|
Edited on Tue Oct-27-09 08:31 PM by saltpoint
and in fact appeared to me to be nearly rooting for the other side.
Having failed to win outright a blue ticket to power, IMO Lieberman decided to be the contrarian, the Democrat who was actually with Bush, actually kind of Republican, certainly more conservative on key issues than the man he first defeated for the Senate seat, Lowell Weicker.
He must have looked at himself in the mirror before the SCOTUS selection of George W. Bush, and realized that his path to the history books could lie in the role of contrarian.
Appearances on FOX News shows!
His name quoted in various media correspondent to the number of issues he could lend support to Bush with.
That extremely televised smooch on Bush's face at the height of the Iraq lying.
And so forth.
Lieberman is a man of fluid loyalties. He has long abandoned his core principles and has become a sort of ego-monster, sucking up publicity by opposing Democratic initiatives, and opposing them even more vehemently when a great deal is at stake.
In essence, Lieberman's position is, "If the Democrats wouldn't nominate me in 2004, then I'm going to continue to take them down, promoting myself as 'sensible,' even if it means destroying the party and taking a lot of good people down with me."
|