A Republican official tells The Associated Press that Connecticut Sen. Joe Lieberman will be speaking at the Republican National Convention.The GOP official said Wednesday that Lieberman would deliver a speech as Republicans gathered in St. Paul to nominate John McCain for president. The official requested anonymity because he wasn't authorized to make an announcement.
Sorry, but that's not acceptable. Personally, I don't give a rat's keister if Joe Lieberman is a "moderate" or even "conservative" Democrat, but this has now moved into former State Senator Benjamin "Benedict" Lambert territory. Speaking at another party's convention for their nominee and against ours? Fine, go ahead, but you're OUTTA HERE (or at least, he damn well should be - and I'd bet you that if a Republican U.S. Senator were actively backing Barack Obama, the GOP caucus would take action - fast)!
P.S. For those who are so worried that we'll lose control of the U.S. Senate between now and the end of the year, I'd raise a couple of points. First of all, that doesn't appear to be true:
Republican leaders decided not to seek special language spelling out the terms of a transition in case of a power shift -- say, if Johnson vacates his post and his state's GOP governor appoints a Republican to replace him. Under that scenario, power would effectively shift to Republicans, because Cheney would provide the tiebreaking 51st vote. But for Republicans to take parliamentary control, the Senate would have to vote for new organizational rules, a move Democrats could filibuster.
Second, who cares even if it IS true? I mean, it's not like the Senate's getting anything done anyway.
Third, this is NOT about "revenge," it's about demonstrating that Democrats won't put up with this crap, that we have cojones, that we don't let people walk all over us, etc. All good things in my opinion, especially to independents and other "swing voters" who might have bought into the "Democrats are wusses" meme. It's like, "if they can't even stand up for themselves, how can they stand up for America against the terrorists?" I'm not saying I agree with this line of thinking, just that you can't deny it's out there.
P.S. If you agree, please sign the "Lieberman Must Go" petition. Thanks.
On a related note, it warps my mind everytime I consider that if Gore had won the 2000 Democratic election, this knucklehead would have started as the front running in the primaries for this cycle.
Broadly this is true, but I think we can learn something from Jim Webb's centerpiece legislative accomplishment--his veterans' bill--about what the Senate can accomplish when we approach legislation with a spirit of collaboration as opposed to competition. Even John McCain and President Bush couldn't stand in the way of a bi-partisan, collaborative effort. That's the other great thing about Mark Warner, I think he'll be a good legislative partner for Webb in building collaborative efforts on other issues.
We're about the business of building a national mandate for change. I hope that nothing diverts us from that commitment.
We should respond directly to negative attacks. I do believe in punching aggressively. At the same time, using levers of power in Washington to appear dominant is not going to help our national cause.
Our focus, that is the focus of all Democrats and fellow travelers, should remain on building support for the national mandate that we seek on the issues that unite us:
Economic Fairness - Taxes, Wages, Retirement Security, College Education
Responding to Climate Change with sensible approaches to achieving Energy Independence.
Universal Health Care
A Sane Foreign & Military Policy