Joe Lieberman, Voice Of Sanity

As a Canadian watching and arguing about Bush vs Kerry with others in my own country, I often volunteered that I wouldn’t have been concerned about the consequences of a potential Bush defeat had the Democrats had the good sense to nominate Joe Lieberman.
Fox News Sunday

WALLACE: But isn’t that letting the Democratic Party off the hook? Because there’s nothing you could have done about that. I mean, aren’t there some things that the Democratic Party, lessons it needs to learn from the election, things it needs to do differently?

LIEBERMAN: Well, yes, I mean, I wouldn’t be true to myself if I didn’t say that, when I ran for president, I said, quite clearly, that I thought, to win the election in ’04, we had to have a candidate who would match the president where he’s clearly strong, on security and values, and then go on to win the election where the president’s record has not been as strong, on the economy and health care and education, which matter a lot to the American people.

And we became to many voters – Democrats became to many voters in the country the anti-war party and, of course, the culturally, morally permissive party.

And that’s not where a majority of the American people are, and that’s why they voted the way they did in this election.

WALLACE: All right. One of the first fights that you’re going to face over the future of the party is who will be the new party chairman. The other day, you were asked about one possible candidate, Howard Dean, and you said that he represents some people of one wing of the Democratic Party.

LIEBERMAN: Yes.

WALLACE: No endorsement.

LIEBERMAN: No.

Case, rested.

FILED UNDER: Campaign 2004, US Politics
Kate McMillan
About Kate McMillan
Kate McMillan is the proprietor of small dead animals, which has won numerous awards including Best Conservative Blog and Best Canadian Blog. She contributed nearly 300 pieces to OTB between November 2004 and June 2007. Follow her on Twitter @katewerk.

Comments

  1. Dodd says:

    Agreed. I said throughout the campaign that if they’d nominated Joe I’d have actually had a choice to make. The usual response I got from hardcore Dems was, “Lieberman!?! He’s practically a Republican!”

    So there you have it. They got what they wanted. And what they deserved.

  2. Rodney Dill says:

    While I wouldn’t have voted for him, he probably would’ve been more palatable than other candidates.

  3. libs4lunch says:

    I’ve listened to Joe a number of times. I didnt like his pandering to Gore when he changed to fit the 2000 campaign, but overall he seems to be a decent guy.

    And that is why the Dems dumped him like a rock and sucked up to the French Poodle instead.

  4. Kathy K says:

    I probably would have voted for him. The consideration of the problems inherent in dumping an incumbent in mid-war might have sent me to President Bush. But I suspect I would have voted for Mr. Lieberman anyway.

    I voted as I did, very reluctantly, because President Bush understands we are at war. Mr. Lieberman also understands that. As Dodd said, “I’d have actually had a choice to make.”

  5. political says:

    I actually like Lieberman. Even Hannity likes this guy, so he can’t be too bad.

  6. Attila Girl says:

    I would have taken a look at him as well. Had he been running, my vote wouldn’t have been a slam-dunk for Bush.

  7. McGehee says:

    I won’t pretend he could have gotten my vote. He spoke on the Senate floor deploring Clinton’s lies but failed to call on him to do the right thing. And then he went and changed his positions while Gore’s running mate. It all leaves me unconvinced of his integrity.