Do you think that Lowell Weicker could defeat Lieberman in a primary?

in CT? Lieberman defeated Weiker in 1980, but Weicker came back to serve as Governor of CT as an Independent. Kos was saying that if Move-ON financed an opponent of Leiberman's they should go after Weicker to run.

What do you think? Weicker is 74 years young, but I don't think that is too old. Look at Byrd.

I can't stand the Dino anymore, but since I can't vote it doesn't much matter. With an approval rating at 69% I would think it to be highly unlikely he could lose in the primary.

And how would he run against a repub in the primary?

if a well financed and respectable primary opponent turned up--and Weicker would be that--the progressive wing of the party would turn out lock, stock and barrel to vote against Lieberman. The question is with turnout usually not high during a primary--would Lieberman have such an easy time of it? I think Lieberman would have a harder time winning the primary than the general election.

and then he became an Independent--and was an Independent Governor. I believe he has supported that last few Democratic candidates for President as well. So who knows?

He was a republican. That's enough for me. If he isn't proud enough to wear a D on his name then fuck him. I mean, do we not have those with the "D" that are good enough?

Sorry, that's just my take.

nothing like the current crop

He was concidered a RINO back when Leiberman defeated him. If he ran it would either be a part of his ACP or Rep.

But realistically I think there a two chances of unseating Lieberman, Slim and None.

How about we go Lock, Stock & Barrel against real candidates that need to be removed like Rick Santorum or any of those first 4 PA-House campaigns listed below where we have a chance of picking up a seat for a house.

I don't mind if Move-on makes a donation to Lieberman's opponent. But if they decide to finance this guy's campaign then I can assure you they will never get another dollar of my money. ADA which rates democratic candidates gave Lieberman a fucking 75% so um, how does that make him a more important race than getting rid of REPUBLICANS!!!!

I donate my money to Move-On to help field candidates that can remove republicans NOT moderate democrats. When Americans for Democratic Action have Lieberman down for a 75% rating, I find it challenging for an organization like Move-on to waste more than one-time donation to unseat a democrat and possibly leave the seat open for a republican. You do know that the governor also has a high approval rating which means we take away a very popular senator in Connecticut we leave that seat vulunable for a republican takeover.

Now don't mind me if I get a little bit pissy here but damnit, we have democrats left and right getting behind Murtha and the others calling for a pull-out. Hell we have Joe Biden & Hillary Clinton even talking about it

SO TELL ME WHAT DEMOCRATIC DUMBASS WANTS TO SCREW UP OUR CHANCE OF GETTING OUR TROOPS OUT OF IRAQ BECAUSE REPLACING EVEN MODERATE DEMOCRATS WITH REPUBLICANS WILL HELP DO THAT

See, it's called "Majority" when there is more of us than more of them then the people who we appoint as leaders (which btw Lieberman isn't) get to decide what legislation comes to the floor and gets debated. And Harry Reid has proven himself an effective minority leader so I suspect he'll get this on the floor (same with Nancy Pelosi if she's speaker of the house).

So folks, do yourself a favor. Send a small contribution to the guy running in Connecticut and if you live in the state vote for him. Obviously Lieberman is very popular there probably because most of Connecticut voters aren't astute members of the online progressive community (which explains how Kerry got nominated over Dean). But damnit, you want to go hogwild about an election how about finding one where we could pick off a real live republican and replace them with a democrat.

Thank you end rant

You want to help get democrats elected please visit any of the links in my sig-line of 5 great candidates; 4 of which could win new seats for democrats!

Is it because you love incumbents or is it because you like the one democrat who goes on FOX news and reinforces the notion that Democrats are not united against this war?

Liberman needs to get on message or he needs to get the hell out of D.C. It's that simple.

They want to give a few thousand dollars - fine. But how about helping out with the primaries in Pennsylvania where we have 2 very qualified but one a bit more liberal vieing for the chance to run against Rick Santorum.

Or are you telling me you like Rick Santorum more than Joe Lieberman?

