Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity
About Chris Cillizza  |  On Twitter: The Fix and The Hyper Fix  |  On Facebook  |  On YouTube  |  RSS Feeds RSS Feed

Connecticut: Awakening of the Sleeping Bear?

Former Connecticut Sen. Lowell Weicker is entertaining the possibility of a rematch against Sen. Joe Lieberman (D) in 2006 if no other credible, anti-war candidate steps forward, he said Monday.

"I disagree 100 percent with the position he has taken on this war," Weicker told reporters following a speech to the Hartford Rotary Club. "It mirrors that of the president and obviously I disagree with the president."

Weicker said he would run as an independent, not as a Republican. He served as governor of the Constitution State from 1990 to 1994 as an independent but did not seek re-election. (As the Cook Political Report's Jennifer Duffy points out, Weicker left office in 1994 amid sagging poll numbers.  A September 1993 Hartford Courant poll showed 33 percent rating his job performance as good with 55 percent giving him a fair or poor score.)

A Weicker candidacy would pit two titans of Connecticut politics against one another 18 years after they first squared off. In 1988, Lieberman, who was then the state's attorney general, challenged Weicker, a liberal Republican who had held the seat since 1970.

Lieberman's  50 percent to 49 percent upset victory was credited to a commercial in which he portrayed Weicker as a sleeping bear -- subtly poking fun at Weicker's size and his record of missed votes in the Senate. (For all you need to know about Lieberman, read this New Yorker profile from 2002.)

Before Lieberman bashers get too ginned up about the prospect of a Weicker return, be sure to note his age, 74, and his statement that he has "a very settled life" and he is not "anxious to jump back into the arena of politics."

By Chris Cillizza  |  December 6, 2005; 1:40 PM ET
Categories:  Senate  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: CA-50: Is Francine Busby the Next Paul Hackett?
Next: Hillary Hires a New Flack


Is CV for Communist valedictorian, Clinton vicariouly, or cheap ventrilliquist (one who speaks out of both sides of his mounth). I guess the world as you would like it was shattered when Sore-Loserman lost in 2000. Humor me with your tainted view of the world and how things would be different under a President Algore. Where would we be today after the events of 9/11. The talliban still executing woman in soccer stadiums. Saddan till popping live peole in meat gringers who oppose him. Kadify still thinking he's a modern day Hannibal Barca. At some point in your misguided life you too may have to stand up for something you value. You too might understand the need to sacriface, so that others may be the beneficary of your loss. You spew hatred for so many people, yet you end each diatrib with a Pax Americana.There is medication for bi polar disorder. Please take your meds before going to Miami.

Posted by: Battlin Miner | December 8, 2005 11:53 PM | Report abuse

GOP4life > Your remarks above would be nice
if true, but most Republicans want to force
their views & ideas onto everybody else!

I rarely hear a GOP member say that Democrats have any rights, since we get called traitors all the time by W lovers!

Bush is dividing this nation into camps, so hopefully he will resign or be impeached
>>> we can hope anyways!

CV > Please get rid of Joe in CT in 2006!

Posted by: Jay Randal | December 8, 2005 8:17 PM | Report abuse

My greatest contention in all this comes from your first sentence. "Your team." I'm not on a team, that is, except for America's. "Teams" as you seem to imagine them are a recipe for disaster. When you loose the ability to see every side of a given issue, you loose your ability to adapt. Adapation is the only way we can hope to survive, let alone prosper, in the constantly changing world we live in. If you can't see that we are all in this together and all working towards the same general goals then I see you as part of the problem.

Posted by: GOP4life | December 8, 2005 4:37 PM | Report abuse

My appologies to the nicer parts of New Jersey, you know who you are!

