GOP source: Lieberman to speak at Republican convention
posted at 11:37 am on August 20, 2008 by Allahpundit
Send to a Friend |
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
We already pretty much knew that, but here’s your confirmation. As I recall, both parties agreed at the beginning of this congressional term that the Dems would retain control even if a senator ended up switching sides, so Reid can safely strip him of his committee assignments if he wants to. But does he want to? If he pulls the trigger, Lieberman gets to go to St. Paul and tout it as evidence that partisanship has gone too far, that he was deemed perfectly qualified and capable of serving the American people on those committees until he stepped out of line, and that McCain’s the only maverick in the race willing to bridge that divide and put country first. Meanwhile, TNR tsks-tsks that it’s sad how Lieberman’s career has devolved to being a “sideshow” for a party that would never offer him more than a “symbolic honor.” Which prompts the question: Do cabinet positions constitute symbolic honors now? Because I know some Republicans who could live with that.
As for Joementum as VP, you’ll never guess which other member of the McCain inner circle is reportedly pushing for it. Here’s a hint: It wouldn’t be the first time he’s ignored the base’s opinion on a hot-button issue. Exit question: Is John Heilemann right? Quote:
So what the hell’s the deal with all these ostensible pro-choice trial balloons? Well, what if McCain were planning to name a running mate who, despite being pro-life, the religious right has some qualms about? What if that putative V.P., indeed, had lately been criticized by another erstwhile GOP presidential runner — a Baptist minister, no less — for his shifting stances on social issues, stirring up a rearguard action among some Christianists to block him? Isn’t it possible that McCain and his people are engaged in a bit of elaborate gamesmanship designed to make Evangelicals more grateful than they otherwise might be for the selection of that guy?
The heart doth sink and the mind doth reel, but I do believe what we are looking at here is the start of the Romney Rollout.
Update: Gulp.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Joe Liebermann.
Now there is a bright new young face that could suggest a new direction for the Republican Party.
cntrlfrk on August 20, 2008 at 11:43 AM
Maybe.
Mitt Romney is a pro-choice pick.
(Big S runs for cover)
Big S on August 20, 2008 at 11:44 AM
Lets hope he can do as well as Zell Miller, but I doubt it.
Lieberman speaks kind of like Clutch Cargo the way he moves his mouth. Also, he is a proven looser at a national level. Just ask Gore.
saiga on August 20, 2008 at 11:46 AM
Maybe it’s a good indication. No VEEP nod, but we’ll give ya some primetime ala Zell Miller.
mugged on August 20, 2008 at 11:46 AM
Maybe Recreate’68 can ship in Ned Lament for a prime-time speaking gig.
JammieWearingFool on August 20, 2008 at 11:46 AM
Come to think of it, Spinner and Paddlefoot would make good speakers.
saiga on August 20, 2008 at 11:47 AM
Speaking of Zell, can they bring him back? I’d like to see him threaten a beatdown on Chrissy Matthews again.
JammieWearingFool on August 20, 2008 at 11:47 AM
Now there’s a real bonehead. He would make a good VP for Obama.
saiga on August 20, 2008 at 11:48 AM
I can see the new ads now… John and Joe…now with improved Mo’Joe!!
kanda on August 20, 2008 at 11:50 AM
I like having Leiberman speak, as I did Zell. Believe it or not there may be viewers who don’t hang around blogs that his appearance will be a surprise and maybe have an impact on. Since he’s an elderly Jew, two groups that pop into mind are the elderly and the Jewish, which is “new” for the Republicans.
Marcus on August 20, 2008 at 11:52 AM
Bring Zell back and them have him kick Chris Matthews in the balls after he’s done!
sabbott on August 20, 2008 at 11:55 AM
Good. Any angle you look at it.
carbon_footprint on August 20, 2008 at 11:55 AM
Senator McCain:
I have been a staunch supporter and defender of yours for months. Years, really.
