Talk Elections

I guess I'm not that surprised.

I always hated Lieberman, but I consider him even more of an asshole than I did before.

Took some looking, but I've found a link:

http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/

One of the few members of congress to stand up for what he believes in. FF may be going a bit too far, but certainly admirable.

the 33% of CT Democrats who voted for Lieberman in the general election should be sent to relocation camps.  but of course, it just strengthens my argument.  a member of the Democratic senate caucus from supposedly the 'bluest' region of the country openly support a candidate from the opposite party for president.  it redefines dark comedy.

McCain/Lieberman is perhaps the one GOP ticket I could see myself voting for.

I like that ticket. Only way it could happen (and I hope it does) is for the convention to be a deadlock between Romney, Giuliani and Huckabee and McCain comes out as the compromise candidate.

I hope the Republicans will see this as their best hope.

I supported Joe as an Indy in the Senate race, and I supported him for awhile. Sorry Joe, enough is enough. Wheres the party loyalty that nominated you for VP just 7 years ago?

I wonder if Lieberman hadn't lost the primary in 2006 whether he would've done this.

I warned you people.

Same here. On the bright side if the 2006 race was held today, Lieberman would lose to Ned Lamont.  The CT voters believed him when he said he wanted to end the war as quickly as possible. Now they know better.

Lieberman might have the biggest ego in Washington.

Joe Lieberman is a perfect argument in favor of the recall.

Typical.

i knew it! and everyone lol'd at my support for lamont >:o

I see no problem here.  The man can endorse whoever he wants.

We won the war more than two years ago when we overthrew Saddam Hussein. What we have now is an occupation.

Why exactly was this guy nominated for VP in 2000? I can only think of one good reason; to kick him out of the Senate.

Is McCain/Lieberman the strongest "Republican" ticket?

i imagine after losing the dem primary that Joe isnt exactly feeling the love for his former party. I am curious...is he still a registered Democrat?

anyway he can endorse who he wants, but I do wonder if he will lose his next election after he has clearly moved away from the very blue CT voters.

also...I wonder what Reed would do. Doesnt Joe have a committee chair? I guess they need his one vote right now to maintain their majority, but if it werent for that I would think Reed would demote him

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GVcL8KFDetU&eurl=http://mydd.com/bb

Of all the people in Washington, Lieberman sickens me the most. Well, I suppose not as much as Inhofe or Coburn. But he's pretty horrible nonetheless.

Poor Chris Dodd

I think so.

It's not just the endorsement itself, but the way in which he continues to maintain a pretense of still being a Democrat.  I hate the term "DINO" when it's misused, but in Lieberman's case, he certainly seems to be going down the route of Zell Miller.  I honestly would not be surprised to see Lieberman speaking at the 2008 Republican convention.

He pretty much attacks the Democratic party whenever he gets the chance. Say what you will about the Nelsons, Landrieu, etc: at least they don't go around talking about how radical and out-of-touch the Democratic party is.

I consider it ridiculous that people support those in the same party simply because they are in the same party.  Lieberman's endorsement is a bold move to say the least, but it's one I respect more than supporting a candidate simply because of party affiliation.

The same place it was when Connecticut Democrats spurned him for a single-issue no-name.

Congressional Democrats no longer care about anti-Semitism or national security, so what on Earth does Joe Lieberman owe them any more?  Lip service?  Fat chance.

I forgot, you have to support the indefinite occupation of Iraq to care about "national security". And yes, the party that over 75% of Jews vote for is the "Anti-Semite" party. Thanks for clearing that up, jackass.

Words cannot express how disappointed I am to hear this.

I would say that this would doom his chances for re-election...but I don't think we can even be sure of that.

Not too surprising he didn't endorse any of the Democrats, as his major issue is the war (though why not Dodd, who won't win anyway, who knows).


Lieberman is...an oddity.  Pro-war, socially conservative, but still economically liberal [as far as I know]

To be fair, he is no longer a Democrat so he really does not owe them anything. However, he did promise the people who reelected him that he wanted a Democrat in the white house, so this is a bit of a sleazy move, admittedly. Maybe the Democrats will take away his seniority  and push him over to the GOP, though I doubt they have the guts for that.

I'm not disappointed; that would imply I expected otherwise. :P

Lieberman is supporting who he sees as the best person for the job.  McCain is right about the biggest issue facing our country at this time and Lieberman recognizes that.  I don't always agree with him, but he is one of the few running that I at least respect.

Our country would be a lot better off there were more McCains and Liebermans in Washington and a lot less Pelosis and Reids.

