Crush Liberalism

Liberalism: Why think when you can “feel”?

Schumer: American side is “the other side”

Joe Lieberman gave a great speech at the RNC last night.  Naturally, the Dems were fuming.  From WCBS:

Connecticut Sen. Joe Lieberman said America needs a president that can be counted on in a time of war. For him, the candidate is Republican McCain. 

Lieberman, a Democrat-turned-independent who was the blue side’s candidate for vice president in 2000, said that while Sen. Barack Obama was voting to cut off funding for troops in Iraq, McCain took the unpopular position to support a surge in troops.

“Because of that, today, our troops are at last beginning to come home, not in failure, but in honor,” Lieberman said.

Lieberman said that in times like these, country matters more than political parties.
“I’m here tonight because John McCain is the best choice to bring our country together and lead our country forward. I’m here because John McCain’s whole life testifies to a great truth: being a Democrat or a Republican is important. But it is not more important than being an American,” Lieberman said.

Charles Schumer, the senior Senator from New York, begs to differ. In fact, most Democrats are furious with Lieberman.

“I like Joe Lieberman, but that’s a big mistake for him,” Schumer said. “To be pro-war and to have his views on the issues, everyone respects that. But you don’t go over to the other side.”

Got that?  Chuch the Schmuck thinks that being a Democrat is more important than being an American.  But hey, don’t you go and question the left’s patriotism or anything.  Maybe Liebs wouldn’t have to “go over to the other side” if his own side wasn’t so shamefully invested in defeat.

Wasn’t Schmuckie thrilled when Jumpin’ Jim Jeffords had a “moment of clarity” and opportunistically switched party affiliation in order to get a Senate committee chair?  Jeffords did not have a “change of heart”…he wanted more power, influence, and media adulation (and boy, did he get it).  Liebs isn’t doing what he’s doing for any of those reasons, since the Dems are all but certain to pick up new Senate seats (thus diminishing Liebs’ influence).  I disagree with Joe on nearly everything, but I salute the man’s love of country above his love of party.

September 3, 2008 Posted by | Chuck Schumer, defeatism, Lieberman, McCain, shameful | 1 Comment

Lieberman on McCain’s short list of VP candidates?

Good grief, I hope not.  From Financial Times:

Joe Lieberman, the former Democratic vice-presidential nominee who has endorsed John McCain, is being vetted as a potential running mate for the Republican presidential hopeful, according to an adviser to Mr McCain’s ­campaign.

Mr Lieberman, who has campaigned for the Arizona senator, has long been ­considered an unconventional but plausible choice for Mr McCain.

Democrats have rejected Mr McCain’s image as a maverick politician, Mr Lieberman’s support for the presumptive Republican nominee has, much to the chagrin of his former ­colleagues, helped to boost Mr McCain’s reputation as a bi-partisan legislator with friends on both sides of the aisle. Mr Lieberman, a staunch supporter of Israel, could also help Mr McCain win over Jewish voters.

“[McCain] loves Lieberman. And he is on the [short-]list because Lieberman has never embarrassed anyone, never misspoken. The first rule is, don’t take someone who costs you votes,” said one McCain adviser.

Not a bad idea. Ergo,…

But not everyone would be enthusiastic about Mr Lieberman being added to the ticket. While Mr Lieberman has staunchly defended Mr McCain’s support of the surge, the escalation of US troops in Iraq, and the lawmakers have teamed up on legislative proposals to ­combat global warming, the registered independent is aligned with Democrats on most other issues.

“Conservatives would be pissed as hell – I think you would have a revolt, but sometimes John does what John wants to do,” the McCain adviser said. …

Look, I respect Liebs for his not caving to the moonbat wing of the Democrap Party, and for not adopting the hostile anti-military sentiment shared by the overwhelming majority of his former party.  He’s been a steadfast supporter of the war on terror, and his ability to see the big picture (beyond political gain) is commendable.  Plus, watching him deflate the moonats’ ballons in 2006 by smiting their tinfoil candidate Ned Lamont in the CT general election was pure enjoyment!

Having said all that, the guy is not a Republican, and he most certainly is not a conservative.  The common wisdom (take it or leave it) is that McLame could use some conservative credentials on his ticket, especially if he wants to shore up the conservative base of the GOP.  Picking Liebs is not the way to go about doing that.

