[King Tom]

http://www.msnbc.msn...8726/?GT1=43001

Lieberman calls for voters to cross party lines
Gore’s 2000 running mate says Obama would be a fine leader — later



By Alex Johnson
Reporter
MSNBC
updated 9:11 p.m. PT, Tues., Sept. 2, 2008
Sen. Joe Lieberman of Connecticut, the Democrats’ vice presidential nominee in 2000, urged Democrats to cross party lines Tuesday night and cast their votes for Sen. John McCain of Arizona, telling they they could “always count on him to be straight with you about where he stands and to stand for what he thinks is right regardless of politics.”

Lieberman, who is now officially an independent but continues to caucus with the Democrats, was addressing delegates at the Republican National Convention in St. Paul, Minn., but he was really speaking to millions of Democrats watching at home on television.

“What, after all, is a Democrat like me doing at a Republican convention like this?” Lieberman asked.

Story continues below ↓
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
advertisement

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

His answer: “I’m here to support John McCain because country matters more than party.”

Lieberman, who was widely reported to have been a finalist to join McCain as his vice presidential running mate, returned to that theme over and over.

“John McCain’s whole life testifies to a great truth: Being a Democrat or a Republican is important. But it is not more important than being an American,” he said.

Lieberman praised McCain’s support for President Bush’s “troop surge” in Iraq, casting it as a principled stand in the face of widespread popular disagreement.

“When others wanted to retreat in defeat from the field of battle — when Barack Obama was voting to cut off funding for our troops on the ground — John McCain had the courage to stand against the tide of public opinion and support the surge, and because of that, today, our troops are at last beginning to come home, not in failure, but in honor,” he was to say.

Lieberman, Thompson bump Bush from spotlight
Lieberman’s address had been highly anticipated at the convention, four years after another official Democrat, Zell Miller, then a senator from Georgia, gave a fiery address at the 2004 Republican convention urging Bush’s reelection.

Lieberman took a less outspoken tack, but he made it clear where he stood: with McCain, whom he has accompanied on foreign trips as an unofficial adviser on foreign affairs.

“Only one leader has shown the courage and the capability to rise above the smallness of our politics to get big things done for our country and our people,” Lieberman said. “And that leader is John McCain.”


By contrast, Obama, the Democratic nominee, “is a gifted and eloquent young man who can do great things for our country in the years ahead,” he said, “but eloquence is no substitute for a record — not in these tough times.”

Speeches by Lieberman and former Sen. Fred Thompson, R-Tenn., followed a brief address by President Bush, who spoke to the convention by satellite from the White House. In a break with tradition, the sitting president did not get the marquee speaking slot — during the hour the broadcast television networks were covering the action — reflecting convention organizers’ concern that Bush’s unpopularity could drag down the ticket.

Afterward, in an interview with NBC News, Lieberman repeated that “John McCain is the best choice for president,” but he demurred when asked if McCain’s little-known running mate, Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, was ready to take over if disaster struck. “Let’s hope for the best. John is in great shape,” he said.

Palin has provided an unwelcome distraction after her announcement Monday that her unmarried 17-year-old daughter is pregnant and that a private attorney has been retained to represent the governor in an investigation into the dismissal of the state public safety commissioner.

Lieberman said it was initially awkward to be speaking at a Republican convention. But he said, “I didn’t expect my party to take the turns it did, especially on national security and foreign policy





what do people think.

[Jace Couture]

I'm mildly surprised by this, especially his attacks against on the Democrats for several reasons, but they are somewhat mitigated by one large fact. He owes the Republicans big time.

He won his last election in large part due to the Republicans in CT not backing their own candidate, and instead supporting him. So to see him at the RNC isn't all that surprising, and to see him launch down the line of criticizing Obama for wanting to withdraw from Iraq isn't as surprising at all (that's the primary reason he lost the Democratic primary in CT). He's always been a bit of a hawk.

What is surprising is that the republicans, are continuing with the "experience" line. I mean, come on. And as far as policy turns, he should have realized they were turning this way back in 2004. It was the reason for him now being listed as "independent".

Overall, I don't dislike Lieberman. But this just seems like showboating to me.