Was the country fantastic before 2007?  Because that's basically what complete Republican control looks like.

Which is failing miserably.

But never mind that.  We're winning in Afghanistan, where the real terrorists were to begin with.

<blink>

Oh.  Wait.

Never mind....

I'm sure that the Democrats would push Lieberman over to the GOP if they didn't have a razor-thin majority in the senate. Mayhap after 2008?

The problem is, Lieberman is still extremely liberal on social and environmental issues.  Unless he "gets religion" on those -- or the GOP moderates immensely -- he's not going anywhere.

Frankly, I don't have a problem with Lieberman supporting McCain or the war in general.  My problem is with him suggesting that it's treason to criticize President Bush or that it's anti-American to say the Iraq War is a fiasco.

I was against the war from the get-go, but I respect those who felt Saddam was a threat.  However, many (most ?) of them, while they still support the IDEA of toppling Saddam, now can at least see and say how badly the war has been bungled.  

McCain started in that direction...but so far, from what I have read and heard...he's be vewwwy, vewwwy quiet when it comes to calling the President on the carpet.

Yes, but the second problem is that Lieberman doesn't seem to particularly care anything except for the war.

Was the country fantastic?  Certainly not.  Congress has spent way too much and would continue to be doing so if President Bush hadn't found the pen to veto pork that he seemed to have misplaced for the previous six years.  

But, my comment was that McCain and Lieberman are two men that understand what it means to be an elected official and put the best interest of the country above trying to score political points for their respective parties so that their party can win elections.  There are some from both sides of the aisle that go to Washington to lead and there are those from both sides of the aisle that go to play petty politics and demonize people to try and score a political point.  Pelosi and Reid have left no doubt where they fall.

Will he be banned from the Democrat convention?

Will he be kicked out of the Democrat caucus in the Senate?

yes | after 01/03/09

I could see Lieberman as a VP candidate (again). He might be very socially liberal but surprisingly he's quite well respected by the RR because of his anti-pornography work, by Northern Republicans and by the base because of his stance on Iraq. Putting him on the ticket is no more implausible than putting HW on the ticket in 1980. A McCain-Lieberman ticket might be only ticket that could win 54%+ of the vote for the GOP and end the trend of '4th and Inches' elections.

http://thepoliticaltipster.wordpress.com/2007/12/17/is-this-the-moment-that-lieberman-changed-politics/

Fixed your post.

I would respectfully disagree about the Religious Right's view of Lieberman.  They may like his support for warning labels on music, tighter restrictions on internet porn and his "Israel is always right" perspective on international policy.
(The John Hagee crowd especially loves him.)

But unless the RR is planning to shift emphasis, they'll never fully put their arms around a guy who they believe enthusiastically supports the "murder" of unborn children.

I basically agree.  Even though Lieberman agrees with most Republicans on national security issues, he disagrees with them on so many other issues that it's crazy to think that McCain, who already has enough problems with his own party, would pick Lieberman as his VP.  The only way that would happen is if they were to run on some kind of hawkish-on-foreign-policy/moderate-on-domestic-policy 3rd party ticket.

McCain is a very logical choice for Lieberman to endorse

Frankly, I can't say I blame him. The persecution hawkish Democrats have to endure, nowadays, is sickening. There is no doubt I'd be much more a hawk than Joe Lieberman is in the Senate and less socially liberal. But I'd be a Democrat on what matters most: bread and butter issues

Would I endorse McCain? Unlikely, a Republican is still a Republican. He's aided and abetted Bush's incompetence, not down the line however like most GOP sheep ::). Bush should have faced a serious primary challenge in 2004. McCain should have won the nomination in 2000. It's now 2008, however, and there are days McCain looks like he's one foot in the Senate and another in the grave

A McCain-Lieberman ticket has appeal. Indeed, it's not plausible given what's on offer that McCain would be my favoured Republican. Didn't McCain oppose Bush's tax cuts? That's one thing to his credit. Many Republicans take the 'Queen of Mean' attitude that only the little people should pay taxes

Were it to win and McCain, God forbid, pass away, I could happily see Lieberman as President. He's not economically putrid and very much a Democrat :) on this score, which is the main thing assuming a President Lieberman wouldn't sell-out there. That said, he never sold out his hawkish convictions when challenged and defeated by Ned Lamont in the 2006 Connecticut Democratic prmary. He's a man of integrity

I don't see your more economically psychotic Republicans reacting too favorably to Lieberman on a GOP McCain ticket. I highly doubt McCain will win the GOP nomination in any case, but there's nowt stopping them running a third party ticket. America could do a lot worse, a lot worse

Dave

You forget that the GOP just need to keep their base on board rather than to have them bouncing of the walls. Most of the RR is in the South which will be pretty solid and so can be mollified by a pro-life candidate at the top of the ticket. The real deal will be keeping the 'Bush Democrats' on board and adding some more centrist Democrats and Independants to the coalition - which is where Lieberman comes in useful. If there is one thing the GOP cannot do it is simply rely on the base - they'll get slaughtered.

