From Late Edition with Wolf Blitzer
8/03/03
(snip)
BLITZER: But, you know, some of your Democratic challengers, like Howard Dean, the former governor of Vermont, totally disagree with you. I interviewed him, and he suggested that the U.S. might not be better off now in the aftermath of the war with Iraq. He totally disagrees with you...
LIEBERMAN: He does...
BLITZER: ... and he's resonating, as you well know, with a lot of Democrats out there.
LIEBERMAN: He totally disagrees with me. I totally disagree with him.
The fact is that this is the important debate, discussion going on within the Democratic Party for the heart and soul of our party. When you look back to Kennedy, to Clinton, obviously to Roosevelt and Truman, you find the great tradition of the Democratic Party being strong on security.
We're not going to meet the challenges that America faces today with someone who wonders whether the world is better off or not with Saddam Hussein gone.
And I understand the -- you know, I'm not -- I'm in this to win, but...
BLITZER: To win the presidency, not just the nomination.
LIEBERMAN: Yes, but I'm also in this to make the case for what I think America needs in leadership today, and it's leadership that is strong on security, that knows that importance of using diplomacy when that is...
BLITZER: What I hear you saying is that Howard Dean may be able to do well with Democrats, but he's not winnable, he can't win the presidency.
LIEBERMAN: Well, let me put it this way first: He's not the leader based on the record -- weak on defense, raising taxes on the middle class -- not the leader that America needs to meet the dual challenges to our security and our prosperity today, and he could well be a ticket to nowhere. He could take the Democratic Party out into the political wilderness for a long time because his positions, in my opinion, do not even reflect the majority of Democrats, let alone the majority of the American people.
And I'm going to do battle on this, because I feel very strongly about this after 30 years in public service. The Democratic Party stands for strength on security, and it stands for an economy that protects the middle class and grows it, doesn't raise taxes on it.
BLITZER: So you're suggesting he's weak on security.
LIEBERMAN: Yes. I mean, based on his record. BLITZER: Let me show you the covers of new Time magazine and Newsweek this week, and I'll put it up on the screen -- "The Dean Factor." "A feisty ex-governor from Vermont is setting the pace in the race against Bush. Does Howard Dean's renegade campaign stand a chance?"
"Newsweek's" cover: "Howard Dean: Destiny or Disaster?" You're suggesting disaster.
LIEBERMAN: Well, not destiny. That's for sure.
In other words, Howard Dean and some of the other Democratic candidates would take us back on the issues, on the positions of the party to where Democrats were for, the most part, between 1972 and 1992, where Democrats were seen as soft on defense, big taxing, big spending, fiscally irresponsible, soft on crime and a, kind of, anything-goes party...
BLITZER: So he could turn out to be -- are you suggesting...
LIEBERMAN: And Bill Clinton turned that around.
BLITZER: But, sir, Howard Dean, George McGovern: Is that the comparison you're making?
LIEBERMAN: Let's put it this way: I worry about it. And the point I'm trying to make is that Bill Clinton and a lot of us who were so-called new Democrats came into the '92 campaign with a whole new approach. There's an important role for government, but the era of big government is over. We're going to be fiscally responsible. We're going to be strong on security and we're going to be socially progressive.
That reconnected with the majority of the American people and led to eight extraordinarily productive years of security and prosperity.
Howard Dean and a lot of the other Democrats, in one way or another, would take the Democratic Party back to where we were before Bill Clinton and Al Gore won in 1992. That's not the leadership that America needs or wants today and, as I said before, it could well take the Democratic Party into the political wilderness for a long time.
(snip)
http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0308/03/le.00.htmlMeanwhile, here's Howard Dean last night on LKL:
(snip)
KING: Speaking of the others attacking you, yesterday, on Sunday, Senator Joe Lieberman, another candidate, compared you to George McGovern and described a party led by Dean as a ticket to no where. Today he spoke at the National Press Club. Here's what he had to say and we'll get your comment.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. JOE LIEBERMAN (D-CT), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: A candidate who was opposed to the war against Saddam, who has called for the repeal of all of the Bush tax cuts, which would result in an increase in taxes on the middle class, I believe will not offer the kind of leadership America needs to meet the challenges that we face today. And as I said in my prepared remarks, I believe that that kind of candidate could lead the Democratic Party into the political wilderness for a long time to come. Could be really a ticket to no where.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
KING: Your reaction?
DEAN: Well, obviously I don't agree.
I think the four candidates from Washington that voted for the war, Senator Lieberman, Senator Kerry, Senator Edwards and Representative Gephardt basically gave the president carte blanche in October to launch a preemptive strike and the evidence wasn't there.
(snip)
http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0308/04/lkl.00.htmlLieberman is a desparate man and it is beginng to show.
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(522 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