[Andy Rooney]

I've liked Lieberman for a long time and really wished that he'd been the top of the ticket in 2000 instead of that blowhard Al Gore. Lieberman is moderate to liberal, has a good head on his shoulders, and is well respected internationally. I was kind of excited at the thought of a McCain-Lieberman unity ticket but will be satisfied if Lieberman accepts a Cabinet post with the McCain administration when they win the election.

[Robert Davidson]

Andy Rooney, on Sep 3 2008, 11:06 AM, said:

I've liked Lieberman for a long time and really wished that he'd been the top of the ticket in 2000 instead of that blowhard Al Gore. Lieberman is moderate to liberal, has a good head on his shoulders, and is well respected internationally. I was kind of excited at the thought of a McCain-Lieberman unity ticket but will be satisfied if Lieberman accepts a Cabinet post with the McCain administration when they win the election.

If they win the election. as of right now there are many stupid people who would vote for "the Messiah", Barrack Obama solely because he is a mulatto black man. that looks better to them than an old geezer who is a RINO and a war vet/POW. as for Lieberman, I don't see whats so spectacular about him or why McCain should give him a cabinet position. he is a maverick like the GOP candidate who ran with the hypocritical prophet of Global Warming Gore. I sure hope McCain wouldn't choose him for any position.

[Lamuella]

Screw. Joe. Lieberman.

He is trying to elect someone who is the opposite of him on every political issue except the war in Iraq, simply because he's annoyed with the Democrats. He's getting in bed with the very people who smeared him and lied about him in 2000.

Whether or not McCain gets elected, the republicans will have no use for him, and the democrats won't have him back. I hope he thinks it was worth it.

[Lamuella]

Robert Davidson, on Sep 3 2008, 11:19 AM, said:

If they win the election. as of right now there are many stupid people who would vote for "the Messiah", Barrack Obama solely because he is a mulatto black man. that looks better to them than an old geezer who is a RINO and a war vet/POW. as for Lieberman, I don't see whats so spectacular about him or why McCain should give him a cabinet position. he is a maverick like the GOP candidate who ran with the hypocritical prophet of Global Warming Gore. I sure hope McCain wouldn't choose him for any position.

please tell me that in 2008 someone didn't just describe a man of mixed race as a "mulatto"

[Reformentia]

It's all about Iraq for Lieberman. That's basically the only issue he's basing his decision on, and he's willing to just watch the rest of his policy goals go to hell for it.

Not many others agree with him, obviously.

[Robert Davidson]

look up the definition... oh wait, that would take up too much time for you Lam. so here it is.

http://dictionary.re.../browse/mulatto

This post has been edited by Robert Davidson: 03 September 2008 - 09:27 AM

[Lamuella]

Robert Davidson, on Sep 3 2008, 11:26 AM, said:

look up the definition... oh wait, that would take up too much time for you Lam. so here it is.

http://dictionary.re.../browse/mulatto

I know the definition. It's derived from the Spanish for "mule". It is a term used for livestock in the united states, back when livestock included humans.

[Robert Davidson]

Lamuella, on Sep 3 2008, 11:35 AM, said:

I know the definition. It's derived from the Spanish for "mule". It is a term used for livestock in the united states, back when livestock included humans.

obviously you don't have a clear understanding as to how the meaning of certain words change over time. you may know the old definition from the founding of this country, but you haven't the slightest clue as to the newer and more modern one. "mulatto" refers to someone born of at least one parent of African American decent, and one of Caucasian decent. But had you read the actual definition provided you would have already known that. sounds like Barrack Obama to me, how about you? white mother, black father. yep, that's a mulatto alright.

[Lamuella]

Robert Davidson, on Sep 3 2008, 11:42 AM, said:

obviously you don't have a clear understanding as to how the meaning of certain words change over time. you may know the old definition from the founding of this country, but you haven't the slightest clue as to the newer and more modern one. "mulatto" refers to someone born of at least one parent of African American decent, and one of Caucasian decent. But had you read the actual definition provided you would have already known that. sounds like Barrack Obama to me, how about you? white mother, black father. yep, that's a mulatto alright.

I KNOW THE DEFINITION OF THE TERM

YOU however don't seem to understand that in a lot of places it's considered deeply insulting as it was a term that originated in the slave trade.