Posted by: CV | December 8, 2005 11:22 AM | Report abuse

Listen Up GOPLifer, When your team no longer deserves being called thugs then I will stop. The center of your party is involved in hideous, immoral and massive crimes against humanity including Americans. They are putting US in danger and debt. Until your party understands that, repudiates the criminals and offers them up for justice, you are part of that criminal conspiracy. I feel no obligation to be polite to my rapist. If censorship didn't hang over every key I stroke, my language would be far more colorful and effective in conveying my point. (I cherish and defend the first ammendment for obvious reasons)
As far as Lieberman goes, the Democratic party does not need him, hell, the human race does not need him and here in CT, we will do our level best to defeat him at the primary. Lieberman, Clinton, Kerry, they represent the corrupting influence of corporate greeeed on the Party, they are more suited to the GOP, you can have 'em.
Your fabled John McCain has blood on his hands, too. It's taken him how long to react to Camp Xray? and how many suplimental funding (blind cash givaways of $80billion+ with no accountability) bills has he supported? and didn't he campaign for the same b@$t&rds that had slimed him as a (horrors!) race mixer? His loyal cover has enabled the torture to go and grow unchecked. Look closely at McCain, he's an extremist but hypocritical disguised as a reasonable man. If he had any balls at all he would have taken a team to Gitmo and personally torn it down.(it would have gotten him elected)
BTW that link is active in my browser but the article is a load of crap. No facts, just talking points and some of them are pathetic:
"One might think that this means the product goes to only the rich, but this is false. The rich person who wants to use it in his Rolls might well be outbid by the poor person who values it more in his Honda Civic. What matters is willingness to pay,"
No, what matters is ABILITY to pay. Many of the people that were stranded in NOLA were people that could not afford cars. The people that could afford to leave, did so. This kind of "let them eat cake" attitude is at the heart of what's wrong with Cons.
"..there is someone we should be angry with: various governments that make it difficult or impossible for companies to build more refineries in the United States..."
That's it, demonize the Environmentalists. Isn't one New Jersey enough? No idea of alternative energy, no concept of social justice, just stay the course, walk the plank. What would you expect from the Hudson Institute? Read Krugman and you will get a much better understanding of how economics really work.
I'll third the motion for the preview

Posted by: CV | December 8, 2005 11:16 AM | Report abuse

Lieberman is not needed in the Democratic Party > he is a GOP mole! As for Sen. John
McCain > he is a nut who now loves Bush too!

Only reason Joe is admired by Republicans
is because he is one of them!

Keep the pressure on Lieberman to retire!

Posted by: Jay Randal | December 8, 2005 9:44 AM | Report abuse

I do not think I would be exaggerating to say that I am overwhelmed by the response to my posts. It seems I've hit a nerve somewhere. Please believe me when I say I'm not trying to incite unrest in any of you.
I think the first thing I should address is Steve Rogers' comment about "Do as I say, not as I do." I hope you don't actually believe that is my message. I just want people to do something, anything. In the environment that I live in, 98% of people are either completely ignorant in regards to politics, or so set in their ways, they have become blind to anything other perspectives. I personally find both unacceptable. I hope you do as well.
Secondly, what's in a name? GOP4life is just a handle I use for the blogs I write. It started as a gamer tag I used, and it carried over. That's all. I am a registered Republican, but I would have voted for Barrack Obama over Alan Keyes if I had been registered in that district.
CV and Steve, you both wrote more than I have time or energy to respond to. However, one thing I feel compelled to touch on is your (CV) idea of enacting windfall profit taxes on corperations. Please take the time to read this article:
I apologize for the link not being active, but a copy and paste action should take you to the correct site. I think it has some very interesting and compelling arguements on that topic.
CV, you have an impressive set of ideas. However, I would appreciate it if you would leave out the snide remarks (GOPigs, Big Dick Cheney, The Thugs). We are all mature enough, I hope, to get our opinions across without those. Also, it would add a significant amount of credibility to your posts.
I suppose my final thought to the issue at hand, which have deviated quite a distance from, is that Lieberman is a necessary part of the Democratic party. I think it would be safe to say the GOP has the same character in John McCain. He steps on a lot of toes and rubs a lot of people the wrong way, but there is no doubt he is passionate about his beliefs and always acts in a way he feels is right. That's just my opinion.
Until our next meeting, be well.
P.S. I second Steve Rogers' idea for a preview function on the site.

Posted by: GOP4life | December 8, 2005 2:04 AM | Report abuse

I've been compaired to worse than Ann Coulter, though there isn't much farther down you can go.
We in the center/left have been far too polite for far too long. It makes us easy to ignore. I'd quote Big Dick Cheney here but I'd probably be censored.

