http://lamontblog.blogspot.com/2006/02/lie...republican.html

That's what Chris Shays and others are proposing, via a bombshell article in the Hartford Courant:

It's been the subject of whispered conversations among top Republican officials for the past month. Now, U.S. Rep. Chris Shays, R-4th District, has let slip the secret: GOP officials have discussed cross-endorsing Democratic Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman this fall.

In an interview today with the editorial board of The Advocate of Stamford, Shays said he intends to vote for Lieberman and is encouraging a Republican endorsement of the three-term senator.



And he's not the only one:

The remark was not immediately reported by The Advocate, but it set off a flurry of calls among Republicans who have been gauging support for the idea among GOP candidates, including Gov. M. Jodi Rell and U.S. Reps. Rob Simmons, R-2nd District, and Nancy L. Johnson, R-5th District.

One GOP operative who was aware of the discussions said premature public disclosure of the possible cross-endorsement probably would kill the idea. That seems to be case.

By Tuesday evening, spokesmen for top Republicans publicly distanced themselves from the possibility of backing Lieberman, who faces a Democratic primary over his support of President Bush and the war in Iraq.



Regardless of whether Joe runs as a Republican, add Shays to the list of "Republicans for Lieberman" (along with Buckley, Hannity, and the rest):

"Their position on the war can't be closer," said Michael Sohn, who is Shays' campaign manager. "They both voted to go into Iraq, and they both support staying until the job is done."



Glad to see the Lamont campaign on top of this:

"We're not surprised that there are people within the Republican Party that would think about endorsing Joe. He clearly is George Bush's favorite Democrat," said Tom Swan, Lamont's campaign manager.



This is an absolute gift to the Lamont campaign if Lieberman isn't going to actually run on the GOP line.

If Joe is planning on running as a Republican, what can I say? More power to him.

But he needs to get the hell out of the Democratic party first.

Update: Some differing thoughts on this from CT bloggers: Matthew Gertz at My Left Nutmeg thinks this was a politically damaging screw-up by Shays but really "much ado about nothing" for Lieberman, while Genghis Conn at Connecticut Local Politics sees Farrell as the big loser, thinks "Ned Lamont and his backers ought to be thrilled," and sees in the dynamics at play here a chance for the GOP to eventually reclaim centrists in CT.

Lieberman is really a DINO anyway. On a pure partly line vote, he cannot be counted on, especially on the war in Iraq.

He is still more liberal than the most liberal Republican, Lincoln Chafee from next door Rhode Island.

It should be noted that this is about what Republicans are thinking of doing, not Lieberman.

There was a Replubican Senator from Vermont, moderate, opponent of the Vietnam War (can't remember his name) who was so popular that the Democrats endorsed him for reelection too. This seems a little similar.

Mind you I am only making a very limited defense of Lieberman. He is not a favorite of mine. I'm not so much concerned that he doesn't vote party line all of the time (he is still more reliable on the issues than several other Democrats) but of his noisy opposition to the general Democratic views on Iraq and his public criticism of the Party, especially as regards security issues.

This is exactly my feeling as well.

Because of this reason, we should try to replace him ASAP.

I don't go that far.

If Lamont were a viable candidate, that is, having good positions on a broad range of issues, and also had a chance of persuading enough voters in the Connecticut electorate to vote for him in November, then I would have no objection to people supporting him. If either condition were not met, I couldn't see the rationale of supporting him.

In any event, I live in Virginia, not Connecticut, so I am not in a good position to judge. Here George Allen is up for reelection, and if he could be knocked off by a Democrat only half as liberal as Lieberman I would be ecstatic.

as you said, and as I echoed, it isn't about how liberal he (or anyone else) is or isn't.

It's about whether Dems can replace someone who continualy and intentionally hurts all Democrats by his constant attacks on the party.

Zell miller was a conservative Democrat, but like JL he hurt the party with his sniping at Dems too.

John Breux was a conservative Dem, but didn't hurt the party.