But, as we all know, Juanny Mac marches to the beat of his own drum.

August 10, 2008 Posted by | conservatism, Lieberman, McCain | 2 Comments

Primary endorsements

I’ve decided to endorse someone in the two primaries.  I know, my endorsement means jack shiite to you fine people, but it’s my echo chamber, so echo I shall.

Democrats: Joe Lieberman.  Oh, wait…he’s not running.  He endorsed another Democrat in John McCain.  What?  McCain’s not really a Democrat?  And Lieberman isn’t anymore, either?  OK, I’m confused.  That’ll teach me for trying to endorse a Democrat, won’t it?

Republicans: This is a very lukewarm endorsement, since none of the candidates make me think “Now this is the guy I’ve been waiting for!”  However, I’m gonna go with…..(drum roll)…..Mitt Romney.

I’ll go ahead and get my main beef with the guy out of the way: he comes across as a major league flip-flopper, saying anything to get his party’s nomination.  Maybe it’s something in the water in the People’s Republic of Taxachusetts that causes flip-flopping.  Who knows?  All I know is that flip-flopping is a BIG turn-off for me.

That said, aside from the flip-flopping, he otherwise comes across as a true leader, especially in the business world (a big plus for a capitalist like me).  Plus, if a Republican can figure out a way to get elected governor twice in Taxachusetts, then he’s got some brains in that gourd of his.

The fact that he’s a Mormon doesn’t bother me, and while I’m not fond of Mormonism, I don’t think I have to worry about a President Romney mandating that the Book of Mormon be read at the beginning of the public school day over the P.A. system.  If he gets on TV and says that we should all allowed to have multiple wives, then I’ll have a case of buyer’s remorse.  Otherwise, I’m not sweating the Mormon thing.

Is Romney a true conservative?  Truth me told, I don’t think there is a true conservative (short of Duncan Hunter, who stands no chance) in this race.  However, I do think that Romney is right-wing enough for my liking.  But if the guy says or does anything that merits a verbal whacking, you can best believe that I’ll be administering it.

As for why I didn’t endorse the others, here’s a condensed version:

  • Rudy is a bit wishy-washy, misuses government resources (cops escort for his mistress?), and his philandering makes him a target (if the right hated Bubba’s diddling, they won’t care for Rudy’s, either);
  • Huckabee sounds like a Twain character and has a horrible record on taxes (except for the FairTax support), immigration, and criminal justice, among other things;
  • Thompson is amusing and charming, but seems lazy and disinterested;
  • McCain is too much of a RINO, thumbs his nose at the base, is pro-amnesty, and is a hothead;
  • Duncan Hunter: great on the issues, lousy on the stump.  He can’t win;
  • Ron Paul drinks from the Crazy Trough, blames everything on America, can’t answer a question without somehow linking his answer to Iraq, surrounds himself with scumbags like anti-Semites and neo-Nazis and Troofers, and poormouths Christians as fascists.  Aside from all that, he rocks.

What say you, my friends?

December 21, 2007 Posted by | Lieberman, Romney | 9 Comments

Lieberman blasts Senate’s Iraqi Surrender Bill

Joe wastes his time by using facts. Excerpt from NRO:

My colleague from Nevada (Reid – Ed.), in other words, is suggesting that the insurgency is being provoked by the very presence of American troops. By diminishing that presence, then, he believes the insurgency will diminish.

But I ask my colleagues—where is the evidence to support this theory? Since 2003, and before General Petraeus took command, U.S. forces were ordered on several occasions to pull back from Iraqi cities and regions, including Mosul and Fallujah and Tel’Afar and Baghdad. And what happened in these places? Did they stabilize when American troops left? Did the insurgency go away?

On the contrary—in each of these places where U.S. forces pulled back, Al Qaeda rushed in. Rather than becoming islands of peace, they became safe havens for terrorists, islands of fear and violence.

So I ask advocates of withdrawal: on what evidence, on what data, have you concluded that pulling U.S. troops out will weaken the insurgency, when every single experience we have had since 2003 suggests that this legislation will strengthen it?

Joe, you’ve been a Democrat long enough to know that your guys don’t ever need evidence to support anything. Evidence gets in the way of feelings.

April 27, 2007 Posted by | defeatism, Iraq, Lieberman | Leave a comment