Posted by: CV | December 7, 2005 11:51 PM | Report abuse

"... never have I, nor will I contend that the administration has not made mistakes."
Mistakes are one thing, premeditated criminal acts are something else.
"...However, as per usual you do absolutely nothing but criticize. Your hindsight is 20/20,"
My foresight was spot on too, Six months before the invasion, I was one of half a million people that demonstrated, trying to head off what we knew at that time would be a crime of immense proportions, I knew at the time that the stories about WMDs were lies, that there was no connection between Saddam and Al Qaeda and I wasn't alone. In January, a couple months before Shock&Awe, 15 million people turned out all over the world, including 500 000 in Washington. How did I have better intel than the POTUS? I can read.
"... but you have no vision for the future,"
I had a vision for the future, it featured energy independence, economic justice and world peace, clean elections and space exploration, the cold war was over and we had a surplus and low unemployment 'til The Cons siezed power.
"..and I imagine you also no will power (?) to act on any ideas you may have."
I have immense will power but that's irrelevant, no, when my elected representatives represent the corporations insted of US, I have only the power to control what I do.
"..Please come up with some constructive ideas to put out here."
OK. lets state this more clearly.
Repeal the tax cuts, don't start wars, police government contracts to prevent corporate looting, enact winfall profits taxes on war contractors who's balance sheets magicly skyrocket when the ex-CEO is installed in the WhiteHouse.
WTC 9/11
When highly motivated professional people, like Clarke and Tenet (before he drank the Kool-Aid) tell you that "all the lights on the board are flashing red" listen to them, read the report that specifically mentions hijacking and shows the concern to be current, beef up airline security, first thing. There are so many more things that could have been done, Hiring more Arab speakers at the Intel shops, not purging them because they are gay, listening to the translators when they warn of infiltration, Listening to the FBI field agents and following up, it goes on for pages. (as an example of the attention to detail of these clowns, four years after 911, there is still no designated common frequency for first responders to communicate across agency and department lines. Port Authority's radios couldn't talk to NYPD who couldn't hear FDNY, one of the reasons that so many brave people were lost. Same problem during Katrina)
I know the GOPigs don't believe in cooperation, but an international criminal law enforcement operation would have worked better and cost a whole lot less than what we actually did. The plots in Madrid and London were tracked back with the type of cooperation I'm talking about here, it works. Of course I'm assuming here that catching the guys that sent the 9/11 bombers was the goal, not just revenge.
There is no positive outcome here. Everyone in the misAdministration had a different reason that they wanted to invade Iraq, none of them were any of the stated reasons. Whether it was to control the massive resources or avenge the attempt on Poppy's life or do Dad one better, Eliminate an obstacle to Iran or a perceived threat to Israel or launch a Crusade that will start the End Times, none of it was any of our business.
There is no magic plan that will pull out a victory for US. It's a bungled bank robbery gone bloodily wrong, there's no happy ending for the incompetent gang.
As far as what I would do now in Iraq? Stand Down, withdraw to bases and develop a withdrawl plan that has US out of the region in three months. Hand over sovereignty, apologize and begin negotiating reparations. Tear up Bechtel, Fluor and Halliburton's contracts, in fact, sieze their assets until an outside, public audit determines how much they stole vs how much they earned.
Fully funding the upgrade of the levees, following a series of ACoE, HSA and GAO reports identifying a force 5 hurricane hitting New Orleans as one of the three most likely worst cases instead of giving that money to Paris Hilton and her set, no, it's not a new idea but it was on track until '01. Releasing the LANG would have been real easy, a great PR move and would have put those Guards back to doing what the Guard is supposed to do, protecting America. We had enough warning that they could have been airlifted back in time to direct sandbagging, evacuation and relief efforts. Maybe this doesn't count as a new idea, either, but I would have tried to find someone to run FEMA that had some emergency management experience. Half the guys on our town's volunteer fire department would have done better than FratBoy's Buddy's college roomate.
(Is it just that the Cons bench is really shallow? Are there really no better candidates for these jobs? Jerry Bremer, Harriet Myers?)
Put Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, Rove, Powell, Tenet, Franks, Meyers, Miller, Wolfowitz, Perle, Bolton, Hadley, Feith, Gonzales, Ashcroft, Abrams, Libby, Bremer, Negroponte, DeLay, Frist, Hastert and Santorum (these are the Markee names, there are forty or fifty others with complicity as well) on trial in open court before the world. To prove that our system IS based on our principles, that our system DOES work.
Re-endorse the Geneva conventions, the ABM treaty, The Kyoto accords, the Rome document endorsing the International Criminal Court.
Disband any covert detention facilities where ever they are and return Guantanamo to Cuba, preferably with this gang of war criminals as it's final detainees when we hand it over to Fidel.
It will be two generations before our allies trust us again, the way it's taken two generations for the Germans and the Japanese.
"Until then, be well"
Yeah, Right, Over one million US troops have been rotated through Iraq and Afghanistan, as many as 75 000 of them will deal with the nightmares of war for years to come, they've been exposed to Depleted Uranium weapons and carry a load of the toxic metal home. The Thugs looted the VA and refuse to do the mandated testing on the returning vets while the wave of miscarriages and birth defects starts to roll on. How can you people sleep?

Posted by: CV | December 7, 2005 11:25 PM | Report abuse

Good posts everyone > keep up the pressure
on Lieberman to leave the Democratic Party!

The GOP loves him and they can have him!

Posted by: Jay Randal | December 7, 2005 11:01 PM | Report abuse

Corrections: The phrase "are truly aware" should read "not truly aware" and "when you can't when on the merits" should read "when you can't win on the merits". An edit or preview function on this board would be useful, I think.

