"McCain/Lieberman, '08?"

Gag.

(Btw, GOP Bloggers looks great!)

Freedom,

Thanks - Matt worked on it a long time.

There is a lot to choke on in McCain/Lieberman...but, there's something in this. It could be quite the political steamroller.

If only we could be sure of at least one more Bush Supreme Court pick...

hmmmmmm......not for me! A vote for Mcain(to me on a personal level)is as bad as a vote for Hillary! Lieberman........I like the guy, but he'd have to become a hell of a lot more conservative to get my vote! But, that's just my opinion! Mcain makes me think of......LUKEWARM......and we know how "the man" feels about that!lol!

Lieberman's memory of what happened in 2000 would prevent him from accepting the second spot again.

C'mon, he had to abandon his previous positions on several issues in order to conform to Gore's policies. His primary asset was being a token to obtain Jewish votes in Florida, a state that ended up nearly going to Gore.

To become McCain's gofer would be too much to ask..especially since he has been ridiculed and slandered by the far-left.

It could be quite the political steamroller.

This is one of those times when those "in the know" have out-rationalized themselves into nonsense. The base of the Republican party will have nothing to do with McCain - ever. And Lieberman? A guy who scores 90% on compliance to the liberal agenda on Democrat tests?

It may sound all "steamroller-like" but it is a non-starter. We already saw how well McCain did in the one run he made. And that was back before his stupid positions on immigration and that awful McCain/Feingold deal and his "spooning" with Fat Teddy - you know, back when he had an entire face.

This would be a good democRAT ticket. They actually might stand a chance of winning a two way race for prez...

"a Lieberman freed from having to placate an increasingly lunatic Democratic base would be free to flex his social conservative muscles. Meanwhile, having Lieberman on as a liberal would allow McCain to hew to a more conservative line which is in keeping with his bedrock personality."

This is utter nonsense. Lieberman may be in line with us on the Iraq war, but I don't see his social stances as being maleable. I don't see him voting on social issues to placate the far left... I think he votes that way because he believes that way. He just happens to be reasonable about Iraq, rather than off in la-la land like so many of his caucus.

And McCain isn't going to hew a more conservative line just because he has Lieberman on the ticket with him. He's willing to alienate most of the Republican party in order to garner favor with the other side of the aisle... costing him much and gaining him nothing, because they wouldn't vote for him over a democrat ever. The vice president has very little actual power... all the policies would be McCain's were he to be elected, and after teh election, Lieberman's liberalism would be of no benefit to McCain, so he'd still pander to the left to maintain the rogue Republican persona he's developed.

What a great warmonger ticket. Gore/Dean in '08 for Peace. Peace

I'd vote for them... hooray for moderates.

I'd vote for them

You gotta do better than that if you want to shock anybody. We know you'd vote for this dynamic Mutt and Jeff duo...

Ya, McCain and Lieberman for the Republicrats and Clinton and Buchanan for the Demublicans. Or maybe Clinton and Gingrich? They're pretty kissy kissy in some respects. And I'm sure they'd get a huge campaign contribution from the K-Y Jelly interest. Not that there's anything wrong with that. I guess.

Of course, Lieberman's campaign has indicated that ole' Joe would never EVER campaign as a Republican -- EVER! Well, for the time being at least. If he loses the Dem primary and/or the general election, he may be available. And of course back in 2004 McCain made it very clear that if Kerry offered him the VP spot he wouldn't accept it. Then again, if Kerry had been up by 15 or 20 points at the time I wonder if his decision might have been different.

In the end though, my decision will be based on what I perceive as the best alternative for the country -- which often more accurately translates to the least worst.

which often more accurately translates to the least worst.

The tragedy of the commons, no?

Rico, you kind of danced around what I have been saying for years.

The loony Left has tried to set up yet another straw man, this one being that we elected Bush because we thought he was perfect. But the last two elections were not between Bush and perfection---they were between Bush and Gore, and then Bush and Kerry. We didn't elect Bush because we thought he was perfect---he was just better than our other choices.

Bush himself told David Frum he was not necessarily the best man for the job---just the best man running for the job.

I ended up liking Bush a lot more than I thought I would, but I admit that I first voted for him because there was absolutely no choice, as far as I was concerned. I thought Gore was a terrible vice president, mostly just raising money (albit illegally) for the party and defending his boss, and as a presidential candidate he was simply frightening. Every single thing he has said and done since he lost has only reinforced my belief that he would have made a truly awful president.

Even one of Gore's top advisors, one of the lawyers who fought so hard for him in Florida and filed all those lawsuits, said after 9/11 that he was profoundly grateful that Gore lost---that he knew the man, knew all who surrounded him and who would have been his cabinet and advisors, and felt as strongly as he could that this group would never have been able to handle post-9/11 problems.

And Kerry---well, who can overstate the horrifying aspect of Kerry in the White House? (Or TherAYsa?)

Right now, I am not a huge Bush fan----back to the polls, even though I would vote for him again, my poll answers would probably be misleading if I were to be asked if I thought he is doing a good job, because right now, in this moment, I don't. But I think he has, and a lot of my dissatisfaction stems from his new appeasement posture toward the radical Left, his refusal to explain or defend himself, and his simple wrong-headedness on immigration.

But my politics come from my philosophy, not vice versa. I have a conservative philosophy about things such as taxation, states' rights, gun control, national defense, abortion, and the other issues at hand. So I vote for the person, and the party, who are most likely to support and enact legislation which will advance or support my philosophy.

I do feel that most Libs work from the other direction---that they have a political viewpoint, such as an emotion-based attitude toward Republicans for example, and then build their philosophies upon those politics.