Huffington On Lieberman
So Huffington is on Reliable Sources saying Lieberman is selfish and that what he is doing by continuing to run after losing the nomination is "unprecedented."
First, wasn't she similarly selfish by hurting Bustamante's chances for governor a few years ago? But it's OK because she is not a Democrat (she is not a Democrat, she just hates Republicans!).
Second, no, it is not nearly unprecedented. As I noted before, Teddy Roosevelt -- the favorite Republican of many liberals -- lost the Republican nomination for president in 1912 to Taft, and then decided to run under the Progressive/Bull Moose label. If he had not done this, Taft would have won, and not Wilson.
This is not the only example, of course, just one of the most prominent. The only real difference with the TR example is that a. it was at convention, not primary (a distinction without a difference in this case), and b. it was of far more importance to the country, and to the party, both because it was the Presidency and not a Senate seat, and because Lieberman is not likely to actually help lose the seat to the other party.
You can perhaps forgive her ignorance of U.S. history, since she's not a native (but it's a good example of why you should take her broad statements with a big grain of salt). But to forget her own history is pretty funny.
First, wasn't she similarly selfish by hurting Bustamante's chances for governor a few years ago? But it's OK because she is not a Democrat (she is not a Democrat, she just hates Republicans!).
Second, no, it is not nearly unprecedented. As I noted before, Teddy Roosevelt -- the favorite Republican of many liberals -- lost the Republican nomination for president in 1912 to Taft, and then decided to run under the Progressive/Bull Moose label. If he had not done this, Taft would have won, and not Wilson.
This is not the only example, of course, just one of the most prominent. The only real difference with the TR example is that a. it was at convention, not primary (a distinction without a difference in this case), and b. it was of far more importance to the country, and to the party, both because it was the Presidency and not a Senate seat, and because Lieberman is not likely to actually help lose the seat to the other party.
You can perhaps forgive her ignorance of U.S. history, since she's not a native (but it's a good example of why you should take her broad statements with a big grain of salt). But to forget her own history is pretty funny.
"It is the common fate of the indolent to see their rights become a prey to the active. The condition upon which God hath given liberty to man is eternal vigilance; which condition if he break, servitude is at once the consequence of his crime and the punishment of his guilt."
Leave a comment