Posted by: Steve Rogers | December 7, 2005 9:59 PM | Report abuse

D'oh! That last line should read "buying what you're selling", or in the immortal words of Gene Wilder in the original "Chocolate Factory" film...

"Wait! Scratch that... reverse it."

Posted by: Steve Rogers | December 7, 2005 9:43 PM | Report abuse


It's bizzarely fascinating to read you promoting blatantly contradictory messages as "advice", as if we aren't able to scroll up and read your various messages and note the contradictions between them. Do you believe we're stupid and gullible to the point that we'll buy into this, or are you hypnotized by your own party line to the point that you are truly aware of your own doublethink?

First you say that what you term "rabid partisanship" on the part of the Democrats is counterproductive and that they should self-censor in the interest of victory, and then you criticize the party for having "no vision" and "no willpower to act" on the very ideas you say they shouldn't express or advocate. Which is it?

Of course, it's very easy to promote an agenda when you can bully and intimidate the opposition into "moderating" their message to the point that there is no alternative for the public to select. It's easy to dominate a discourse when you've cowed the other side into hiding their position in shame. It's a disgusting and dishonest tactic, but it's effective enough when you can't when on the merits of your positions.

And it's clear that the case is precisely that. "Liberal" positions are -popular- ones, but the very term liberal has been successfully demonized through a long and calculated smear campaign, and the alternatives are never on the table. Conservative positions win by default. Does anyone truly doubt that voters would jump at things like universal public scholarships, affordable housing, health insurance for all, and other such things? But they're never up for vote, because of the false perception that they are losing propositions. They're not, but cowardly politicians without the courage of their convictions refuse to buck the status quo or take any risks. And then they wonder why they lose.

Lieberman himself has angered and disgusted me as a politician for a long time. He first drew my ire when he came out in favor of censoring videogames, and combined with Tipper Gore's longstanding efforts to censor music I had a very strong sense of having to "hold my nose" to vote for the Gore-Lieberman ticket in 2000. I truly wonder how many of their potential voters stayed home that year because of their sore lack of base appeal, and if it would have made a difference. Had I not been animated by the (now proven justified) fear of the consequences of a Bush presidency, I might well have protested Gore and Lieberman by staying home as well. I find it hard to imagine many others didn't do exactly that.

"Do as I say and not as I do" seems to be your overwhelming message here. How else can one interpret your message to tone down the supposed partisanship while you apparantly support what is undoubtedly the most rabidly partisan administration in recent memory?

You'll have to forgive us for not selling what you're buying.

Posted by: Steve Rogers | December 7, 2005 9:41 PM | Report abuse

CV - Congrats, you just compared yourself to Ann Coulter. I'm sure you didn't mean to do this, and in fact were thinking, "Hey, if an awful person like Coulter can spew her hate mongering sentiments in the form of partisanship, I too can rant and rave." Herein lies the problem. You are stooping to her low level! It does no good... just like torturing terrorists is a horrible policy as it does nothing but show that we are no better than those monsters (I am not advocating that we are as bad as terrorists, but a torture policy sure makes it possible).

GOP4LIFE - Stop using talking points. While CV may just be throwing the laundry list of Republican/Administration misdeeds, there is budding policy emerging from the Democratic party. For example, Sen. Obama has outlined ideas on improving NCLB and combined two policies in his Hybrids for Healthcare plan. As for Iraq, I believe Rep. Murtha presented a solid, fairly "fresh" idea. Same goes for Sen. Feingold. Regarding Katrina, the Dems were out in front. Rep. Pelosi, among others, gave up pet projects in favor of funding for relief aid. The same can't be said for Republican stalwarts Don Young and Ted Stevens who almost cried when his beloved bridge-to-nowhere was nearly shot down in favor of funding for Katrina relief.

Posted by: mike | December 7, 2005 9:33 PM | Report abuse

Dolomite, I like the way you think. We could use some more people like you.
Dumpjoe, I can't say i agree with you, but I appreciate that you're actually doing something. More than can be said for most of your more liberal counterparts.
Crazy Politico, it truly saddens me that you believe that. The only way things are gonna change is if you decide to do something about it, and it seems that you've already resigned. I'm sorry to see that.

Posted by: GOP4life | December 7, 2005 9:32 PM | Report abuse

Dolomite, the idea of someone not being lockstep with a party does seem foriegn to a lot of folks lately.

The days of groups like the Concord Coalition are numbered by the harsh partisanship that we've decided should be our political landscape. With the bitter edge of each party calling most of the shots these days, working together to solve problems is pretty well kaput.

Posted by: Crazy Politico | December 7, 2005 9:13 PM | Report abuse

Liebermans days are numbered in the senate.
He's has now clearly choosen sides for 2006. He is clearly with the Republicans.
PLease check out
Our dumpjoe yahoo group is rapidly growing.
Every time Lieberman opens his mouth, we get flooded with new members.

