No matter what Republicans think of his social positions, this guy has principles, guts and is a fighter. Plus, he knows what hes talking about on national security issues. Lets hope he crosses the line.... Article by Jennifer Rubin. "By championing the surge, advocating for a robust national security, warning of the dangers of Iran’s state sponsorship of terror and nuclear development and lecturing his party on their errant ways, Lieberman has made himself into a major thorn in the Democrats’ side. When he invokes Democratic presidents of the past like FDR, Truman and Kennedy, his Democratic colleagues squirm. He hopes to reform his party and lead them back from the precipice of McGovernism and international retreat, but they aren’t much interested in that. They’re all in thrall to the MoveOn.org types. "And of course, Lieberman has become one of the more effective spokesmen for John McCain -- perhaps the most effective one -- in explaining the dangers of Barack Obama’s foreign policy plans and pointing out his flip-flops, most clearly on the Kyl-Lieberman amendment classifying the Iranian Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist organization. (Obama was against the Kyl-Lieberman before he went in front of AIPAC and discovered it was a good idea.) For doing that Obama gave him a chewing out on the Senate floor. Yeah: how dare Lieberman call attention to Obama’s craven policy reversals on matters on national security?" In perhaps the most focused and eloquent indictment of Obama to date he declared: "Senator Obama this morning said that he wants a foreign policy that is “tough, smart, and principled.” This afternoon, I ask: was it tough when Senator Obama voted to order U.S. forces to retreat from Iraq on a fixed timeline -- regardless of the recommendations of our military commanders, regardless of conditions on the ground? Was it smart when Senator Obama opposed the surge and predicted that it would fail to improve security? Was it principled when Senator Obama said that he would order U.S. troops to retreat from Iraq, regardless of the humanitarian consequences for millions of innocent Iraqis -- even genocide? Was it tough and principled when Senator Obama said he would be open to changing his plan for Iraq after going there and talking to General Petraeus -- only to change that position a few hours later after being heatedly criticized by organizations like Moveon.org? I say respectfully, the answer to all of those questions is no. Mitch McConnell, the Senate Minority leader and among the savviest elected conservatives, might do well to welcome Lieberman with open arms. It would be wise for McConnell to offer Lieberman the ranking minority spot on any committee of his choice, and, if he desires a position in the Senate leadership. In additional to potentially gaining a seat, the signal would be unmistakable: the GOP welcomes any and all Democrats who no longer have a place in the defeatist, left-of-liberal Democratic Party. FULL ARTICLE: http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=27545

No matter what Republicans think of his social positions, this guy has principles, guts and is a fighter. Plus, he knows what hes talking about on national security issues. Lets hope he crosses the line....

Article by Jennifer Rubin.

"By championing the surge, advocating for a robust national security, warning of the dangers of Iran’s state sponsorship of terror and nuclear development and lecturing his party on their errant ways, Lieberman has made himself into a major thorn in the Democrats’ side. When he invokes Democratic presidents of the past like FDR, Truman and Kennedy, his Democratic colleagues squirm. He hopes to reform his party and lead them back from the precipice of McGovernism and international retreat, but they aren’t much interested in that. They’re all in thrall to the MoveOn.org types.

"And of course, Lieberman has become one of the more effective spokesmen for John McCain -- perhaps the most effective one -- in explaining the dangers of Barack Obama’s foreign policy plans and pointing out his flip-flops, most clearly on the Kyl-Lieberman amendment classifying the Iranian Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist organization. (Obama was against the Kyl-Lieberman before he went in front of AIPAC and discovered it was a good idea.) For doing that Obama gave him a chewing out on the Senate floor. Yeah: how dare Lieberman call attention to Obama’s craven policy reversals on matters on national security?"

In perhaps the most focused and eloquent indictment of Obama to date he declared:

"Senator Obama this morning said that he wants a foreign policy that is “tough, smart, and principled.” This afternoon, I ask: was it tough when Senator Obama voted to order U.S. forces to retreat from Iraq on a fixed timeline -- regardless of the recommendations of our military commanders, regardless of conditions on the ground? Was it smart when Senator Obama opposed the surge and predicted that it would fail to improve security? Was it principled when Senator Obama said that he would order U.S. troops to retreat from Iraq, regardless of the humanitarian consequences for millions of innocent Iraqis -- even genocide? Was it tough and principled when Senator Obama said he would be open to changing his plan for Iraq after going there and talking to General Petraeus -- only to change that position a few hours later after being heatedly criticized by organizations like Moveon.org? I say respectfully, the answer to all of those questions is no.

Mitch McConnell, the Senate Minority leader and among the savviest elected conservatives, might do well to welcome Lieberman with open arms.

It would be wise for McConnell to offer Lieberman the ranking minority spot on any committee of his choice, and, if he desires a position in the Senate leadership. In additional to potentially gaining a seat, the signal would be unmistakable: the GOP welcomes any and all Democrats who no longer have a place in the defeatist, left-of-liberal Democratic Party.

FULL ARTICLE: http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=27545