Time for a McCain-Lieberman Presidential Ticket/Background to the national unity ticket of 2008
Paleo-conservatives like Pat Buchanan still pine for Fortress Kansas. If you can’t find Fortress Kansas, don’t sweat it. It doesn’t exist and never has. Antique isolationism tried to build the walls but failed.
But delusions die hard. Conspiracy theories involving Jesuits and Masons morph into conspiracies involving space aliens, “the government,” and evil corporations.
The isolationist delusion has morphed as well. In 1972 George McGovern peddled an American grand strategy based on well-intended talk and retreat — except he spiced his strategic foolishness with left-liberal rhetoric. McGovernism damaged the Democratic Party. Jimmy Carter’s bumbling response to the USSR’s invasion of Afghanistan (heavens, Brezhnev lied to him!, Carter claimed) and the attack on the US embassy in Tehran by Iranian Islamist militants (plus the hostage crisis that ensued) providing two dramatic, emphatic examples of how enemies evaluate the language and posture of weakness. They evaluate, then they act– with violence. (Quick aside: to an extent I distinguish McGovernism from George McGovern –McGovern is a complex man, far more subtle than the eponymous political mindeset his campaign spawned.)
The leftist netroots that empowered Ned Lamont’s successful primiary campaign are the grandchildren of McGovernism. Lamont’s “anti-war” message is an attractive, dangerous delusion. Lamont, like Cindy Sheehan, offers retreat and appeasement as policy prescriptions for the challenge of Islamo-fascism and nuclear-armed rogue states.
Appeasement is facile and fossil –and the path to failure and defeat. Winston Churchill knew that in 1933.
Joe Lieberman’s Senate campaign isn’t over (this Dick Morris column has the numbers) – he is now an independent. His primary defeat frees him, in a sense. He has freedom, the freedom of a man alone to speak without party fetters. He also has a Churchillian moment –the opportunity to make the giant step from very good politician to great statesman. All Lieberman has to do is continue to fight the political side of the great war against Islamo-fascism and rogue tyrants with nuclear appetites.
I met Lieberman in Baghdad in July 2004. I was deeply impressed with the man’s demeanor and bright wit. Lieberman and a Senate delegation attended a reception for General Casey held in Al Faw Palace at Camp Victory. The other senators –bless’em– sagged from jet-lag, wore tennis shoes, shuffled a bit with the handshakes (understandable afflictions for anyone connecting through Baghdad). Joe Lieberman wore a suit and tie. His energy level and political acumen were at campaign strength, despite the fact he had just been soundly trounced in the presidential primaries by anti-war/pro-war/for it before against it John Kerry.
I watched Lieberman speak with a clatch of PFCs and Specialists –young servicemen and women eating cookies taken from a table along the far wall of the reception room. Lieberman’s humility impressed me. The Senator understood the uniformed nineteen year-olds were warriors in a long and difficult war. As I waited to shake the Senator’s hand, I heard Lieberman thank one decidedly tongue-tied young man for his service and his courage. Here’s the insight — Lieberman not only knows the strategic stakes, he also appreciates the heart and soul, blood, sweat, toil, tears it takes to defeat dangerous, resilient enemies and create the opportunity for a better peace. He knows we are in an era of decisive action, not an era of good intentions.
I admit I played a bit with the Senator. When I gave him my name he said he thought he recognized it. I told him I was a reservist from Texas and a novelist. I didn’t mention my newspaper column (which appears on Friday in the Washington Times– and has for years). Of course, as an officer in the Corps plans section I was “on extended leave” from the commentary world. He pressed me, I demurred. I told him perhaps he’d read a paperback. Here’s my justification: I wasn’t in Baghdad as press, I was there as a soldier, and I didn’t want to risk spoiling the moment. I liked the less-guarded Joe. Joe chatting with Austin about what Austin’s daughters thought of his active duty stint in Iraq was delightedly for real. That might change if Senator Lieberman were speaking with “the press.” I told him I voted Republican but I wished he was the Democratic presidential nominee. He replied, with a grin “I wish I was, too.” I told him I’d sleep better and feel better about America if he were. He said he appreciated that and thanked me for going back on active duty. He knew the reserves and National Guard would carry a load in this war.
So let’s get to the headline, my McCain-Lieberman ticket for 2008. I’ve been a Rudy Giuliani fan since I lived in New York. I think Rudy would make a fine president. The 9/11 Giuliani is the Giuliani I saw busting the Mob. That said, John McCain is a warrior. McCain and Lieberman both have the war on terror and tyranny right. They have both fought the political battle with steelly consistency.