Posted by: dumpjoe | December 7, 2005 8:35 PM | Report abuse

Real Liberals and Real Conservatives. Get Real. Isn't it a sign of maturity to develop an integrated view of the world and its problems. Or does this type of thinking blow your compartments?

Posted by: dolomite | December 7, 2005 8:10 PM | Report abuse

Lieberman needs to go.
He sides with the bushies on most every issue.

He is extremely pro-Israel. As are Hillary Clinton, Nancy Pelosi, and others.

Even though AIPAC got caught passing secrets to Israel, the MSM is not pursuing this important story. And before anybody says I'm anti-semetic, I am not.

The neocon thieves are in league with expansionist zionists, along with the corporados. Fuck Lieberman and others of his ilk.

Posted by: Independent1 | December 7, 2005 7:55 PM | Report abuse

CV, never have I, nor will I contend that the administration has not made mistakes. I would like to see an example of one that hasn't, but I don't thin you could give me one. However, as per usual you do absolutely nothing but criticize. Your hindsight is 20/20, as is most people's, but you have no vision for the future, and I imagine you also no will power to act on any ideas you may have. Please come up with some constructive ideas to put out here. Until then, be well.

Posted by: GOP4life | December 7, 2005 7:42 PM | Report abuse

Mike, I know that Simmons is a republican, he launders money for DeLay, unfortunately, the Ds are running a little mini-me version of Joe, Joe Courtney against him, I hold out little hope. I had little enough respect for the Reagan/Bush/Gingrich GOP, that doesn't mean I think the Dems are angels. But by comparison to DeLay/Frist/Hastert/Cunningham/etc/etc.....Few Democrats rise to this level of corruption, sheer criminality, even when they control both congress and executive.
You are offended by my tone? six words: Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh, Bile O'Really.
Partisanship, the basis of GOP party discipline, is the proximate cause of half of the stench in DC, the other half being K Street.
the Surplus,
Massive Treasury giveaways to the richest 2%, coupled with a war of choice and topped off with no-bid contracts to cronys took us from surplus to record deficits. We export Jobs and Dollars, we import everything else.
the World Trade Center,
not ignore the counterterrorist/intelligence agencies when they were warning of a clear and present danger, Actually read the PDB warning of terrorist activity including hijacking of airplanes. And maybe detail more air marshals to the system.
Restarting the Afghan civil war by rearming the Warlords that now, with our weapons and our blessing are flooding the market with cheap Heroin was an inappropriate response to a major international crime. A cooperative effort of Police forces worldwide with US Special Forces backup was at that time, uniquely possible as we had the sympathy and cooperation of nearly every goverment in the world. But it wasn't macho enough for W & Vice. They went in with guns blazing and basicly made a bunch of rubble bounce,(and made a bunch of Muslims madder) then they lost interest and when they pulled resources out of Afghanistan, Osama and most of his gang got away.
If, after Pearl Harbor, FDR had invaded Mexico...2120 American troops dead, over 15000 wounded over $200 000 000 000, that's 5 Billion dollars per month, we don't have a plan, we don't have an exit strategy and we can't secure the ten mile road from Baghdad to the Airport. If Iraq avoids a total civil war and partitioning, it is on track to end up a fundamentalist Islamic state with very strong ties to Iran. Grabbing for Iraq's oil will probably end up preventing our access to it. This was totally preventable.
New Orleans,
The Army corp of engineers levee funding has been reduced to 50%, stalling repairs and reinforcements, the Louisiana National Guard has 3500 members in Iraq and most of it's emergency equipment, same story in Mississippi and Alabama and then of course, Brownie did a heck-of-a-job. No busses, no evacuation, no relief at the mass shelters, no situational awareness at FEMA or Crawford. One of America's Crown Jewels destroyed and over 6000 dead last count I read.
all of our allies, They were with us right up through Afghanistan, but everyone, with the glaring exception of some very misinformed Americans, everyone knew that attacking Iraq was the wrong thing at the wrong time. They tried to warn us and the wingnuts mocked them, changed the name of french fries. Madrid and London have already paid the price for helping us. Now the Europeans are finding out that their airport have been used as transshipment points for disappeared people being transported to illegal interregation centers and/or third countries were those captives are tortured, some of them to death. Condi Rice defending our use of torture saying, "well the information protected you, too.." Cheney lobbying Congress to defeat the McCain ammendment, Bush, so divorced from reality that he says with a straight face, we don't do torture when we've all seen photographic evidence.
And as far as "Lieberman votes on what he feels is best for the whole," Once upon a time, Joe had a good record, he's part of the Greeeeed party now.

