics/02vetting.html?em

    "At the least, Republicans close to the campaign said it was increasingly apparent that Ms. Palin had been selected as Mr. McCain's running mate with more haste than McCain advisers initially described.

    Up until midweek last week, some 48 to 72 hours before Mr. McCain introduced Ms. Palin at a Friday rally in Dayton, Ohio, Mr. McCain was still holding out the hope that he could choose a good friend, Senator Joseph I. Lieberman, independent of Connecticut, a Republican close to the campaign said. Mr. McCain had also been interested in another favorite, former Gov. Tom Ridge of Pennsylvania.

    But both men favor abortion rights, anathema to the Christian conservatives who make up a crucial base of the Republican Party. As word leaked out that Mr. McCain was seriously considering the men, the campaign was bombarded by outrage from influential conservatives who predicted an explosive floor fight at the convention and vowed rejection of Mr. Ridge or Mr. Lieberman by the delegates."

    Posted by brunowe at 09/03/2008 @ 09:56am

28. The other examples you gave are the usual where you actually had people just offering alternatives to our economic dominance, although not necessarily alternatives that are about sharing power and wealth, unlike we were doing in this country.

    Posted by onthehelm at 09/03/2008 @ 09:48am

    http://www.jchs.harvard.edu/publications/markets/w07-1.pdf

    This article supports what you say, but also what I'm saying. The problem is that the distribution of wealth in this country is lopsided and comletely out of balance. Take note of when the wealthy accumlated wealth at an accelerated rate compared to everyone else....during Republican administrations.

    That is why I don't understand the average Joe republicans voting the way they do. Most of them are not in top quartile or even close to it though they may dream that they are suppose.

    Posted by Wolfgang1 at 09/03/2008 @ 10:01am

29. It isn't a fight over getting a bigger piece of the pie. It's about making the pie bigger.

    Posted by Darin_the_Troll at 09/03/2008 @ 08:34am

    Rankings of the presidential terms since 1960 by average annual GDP growth:

    Kennedy-Johnson -- 5.2%

    Clinton -- 3.6%

    Reagan -- 3.4%

    Carter -- 3.4%

    Nixon-Ford -- 2.7%

    Bush II -- 2.6%

    Bush I -- 1.9%

    Posted by frosty zoom at 09/03/2008 @ 10:34am

30. Lieberman is a shill for right-wing AIPAC Jews, and his ONLY interest and role in American politics is ensuring BOTH parties swear allegiance to the right-wing Jew agenda.

    He is an absolute embarrassment to anyone who loves the democratic process.

    Posted by Metteyya at 09/03/2008 @ 10:36am

31. ...the few of whom basically stuck out like sore thumbs in a sea of plump white flesh.

    Posted by Lillian at 09/03/2008 @ 03:46am

    That's pretty funny. It reminded me of the Pillsbury Doughboy. :)

    Posted by client 10 at 09/03/2008 @ 10:46am

32. When Leiberman is thinking "Country First", one wonders which country?

    Posted by john lowell at 09/03/2008 @ 11:04am

33. Simple:

    Experienced leader with a lifetime of service to his country who actually knows what the job entails...

    -vs-

    Inexperienced dreamer who thinks his teleprompter is all it takes to change the world.

    Toss in the woman VP pick to get the moderates wondering 'why didn't nObama pick Hillary?'

    Boy, you Dems gotta be sick of losing.

    How did you screw this up so badly?

    Posted by Zamfeer at 09/03/2008 @ 11:18am

34. 1. Who did McCain really want to select? Enlighten us. 2. How would you know who McCain wanted to select? Do you have conversations with John McCain, where he confided in you? 3. Who among the people that "bankroll" John McCain was the person or group that ordered him to pick Sarah Palin? Where is your documentation or "proof" for this? Do you have a transcripts of the conversations? Whenever I or another conservative says something people like Brunowe, crabwalk, Lillian (she is back now), etc. want "proof". Where is your proof for all your concepts? Or is it just your opinion. If it is then fine, but say so. Posted by sjchermak at 09/03/2008 @ 08:00a

    Uhh. It has been repeatedly stated that McCain was looking most towards Lieberman and Ridge. Palin was a last minute choice to throw meat to the people McCain once said were a danger to this country, the evangelicals.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 09/03/2008 @ 11:32am

35. Uhh. It has been repeatedly stated that McCain was looking most towards Lieberman and Ridge. Palin was a last minute choice to throw meat to the people McCain once said were a danger to this country, the evangelicals.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 09/03/2008 @ 11:32am

    I already tried that route. Hell, I even gave him the links and copied the information of the links over. Ponti quickly came back with...well, the McCain got $1,000,000 from oil companies where Obama got $600,000.

    $400,000 dollars of difference ain't no chump change, and it further reinforces my belief that the right wing backers posting here can't think for themselves. Everything has to be spelled out for them, and even when you do that, they still seem to miss the main point.

    Posted by Wolfgang1 at 09/03/2008 @ 11:44am

36. Liebermann endorsed Palin? Only sort of. In one TV interview afterward his eyes glazed over when asked about Palin's level of experience..you can see the wheels turning and the maneuvering going on. There's something afoot here. I don't think she'll make it through all the way.

