Article

2008-09-03 Home Front: Politix

Lieberman hails McCain's record, criticizes Obama

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Steve White 2008-09-03 00:00|| || Front Page|| [2 views ] Top

#1 He was quite good in a very Joe Lieberman kind of way. If he'd been that effective in 2000 Gore likely would have won the race.

Posted by AzCat 2008-09-03 01:21|| 2008-09-03 01:21|| Front Page Top

#2 When Lieberman said that Obama tried to stop funding for our troops in Iraq I was enraged.
If anything should disqualify a person from being Commander-in-Chief, the refusal to support the troops against terrorists hiding behind civilians in Iraq is it.
May Obama never be my son Track's Commander-in-Chief, now that he is heading for Iraq.
"Country First", party second is my war cry!

Obama must be defeated before he get's my son killed.
The US Presidency is not for selfish elites.
And I, Sarah Palin, approve this message.
Partial funding for this message was provided by NPR and generous members like you.

Posted by Todd Palin for the McCain/Palin ticket 2008-09-03 01:51|| 2008-09-03 01:51|| Front Page Top

#3 Mr. Wife said it was a very good speech. He liked Fred Thompson's speech as well.

Posted by trailing wife ">trailing wife 2008-09-03 08:09|| 2008-09-03 08:09|| Front Page Top

#4 Obama cast at least 10 votes for war-funding bills before voting against one last year, after Bush vetoed a version that contained a date for withdrawal from Iraq.

Posted by Fat Sam 2008-09-03 10:29|| 2008-09-03 10:29|| Front Page Top

#5 So Senator Obama was not really for immediately and completely turning our back on Iraq, even though Candidate Obama has made that a centerpoint of his campaign? Useful information, that, Fat Sam.

Posted by trailing wife ">trailing wife 2008-09-03 10:43|| 2008-09-03 10:43|| Front Page Top

#6 If he'd been that effective in 2000 Gore likely would have won the race.

Yeah, but in 2000 he had to talk about Gore. That'd be quite a burden.

Truthfully, though, I watched Liberman and Thompson and neither one of them exactly rocked the house. I guess after the "soaring oratory" we heard at the DNC I was expecting a bit more pizzazz, a bit more razzle-dazzle. But that's kind of a shame, isn't it? People want to hear soaring oratory even if the message itself lacks substance.

Posted by Ebbang Uluque6305 2008-09-03 12:40|| 2008-09-03 12:40|| Front Page Top

#7 Re: 'soaring oratory, even if the message lacks substance' -- exactly.

as a longstanding member of Toastmasters, i've heard my share of soaring but content-free speeches. Being able to speak well is good, but if you don't have something to say...

Posted by Querent 2008-09-03 13:07|| 2008-09-03 13:07|| Front Page Top

#8 The dhimocrat's speeches had about as much substance as a rice cake.
Last night's speeches were the Yankee pot roast.
Yum...

Posted by DarthVader 2008-09-03 13:11|| 2008-09-03 13:11|| Front Page Top

#9 Being an independent with an extreme distrust for both parties (OK, I do trust the donks to do the wrong thing nearly every time), I did like Lieberman's call for non-partisanship. Over the past few years I'd been coming to the conclusion that the party system is basically flawed, with party politics and goals taking precedent over national needs. It was gratifying to learn G.Washington had the same concerns, if frustrating to know there's no practical solution that has been found in 200+ years. As soon as people band together for common cause, there's always some moke who sees it as a vehicle for his own power. I think we're back to term limits as a bandaid.

Anyway, my goal is to find candidates strong on national defense and willing to kick the parasites' butts, even if thy're in their own party. It looks like we have that in McCain/Palin. I disagree with a number of things McCain has done politically and I don't agree with some of Palin's positions, but they are both honest and that's all I really need.

A naive view of democracy is that you get to vote for who you want. The reality is you usually only get to vote against who you don't want. This time around, it looks like I get both.

Posted by Mercutio 2008-09-03 14:59|| 2008-09-03 14:59|| Front Page Top

#10 Tonight's is the only speech that matters.

Posted by Nimble Spemble 2008-09-03 15:25|| 2008-09-03 15:25|| Front Page Top

#11 I was angry at the commentary afterwards. After the DNC, as an example, after Clinton spoke, we heard how Clinton really nailed it etc., after the RNC, criticising the speeches about how if they are going to pull this off they're going to have to blah blah blah, critiquing the speeches with all that was wrong with them.
I liked both speeches, Thompson I thought really spoke well, and I liked the end of Liebermans speech. I'm looking forward to tonights speech by Palin.

Posted by Jan at work 2008-09-03 19:52|| 2008-09-03 19:52|| Front Page Top

23:58 Bob
23:49 tipover
23:48 Abdominal Snowman
23:38 Lonzo
23:38 Jolutch Mussolini7800
23:37 Zhang Fei
23:31 Zhang Fei
23:28 lotp
23:28 Zhang Fei
23:22 Zhang Fei
23:20 Abdominal Snowman
23:19 rjschwarz
23:18 trailing wife
23:15 Pappy
23:14 Lonzo
23:13 badanov
23:12 trailing wife
23:11 trailing wife
23:10 Abdominal Snowman
23:07 rjschwarz
23:05 rjschwarz
23:02 trailing wife
23:01 rjschwarz
23:01 Anonymoose