If the Dems think they can find another candidate to replace JL, then I personally would like to see him go. As far as I am concerned, JL has allowed Israeli security issues affect his judgement as to what policies the US and tne Dem party should pursue.

I would welcome any GOP person to switch parties, no matter how conservative they are, just so long as they then don't use their Dem status to help tear down the party.

About the only way that Joe Lieberman can be replaced would be when he decides to retire.

A recent poll discussed here stated that Leiberman would easily win re-election if he ran as an independent and I imagine he'd have little trouble winning if he switched parties and ran as a Republican. Joe has one of the safest seats in the Senate and it appears that the people of Connecticut like him.

I should have said:

Because of this reason, we should try to replace him ASAP if it is a practical and realistic goal

I wouldn't compare Lieberman to Miller. Miller endorsed Bush and lied viciously about Kerry. I believe that Lieberman loyally endorsed Kerry once he clinched the nomination. So Lieberman could do a heck of a lot better in terms of party loyalty, but he is still better than Miller. One key thing, Lieberman votes to organize the Senate for the Democrats. So if the Democrats get a majority in November they can count on Lieberman to vote to replace all the Republican committee chairmen with Democrats.

And when we talk about "the Dems", in this case it will be the Connecticut Dems who will decide, and the key decision will be to vote for Lieberman or Lamont. Is Lamont a potential Carol Mosley Braun, who channeled liberal anger in knocking out incumbent Illinois Democratic Senator Alan Dixon in the primary and then won in November? Or is he just a goof who would perhaps carry Storrs (where the University of Connecticut is located) but few other places? I don't know either way.

That would be up to the voters residing in Connecticut. I don't think highly of Ted Kennedy but since I don't reside in Massachusetts, it's not up to me to say that he ought to be replaced.

Of course.

But that doesn't stop us from voicing our opinions, right?

Also, as we recently saw in PA, the national parties have a large say in who they will support at the state level, and thus, who stands the best chances of winning.

Yes, JL is better than miller. But I would personally hope Connecticut would replace him with someone more loyal (though it doesn't sound like that will happen).

And the reason I didn't say "kick JL out of the party" was precisely because that would reduce the number of party votes, and would make it harder to achieve a majority status. That's why I said "replace".

I'm really not trying to take this off on some strange tangent just because I happened to offer an opinion that the Dems would be better off with some other Dem than JL. I was basically agreeing with you, before you found something tiny to disagree with about me.

I'm not trying to be disagreeable, but I do think that it can be useful to note places where one disagrees, even with something where one is 95% in agreement. I think that I have disagreed with just about every frequent poster on something or other.

But it is certainly important to note agreement as well, and I agree that we are close. If I were trying to pick a fight on this, I wouldn't have brought in Carol Mosley Braun, the perfect example of successfully replacing a Democrat in the Senate, just the model of what you were advocating.

To put it another way, I agree that we largely agree.

Do you agree with that?

Sure! why not!

ha ha

James Webb seems to be a good candidate:

http://www.webbforsenate.com/

I don't agree with the idea of replacing him... it's a stupid idea. He may be more of a "Hawk" than some may like; but, like explained by Arneoker, he is more loyal than not... not to mention his loyalty on Domestic issues.

What do to: you can either keep Joe and keep CT or lose Joe and maybe lost CT.

That is why I said that I couldn't see supporting Lamont if he weren't a viable candidate in the general, and I would hope with at least a chance near as good as Lieberman's of winning. He may be a complete flop in that department, another glorious loser. But in fairness I don't know that.

*editting post*

Sometimes I definately think that I am in the wrong party. Because there are times when look at politicans like Joe Lieberman or other Republican-lite candidates like him and all I can think of is that old Glad Trash Bag commerical ....... wimpy, wimpy, wimpy.

I think Lamont is supposed to announce his candidacy today.....at least that's what I've read. Lamont is a progressive and is getting the support of the grassroots as well as those disenthralled with Lieberman.

