Quote :

" BREAKING: Kristol: Lieberman to Endorse McCain Today, 2:21 PM • By William Kristol NEWS FLASH: THE WEEKLY STANDARD has learned that Sen. Joe Lieberman, the 2000 Democratic vice-presidential nominee, will endorse Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) for president tomorrow. The two will appear together at a press conference Monday morning in New Hampshire, weather permitting."

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Weblogs/CampaignStandard/default.asp#3548

AHAHHAHAHAAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHA

12/16/2007 5:00:58 PM

i'm not sure that's even a net gain for McCain

McCain has like 4 former Secretaries of State endorsing him, too.

12/16/2007 6:03:53 PM

Lieberman should just go ahead and switch to Republican

he's with them on everything anyway

12/16/2007 6:26:45 PM

He's "Independent Democrat".

12/16/2007 6:30:07 PM

If McCain wouldn't have sold out to the ultra-conservatives this time around I'd actually be excited for him. As it is, it's just Lieberman sucking more republican dick.

12/16/2007 9:11:29 PM

this will surely give mccain some joementum

12/16/2007 10:02:33 PM

kiss of death

12/16/2007 10:38:00 PM

MORE LIKE SORE LOSERMAN

USA#1

12/16/2007 11:20:48 PM

Next thing you know he'll challenge Chris Matthews to a duel.

12/17/2007 1:22:55 AM

also, McCain is endorsed by the Economist

and the major newspaper in New Hampshire



I don't think he's really doing much campaigning in Iowa, since he's been so outspoken against ethanol subsidies and knows he has no chance there.

12/17/2007 1:30:12 AM

^ And yet the Des Moines Register endorsed him this weekend (despite being against ethanol subsidies).

12/17/2007 8:36:27 AM

Quote :

"He's "Independent Democrat"."

Perfect match since McCain, in his heart, is also one.

12/17/2007 11:12:16 AM

^ McCain isn't even CLOSE to being an "independant Democrat". I'd say he's overall more of a traditional Republican than any of the other major players save maybe Fred Thompson.

12/17/2007 12:41:37 PM

yeah if mccain wouldnt have fucked up with the immigration bill back in the spring i think he'd be doing much better right now


that and if he wouldnt have squandered his money early on and had to make a big "shakeup" or what not

i think mccain or huckabee have the best chance(to either get the nod, or to beat a democrat) cause they are christian, and no mormon, and not for abortion...and for the war....which is pretty much the definition of a republican now a days

i know all the media is like "guilliani matches up better against hillary clinton" but a) it may not be hillary clinton, b)i just dont see him getting the nod with his views without alienating a ton of voters

i mean i hear they say he will pull more people in with his views on abortion but i just dont see it panning out...

[Edited on December 17, 2007 at 1:07 PM. Reason : .]

12/17/2007 1:04:40 PM

Dems are hoping and praying that they gain some seats in the Senate so they can kick Joe to the curve(and he will officially switch parties) He has a lot of power right now.

12/17/2007 5:18:00 PM

I see this as a move in the right direction. Our politicians should be motivated and support people b.c of their ideas, actions, and character not b.c of what side of the aisle they sit on.

12/17/2007 5:50:49 PM

Quote :

"I'd say he's overall more of a traditional Republican "

What about the McCain-Feingold Incumbant Protection Act?

What is traditional republican about that?


He and Teddy Kennedy tried to pass the immigration bill that would've granted the 12 million illegal aliens instant amnesty. What is republican about that?

12/17/2007 11:51:46 PM

^ Since when are the republicans the purely nativist party?

12/18/2007 12:13:42 AM

^^ immigration policy is pretty sprawled across teh board. hell George W has been pretty lax. Not saying this is a bad thing b.c i have no problem with jose' providing me with cheap labor to build my 300K house in a few years. Immigration is one of a few issues that whose policy is not cut down the party line.

McCain- slack
Romney- Hardcore against
Huckabee- supported bush's plan
Thompson- rejected it

If you can remember when bush's plan initially came out liberals and conservatives either liked it or didn't. Of course their reasons vary

Lets remember guys

DEY TUKK ERRR JERBS!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Edited on December 18, 2007 at 12:48 AM. Reason : l]

12/18/2007 12:48:21 AM

Quote :

"DEY TUKK ERRR JERBS"

This is gettin so hackneyed. How about.....

DEY BROKE ERRR LAW!

DEY HEER EELEGALLY!

DEY SHOOD BEE DEEPORTED

DEY KILLIN FOLKS WID DRUNK DRIVIN

DEY GANGBANGIN

Take your pick

12/18/2007 1:50:41 AM

I love when Rush refers to "president McCain", it makes me happy.

I do think you guys are right that McCain is more or less the traditional republican, the kind that let the democrats dominate politics for several decades, like it or not the republicans do not have enough votes unless they find a way to appease backward rubes like myself.