One of the Bush Administration’s greatest weaknesses was (and to an extent remains) its lack of experienced warriors in key policy poisitions. The Wolfowitz crowd at the Pentagon was more than fit to fight the Beltway political battles of military modernization, the breaking of rice bowls, the political and intellectual battles, the media skirmishes – but 9/11 changed the game. Beltway clerks aren’t long-haul world warriors. That said, the Bush Administration has accomplished much in five years but for those accomplishments to blossom the next administration must follow-on with vigor and vision.
A McCain-Lieberman presidential ticket would be the closest thing a national unity government the American system can produce. It would make an international political statement of enormous significance. The McCain-Lieberman statement: “We’re fighting, we’ll continue to fight, and we will finish it.”
Those who follow this web log know I see North Korea, Iran, Syria, and the various Islamo-fascist networks fighting a brutal, bitter “rear guard” action. I’m not with Fukuyama — history is never “over.” Liberal democratic-capitalism can and does take various forms. What democracy is in India isn’t what it is in the US. But the human creativity and energy liberal democratic-capitalism empowers is overwhelming. That creativity and energy creates and recreates ”modernity” — and Islamo-fascism and Stalinist-Fascist tyranny (North Korea) are attempts to freeze and fossilize. (”Chavismo” is also a fossil –jefeism isn’t new.) The bad guys are at war with modernity, which is a reason for optimism. They are, however, clever, shrewd, and murderous –mass murderous.
McCain and Lieberman would wage the long war, and wage it with a maximum of committed American political power.
UPDATE: Yes, I was looking at Giuliani in early 2005. Like I said, I am a fan. McCain-Lieberman is the ticket for fighting our long war.
Austin; While it might indeed be Sen. McCain’s “turn” as a GOP presidential nominee and you’re right that he’s a warrior, there is a solid, unbreachable reason why his candidacy is anathema to many of us conservatives; The absolutely abhorrent and unconsitutional McCain-Feingold Stifle-Freedom-Of-Speech Campaign “reform” bill. Although Rudy has positions on a number of issues with which I totally disagree, I’m solidly for him for POTUS in 2008. Heaven only knows what mischief McCain would unleash on us if elected. I admire the man’s courage, but his judgment is exceedingly faulty. ED NOTE: Point one– the spam filter is treating all comments as spam. Regular readers know we’ve had trouble for over a month. I fiddled with the setting this morning. We hope to have a “fix” in place by the end of the month. Point two –McCain-Feingold is, in my opinion, an unconstitutional imposition on free political speech. I agree with you. I think the deep strategic issues we face internationally require McCain’s and Lieberman’s strengths. The world is filled with trade-offs. Thanks for the comment. It’s honest and no bones.
Comment by Frank Stevenson — 8/9/2006 @ 8:37 am
Do you believe that McCain/Lieberman would implement effective border security?
Comment by Bob Miller — 8/9/2006 @ 8:39 am
One nitpick. It’s “Giuliani” (from Latin “Julian”). Not “Guiliani”. G, willikers! ED NOTE: Corrected. Thanks.
Comment by David Ross — 8/9/2006 @ 9:09 am
I have disagreed with McCain and Lieberman on many things, but I really don’t see any alternative, any more, to McCain, so I expect to support him in 08. Also, I sure respect how Senator Lieberman, at great cost to himself, has stood up for supporting the war. I think this would be a great idea…but it needs more, it needs congresssional candidates who support it. For this reason, I hope Lieberman, when the time comes, crosses the aisle. As an aside, I wish I believed that North Korea, Iran, Syria, Hezbollah and Moonbat Chavez were the rear guard, rather than the advanced guard of fascism brought up to date for the globalized world. The defeat of Lieberman in Connecticut is a bad sign. The main opposition party is now in the hands of lunatics. If we can’t figure out, politically, how to wage the “Long War†as you call it, in hot blood, for long periods, then they are an advanced guard of sorts, and we are in a sorry plight indeed.
Comment by El Jefe Maximo — 8/9/2006 @ 9:10 am
I hope your mental incapacity is only a temporary thing.
Comment by bob roof — 8/9/2006 @ 9:17 am
This might have been a great suggestion up until about 11PM last night. The Kosmonauts have decided to make Lieberman’s scalp as a marker. Nothing short of a winning independent campaign which handily beats expectations will permit any Democratic member of Congress to endorse him. This doesn’t mean the ticket wouldn’t get Democratic votes, but it will fall far short of the goal of national unity.
Comment by John Fischer — 8/9/2006 @ 10:57 am
Sen. Lieberman is indeed a good man, and an able senator. I truly hope he will be in the senate again next year, because he is a rarity, a democrat with honor. He is, however, and will remain a democrat, even if he is elected as an independant. A McCain-Lieberman ticket, in my opinion, would have almost no chance of being elected, and even less chance of governing. Instead of unification, the result would be strong opposition from both sides, republicans fighting Lieberman and democrats fighting McCain. As for myself, if that’s the republican ticket, I won’t vote; if democrat, I’ll vote for anyone else on the republican ticket.
