posted on Mar, 20 2008 @ 09:23 AM
With McCain and Lieberman touring the Middle East now, it would sure seem that Lieberman might find a place on the ticket.
I can't say that a McCain/Lieberman would be my dream ticket, but we have to face that fact that politics in America is dynamic and what is
considered to be conservative or liberal at any given time is likely to be considered very differently in the future.
Certainly, the Democrat Party as it is today would not have appealed to the Democrats of the 40s and 50s.
Indeed, by the mid to late 60s, conservative Democrats had already started to jumped ship.
Here or elsewhere, someone noted that the conservative/liberal issue boils down to issues of integrity and decency, or words to that effect.
Conditions in the world at any given time call for different approaches. That's why I have always eschewed the labels of conservative or liberal for
myself in any strict sense.
What is pretty much non-negotiable to me are my core values within reason.
I'm not much interested in which party I vote for as I am in which party most closely represents my values.
Over the years, it was plain to even casual observers that McCain was not your garden variety Republican.
The same can be said for Lieberman as a Democrat, who had the cajones to stand up in the Senate and castigate Clinton's dalliances in the Oval
office, although he was a little too wimpy for my tastes.
Now, Lieberman is an Independent and while McCain is still a Republican, few can argue that he isn't independent in his politics.
Many Republicans lament the fact that there have been so few real conservatives represented in the primaries but now that there is no question that
McCain has clenched the nomination, Republicans are going to have to just face the fact that it is rare that any American in any election is going to
have the privilege of voting for the perfect candidate.
We must consider the pulse of the people.
The term Neo-conservative was new to me when I first started to hear it after Bush was elected in 2000. Although, it was largely used as an invective
in any context that an invective might seem appropriate to the writer or speaker, it seems to me that Neo-Con is a term that stands for conservative
Republicans who support Israel militarily, which isn't exactly a very radical political position, in my view.
Nonetheless, the term has been bandied about long enough and in concert with the struggle against terrorism in the Middle East, i.e., Afghanistan and
Iraq, that overall the public is beginning to have war fatigue, which is kind of pathetic, since compared to WWII, Americans have had few sacrifices
during this war and other than the evening news and for the families and friends of those who voluntarily serve, you'd be hard pressed to know that a
war is going on.
So, now we have two ideologies at odds in the current presidential race. The Democrat's rhetoric that we must get out of Iraq quickly, even though
there is waffling on this because both Democrat candidates know that if they find themselves in the White House, the reality of prosecuting the war on
terror will be squarely on the president's shoulders and I'm not sure either candidate would be willing to have a ramping up of terrorist attacks in
the US just to satisfy a few campaign promises.
On the other side, we have McCain, who for all the claims about his temper, is about as cool and moderate as any politician that has been seen in a
long time. He has strong principles and commitments to seeing the war on terror through and he might go so far as to pick Lieberman as a running
mate, which, although going against the conventional wisdom concerning his choice of a running mate, just might make him more popular among the broad
mainstream, moderate segment of the voting population.
Bush has been an exceptional president during these difficult times. He has clearly seen the challenges before us and has stayed the course,
regardless of the rantings of the squeamish left-wing lunatics who now are the driving force behind the Democrat party.
It takes a special man to ignore popular opinion to stand firm on his principles in matters of national security, without being completely destroyed,
as was the case with both Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon during the war in Vietnam, although Nixon's problems were a bit more complex.
But the hard line has taken a toll on the American people and regardless of how much change certain candidates promise, come January 2009, there will
be change regardless of who wins the election.
Does the general public really want as much change as is promised by the Democrats?
I think not.
I think that what the American people really want is the same level of security that has been established in the wake of 9/11, but with some new faces
and some fresh ideas.
The party of surrender might carry the day, but it is my observation over the decades that while the base of support for such policies is highly
vocal, it is not very widespread or very deep.
It is one thing to say that one is tired of the war and another to relinquish the security that the war on terrorism, both at home and abroad, has
provided for the last eight years.
Regardless of who McCain picks as his running mate and regardless of McCain's leanings over the span of his political life, McCain will have to face
up to the realities of the current world conditions, which trump the petty arguments over whether or not McCain is conservative enough, which given
our current state is about a meaningful as the argument over whether Obama is black enough.
I have already stated that for me Lieberman would be an acceptable choice, given the choices that the Democrats are offering and given Lieberman's
estrangement from the Democrat party.
As for Feinstein or Kennedy, I just cannot imagine that McCain would ever in his weakest moments give either of these nut cases a second thought,
unless someone knows something I don't.
[edit on 2008/3/20 by GradyPhilpott]