    Posted by hrayovac at 09/03/2008 @ 12:34pm

37. Strange indeed. Normally, rats swim away from a sinking ship, not towards it.

    Posted by wilkes at 09/03/2008 @ 12:47pm

38. Posted by Darin_the_Troll at 09/03/2008 @ 11:57am

    Why is it you always use Cuba as the example. Why don't you present a WORKING socialist government instead of Cuba. How about Britain?

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 09/03/2008 @ 12:49pm

39. Studies indicate that when tasks completed aren't physical enough, people's bodies do not understand how to reward itself with endorphins, thus the steady increase in depression numbers with the ever increase of the most drugs for depression ever prescribed.

    The common conservative far right view that poor people (not rich corporations) need to put greater effort into getting funded from the gov, is only valid superficially as our bodies are unable to recognize better effort through technology. Our bodies haven't evolve fast enough to keep up with our increased interaction with technology which requires the least physical effort ever for task completion.

    And since new con repubs do not believe in evolution nor most science, their 'Mad Max' everyone-on-their-own survival (intuitive) solution, makes sense, scientifically. As viewed ethically by a non-new con repub, one could only conclude that new con repubs are crass greedy ingrates...

    Not so.

    But ironically-- they'll never believe it.

    Posted by hsuBfools at 09/03/2008 @ 1:26pm

40. What Wolfgang1 originally said:

    "Both men are guilty of selling out to get into a high office. All they have to do is exactly what those people who bankroll their asses tell them to do. Hence, McCain selecting Palin over the guys he really wanted to select. What a strong, bold leader he's shaping up to be."

    Wolfgang1 has now offered "proof"... a list of campaign contributors and a list of the potential VP candidates.

    And Lillian says about that "proof":

    "Wolfganag just offered up enough 'proof' to anyone capable of getting more than one brain cell to fire at the same time..."

    The message is clear, I get the point. If you do not see Wolfgang1's proof, you are ignorant.

    In any presidential campaign, both parties have campaign contributors, and both eventual candidates have a "short" list of VP candidates.

    But only with regards to the GOP is this declared to be some kind of high chicanery.

    Nowhere does Wolfgang1 point out how this forced McCain to pick somebody other than who he ultimately decided upon himself. (OOPs, I shouldn't point that out, that displays ignorance on my part!). How two lists "prove" Sarah Palin is not who he wanted but forced to choose anyway, is beyond me.

    Who did he want? Which specific individual, not a list. Who was he going to pick if he wasn't forced to pick Gov. Palin by his "bosses"? You haven't answered that.

    Wolfgang1 and Lillian, you'd get an F in High School debate class with the stuff you are offering up. Jay Leno couldn't do a satire of you that is any more amusing than what you present by yourselves.

    Posted by sjchermak at 09/03/2008 @ 2:04pm

41. "Obama never voted 'to cut off funding for our troops on the ground,'" wrote John Nichols, and "Pontificus" responded with the exclamation that the Lefties must be confused.

    Senator Obama never did vote to cut off funding for our troops on the ground. Yes, we Lefties have pressured him to do so, but no, Obama never complied, as Nichols has once again confirmed. No surprise to us.

    So... where's the confusion? Obama never voted against Iraq war funding once the troops had been sent to Iraq, but Lieberman claimed that he did. Therefore, Lieberman lied. That's that. No confusion here!

    By the way, "cutting off funding for our troops on the ground" would not leave our troops in harm's way without supplies. The President, whoever he was, after loudly cursing the Congress and calling them surrender monkeys, would have no choice but to withdraw the troops. Otherwise, it would be HIS fault if the troops suffered, not the Congress's. The ball would be in his court.

    "Cutting off funding" is one of the ways the Congress exercises its Constitutional power to limit that of the Presidency. Without this power, we'd have a monarchy. With it, we have a republic.

    Posted by JakobFabian at 09/03/2008 @ 3:19pm

42. It isn't a fight over getting a bigger piece of the pie. It's about making the pie bigger.

    Posted by Darin_the_Troll at 09/03/2008 @ 08:34am

    That's so true. The last 8 years have proved it too. If you are in the top 3-5% then your pie does get bigger! And everyone else...will just have to eat cake. Darin_The_Tool, The 1980's keep calling...they want something back

    Posted by ADHD at 09/03/2008 @ 4:26pm

43. Mask I've got to go pick my son up at guitar.

    Posted by Darin_the_Troll at 09/03/2008

    ah,

    a trolling musician.....

    <i>Sul mare luccia l'astro d'argento,

    Placida è l'onda, prospero è il vento

    Venite all'agile barchetta mia...

    Santa Lucia! Santa Lucia!

    <<<<<<>>>>>>

    Con questo zeffiro, così soave

    Oh! Com'è bello star su la nave!

    Su passaggieri, venite via!

    Santa Lucia! Santa Lucia!

    Posted by frosty zoom at 09/04/2008 @ 12:36am

44. I was disappointed with Lieberman's speech at the convention. I was hoping his Republican masters would make Lieberman put on a little show after the speech... perhaps some softshoe to send the delegates home with. Make him earn those 20 silver pieces!

    Posted by madcapper at 09/04/2008 @ 04:19am