As much as I admire and respect Joe Leiberman, DON’T DO IT!
Sincerely,
Me
(Still sticking with Crist…)
JetBoy on August 20, 2008 at 11:56 AM
You seem like a sensible fellow, Allah. Why all the gulping? Are there really THAT many voters who will sit out this election or throw away their vote just because the pro-life Republican presidential nominee chose a pro-choice running mate?
I’ve always believed that the evangelical, single-issue, shoot-self-in-foot wing of the party was largly a media construct. Have I been wrong?
Infidoll on August 20, 2008 at 11:58 AM
Great move to have Joementum speak at the convention. He is still revered in much of the Jewish community. I would like to see a program heavy on the Jewish speakers - Lieberman, Norm Coleman, Eric Cantor — hell, even Mike Bloomberg if they can get him to be a Republican again for a few days. This is the GOP’s biggest opportunity to play a little identity politics and counteract the 95% of the black vote Obama is going to get.
rockmom on August 20, 2008 at 12:01 PM
At this point I don’t care who McCain picks, he is getting my vote regardless. I was dragged kicking and screaming to McCain, but the more I see of the Messiah, the more I realize I have only one choice. McCain. I voted for Perot and got Clinton. I am not making that mistake again.
bopbottle on August 20, 2008 at 12:04 PM
A pundit on CNN was making this same point. You throw up names like Ridge and Lieberman to soften the ground so that we “Jesus Freaks” are supposedly grateful when Romney is named instead of somebody much worse.
The real question here is can somebody like John McCain establish a working relationship with somebody like Romney. It’s clear that he’d be much happier with a Liberman or Graham- a fellow memer of the left wing of the party. Hard to imagine a conservative VP being anything but a placeholder in a McCain administration.
highhopes on August 20, 2008 at 12:05 PM
He will undoubtedly do better than Zell, whose delivery went so over the top that he and his wife were quietly uninvited from their spots next to the Bush’s so they wouldn’t be seen together.
He must be on his last senate term, because if McCain loses he will lose his committee seat and be effectively demoted and marginalized.
okonkolo on August 20, 2008 at 12:06 PM
McCain on Laura Ingraham show right now.
carbon_footprint on August 20, 2008 at 12:07 PM
This is like Tom Delay being booted out of the GOP for being too far right, then being asked to speak at the Dem convention. If it makes no sense for them, why’s it make sense for us?
Leiberman gave $100,000 to Dem senate campaigns last year, meaning that he will be speaking to people whose opponents in this election he funded. If the Dems he fudned get elected, we will have him partly to blame.
It would be fittingly ironic that, were he McCain’s VP pick and McCaon/Leiberman won, he would be president of the senate where the Dems among the freshman class he helped to elect would oppose his boss’ administration at every turn.
Akzed on August 20, 2008 at 12:13 PM
Heilemann’s thinking is close to what mine has been - whipsaw the self-styled base into a sense of relief bordering on euphoria when he names Romney or for that matter anyone else who does not perfectly fit whatever bill. If it is Romney, what could the “Rally for Romney” types at NRO, this site, and on talk radio do except fall to their knees and shout “Hosannah!” Left out would be a few anti-Mormonists - who are not, contrary to HotAir-popular belief, restricted to Huckabee evangelicals - but even they could join in the ecstasy if it’s some relatively bland or little known young governor or non-politician.
If it makes you feel manipulated, think of it as a “tactical surprise party” and maybe that will make you feel better.
OTOH - if he really did pick Lieberman… then I’m crazy, he’s crazy, we’re all crazy… Personally, I think the bipartisan ticket is the kind of thing only a candidate stuck in the mud and down well outside the margin of error, or facing a true national crisis, can seriously consider.