12/18/2007 2:04:18 AM

looks like the GOP has done a helluva good job for itself and America by supporting you "backwards rubes"



what exactly in the hell has the GOP really done for the Religious Right? They mostly use you for your votes, then blow you off.

The few times they've tried to get all wrapped up in one of your issues have often been a huge, dumbass clusterfuck and exhibition of political buffoonery (for example, the whole trying to amend the Constitution to outlaw homos getting married--which was, incidentally, also an exercise in political maneuvering to use you guys for your votes while not really giving you jack shit).

12/18/2007 2:17:44 AM

Quote :

"the kind that let the democrats dominate politics for several decades"

are you time warped into the 1930's or something. I think the GOP has had majority in congress more years in the last 25-30 year time span then the democrats.

12/18/2007 11:58:08 AM

^^^^ Why do you hate freedom?

12/18/2007 2:10:33 PM

Quote :

" think the GOP has had majority in congress more years "

cough..the Dems held the House from 1954 to 1995..cough

12/18/2007 8:58:46 PM

Quote :

"DEY BROKE ERRR LAW! DEY HEER EELEGALLY!"

=

blacks at the front of the bus

Quote :

"DEY KILLIN FOLKS WID DRUNK DRIVIN "

=

young people

Quote :

"DEY GANGBANGIN"

=

young, black people

Let me know how your "deport all the blacks and young people" policy goes.

12/18/2007 11:38:04 PM

GIT ERRR DUN

12/18/2007 11:48:10 PM

Quote :

"blacks at the front of the bus"

I'm guessing this is a roundabout way of equating Jim Crow laws with illegal immigration?

Your position being that Jim Crow was the law of the land even though it was immoral?

And so that leads to the idea that immigration laws should be violated because they are immoral?

Difference is.. we got rid of Jim Crow. We made it legal for Blacks to sit where-ever they wanted and so on. We're supposed to be a nation of laws. If you want uncontrolled mass migration from Mexico to the US-then pass a law...make it legal. If you want them to become citizens the minute they pad across the border...pass a law. If you don't want to check them for communicable disease, or criminal past, or terrorist inclinations...then pass a law.

But having a policy of saying you're protecting the border, and then not doing it- invites more law-breaking. Either stop the invasion, or pass a law allowing it. But looking past a law-breaking problem of this magnitude is asking for more trouble.

12/19/2007 1:41:22 AM

Quote :

"Difference is.. we got rid of Jim Crow."

...in large part because of people breaking the stupid and immoral laws in that system. If breaking them constantly is the only way to lay bare these laws for the farces of justice they are, so be it.

Would you, in the late 1950s, have argued that the blacks needed to stay in their place because "we're supposed to be a nation of laws"?

Quote :

"If you want uncontrolled mass migration from Mexico to the US-then pass a law...make it legal."

This is extraordinarily convenient for someone who already has all the legislation. I want to pass a law and I work towards passing the law. But even under ideal circumstances that process is very slow, and I've no intention of making people suffer in the meantime.

Quote :

"But looking past a law-breaking problem of this magnitude is asking for more trouble."

Sure it is. Ditto the sit-ins and bus boycotts and everything else -- they were asking for trouble. Trouble is how things of this nature get done. If nobody was trying to illegally cross the border, there wouldn't be much discussion about needing to relax our draconian immigration laws.

12/19/2007 2:04:50 AM

Quote :

"We're supposed to be a nation of laws."

Here's where we disagree. I'm against both nations and laws.

12/19/2007 11:00:10 AM

^
Sounds like to comes down to those who want uncontrolled, mass immigration with instant citizenship... and on the other side...those who want to control the flow and filter the people a bit. Working out a law that will be amiable to both sides could take awhile. But breaking the law in the meantime isn't helping your side.

Jim Crow fell as cases were brought to the higher courts. Brown v Board of Education opened the floodgates to the civil rights legislation that ended Jim Crow.

But it's different with the immigration problem. They aren't looking for a legal way to get what they want-unfettered access to the American Dream. The Mexican invasion is trying to muscle its will by flooding more and more people "that we can't send back" This tactic causes nothing but resentment. The mob mentality of just over-running and over-powering the system may succeed but will cause irreparable harm.

Quote :

"the farces of justice "

Excellent Freudian Slip! Perhaps a good book title?

12/19/2007 11:09:05 AM

I am sure the Native Americans in the 1600-1800's were like

DEM WHITE FOLKS BE TUKKIN ERRR LANDDDD

DEY RAPING ERRR WOMANS

DEY SHOOTIN ERRR BUFFALLO

12/19/2007 11:12:37 AM

^
Good point.

If we allow the Mexican invasion to succeed, we only have ourselves to blame.

12/19/2007 11:15:12 AM