William the Bloody Kristol decides to weigh in on who should run for Vice President on the Republican ticket:
William Kristol [from the issue dated] 11/19/2007:
If a senator gives a speech, and no major newspaper reports it, does it matter? Joe Lieberman spoke in Washington Thursday on "the politics of national security." The next day, the New York Times, the Washington Post, the Wall Street Journal, and USA Today ignored his talk. Most Democrats will ignore it. But five guys named Rudy, John, Fred, Mitt, and Mike will read it. So should you.
Think about that for a minute--Kristol is a fairly influential commenter. He probably has what some would call "influence" among the 23% of Americans who are "dead enders" and still think we can salvage victory after all of these years of being bled dry in Iraq. Kristol is suggesting that Republicans consider Senator Joe Lieberman for the VP slot next year.
I say, go for it. I say, run, Joe, run! Nothing would drag the Republican ticket down more than a healthy dose of the same "Joementum" that failed to gain any traction at all in the 2004 Democratic Presidential primaries. Nothing would solidify the break that is long overdue between Lieberman and the Democratic Party. I know he has this "Independent" tag thing going--please. The man's career exists as a Democratic Party politician. Without them, he's nothing.
Are they any Democrats who want to hang on to Joe? And try to bring him back into the fold? I say, hell no. Joe, you gotta go. If you go and it makes for a Republican Senate, so be it. (Of course, if the Republicans ever do take back the Senate, they'll go back to whining about filibusters, won't they?)
Here's what Joe said the other day:
Iraq has become the singular litmus test for Democratic candidates. No Democratic presidential primary candidate today speaks of America's moral or strategic responsibility to stand with the Iraqi people against the totalitarian forces of radical Islam, or of the consequences of handing a victory in Iraq to al Qaeda and Iran. And if they did, their campaign would be as unsuccessful as mine was in 2006. Even as evidence has mounted that General Petraeus' new counterinsurgency strategy is succeeding, Democrats have remained emotionally invested in a narrative of defeat and retreat in Iraq, reluctant to acknowledge the progress we are now achieving. . . .
Well, where to start?
1. Ending the war is essential for preserving America's military
2. The Iraqi people have either fled the country or are acquiescing to full blown civil war
3. al Qaeda in Iraq is a figment of someone's feverish imagination as a credible threat
4. Iran has already gotten more than they ever could have hoped from this war
5. General Petraeus' actual strategy was to wait until the ethnic cleansing was complete because that would be followed by a drop in violence AND to give money and guns to Sunni leaders to get them to stop killing our troops
6. Democrats are "emotionally invested" in doing the right thing by stopping the war
7. We are pounding sand, not making any real progress
8. So long as the Mahdi Army stands down, the violence in Iraq will appear to be lessening
9. 2007 is the bloodiest year of the war
10. Even when he says "and" and "the" in a sentence, he's wrong
'Bye, Joe. Keep giving speeches that reveal your true affiliation--for Karl Rove, George Bush, Dick Cheney, and a failed war that you are clueless and confused about, from the strategic sense to the essential details. Keep telling us what you really think--which can't hide the fact that if the American people ever figure out why this war was started and why it was kept going and what your part was in the effort to ensure that the Republican Party could use a war, and use the troops who would have to fight that war, as a wedge issue against the Democratic Party to hold on to the power of the purse and to enrich wealthy donors to the Republican Party, well, would you ever be man enough to admit your guilt? Would you ever be man enough to admit you were party to a crime of monstrous proportions? Would you have the decency to admit that you shouldn't be considered for any post of responsibility?
Yes, enthusiastically, do I say, pick Lieberman. Run him as your VP, Republicans. He will serve as a reminder of just how insane your party really is. He would wrap himself and the Iraq War around your necks and drag you down. Lieberman has been a national candidate twice now, and both times, he was a barely competent disaster in the making. He failed to even win the endorsement of Al Gore in 2004 after serving as Gore's pick for VP in 2000. Gore picked Dean, and while Dean didn't get the nomination, Dean was a huge part of the resurrection of the Democratic Party. Lieberman's 2004 run is a study in self-delusion. "Joementum" turned into the turd no one wanted to find in their swimming pool.
If you want, you can let the door hit you on the ass on your way out...