Essentially, it's ok for a McCain-Lieberman ticket to trade 500,000 votes in the Deep South for 500,000 in Penslyvania, Michigan and Ohio - but it's not ok for them to trade 1 million votes in Virginia and the Midwest for 500,000 in New York (which would be the consequences of a Giuliani or Romney ticket).

You should also remember that one of McCain's main arguments is going to be that he can actually accomplish some moderate domestic reforms, as opposed to the Dems who have wasted the last eighteen months by focusing completely on Iraq. In essence he's going to say to indys that 'McCain with Kevin Hasset will be better than Hillary with Harry Reid' - a modern equivalent of the 'I'd rather have Ted Kennedy with a pea shooter than Carter with nukes' EFK used to try to sway Conservative Democrats in 1980.

I'm not sure I agree with those who say this was a logical development. Other than the fact that both tend to be mavericks, they don't seem to me to have that much in common. Seems to me as if they have significant differences on a lot of issues, even the war. McCain's argument is that, since we created the mess over there, we have to stick around and fix it (which makes some sense, but I disagree with the methods he advocates); Lieberman seems to me to have swallowed the administration line completely and stuck to it.

Why doesn't Lieberman just pull a Jeffords and give Senate control to the Republicans?

Because the alternative is much more fun.

Perfectly said.

Of course I predicted this months before he was reelected, but who listens to me?

Why should he? He's only really with the Republicans on defense and national security

Dave

I wouldn't mind if Lieberman did that, but, from his perspective, his term in the senate will most likely out-last major U.S. military involvement in Iraq.

Both McCain and Lieberman are against drilling in ANWR.  So they have some environmental common ground.  But I think it's highly unlikely Lieberman would be warmly received into the GOP fold without some sort of "give" on social issues like abortion, gay rights and general civil rights.  People compare Lieberman to Zell Miller, and in terms of hawkishness and seeking media attention, it's apt.  But beyond that, no dice.

Of course, all that could change.  The GOP could start listening to people like Chistine Whitman, and move away from Theo-Neo to Paleoconservatism.  Or even...   <gasp> ...moderation.

If McCain were to get the nomination, I believe his running mate will be former PA Gov. Tom Ridge.

Pawlenty

Does anybody know Lieberman's last approval rating?

That would be a smart move.  Ridge is socially moderate, has executive experience and was relatively popular in Pennsylvania (I believe -- Correct me if I am wrong.)

That Ridge is another war hero, like McCain, might strike some as overkill.  But in the long run, it's an asset.

Oh, one other possible benefit.  Ridge is seen by some as yet another moderate cast out of the current administration.  (I know, I know -- he wanted to spend more time with his family...)  But Christine Whitman, Andy Card and Colin Powell all vacated.  Ridge, another social liberal, did also.
Coincidence?  Maybe. 

But coincidence or not, Independent voters and moderate Republicans who might be inclined to vote Democrat in 2008 could see the inclusion of a moderate castoff from The Decider's administration as a plus.

Funny, I just read an article in FP that said a smart Republican would put Lieberman on the ticket.

The Ridge luster has worn off a bit for some of the peopel in this state, but I think that is largely due to Ed Rendell's efforts to rewrite history in order to blame his failures on the previous administration.

That being said, Ridge is still pretty popular he.  He would certainly help McCain in the west, though I suspect McCain would be pretty popular here as is.  Same with the Northeast.

Not too surprised. I can't see why Lieberman should feel obliged to support a party that already kicked him out? He owes the Democrats nothing and he doesn't need them. Will he even want to run for reelection after all?

And a McCain/Lieberman ticket would be awesome but is sadly quite unlikely.

Exactly! Democrats here in Connecticut are getting all sorts of pissy over this. Come on people! You guys threw him aside the second he lost the primary, and he won thanks to the Indy sand Republicans (mostly Independents).

And we can dislike whatever scumbags we want, JR.