Posted by: CV | December 7, 2005 6:16 PM | Report abuse

Jason a real liberal has nothing to do with Joe Lieberman > he is ultra conservative and does not represent our party, so do not fall for his baloney!

Joe rarely votes with Democrats, and when he does it is for himself, NOT the party!

Posted by: Jay Randal | December 7, 2005 1:40 PM | Report abuse

GOP4life < You are a Republican, at least your screen name suggests it! WE Democrats are tired of Joe Lieberman shilling for Bush and his Iraq fiasco! Since you seem to like Joe, then please invite him into the GOP, because we do NOT like him PERIOD.

Posted by: Jay Randal | December 7, 2005 1:34 PM | Report abuse

Hi, I am a proud liberal but I respect Joe Lieberman as a Senator although I obvious disagree with him on many issues. He is basically with the Democrats on most issues with the execption of sticking with the President on the war and I wish he would criticize the President more strongly on his handling of the war and he is very weak as far as the Separation of Church and State issues. However, he isn't bad personally and must stand up for him against any "personal attacks". He is certainly no Zell Miller (at least right now!) and I don't mind people disagreeing with him on the issues--but don't attack him personally--he doesn't deserve it.

Posted by: Jason | December 7, 2005 1:27 PM | Report abuse

Jay, it is your type of fanaticism that is tearing this country apart at the seams. There is no room for your blindly partisan attitude in our nation. Lieberman votes on what he feels is best for the whole, not just his party, and that's the way everyone should be. You are clearly much more concerned with advancing the interests of the Democratic party than taking the course of action that would be best for the USA as a whole. While I admire your political zeal, I implore you to examine where the interests of the Democratic party truly lie. I doubt the answer will concur with your current opinion.

Posted by: GOP4life | December 7, 2005 12:15 PM | Report abuse

Lieberman has always been a GOP mole in the Democratic party > he is a Trojan-Horse Republican! He rarely ever votes with the Dems, and when he does it is just for show! He has betrayed our party PERIOD.

Posted by: Jay Randal | December 7, 2005 11:56 AM | Report abuse

db, What evidence do you have that Weicker would vote with Republicans? The question here isn't what the majority of voters in the US want--we're talking about a senator, not a president. The question is what a majority of voters in Connecticut want.

CP: Don't even BEGIN to compare Weicker to Mondale! That is OUTRAGEOUS. Minnesota Democrats were left with no candidate when Wellstone died ELEVEN DAYS before the election, and the shock and horror was extremely difficult to navigate without having to name a new candidate to run a one-week Senate campaign. The DFL had little choice, and no one was seeking to replace Wellstone, who was clearly on his way to winning a 3rd term. Wellstone was widely considered the most liberal member of the Senate, and Harkin, Daschle, and many others referred to him as "the conscience of the Senate". You'll never hear that about Joe Lieberman. Wellstone liked to say (before Dean plagiarized him) that he represented the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party. No such thing is true of Lieberman.

Posted by: Sandwich Repairman | December 7, 2005 11:40 AM | Report abuse

Mike, great post. CV, rants like your's and those of the current mouthpieces of the party are why guys like me have gone to voting mostly republican.

The louder you scream (CV) the more folks that will leave the Dem's.

Posted by: Crazy Politico | December 7, 2005 11:17 AM | Report abuse

Mike, I couldn't agree wiht you more. Thank you for being so very reasonable and even-minded. We need more people like you in the political scene.

Posted by: GOP4life | December 7, 2005 10:59 AM | Report abuse

CV, please tell us what should have been done in all those situations that you say were so badly botched by our administration. I have no problem with you finding fault with those who currently hold the power, but if you have no viable solution yourself, your words mean nothing.

Posted by: GOP4life | December 7, 2005 10:52 AM | Report abuse

Hey CV, Rob Simmons(2nd district) is a republican... just a shot in the dark: you're a democrat. So are you looking for a republican challenger in primary against him?

Also, I tend to agree that if a mean were taken of all political leanings, it would fall just a touch left of center... so long as information is presented as unbiased and "unspun" information.

CV, your rant is a reason why so many people have shifted to voting Republican. It is this accusatory, insult-laden dialogue that spews from the extremes that angers and frightens most people who avoid delving deep into political issues. Now, I do agree that many politicians fall into power-grab mode, which can lead to lying, cheating, etc etc. The republicans are sure as hell guilty of this, but the Dems' hands are not fully clean (especially when we look back throughout our political history). But how can you honestly denounce and outright deny the validity of millions of people's ideas? Personally, I do not agree with them(I am a registered Democrat), but I understand their origination and respect (mostly) them.

Partisan rhetoric is a baseless form of argument that only magnifies weak intellect and/or weak positions.