Comment by Texas Jack — 8/9/2006 @ 11:01 am
I could never vote for McCain. He’s a squish on border/immigration issues. Too bad about Lieberman though, he was about the best the Donkey Party had.
Comment by RueHaxo — 8/9/2006 @ 11:13 am
Lieberman has lost the primary as a direct result of his support for an unpopular war. Yes, that’s the way it works — follow policies the public doesn’t like, and you lose your Big Deal job. Democracy in action. McCain holds positions that most Americans will disagree with when they become aware of ‘em, in particular his open borders program to import the world’s poverty into America. He’ll never win.
Comment by Bartius — 8/9/2006 @ 11:13 am
I think the sine qua non of the First Amendment is that political discourse, engagement, encouragement, and suasion must be unfettered by the national government–Congress shall pass no law–and the 14th amendment applies that restriction to all other jurisdictions in the US. How am I supposed to stomach a ticket with McCain in it? I’d rather he stayed in Hanoi.
Comment by Tom Perkins — 8/9/2006 @ 12:06 pm
I’ve thought about this combination for a little while now. I even posted about it a little over a week ago. I agree that the Dems’ recent treatment of Joe definitely provides an opening for him to unite with another much-maligned non-partisan (i.e. McCain). I definitely disagree with each of them on a lot of issues, and they disagree with one another… but at least we’d have a ticket with some guaranteed character. What else could you look for in a President?
Comment by RFTR — 8/9/2006 @ 12:29 pm
I have thought some about a McCain-Lieberman ticket. It certainly would be a solid ticket for fighting the war on terror. The problem is with everything else. While terrorism is the #1 issues. Other things are important also. The unity ticket would be horrible on immigration for example. Besides, in 8 years, Lieberman is in prime position to become President and he is only moderate on 1 position…everything else is textbook Democrat. Will he return the favor and select a moderate republican as his running mate? The only way I could accept a Lieberman veep choice is if he was running with a solid conservative to moderate the ticket. Otherwise McCain goes from a moderate conservative to unacceptable.
Comment by David — 8/9/2006 @ 12:42 pm
So, all you have to do to get compared to Churchill these days is help expand Iranian hegemony in the Middle East?
Comment by Joey Mentum — 8/9/2006 @ 12:51 pm
If you want 60 million or so legal immigrants over the next 20 years - as well as untold millions illegal aliens - McCain is a good choice. On the other hand, he only managed to squeeze out two lies in 40 seconds, so perhaps he needs to pick up the pace or something: http://youtube.com/watch?v=H-SgYPrunPY
Comment by IllegalImmigrationIntroduction — 8/9/2006 @ 12:54 pm
McCain is OK. I like Joe Lieberman more… but I think Newt Gingrich is more qualified than McCain.
Comment by Michael Cadrecha — 8/9/2006 @ 1:19 pm
I am largely in agreement with you on this. McCain’s a leader. He doesn’t take a poll before making a decision, nor does he turn to a Sean Hannity or a Laura Ingraham to determinewhat his principles are. He makes the call, and sticks to his guns. I could vote for a McCain-Lieberman ticket over a Democrat. That said, I think a stronger ticket would be Mitt Romney and Rudy Giuliani, with Lieberman in the wings as Secretary of State. But Giuliani would also be a good leader in the war on terror as well. The Republicans have three people who would make superb presidents in the war on terror, all of whom are likely to defeat the neo-McGovernite that is likely to emerge as the Democratic nominee after 2008.
Comment by Harold C. Hutchison — 8/9/2006 @ 1:20 pm
A McCain-Lieberman ticket would, obviously, run as Republicans. But they would do so without any enthusiasm or any real support from the Republican base, since McCain is already their enemy, and Joe is quite liberal on the social issues that are so important to them. This ticket would have to run against a united, and very very hungry Democratic ticket. Blow out, big time. I sense in this post, and in most comments, that vrey few here understand the extent to which the American people are in revolt against the neocon definition of national security, and their agenda for pursuing security. A strong majority now believes (and the majority will only get bigger) that the Iraq war was a mistaken strategic move in the struggle against global terrorism. Not just a mistake, but a disastrous mistake. I understand that most here dont share that view, and that the military folks have that admirable quality of not wanting to give up on their mission. But nonetheless, the American people, in their wisdom, can see the consequences of this move, and increasingly know that it was the wrong path to take. I dont forsee much hope for the political fortunes of die-hard neocons in ‘08.
