Results 1 to 5 of 5

Thread: The War Party: Why Neocons Love Joe Lieberman

  1. #1
    Rookie
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    848
    Post Thanks / Like

    The War Party: Why Neocons Love Joe Lieberman

    [QUOTE]The War Party: Why Neocons Love Joe Lieberman
    [url]http://southernavenger.ccpblogs.com/2008/07/05/the-war-party-why-neocons-love-joe-lieberman/[/url]

    [I]By definition, the “War Party” only has one litmus test for its candidates and for alleged conservatives who constantly support and praise liberal Joe Lieberman (Sean Hannity calls the Connecticut Senator his “favorite Democrat”), their approval makes crystal clear that the maintenance and promotion of U.S. interventionist foriegn policy is their primary concern, even taking precedence over any other issue.

    [B]In other words, Ron Paul can be pro-life, pro-gun, for low taxes, for securing the border, for states rights and constitutional government - but will never be acceptable to the neocons who pull the levers and direct Republican policy because he doesn’t support American empire. Lieberman, who is pro-choice, anti-gun, tax and spend, supported amnesty, never met a federal regulation he didn’t like and considers the Constitution a useful propaganda tool at best, is perfectly acceptable and even admirable to neo”conservatives” - precisely because Lieberman not only supports American empire, he demands it.[/B]

    Writes The American Conservative’s Michael Brendan Dougherty:
    [/I]

    “I (Lieberman) am sometimes asked why… I do not simply become a Republican,” he said recently. “I continue to be a Democrat because I believe there is a critical need for two great American political parties with strong national security wings. We need a Democratic Party whose national security strategy isn’t subject to editorial review by Moveon.org and Daily Kos.” And, of course, Lieberman remains a liberal at heart. He favors universal health care and has been a reliable supporter of abortion rights throughout his career. He supports gun-control legislation and fiercely opposed the nomination of Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court. He has joined McCain in supporting campaign-finance reform, cap-and-trade schemes for carbon reduction, and “comprehensive immigration reform.” None of these are conservative positions, but since Lieberman has rallied to the defense of President Bush’s policies in Iraq, the conservative movement has rallied to him.

    Eight years ago, the Right mocked Lieberman’s half of the 2000 Democratic ticket as “Loserman.” But instead of viewing his 2006 campaign with detachment, leading conservatives rushed to his aid. Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck, and National Review ignored the Republican candidate, Alan Schlesinger, and endorsed Loserman.

    Lieberman’s own words demonstrate that his political commitments are rooted in ideology. He gave his audience at Commentary a pitch-perfect neoconservative view of patriotism, rejecting the conservative attachment to mere hearth and home and liberal skepticism about America’s capabilities and intentions. His love of country is “rooted not in arbitrary attachment to our country’s land or its borders, but in a recognition that the values that were present at the creation of America and animate it still—the values of freedom and justice and opportunity—are not just our own national values; they are universal and eternal values, which are right and true not only for us in our own time, but for all people in every time.”

    In reality, Lieberman’s wish to see two American political parties with “strong national security wings” is a desire to see dissent from anti-interventionism forever discredited. McCain’s primary victory has temporarily secured hawks’ supremacy in the GOP. And while Lieberman may never again influence his party in a direct manner, a McCain victory in November, aided by Lieberman, could be used to frighten Democrats into accepting the neoconservative view of history: that doves will always lose, that America is fundamentally an activist nation. It’s up to Democrats to prove him wrong.”[/QUOTE]

    Discuss.... is interventionist foreign policy the only mandatory credential needed to become apart of the GOP?
    Last edited by jefethegreat; 07-07-2008 at 06:37 PM.

  2. #2
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    7,372
    Post Thanks / Like
    The good thing is that the neocons went to far and have made themselves a smaller part of the electorate.

    I wonder why LIEberman just won't make the switch completely. There really is very little bipartisanship about him that I can see. Maybe it is deep, I mean reallllllllllyyyyyyy deeeeeeeeepppppp:yes:

  3. #3
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    6,284
    Post Thanks / Like
    It's not complicated: Neocons like Joe Lieberman because he is a neocon.

  4. #4
    Rookie
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    714
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=jefethegreat;2617698]Discuss.... is interventionist foreign policy the only mandatory credential needed to become apart of the GOP?[/QUOTE]

    Ned Lamont - Is Bush bashing the sole criteria of becoming a liberal darling? It works both ways my friend, but with that being said, at least Joe Lieberman is willing to cross party lines and stand up for what he believes in, whether it is right or wrong.

  5. #5
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    6,162
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=mallamalla;2618542]Ned Lamont - Is Bush bashing the sole criteria of becoming a liberal darling? It works both ways my friend, but with that being said, at least Joe Lieberman is willing to cross party lines and stand up for what he believes in, whether it is right or wrong.[/QUOTE]
    Ned Lamont: victim of neocon hate smears.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Follow Us