There are a couple things I've noticed. First that Lieberman's support is waning somewhat in CT. And the second is that the Lieberman camp must be feeling the heat, if Reps are rushing in to support him. that's not to say it still wouldn't be a challenge to unseat him, but it does make it somewhat more possible.


I personally would like to see him either replaced or for him to head over to the GOP where he seems to find kindred spirits and ideological support.......

I don't think it necessarily follows that Lieberman is feeling the heat based on what some Republicans are doing. I would like to hear what Flydangler has to say on the other developments, although I don't see him as the last word simply because he actually lives in that neck of the woods.

As far as Lieberman heading over to the Republicans, I just have to ask: Do you like the fact that the Senate Environmental Committee is headed by a man, Senator Inhofe of Oklahoma, who has stated that global warming is a fraud and is "junk science?" (BTW, one thing that Lieberman has been very good on is the issue of global warming.)

I wouldn't mind seeing him replaced, by a Democrat, in the Senate.

Look Arne, You feel the way you do and I feel the way I do....Personally there are very few in the GOP that I respect....and it makes no difference to me that Joe supports Global Warming when he's sold out on so much else.

Lieberman is feeling the heat in many respects and one of them is the admonishment by citizens and representatives in CT.

I may no longer be from that "neck of the woods" but I am also from CT. Groton/New London.....even though I was born in MA.

This was something that happened alot in NYC as recently as Michael Bloomberg, Rudy and John V. Lindsay.

People go where they can win

Bloomberg is a lifetime liberal democrat who ran as a republican
Rudy was a dem in his early political life, before becoming independent, then ran as a republican
Lindsay started as a republican, ran as a liberal and then democrat

I don't know if the reason is Lamont or not. I think Joe will win in the end, but if not, he always has a home in the Bush administration's last 2 years. Heck, he could be the next vice president after Cheney quits

Shouldn't say that would be ay all surprising at the way he was going on betraying the Democrat Party. the man realizes he's beginnig to wobble on his two short legs, and couldn't build his funding without the frivolous 'generosity' of his pal, Abramoff. He's clever and cunning... he goes where the cash pool glitters. And he's getting pretty good at lying - the Rovian style. Let's wait and see if he reverses his thoughts of Global warming to suit those Big Corrupted Corporations that he might need to pass over the coffers.

What I'm trying to say is that I think that it is extremely important the Democrats take control of the Senate, if that is at all possible. I would not sacrifice that to get rid of Lieberman. And he is good on other issues besides global warming. I am not saying that he isn't a problem in other respects, I may not oppose him as much as you do, but I see significant problems with him. My position is replacing him is okay by me, as long as we are sure that it is by a Democrat. And I hope that he stays in the Democratic Party, I just don't want him to lead it.



Okay, I grant that, I have heard a little about that myself.



I didn't know (or had forgotten) that.

Well we are in agreement here....Maybe I am more passionate to replace him than you....but It needs to be a Dem that does replace him.......and I hope that it is Lamont or someone with the traction to do that...I guess the next several months will bring some polling results etc.....and we'll have a better idea if that can be accomplished. I would hope that some prominent Dems would back a more progressive candidate...but it could end up being similar to Dean's grassroots effort which as we know was quite powerful in terms of financial support and which we know any Dem would need to unseat Lieberman.

My father has a wise advice to that. When you smell an enemy, just let him go away. He might prove to be more dangerous if you let him stay.

Realistically if Lieberman gets the boot in the primary it will be at the grass roots. I think that the Democratic leadership would find it just too risky to interfere in a primary themselves in favor of someone challenging an incumbent. I would think that someone would have to be as bad as Zell Miller for them to take that step. So if any prominent Dems get involved, it would probably be limited to prominent Connecticut Dems.

Sometimes you cannot be too choosey as to who your friends are. If you consider too many people your enemy, they just might get together and overwhelm you.

You just get to those that give you greater moral strength and flock with them. Didn't they say, birds of a feather flock together. In life, one has to build up one's confidence to know where one should stand. And the more you hang around with the good, the better secured and confident you'd come to accomplish. Flip-floppers can make life, not only more confusing, but more complicating and depressing...