Comment by Tano — 8/9/2006 @ 1:51 pm
I would never vote for McCain. Count me very unimpressed with your McCain-Lieberman ticket. I like Lieberman but don’t agree with him on much at all except for supporting the war. I would prefer a Giuliani-Romney ticket. Even the South would go for them. ED NOTE: Giuliani-Romney would be a strong ticket in many respects. Once again– the spam filter is a problem. We know it. Obviously some posts are getting through. I apologize for this but we’ve been struggling with it for a month now. Set it wrong and the site gets tons of spam.
Comment by Laura Lee Donoho — 8/9/2006 @ 2:16 pm
John McCain is a great American and a horrible Senator and Republican. Are you kidding me? He voted against the president’s tax cuts! McCain-Feingold! What can you say about that abomination against our free speech rights! The Gang of 14! Are you crazy? And Lieberman? WTF? He’s a LIBERAL for Christ’s sake. Someone is either smoking something very strong or is making a not-so-funny joke.
Comment by Thomas — 8/9/2006 @ 2:17 pm
Friday Wingnut Roundup… Wonder what the residents of Wingnutistan have to say about Holy Joe’s primary defeat? After all, they’re his biggest fans: Ann Althouse - do you think Joe will say sharp things about Democrats or maybe fall into the arms of…
Trackback by AGITPROP: Version 3.0, Featuring Blogenfreude — 8/11/2006 @ 12:47 pm
McCain-Lieberman Presidential Ticket… McCain does not have a snowball’s chance in hell of being nominated in the Republican party, but this National Unity ticket might well have a chance as an independent party. The Democratic party is about to self destruct, and a strong centrist ticket….
Trackback by Don Singleton — 8/12/2006 @ 8:56 am
[…] I’m at a loss to understand why some prominent conservative thinkers are seemingly shrugging their shoulders and jumping onto the McCain-Lieberman 2008 bandwagon. Some are of the opinion that McCain-Lieberman would make a good Republican team for the 2008 Presidential election.. […] ED NOTE: I’m late in getting back to this subject –I was on vacation and had few opportunities to get to the web log. I think I stated why any American (of whatever political stripe) would back a McCain-Lieberman ticket: McCain-Lieberman would effectively confront the biggest challenges we face, Islamo-fascist terrorism and proliferating weapons of mass destruction (and of course both challenges overlap and inter-weave). If you don’t believe these are America’s biggest challenges (some would argue they are the world’s biggest challenges) then we have a fundamental disagreement. Are these two gents mavericks? Of course. And what do mavericks do over time? Tick off everybody, and that exacts a price. I’ve repeatedly drubbed the McCain-Feingold anti-free speech law– I think it’s unconstitutional. McCain’s “unpredictability” bothers many voters. I have a relative who deeply distrusts John McCain. I’ll paraphrase her critique: “You don’t know what he’s going to do.”  Then she amends that and acknowledges his steady social issues voting record.  She also agrees it takes discipline to be a carrier pilot –extraordinary discipline. But McCain? Nope, he won’t get her vote. Yet extraordinary discipline plus calculated unpredictability strike me as extremely useful traits in any leader, but particularly in a wartime leader. Thanks for your comment– I received a number of similar emails.
Pingback by The Wide Awake Cafe » Rudy Giuliani Gets It — 8/12/2006 @ 1:23 pm
[…] PowerlineBlog has an interesting take on this week’s Connecticut primaries. Austin Bay Blog wants to see a McCain-Liberman 2008 ticket. […]
Pingback by Alabama for McCain » Bits and Pieces — 8/12/2006 @ 5:53 pm
[…] It did not take long for the Shahanshah War’s servants to begin bowing and scraping at his feet, chanting, “McCain-Lieberman! McCain-Lieberman!” This horrifying combination receives a warm welcome here (Austin Bay), here (Sullivan again) and here (Barone). Barone makes the incredible claim that a McCain-Lieberman GOP ticket (did Joe change his registration when no one was looking?) would win–but who exactly would vote for it? We’re talking about John McCain, Russophobic apologist for Chechen terrorism, who tramples on your First Amendment rights and hasn’t met an international crisis he didn’t want to throw troops at. This is a Republican who thinks mass immigration is AOK and doesn’t much like people who bring religion into politics–who exactly are his supporters? What is his natural power base? That mass of pro-immigration, secular war supporters among GOP primary voters? The legions of ”centrist” Democrats who desperately want to have another Republican President? Pair him with old Joe, who has never met an abortion procedure he didn’t approve of and has apparently never seen a war in the last 20 years he didn’t like. The “new center” comes off sounding a lot like the party of politicians’ egomania and death.  […]
Pingback by Eunomia · The Unholy Alliance Gains New Followers — 8/13/2006 @ 1:57 pm
not a bad idea
Comment by Gerald Cohen — 6/10/2007 @ 10:02 am