Posted by: mike | December 7, 2005 10:48 AM | Report abuse

Hapless Joe and the other Joe(Biden) have consistantly sold out the Dem's positions on core issues, the Corporate wing of the party (the DLC, Clinton, Kerry, Fienstien, Emmanuel...) must be amputated before the gangreen wipes out the whole party. Here in CT, we are looking for challengers at the primaries for Lieberman and Simmons, two serious misrepresentatives if ever there were any.
(Wiecker would liven up the race, but people here are not over the temporary income tax that he backed us into, the sales tax didn't decrease.)
db, I know you are a troll and I normally just ignore trolls, but you just couldn't be much more wrong on "Liberman" and liberalism. When "liberal" issues are polled individually, stripped of the Con/Lib baggage, they get overwhelming support, things like Social Security, the Environment, Equal Opportunity, Government Transparency, Not attacking other countries unprovoked, et cetera. The vast majority of the population hold "liberal" views and values.
The way that the Cons prevail is to divide by confusing people and outright lying. Clear Skys, Heathy Forrests, a Cakewalk, WMDs, Slam Dunk... and sliming anyone that dares point out the truth. (didn't work so good on Murtha, did it?) The Hapless Joes have played right in to the Con's game, they've repeatedly stabbed any sign of life in our caucus and given the Thugs the "Bipartisan" cover needed to pillage US and several other countries. They should face justice at the War Crimes Trials, too.
Just because they ran as Democrats doesn't mean they vote as Ds, so that " first, then figure out how my views can be heard again in the House..." meme don't fly. It just doesn't work. People that want Rs vote for them, when the Ds try to be Republican-Lite, they lose. When a Dem runs hard against the Rthugs, they have to fix the voting machines to keep him from winning even in a strongly Red county in OHIO!(Paul Hackett vs the disgusting Jean Schmidt)
Americans are finally tired of the lies and incompetence that surround Bush/Cheney. They've lost the Surplus, the World Trade Center, Afghanistan, Iraq and New Orleans, all of our allies and the great respect we had around the world.
We are sick of the Con Job.

Posted by: CV | December 7, 2005 10:19 AM | Report abuse

It's strange that so many people are belaboring Lieberman for being so steadfast with the Democratic party. He is constant and steady in his beliefs, and we all saw that the "flip flop" just doesn't work at the polls. Also, keep in mind that his greatest loss was in 2000, against Bush when he compromised his beliefs in order to run with Gore.
The Dem's should be glad to have a political powerhouse such as Lieberman on their side, and not attempt to tear him down when he goes slightly against the grain.

Posted by: GOP4life | December 7, 2005 9:46 AM | Report abuse

For those Democrats who are upset with Lieberman's stance on the war in Iraq. You must be more open-minded. You must remember that by not supporting the Democratic nominee, you help the Republicans continue to control the Congress. Is that what you want? Perhaps you should be more open-minded to disagreeing opinions and less like the close-minded, my way or else Republicans. Democrats: you need to keep your eye on the ball: control of Congress

Posted by: Dem Control | December 7, 2005 9:43 AM | Report abuse

What bothers me is the poster above who tries to label true centrists as "the left wing of the democratic party" and then tries labeling right wing pieces of evil like Joe Lieberman as "centrist."

This is an old trick; you portray a right winger as centrist in one party so that the slightly more extreme right winger in the other party is subconsciously viewed as reasonable by voters who don't pay attention.

The left wing of the political spectrum is composed of a few communists, many socialists, and other types of radicals. (and yes a few exist in the Democratic party)

The center left is composed of greens, progressives, and Pro-Labor First.

The center is liberal.

The center-right is made up of someone who is somewhat liberal and somewhat conservative but not willing to subvert the constitution to impose conservatism.

As someone who is mostly liberal but indeed has views that form many parts of the political spectrum, i will NEVER vote for a right winger. And when someone tries to pass off a right winger like Joe Lieberman as centrist, they're either very ignorant or a right wing nut themselves.

Posted by: big dave from queens | December 7, 2005 9:08 AM | Report abuse

Weicker is the answer in Ct. just like Mondale was in Minnesota. Old, recycled, and easy to toss away again.

Even if he beat Lieberman in a primary race, he's probably get trounced in a general election. There are usually reasons you lose elections, like he has, after holding office. Those will be made very prominent.

Someone younger, more dynamic, and with less baggage might be a better way to go.

Posted by: Crazy Politico | December 7, 2005 5:14 AM | Report abuse

db > I do not think you are a Democrat, so If you are a Republican, then please take Lieberman, because we do NOT want that fool in our party any longer!

It is highly debatable that most Americans are even remotely conservative, actually most lean liberal but tend to deny it!

JOE is GOP, so he needs to join them period.