CK MacLeod on August 20, 2008 at 12:14 PM
I’m sick of all this talk over how bad it would be to have a pro-choice running mate. I’m pro-life, but how much control does the Vice President have over abortion? I wasn’t aware that the Vice President appoints Supreme Court nominees.
chip91 on August 20, 2008 at 12:15 PM
At this point I don’t care who McCain picks, he is getting my vote regardless.You got that right. People talk about VP like McCain’s expected to crawl into bed each night with him or her. So you’d rather Michelle Obama “in da house” creating policy?
Marcus on August 20, 2008 at 12:15 PM
meant to quote there, not strike.
Marcus on August 20, 2008 at 12:16 PM
I have no problem with allowing dims to speak at the convention as long as they are contributing in a constructive manner and not as a VP candidate. I’m sure Hagel would speak at the dims convention if they didn’t think he was just some piece of garbage to be used and flushed at their discretion.
volsense on August 20, 2008 at 12:17 PM
You Sell out!!!!!/
(*snicker* .. Sorry, had to.)
wise_man on August 20, 2008 at 12:18 PM
As for speaking at the convo, lots of people will watch who might not otherwise care to hear what a usual Republican suspect had to say: He’ll use his rather high (nobody’s perfect) personal credibility to give assurances about McCain’s wonderful McCainness, speak gravely about national security issues, and implicitly underline just by his presence that it’s safe for Dems, in particular certain long-time loyal Dem constitutencies, to vote for a shabbas R. What’s the down side?
CK MacLeod on August 20, 2008 at 12:19 PM
chip19, the VP is very important as he is usually the one in line to continue the progression of the party. That does not even consider if, God forbid, something should happens to the prsident himself. We need someone who will repesent the party and not just a tool to use to gain votes. If Lieberman is chosen, McCain will be commiting political suicide. He is just bull-headed enough to force the issue.
volsense on August 20, 2008 at 12:22 PM
I still laugh when I remember the way ol’ Zell pimp smacked the dems at the last Republican convention.
CurtZHP on August 20, 2008 at 12:25 PM
Pro abortion candidate and “life long hunter” Mitt Romney would guarantee Mccain’s defeat in november.
SaintOlaf on August 20, 2008 at 12:30 PM
If this transcript is correct, McCain is just telling Laura, he ain’t talking:
INGRAHAM: And I’ve got to tell you I’m looking at the rundown here, about 85% of the questions are about your vice presidential pick and here’s one of the questions. How could you consider selecting someone who opposed the federal partial birth abortion ban and was one of the eleven original cosponsors of the radical freedom of choice act as your vice president given your pro-life stance how could you do that?
John McCain: The one thing I can’t do Laura and I’ll talk about anything you want to but the process that we’re in. I just can’t do it. We get into this endless series of questions and comments. There’s already been things out there in the media, he’s already made up his mind, he’s going to announce on such and such a day. I have not made the decision and we’re in the process, and if I say anything more than that I guarantee you there’s going to be another one of these firestorms. Obviously we’re going to be announcing soon because we have no choice, but I got to tell you it’s one of the toughest things I’ve ever done because we have so many highly qualified (audio cuts).
INGAHAM: Can you at least say whether there are certain positions that are non-negotiable for your vice presidential pick?
John McCain: I can’t talk about it because if I do I would get down a slippery slope. I think I made it very clear Saturday night that I have a pro-life record, that I have pro-life policies and my administration will have pro-life policies.
INGRAHAM: Well just to, again I know you’re not going to go into it any more but I’m just going to tell you from the conservative perspective we are literally imploring you to not turn your back on your great pro-life record over decades now by doing now and I’m just putting that out there Senator.
http://time-blog.com/real_clear_politics/
bnelson44 on August 20, 2008 at 12:31 PM
Heilemann’s theory is similar to that raised by a commenter earlier this morning — that McCain is using the “threat” of Joe Lieberman or a pro-choice Republican VP nominee to get the base riled up, only to seemingly change course and appoint a nominally, but squishy, pro-life Republican like Romney. The idea is that Romney looks more acceptable to pro-life voters when compared to Lieberman than when compared to, say, Huckabee. It’s called the “anchoring effect” in negotiation theory.
