And speaking of Lieberman, he has been contributing funds to quite a few Dems running for or running for re-election to the U. S. Senate. I think they should return his money -promptly!
July was a busy month for ROC PAC. Lieberman's committee also gave $5,000 apiece to Democratic Sens. Max Baucus (Mont.), Tom Harkin (Iowa), Jack Reed (R.I.) and Jay Rockefeller (W.Va.), as well as Democratic Senate candidates Mark Udall (Colo.) and Mark Warner (Va.). This cycle, the PAC has also kicked in a total of $15,000 for three different state Democratic parties and $45,000 to the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee. Lieberman's Senate reelection account has given the DSCC another $100,000.
Obama voted "to cut off funding for our American troops on the battlefield." -- Joe Lieberman
From the Washington Post's Fact Check column . . .
http://voices.washingtonpost.c...
So was that a vote "to cut off funding for our American troops on the battlefield"?Not primarily.
Obama was fighting at the time for a requirement that President Bush begin to bring the troops home from Iraq. The bill in question did not include such a requirement, and that is why Obama voted against it. Obama said at the time that he wanted to fund the troops, he just didn't want to fund the particular military strategy that the bill would enable.
"We must fund our troops," Obama said at the time. "But we owe them something more. We owe them a clear, prudent plan to relieve them of the burden of policing someone else's civil war."
I remember the Beltway pundits lamenting in 2006 that Lieberman was the "last honest man" in Washington. Hopefully these pundits can view the man now in a more honest and truthful light.
What gets me about this too is the fact that Lieberman would turn his back on his constituents over economic and social issues in backing McCain. He's even reneged on his own commitments during the 2006 campaign regarding drawing down troops. Lieberman doesn't have much credibility anymore.
If he was McCain's top pick for VP choice and he was denied because Republicans promised a floor fight if he was the choice, I don't understand why he would still speak at the convention. There are just a lot of things that make me wish I could get inside his head and understand his reasoning. I mean there were parts of his speech that went over poorly with the audience, and he had to have known that he was not speaking to a post-partisan crowd. He will be demonized by his own party members. And he may well have alienated himself from his party colleagues in the Senate. All this for what?
Risking all of this for one man, and they aren't even lovers. I can understand devotion to the idea of country first, but no one owns that idea. And certainly McCain does not express that ideal so perfectly as to elicit devotion based upon it. Is it really that they are just the rarely seen in Washington politics: true friends? So, what's the deal with Lieberman? Que pasa Hadassah?