Posted by: Jay Randal | December 7, 2005 12:43 AM | Report abuse

Weicker has balls that Leiberman will never have. He had the guts to institute a state income tax in CT that was sorely needed to bail it out of hock. He's not afraid of taking crap from either side of the aisle for things that he knows are for the good of the people as opposed to the political parties. That's why he went independant, and he would make an excellent choice to represent our state in the senate. Let Joe go kiss up to the GOP if he wants. I'll take an honest independent any day.

Posted by: Steve | December 6, 2005 11:48 PM | Report abuse

Lieberman is a disgrace to the Democratic Party.

Posted by: Manny | December 6, 2005 11:02 PM | Report abuse

I totally disagree with you on Liberman. He has integrity, national prominence, and offers a view that keeps the democratic party from becoming the party of Kennedy and the Left wing. If the Dems start going after their conservative congressman, then they will never be in power again. This strategy is running moderates out of the GOP, why not allow for some disagreement in the party. Weicker is a GOP who will vote with the GOP. In a close vote in the senate, Lieberman will stand with the Dems. Why would should the Dems get rid of Lieberman, Biden, Clinton, and Kerry. Folks, get a grip, the views of the true liberals do not represent the majority of Americans. Likewise, the NEO Cons are a minority in AMerica. The majority of AMerica identifies themselves as slightly moderate, centrist, fiscal conservative, social liberal on many issues. If True blue liberals want another chance to sit at the big table on a national stage, then they will have to find away to support and find common ground with the centrists such as Clinton, Biden (who is liberal I think) Kerry, and Liberman. Personally, I want to win first, then figure out how my views can be heard again in the House of reps where dissent and issues are not even debated. I say, set an agenda that everyone can rally around, and learn to win first. Once in power, get your views on the table and work out solutions.

IF the Left wing of the DEM party doesnt learn this lesson before 2006 when Dems have a legitimate shot, they are destined to be a minority party for decades to come.

Posted by: db | December 6, 2005 10:11 PM | Report abuse

I am a core Democrat, but I will back Weicker over Lieberman anyday! Joe is a member of the GOP, and just calls himself a Democrat! It is time for Joe to GO!!!

Posted by: Jay Randal | December 6, 2005 9:16 PM | Report abuse

Go Weicker!! 74 is hardly too old to be a senator--look how spry and aggressive Frank Lautenberg has been in his fourth term. I've been a registered Democrat my whole life, and I'm pretty partisan, but this is a rare case where I would donate to Weicker to unseat Lieberman. Lieberman's sleeping bear ad is a disgrace, and Weicker deserves some poetic justice (ditto Max Cleland).

Posted by: Sandwich Repairman | December 6, 2005 7:47 PM | Report abuse

Lieberman is nothing but an AIPAC front. He is only marginally, painfully liberal when it comes to domestic issues as long as it does not cut into Israel's funds and AIPAC money. Otherwise with foreign policy he is to the right of Bush. He is NEOCON blowhard a DINO. We need to kick him out of the party followed closely by Hillary, Biden and Kerry.

Posted by: Bob | December 6, 2005 5:12 PM | Report abuse

Lieberman is a joke. He can call himself a centrist Democrat if he wants, but he seems to have gone right of center to me. He has become the lapdog of the WH and the democratic face they use to try and put a bipartisan spin on a lot of their divisive policies. And he is all too willing to participate.

Posted by: TwoTimes_Baby | December 6, 2005 4:31 PM | Report abuse

"For all you need to know about Lieberman, read this New Yorker profile from 2002"

actually, for all you need to know about Lieberman, read his pro-war, pro-bush opinion piece:

part of that piece of garbage (with my translations added):

"People are working their way toward a functioning society [civil war] and economy [oil revenues to US/EU multinationals] in the midst of a very brutal, inhumane, sustained terrorist war [insurgent war] against the civilian population [by the civilian population] and [against] the Iraqi and American military there to protect [occupy/kill/torture] it."

Posted by: FairAndBalanced? | December 6, 2005 3:08 PM | Report abuse

I disagree. Weicker has a strong chance, because most of America is sick of Leiberman's extreme right-wing hypocrisy. He's as much a Democrat as Zell Miller, and anyone who supports the warmongering as he does is destined to be unpopular in the 06 election.

Even his tenuous status as a Democrat won't help him against someone with the morality to stand up against the cabal.

Posted by: Schmagiggy | December 6, 2005 2:43 PM | Report abuse

Weicker doesn't have a chance against Lieberman. No way.

Posted by: Political Junkie | December 6, 2005 2:28 PM | Report abuse

So does anyone know who Weicker would support for Senate Majority Leader?

Posted by: The X factor | December 6, 2005 1:55 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company