But guys, take a step back here. Anchoring and other negotiation strategies involve nuance and subtlety. Since when has McCain ever been accused of trying to win Republican hearts and minds with nuance and subtlety? When he shouted “f- you” to Sen. Cornyn last year?
Outlander on August 20, 2008 at 12:31 PM
Cute but Silly and a Lie.
Mitt Romney was the Gov of Mass for 4 years and has a 100% pro-life record in that job.
That means that Mitt Romney has a 100% pro-life record as a politician.
EJDolbow on August 20, 2008 at 12:38 PM
Zell Miller, Part Deux.
Seixon on August 20, 2008 at 12:38 PM
IMHO, McCain is simply not going to talk about the process and any decision until the announcement. Too many people would be affected by it. He decided to keep silent on it, and he is.
bnelson44 on August 20, 2008 at 12:43 PM
Hahaha. Can you imagine an Orthodox Jewish Secretary of State? I don’t think Joe’s up for that job, but it’d be awesome to watch European/Middle Eastern leaders’ heads spin around like in the Exorcist.
Tanya on August 20, 2008 at 12:44 PM
This is a presidential campaign, not a backroom blowout.
You can look at it as “anchoring” if you want. You might also want to consider that McCain is a military man, from a long line of military men, surrounded by military men, who reads military history for pleasure… and you probably don’t need any of that in your background to know that misdirection is a basic tactic, and highly effective when properly executed. He’s even got Laura Ingraham virtually begging to be heard.
The only risk to this tactic, in this case, was that the base reaction was so unified, negative, and powerful, and the indications of a pro-choice pick so definite, that McCain looked like he had been weak in the face of the revolt - tool of the right-wingers… First, that doesn’t fit his image at all - backing down easily under fire. Second, they haven’t laid down any markers, just hints, and it’s perfectly within both his and Joe’s interests to keep them alive, both for the reasons already adduced, also to advertise his bipartisanship, and raise Joe’s profile and reward him for his stalwartness. McCain gets points for thinking outside the usual Republican box, reminding everyone that he’s capable of defying anyone and open to working with traditional political opponents, without actually having to do anything.
Well-played, Mav!
CK MacLeod on August 20, 2008 at 12:49 PM
EJ Explain Romney’s WORDS in 2002.
video here
ThackerAgency on August 20, 2008 at 12:49 PM
I understand misdirection, anchoring, and such. But given McCain’s historic antipathy toward conservatives and his “straight talk” inklings, forgive me if I’m not suspicious that McCain is serious about a pro choice nominee.
Outlander on August 20, 2008 at 1:01 PM
Its one of the reasons that some like him. In the same way that Cheney told Lehey to F off.
wise_man on August 20, 2008 at 1:15 PM
Romney has promised to do more to protect a women’s right to murder her child than even Ted Kennedy himself..
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cFMdK0TWtks&feature=related
If by pro life, you mean allowing $50 co-pay abortions with his universal health care plan then yes he did…
SaintOlaf on August 20, 2008 at 1:17 PM
McCain has an historic antipathy toward single-minded ideologues, and the feeling’s mutual, I guess.
I think it’s probably true that McCain believes that there’d be little real harm in having a VP who was pro-choice, just as there’d be little real harm in having a VP who believed the Moon was made of green cheese, since in the normal course of events the VP is a bucket of warm spit, and even the P’s influence on issues like choice is limited, and in the abnormal course of events a VP who took over for a deceased P would be a caretaker, in particular a VP from the other party. In the one area that might matter - judges - Lieberman as President of a Republican Administration would be under intense pressure to pick a constructionist…
But that’s all idle speculatoin bordering on fantasy, I believe, because McCain is also aware that in the real world there would be immense political difficulty in selling a pro-choice VP, precisely because the social conservative choice on the presidential level is as much symbolic as real. It’s extremely important to committed pro-life people that their votes express their moral choices. Many would still vote for McCain over Obama, but many others wouldn’t, and their enthusiasm for an ambiguous ticket would be nil. If there was strong evidence that Lieberman would pull the Hillary voters over, or that McCain had to run away not just from Bush but from the whole Republican Party, it might make sense - but the polls and common sense indicate that his position is nowhere near that desperate.
