From the good senator’s interview with Hugh Hewitt:
HH: Would you accept a place on a Giuliani, a Romney or a Thompson ticket if offered to you?
JL: No, I think I got that bug out of my system. But…the national bug, I mean. It’s nice of you to ask, and I don’t think any one of them in their right mind would ask me, but my wife will appreciate that you asked.
HH: Is that an unequivocal no, Senator?
JL: Yeah, that’s unequivocal. Actually, my wife probably would not appreciate that.
Of course, Hewitt only asked about “a Giuliani, a Romney or a Thompson ticket” — in other words, a Republican ticket. He didn’t ask about an independent McCain-Lieberman ticket, which would be the most obvious possibility, IMHO. (Though, as I mentioned previously, such a ticket presumably couldn’t win in the current political climate vis a vis Iraq, and would just serve to throw the election to the Democrats.)
P.S. Speaking of Lieberman… Sean Paul Kelley at The Agnoist thinks Lieberman’s “Sense of the Senate” resolution (PDF here) wagging the Senate’s collective finger at Iran — approved by a vote of 97-0 — opens the door for an Authorization of the Use of Military Force down the road. The amendment, as characterized by Kelley, basically says (not in so many words), “It is the sense of the senate that Iran is participating in acts of war against the United States.” Which seems to lend itself rather nicely to a rather powerful pro-war argument down the road: “How could you not support military action against a country committing acts of war against the United States?” (Hat tip: My Left Nutmeg.)
Personally, I doubt this vote will have any real effect on later debates. If going “on record” in such a way had the kind of rhetorical power envisioned by Kelley, nobody would be able to gripe about “Bush’s” rejection of the Kyoto Accords (which were rejected in principle on a 95-0 “Sense of the Senate” vote in 1997), nor about “Bush’s” decision to pursue regime change in Iraq (a policy explicitly endorsed in 1998 by a vote of 360-38 in the House and by unanimous consent in the Senate). Yet nobody seems to feel shamed by those votes, so I doubt they’ll feel shamed by this one. If war in Iran comes up for a vote, Democratic senators aren’t going to feel obligated to authorize it just because they voted for this unanimously approved legislative nullity.
Still, it’s an interesting development nonetheless. The storm clouds continue to gather, I fear.
July 13th, 2007 at 10:06:23 am
Lieberman is a flop. He would be the kiss of death to any Presidential ticket, be it Dem or Republican.
July 13th, 2007 at 10:17:12 am
Rudy Giuliani or Vampire Ghouliani?
July 13th, 2007 at 11:47:55 am
“Lieberman is a flop. He would be the kiss of death to any Presidential ticket, be it Dem or Republican.”
Yes, he is a flop, although he did comfortably defeat the netroots/”Progressive” candidate. Foolishly, I am still surprised by these types of all-or-nothing proclamations that blanket the Net these days. While angrier becomes more so each day, and I am sure he LOATHES Sen. Lieberman, I think any fair assessment of the Senator’s life wouldn’t include the word “flop.” I realize I’m wasting my typing fingers, but all such comments say much more about those making them than they do about the subject.
July 13th, 2007 at 11:51:37 am
If war in Iran comes up for a vote, Democratic senators aren’t going to feel obligated to authorize it just because they voted for this unanimously approved legislative nullity
Because it’s ok for Dems to say “I voted for it, before I voted against it” and not feel they are full of crap.
July 13th, 2007 at 12:19:44 pm
Lieberman would be the kiss of death for either ticket is absolutely right. He was on the losing side in 2000, he couldn’t even win his own party’s nomination in the primary, and carrying all the electoral votes from Connecticut isn’t all that helpful either. Republicans are welcome to give him a shot if they think differently, though.
July 13th, 2007 at 1:31:29 pm
Lieberman upsets all the right people.
July 13th, 2007 at 3:25:47 pm
“Of course, Hewitt only asked about…a Republican ticket. He didn’t ask about an independent McCain-Lieberman ticket…”
No, he didn’t. But YOU did :> - generically, anyway, without Naming a Ticketmate - as follows (readers, play the MP3 file of The Interview in the linked October 16, 2006 post :) ~
So, quit Bugging our saintly SenatorfromConnecticut wouldya :}, the man is Busy, he’s got an Iran War to run, here ;> / (btw, at the end of that interview does he say “Brendan, good ta see ya”, or is it “Brendan, get some sleep”? I’ve listened closely but it’s hard to tell… :)
July 13th, 2007 at 4:43:36 pm
DBrooks-
So was John Kerry NOT a flop? Was Michael Dukakis NOT a flop? Or Jack Kemp, for that matter?
Lieberman may be a successful Senator from Connecticut, but I believe the question related to his running for VP again. In that role, he is most definitely a flop.
July 13th, 2007 at 4:49:52 pm
Brendan-
Your “regime change” comment is a bunch of bullshit. If you want to criticize people for voting for the authorization to go to war and then changing their mind for political reasons after the fact, that would be one thing. However, I’m sure plenty of Dems and Republicans would endorse regime change in Cuba, Syria, Iran, N. Korea, etc. It doesn’t mean that it is a blank check to invade a country. There are other means for accomplishing regime change (economic sanctions, covert actions, soft power, etc). Equating a desire for regime change with a call to war is simply ignorant and beneath you.
July 15th, 2007 at 11:22:41 pm
I’m sure plenty of Dems and Republicans would endorse regime change in Cuba, Syria, Iran, N. Korea, etc. It doesn’t mean that it is a blank check to invade a country.
If only there wasn’t that pesky Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq passed by “plenty of Dems and Republicans” back in 2002 . . .
July 16th, 2007 at 12:48:00 am
I love the phonies like Joe Mama who mention half truths and half facts without the full story. For instance, congress authorization for the use of force against Saddam. Congress passed this mistake in the event that the US was attacked by Iraq and congress could convene to declare war. It was passed in October of 2002 and not a declaration of war, just a trust that was betrayed by our president.
July 16th, 2007 at 7:31:45 am
Congress passed this mistake in the event that the US was attacked by Iraq
Talk about half-truths!! What a ridiculous rewriting of history. Over here in the reality-based community, the actual history is that Congress passed the AUMF against Iraq knowing full well that Bush & co. were considering a pre-emptive war against Saddam. The only “event” on which the AUMF was conditioned, informally of course, was Bush’s assurances that he would go to the U.N. first and try to work through them. We can debate whether he fulfilled that informal condition in good faith or not, but in any event, there certainly was no understanding on anyone’s part that the AUMF was only effective if Iraq attacked us (good grief! what would be the need for it then?). Nor was there any belief that Bush would come back and ask for a formal declaration of war. As I’ve expressed many times before, I strongly oppose Congress’s unconstitutional delegation of its war-declaring authority in recent decades, and I firmly believe that, particularly for a pre-emptive war like Iraq, there should have been a formal declaration of war. But to claim that this was Congress’s intent when it passed the AUMF is totally absurd. Nobody had that expectation at the time.
July 16th, 2007 at 9:37:37 am
I love the phonies like Joe Mama who mention half truths and half facts without the full story. For instance, congress authorization for the use of force against Saddam. Congress passed this mistake in the event that the US was attacked by Iraq and congress could convene to declare war.
Brendan beat me to the punch on correcting Sandy’s utter nonsense, so I will only add that it brings me great comfort to be called a “phony” by someone so completely unconnected to reality.