(besides, if the definition actually is one african american parent and one caucasian parent, then Obama doesn't fit the description as his father was not african american)

[Reformentia]

Robert Davidson, on Sep 3 2008, 08:42 AM, said:

obviously you don't have a clear understanding as to how the meaning of certain words change over time. you may know the old definition from the founding of this country, but you haven't the slightest clue as to the newer and more modern one. "mulatto" refers to someone born of at least one parent of African American decent, and one of Caucasian decent. But had you read the actual definition provided you would have already known that. sounds like Barrack Obama to me, how about you? white mother, black father. yep, that's a mulatto alright.

Dude... you understand what the parentage of a mule is right? And hence why your cluelessly condescending explanation of the definition of the term as it is used today doesn't change how insulting it's origins are since that's the exact same definition it had back then? It's the REASON that particular word has that particular definition that is the problem.

[Jhouserok]

So we can't use an archaic term around here on this board in todays world? Well that's just camp. Frankly Mulatto in general terms has to do with anyone of any mixed race background, not just african americans and caucasians; though in this country it has been more typically referred to as a mix of them both. Meh, silly thing to get all upset and offended about.

Edit: We should probably just stay on topic however.

This post has been edited by Jhouserok: 03 September 2008 - 09:57 AM

[Lamuella]

Jhouserok, on Sep 3 2008, 11:55 AM, said:

So we can't use an archaic term around here on this board in todays world? Well that's just camp. Frankly Mulatto in general terms has to do with anyone of any mixed race background, not just african americans and caucasians; though in this country it has been more typically referred to as a mix of them both. Meh, silly thing to get all upset and offended about.

I know, it's as bad as not being able to call people the n-word

[Kzin]

McCain wanted Lieberman on his ticket but was talked out of it, and that's too bad, because just as it is a historic first for Obama to be a nominee, and a historic first for Palin to be a nominee, it would have been a historic first if Lieberman were a nominee: first member of Likud Party to be nominated for Vice President!

[Robert Davidson]

Lamuella, on Sep 3 2008, 11:49 AM, said:

I KNOW THE DEFINITION OF THE TERM

YOU however don't seem to understand that in a lot of places it's considered deeply insulting as it was a term that originated in the slave trade.

(besides, if the definition actually is one african american parent and one caucasian parent, then Obama doesn't fit the description as his father was not african american)

now your making assumptions based off of your ridiculous argument. I do understand that the word ONCE had a negative meaning. you just don't understand that the word has been watered down for political correctness to mean what it is today. I will take back the African American part that i said, as I MEANT TO SAY BLACK (though it really doesn't matter, as you got the point from the definition I gave you).

[Robert Davidson]

Reformentia, on Sep 3 2008, 11:53 AM, said:

Dude... you understand what the parentage of a mule is right? And hence why your cluelessly condescending explanation of the definition of the term as it is used today doesn't change how insulting it's origins are since that's the exact same definition it had back then? It's the REASON that particular word has that particular definition that is the problem.

look above. IT NO LONGER HAS A NEGATIVE MEANING IN TODAY'S WORLD.

[Robert Davidson]

Jhouserok, on Sep 3 2008, 11:55 AM, said:

So we can't use an archaic term around here on this board in todays world? Well that's just camp. Frankly Mulatto in general terms has to do with anyone of any mixed race background, not just african americans and caucasians; though in this country it has been more typically referred to as a mix of them both. Meh, silly thing to get all upset and offended about.

Edit: We should probably just stay on topic however.

according to Lam yes.

[Lamuella]

Robert Davidson, on Sep 3 2008, 12:43 PM, said:

look above. IT NO LONGER HAS A NEGATIVE MEANING IN TODAY'S WORLD.

It is still considered to be offensive in most of the United States.

It means "mule". It came into use to describe the children of black female slaves who were impregnated by their white masters. It was used because black people were considered to be a different from white people as donkeys were from horses. The offspring was called a "mule" because they were considered to be a weird hybrid.

Considering its origin and its base meaning, can't you see how it would be deeply offensive to call someone that?

[Reformentia]

Robert Davidson, on Sep 3 2008, 09:43 AM, said:

look above. IT NO LONGER HAS A NEGATIVE MEANING IN TODAY'S WORLD.

All you said was that it was used to refer to someone with one white and one black parent, you didn't do a thing to address the negative connotations of using THAT word to refer to those people. Try this on for size:

"Half breed"

"What??? It just means someone who had parents of different races! Half one, half the other! That's not offensive! "

Get a clue.