CK MacLeod on August 20, 2008 at 1:19 PM
This may account for McCain’s pro-choice trial balloon this week. It’s not about Lieberman or Ridge, or even Rudy. It’s about Mitt, because pro-lifers do not believe he is pro-life.
rockmom on August 20, 2008 at 1:42 PM
And what were they arguing over? Cornyn was trying to slow down McCain’s amnesty bill; and McCain told him to f-off. Basically, he was telling the border-enforcement first part of the base to f-off. Not sure who but the illegal aliens would love him for that, except maybe lickspittle supporters whose candidate can do no wrong.
Are you really a repubican, Whizzman? Or are you a lib doing a stand-alone version of operation chaos? McCain took a bath on that amnesty bill from both parties and you’re defending him on it? You’re either a wannabe provacateur pretending to be a McCain diehard, or somebody with so little attachment to the Republican platform and ideology that there’s no point in you even debating people; you have the same type of ‘defense’ the Clinton supporters had during the 90’s. Someone criticizes McCain, and you attack the person making the criticism, rather than addressing the issue. That’s what makes me believe you’re just a lib playing games; you argue like one. But you use sarcasm the way a second grader uses multi-syllable words; ie, very poorly so it’s hard to imagine you could stay in character if you were a lib.
But no, you’ve got me interested. Tell me how John Cornyn was dead wrong on the Shamnesty Bill and what a hero Backdoor John McCain was. Share the true story.
austinnelly on August 20, 2008 at 2:20 PM
It looks like I have a new shadow.
wise_man on August 20, 2008 at 2:31 PM
In any event, you are reading things from me that aren’t there. Like I said on one of the other times you’ve bumped into me this morning, you have a vivid imagination. I’m not going to participate by adding to your own fantasy.
wise_man on August 20, 2008 at 2:37 PM
AP, no need for the “Gulp” at the end. Why would McCain want to defuse ANY rumors at this point? Of course he’ll refuse to deny the rumors.
DaveS on August 20, 2008 at 3:05 PM
Don’t worry about the Huckatrolls. These are people that believe that no politician is entitled to come to their senses on any particular issue over the course of their career. Even though Mitt governed with pro-life policies, they’ll still continue to play that video over and over again. It makes them feel good about themselves and their socially conservative (but everything else liberal) leader, Mike “Taxpayer Funded Scholarships for Illegals and By the Way…Please, Please, Please Raise Taxes” Huckabee. The really bold, nutty ones like SaintOlaf will pull that “Mitt’s healthcare plan has $50 abortions” bull even though they know full well that the Democratic super majority (means they had the numbers to override any veto) in each house of the MA legislature put that in.
malan89 on August 20, 2008 at 5:25 PM
I’ve criticized you and some others in the past for defending McCain in cases where he shouldn’t be defended. Something along the lines of “Well, I’m voting for him, but don’t pretend he isn’t dead wrong on (insert whatever it was here)”. But this austinnelly seems to have gone too far. It’s like he goes after everything you say in every thread. Like I said, I don’t agree with you a lot, but personal attacks and “thread stalking” take it to a whole other level.
Example:
I disagree with McCain on illegal immigration as well, but to say that defending a Republican that supports a particular piece of liberal legislation makes you a RINO or a liberal or whatever is hooey. This guy needs to chill out.
malan89 on August 20, 2008 at 5:34 PM
Liebs in State or Sec def, not VP
- The Cat
P.S. Bolton to have first pick and Liebs can have the other.
MirCat on August 20, 2008 at 6:58 PM