Why Bush needs Lieberman

[NNN0LHI]

http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/sidney_blumenthal/2006/08/why_lieberman_is_essential_to.html

<snip>Lieberman can only win by securing almost all the Republican votes. His campaign must pull Republican votes to the polls, courtesy of the national GOP, on which his ambition has become dependent. That could have a drastically negative effect on the Democratic campaigns in the three Connecticut congressional districts where Republican representatives are at risk. Those three seats comprise one fifth of the total number of 15 that Democrats need to gain the House of Representatives. Out of necessity, Lieberman has become an active obstacle to Democratic victory and one of the key bulwarks for protecting Bush's one-party rule, essential for him to remain unaccountable for the rest of his presidency. For Bush, that is the importance of Lieberman.

[goclark]

1. Democrats better get out that vote and quick!

The CONS will do anything to help Traitor Joe because they are desperate.

[bigbrother05]

2. Blumenthal nails it nt

[leesa]

3. Well, then since Joe is pro-choice and pro-gay marriage, should be

easy to turn away those righteous Republicans...unless they're HYPOCRITES, like Baby Jesus Hannity and O'Reilly and Coulter.

This is funny to me because the talking heads are rallying around poor Joe to save their war monkey but he embraces everything else they have been screaming is unacceptably immoral. What's a born-again Christian fraud to do?

[NNN0LHI]

6. They had no problem voting for Arnold who was all those things...

...plus a few more things the Republicans "claim" they hate. They still voted for him over the Republican candidate in the primary who had no chance of winning the general election.

Don

[neoblues]

4. Why the neo•cons need lie•berman

http://www.antiwar.com/lobe/?articleid=9512">Neoconservatives' 'Favorite Democrat' Falls
by Jim Lobe

...

As noted by former Republican Connecticut Sen. Lowell Weicker, who supported Lamont against Lieberman, the primary was a "referendum on the Iraq war -- not just for Connecticut but for the whole country."

That is precisely the concern of neo-conservatives like Kristol and other backers of the Iraq war who see in Lieberman's defeat not only the possible collapse of dwindling public support for the war, but also the loss of the leading champion for their foreign policy ideas in the Democratic Party, which have been channeled mainly through the Democratic Leadership Council (DLC) of which Lieberman is a long-time member and former chairman.

To them, Lieberman is the lineal descendant of Washington State Sen. Henry M. "Scoop" Jackson in whose office some of today's most influential neo-conservatives, including former Defense Policy Board chairman Richard Perle; Bush's top Middle East advisor, Elliot Abrams; Center for Security Policy president Frank Gaffney; and Kristol himself got their start.

...

[neoblues]

7. What clubs you join says something about who you are...

Bush Reaffirms Ties With Leading Neocons
March 15, 2006
by Jim Lobe

...
"The staunchly neoconservative Foundation for the Defense of Democracies (FDD), one of the most hawkish groups on the "war on terror" since it was created two days after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks against New York and the Pentagon, has often taken strident positions against Arab and European allies whose cooperation has been sought by the administration itself.

Part of an interlocking network of neoconservative-dominated groups that include the American Enterprise Institute, the Center for Security Policy, the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs, and the Committee on the Present Danger..."
...
"In the same year, it also helped found Committee on the Present Danger (CPD) and recruited former Secretary of State George Shultz and Democratic Sen. Joe Lieberman..."

Apparently, he was well liked (at least, they fed his ego):

Keynote Address by Senator Joe Lieberman
FDD's Symposium on "Iraq's Future and the War on Terrorism"
June 16, 2004
Speaker: Joe Lieberman

Thank you to the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies for sponsoring this important symposium on the future of Iraq and the war on terrorism. Through gatherings such as this one, the Foundation is helping “lead the war of ideas in the battle between freedom and totalitarianism.”

Today I want to discuss the war we are waging against Islamic terrorists in Iraq and around the world, and to argue that it is fundamentally a war of ideas and a war of values, a war of conflicting visions of humans and history, of faith and country. The war on terrorism we are fighting goes to the very heart of America's national purpose and national security. Our core principles of freedom and opportunity are at stake.

In the flurry of news bombarding us each day of the ups and downs from all fronts in the war on terrorism, it is easy to forget the larger ideals that it is all about. Car bombings in Baghdad… pipeline attacks in Riyadh… assassination attempts in Islamabad… foiled terrorist plots in Thailand… victories in Afghanistan… arrests in Columbus, Ohio… may cause people to lose sight of the values we are fighting for in this war – and the values we are fighting against.

We cannot let that happen. A democracy such as ours can only go to war and win with the informed support of the people.

...

It might be worth a read, if you've ever wondered why smarmy old Joe supports the war. It may even be that he makes some valid points; alas, I dislike why and how we got there, agonize over the costs (so many different kinds), and I don't like Lieberman--so even if there is a valid purpose for the "occupation" (it's not a "war", yet...)(and keeping that massive reserve of oil out of the hands of the Iranians, as well as helping to save or prevent further suffering on the part of Iraqis who wouldn't be facing civil war but for our misguided, illegal invasion (so, we sort of 'owe' them), might be valid points... but...), I would find it difficult to accept any argument from Lie·berman...

[Hugin]

5. Very, very, important point.

So, to keep his seat he insures the Republicans retain their one-party rule.

It's all so clear to me now.

(I hope George Lucas is taking notes... There is a Star Wars VII thru IX here.)

[cascadiance]

8. IMMIGRATION!

Split the Republican vote emotionally between the corporatists (Lieberman) and the xenophobes (Schlesinger) and send home Lamont the winner!