December 18, 2003


Which Democrat candidate does George W. Bush most fear? You might be surprised.

Posted by Tim Blair at December 18, 2003 12:38 PM

Not suprised at all. Bush recognises him for what he is: a genuine alternative.

Posted by: Fidens at December 18, 2003 at 12:48 PM

Given the way the Democratic Party is going, he's also the one more likely to endorse Bush for re-election before November 2004.

Posted by: John at December 18, 2003 at 12:50 PM

Two things make Leiberman dangerous to Bush. First, there is a small group of Democrats (such as Zell Miller) and independants who see that we need a strong defence. They don't like Bush, but absent Leiberman, or possibly Ghephardt, on the ticket, they will vote for him. His second streangth is that hordes of Republicans would go out to vote against a Dean, but may stay home if Bush's opponent is acceptible.

I will be voting for Bush, no matter the Democrat presidential nominee, but Lieberman would at least be an acceptable alternitave.

Posted by: Aaron at December 18, 2003 at 01:05 PM

It is highly unlikely that Joe Lieberman, after all his criticisms of Bush, will turn & endorse him.

Adventures in Topology

The Seven Bridges of Presidentsburg

Can Joe Lieberman burn all seven bridges? -
& remember, he can burn each only once!

: : : : : : : : Lieberman : : : : : : :
~~( Democrats  indeps. )~~
: : : : : : : Republicans : : : : : : :

Posted by: ForNow at December 18, 2003 at 01:16 PM

That looks more like Frogger.

Posted by: Andrea Harris at December 18, 2003 at 01:22 PM

He is the one I guessed...and the only Democrat I would be comfortable with in the white house.

It's hard for me to believe Bush would talk openly about which democrat candidate he finds most formidable.

Posted by: Kelly at December 18, 2003 at 01:42 PM

It does! (Scroll down at after clicking on Andrea’s link). If “tt” or “pre” tags worked here to get monotype font spacing, then—beauty. (And underline could’ve made the horizontal bridge with less of a pontoon look.)

Posted by: ForNow at December 18, 2003 at 01:44 PM

I would not be comfortable with Lieberman as President if he had a mostly Democrat security & defense team. Who would he have? Folks from the Clinton administration?

Posted by: ForNow at December 18, 2003 at 01:53 PM

Oops -- sorry, I didn't have the pre or tt tags enabled in comments. Since they are harmless, I'll add them.

Posted by: Andrea Harris at December 18, 2003 at 01:57 PM

May Hera, Aphrodite, & Minerva compete to shower you with blessings, Andrea.

I make it sound like my life depended on it. That was my second drawing in a whole month.

Posted by: ForNow at December 18, 2003 at 02:05 PM

There you go, all added.

Posted by: Andrea Harris at December 18, 2003 at 02:11 PM

Lieberman's the only one of the nine I'd vote for. He's reasonable on national defense, and it would politically free the Republican Congress to vote down the type of spending expansions Bush pushes (education, prescription drugs, etc.)

Posted by: Warmongering Lunatic at December 18, 2003 at 02:13 PM

After Gore stabbed Lieberman in the back by endorsing Dean, I don't think he'd want anything to do with the old Clinton/Gore team.

Hopefully Dean will be the man and we won't have to worry about it.

Posted by: Kelly at December 18, 2003 at 02:14 PM

So it wasn't Natasha Stott-Despoja? forgive the spelling Nat ;-)

Posted by: Jake D at December 18, 2003 at 02:27 PM

Clinton/Gore team? Gore’s endorsement of Dean was a cutting of ties with Clinton’s team, which opposes Dean. Lieberman would have no problem with Clinton’s team on Gore’s account. Gore effectively cut even more ties than that. Many Gore people had gone to work for other candidates & were miffed at Gore’s endorsing Dean before even a primary. Among other things, Gore officially heads the Dem party &, as such, is supposed to be more above the fray. Also Gore stomped leftward during the 2000 election & hasn’t stopped. (Yes, the Clintons themselves are way to the left in some ways, like health care socialization. Still, there are differences.)

.   Thanks again, Andrea!   .

Posted by: ForNow at December 18, 2003 at 02:46 PM

: : : : : : : : Lieberman : : : : : : :
~~( Democrats  indeps. )~~
: : : : : : : Republicans : : : : : : :

Reminds me of the little cartoon ad on U.S. TeeVee for some sort of depression medication....with the little endorphines migrating from brain cell to brain cell. Or not. I guess a good parody of the democrats.

Posted by: Wallace at December 18, 2003 at 04:11 PM

Personally I think Lieberman is too vulnerable to a 3rd party Nader type candidate to beat Bush. Read left wing US blogs, they hate Lieberman almost as much as they hate Bush. Gephardt would be a stronger candidate even if he is an economic illeterate.

Posted by: Ross at December 18, 2003 at 04:19 PM

I think that the only way the Democrats are going to avoid a "Nader" is to go far enough left that Bush will win handily. Lieberman is the only one who can go right far enough to make up for a left defection.

And electing a Jew, especially a fairly observant one, would have its own cachet in making the Islamists' eyes pop. I can see a number of Americans doing that for just that reason.

Posted by: Warmongering Lunatic at December 18, 2003 at 05:29 PM

Is it Andrew Bartlett after he's been on the piss?

Posted by: Mike Hunt at December 18, 2003 at 07:23 PM

Agreed, Mike,

Andy on the piss, with his coat pockets clanking with stolen plonk, his red face twisted in anger as he looks for a woman, (preferably a small one), to bash would be a fearsome apparition, even to the Mighty GWB!

One I'd like to see in the rifle sights.

Posted by: Pedro the Ignorant at December 18, 2003 at 08:42 PM

I think Lieberman would lose badly against any gentile candidate simply because many voters would see the election of L as proving that the US is in Israel's pocket.

Posted by: Theodopoulos Pherecydes at December 19, 2003 at 01:03 AM

I think it was Ed Koch who said: "I don't agree with Joe Lieberman's positions. I don't disagree with them either. I just don't know what they are this week."

Posted by: Dean Douthat at December 19, 2003 at 04:34 AM

I'm not surprised, and I'm glad to see that Bush isn't taking him lightly. Leiberman is the only major Democratic candidate who didn't make himself look like a fool when Saddam was captured. I wouldn't vote for him over Bush, of course, but under other circumstances he'd probably have my vote.

Posted by: Bryan C at December 19, 2003 at 07:24 AM

"Read left wing US blogs, they hate Lieberman almost as much as they hate Bush"

Well yeah, he's a relatively moderate, somewhat hawkish, pro-Israel J-E-W.

And as for "making the Islamists' eyes pop" (from Warmongering Lunatic), I'm really hoping that Condi Rice converts to Judaism before her run for Prez. Trifecta!

Posted by: Ken Summers at December 19, 2003 at 07:25 AM