Um, of course - that is what primaries are for - the losers go home and the winners contest the general election against the enemy party.  What are we supposed to do, build a shrine to everyone who has ever lost a Democratic primary?

()

And that's more for saying any ticket with McCain on it (a far right Republican) would be awesome, not one with Lieberman.

Dodd also even endorsed Lieberman in 2004. Nice payback traitor.

McCain/Lieberman verses Bloomberg (sp?) verses Obama (or Hillary) would be pretty good for the GOP, IMO.

Didn't Dodd endorse Lamont in 2004?

Only after he had won the primary, like every other member of the Democratic party.

What I can't see is why Lieberman still persists in calling himself an "independent Democrat" when he clearly wants nothing to do with his old party.

No, Dodd endorsed Lieberman's presidential bid in 2004, and then endorsed Lamont over Lieberman in 2006.

So of course, Lieberman should feel no guilt for stabbing Dodd in the back now, since his own back still has Dodd's knife in it.

Damn typo.


Yep. You can hardly demand personal loyalty if you've not shown it yourself.

No one "kicked him out". We have something called a democracy, where the voters decide who they want representing them. They chose another candidate over Lieberman in the 2006 election. The election was fair and square.

Joe should've accepted his loss like a man, but his ego was too big to do that.

It certainly was, but it was also not particularly important either.  Losing the support of his party was an inconvenience of course, because it made things just a little harder for him, but ultimately the party banner that anybody of his political seniority runs under shouldn't matter a great deal.  The general election results proved this, more or less.

Lieberman now owes the Democratic party absolutely nothing.  In fact, the party owes him a great deal, for permitting them to form a majority in the current Senate.

He may be able to wring some concessions out of the Republicans.

I would've respected Joe if he had just chosen to run as an independent from the beginning, but he didn't. He wanted to have it both ways. He loses the primary, and still finds a way to get on the ballot in the general. Only a true egomaniac would do that.

And it's also infuriating that Lieberman blatantly lied throughout the duration of his general election campaign.

I wouldn't say he "wanted to have it both ways" exactly, but I understand what you mean.  What he wanted was to win re-election, and although I condemn his tactics once the general campaign was under way, his method of ensuring that he kept himself on the November ballot was sensible and intelligent.  He and I probably share the same view that party primaries are merely a way for the respective bases to make themselves feel important, but don't actually need to matter once the general election rolls around.

I still find it amusing that the Democratic party rank-and-file are so hateful towards him when they owe him so much at the moment.

It's not just that; it's basically that he appears to have lied about absolutely everything during his election campaign.  He said he wanted to elect a Democrat as president in 2008.  Nope.  He shifted his rhetoric on the Iraq War closer to the Democrats.  Nope.  The people in Connecticut are, if I recall correctly, pretty strongly of the opinion that they would not re-elect him again if given the option in the present day.

Have whatever opinions you want, but for God's sake, at least be honest about what the people are going to get if you're elected.  It's his fundamental dishonesty that he has shown that I object to, not his opinions themselves.

Joe Lieberman's endorsement will really help in New Hampshire, where in 2004 he came in a "three-way tie for third place" (dead last).

Why did Zell Miller refuse to join the Republican Party?  The only way he got any media attention was by technically remaining a Democrat.

I liken it to retired Bishop John Spong in my denomination.  Bp. Spong rejects the basic teachings in the Nicene and Apostle's Creeds. But he refuses to leave the Episcopal Church, even though we pledge fealty to these beliefs daily, or weekly. Spong would fit perfectly in the Unitarian-Universalist tradition.  And UU people are fine, wonderful folks!  But why won't he leave our denomination, even though he doesn't believe the historic creeds?

Because the only way he can sell books and get interviewed is by remaining Christian, and rejecting basic Christian doctrine.  If he were Unitarian, he would just be another Unitarian.  If Zell Miller or Joe Lieberman were Republican, who would pay any attention to them?

I cannot believe no one has corrected this.  Exceptions are Sens. Tom Carper, Mary Landrieu, Ben Nelson, Mark Pryor, and Ken Salazar, as well as Reps. Ed Case, Harold Ford, and Brad Sherman.

But I guess "every other member of the Democratic party" sounds better than "every other member of the Democratic party but eight I prefer not to think about."

Lieberman has stuck to his opinions more than most politicians do. And I thought the primary was supposed to be for Democratic party members? A primary isn't the voice of the people, it's the voice of the party. If your party doesn't want to run you and you still get the support of the electorate I don't see how that flies in the face of democracy at all.