And Joe Lieberman, as of late, can't even define himself as to which side of the see-saw he should be standing, flip-flopping like a Cheshire cat smiling away to please both sides as he thinks fit. Sign of a weakness, my dear friend. Maybe age has taken a toll on his past confidence. And weak man has been known to be easily corrupted... Maybe, it's to guys, like him, that America will gradually be alerted as not a man for great leadership, or to be trusted. Lieberman has begun to show signs of weakness and lacking the confidence he once showed. Would love to know if the man actually does take a lot of medication. Drugs could often affect the taker's personality and take control of his mind in the long run. Watch him, he seriously doesn't look like a very healthy man.

If making a better future for my children means a more complicated, and occasionally even more depressing, (political) life, then I'm just going to have to choose that, and understand that some people I deal with are those I can trust unreservedly, will be a resource for me, and that others I deal with I will have to be a little more careful with, and whom I cannot depend upon for my own personal needs for strength. If I really have confidence, I should be able to do all of that.

And you can. The whole world has to full of good people, too... if we are not lazy enough to look for them. Right now we feel just too comfortable with having the same faces speak politics to us. And many of them have gone astray. Yep, come 2006, America should finally go for change and vote the bad leaders out. How do we know they are bad? When they have been already tainted with scandals and dirt! Why cling onto the Devil you know?

If it were up to me, I would throw 98 Senators out,(I would keep Teddy and
Obama), and all but 10 or 12 congresspeople(I would keep Conyers, Waters,and a few others).

Toss em all out.
They are just people.
There are a billion people in the world, most can replace them.

Let's start all over.

ONE term in ONE position then you are out.
Politics does not mean life time job.
ONE term, then go back to your day job and no advancement either

Things would get done if what is getting done are the issues, and not the personalities.

All 100 senators should have equal power.
All reps. should be equal

Wouldn't it be something to see?

How it would work for a president I don't know

I like the concept on the Florida Supreme court- each member takes turns being Chief Justice. Novel idea? No?

You forgot Feingold???? He's a keeper isn't he?

Graham, I think that we would be better to impose "term limits" on the K Street lobbyists. Because they are always around, ready to influence Senators and Congresspersons. And those with less experience are probably more likely to get bamboozled and influenced.

And there are some good ones in there that we ought to keep.

Much of the discussion here at CGCS seems to concern defeating Democrats who win elections and replacing them with candidates who would have a tough time winning a Democrat Party primary election.

It is not the fault of people like Lieberman, Landreau, Clinton, or Ben Nelson of Nebraska that Democrats are a minority in Congress. Heck, they won their respective races and that's about all that can be expected of them to do. Nor is it the fault of people like Kennedy, Boxer, or Feingold because they too have won their respective contests.

To get control of Congress, Republicans must be defeated and to do that, candidates who are in tune with the majority of the people in that particular state or district. It's utterly foolish, IMO, to think that a state like Louisiana which went for Bush in 2000 and 2004 would be all gung ho in voting for a bona fide liberal for Senate.

Yep... i thought the goal was to defeat Republicans...

Stupid me!

I would make him Vice President, therefore he doesn't need his Senate Job
(to Al Gore)


as for Louisiana after Katrina-it is doubtful any Democrat can win, same with the real red states, not in 2008

You gotta give them time to trust the dems again

graham4anything, I'm beginning to think that you do have a secret love-crush/struck on Al Gore. hhhmh, hhhmmh, want to tell us what is it with him that makes you tick with so much excitement for constantly bringing up his name in at least 70% of your posts?

By the way, you might want to update yourselves with what the 21 Century Democrats are doing to bring change for America and bring hope to America's younger generation and their future.

Their values:
• quality public education
• universal healthcare coverage
• fair taxes and responsible social policy
• corporate accountability
• good jobs, living wages and secure pensions
• civil and human rights
• a clean and sustainable environment
• clean elections laws

http://www.21stcenturydems.org/index.php?s...gory=About%20Us