What I'm worried about is that there are great candidate who have a chance to WIN and defeat a republican. I know about these races I've listed in my sigline but I also know there are many many more across the country that could use the help too!

Just becasue you fight against Joementum doesn't mean you aren't supporting Casey. Anyway Casey is about 20 points ahead in the polls if you hadn't noticed.

I'm sorry but the Democratic party will get better when we drum people like Joe out of our party and this notion that doing so will hurt our party is complete bunk.

and at least it's a choice of who is going after Santorum.

Second: we have two retiring democratic senators who open seats are in vulnerable position.

Third: You've heard of something called the House of Represenative

Geez, please do me a favor - go spend all your time money and effort getting Joe Lieberman out - a man who 69% of Connecticut APPROVAL RATING.

You think just because we all hate Joe Lieberman that somehow that all makes it right. If the online community was such a powerful force to be reckoned with then hows come John Kerry won the nomination? I was there - I read all the polls, and blogs and progressive websites and I was on that Dean bandwagon too. Then SLAM my face was slapped with the John Kerry wins in all the major primaries and ultimately the nomination. Where was I wrong - what happened. Did the internet progressive community suddenly just not vote? Or maybe, just maybe the problem is we're only a small portion of the overall democratic party.

But we are making a difference and I truly believe that's how Dean got the nomination. But when 80 republican house seats have no democratic opponents I find all this whining about "Oh we need to get rid of Joe Lieberman" a bunch of bullshit.

We need a majority. Harry Reid & Nancy Pelosi want deadlines for the war in Iraq. You want to waste your time creating another weakness in 2006 by getting rid of someone who has the 8th highest approval rating of all senators or do you want to pick off some of those other senators and representatives that have real vulnerablity while protecting some of our weaker seats.

Getting rid of one bad democrat will not give us a Democratic Majority. But obviously from your post its something you just don't care about which to me equates you don't care about the troops coming home from Iraq. Because it will never happen with REpublican Majority

If the online community was such a powerful force to be reckoned with then hows come John Kerry won the nomination?

1. DLC
2. The CLINTONS
3. Corporate Media

Go ahead and call me a conspiracy theorist. THEY HAPPEN, read a history book.

Liberman needs to go and we're going to make him go. Watch us.

When I heard that MoveOn was going to help remove Lieberman, I thought the exact same thing. I was even going to post it, but I didn't want something like a boycott of MoveOn to be my first post. Moderate democrats really get bashed around here don't they.

We should have tried to get a more progessive Democrat with huge name recognition to carpetbag into CT to challenege him.

If we had the sort of sophistication that the Republican have we would have done that by now.

We have to realize that there are enemies in our party. You don't have to have a 100% voting record but when you serve as Roger Ailes' democratic butt boy but deserve to get fucked out of your seat by the base.

It seems that 69% number has been around for a way long time.

Personally, I think the figure is bullshit for other reasons, too- but it's now being taken as some sort of truism on DU, just because people keep citing it.

thought of, months ago, at least, or whenever the ideat of oppposing that crete in a primary was first suggested

pretty stand up guy, especially for a pug

especially

that Lieberman is quite liberal on? Seems like a vital question to ask before one goes down this path.

In fact, what is his stance on Iraq? Anyone bothered to ask or investigate?

He's too old and I don't trust him...some of them change when they get to DC...I mean LOOK at Zell Miller...Miller was actually quite Progressive as Governor of Georgia...then look how he turned like a worm when he got to DC.

I've read about Blumenthal, and I would trust him

say he's the last of the old-time eastern Repukes--very liberal.

When Holy Joe ran against Lowell, I know REPUKES who voted for Joe because he was more to their conservative leanings!

Now...what is his stance on Iraq?

Seems to be the most important question to ask, right?

If I can find a link or something, I'll post it.

Here's Attorney-General Blumenthal's biography:

http://www.naag.org/ag/ag_bios.php?id=9

Weicker is TOO old, we need someone younger and thus making it easier for them to KEEP that seat for a longer time.

from what I've read. But yes, he would make an interesting primary opponent, but I'm not sure he would take on Lieberman--I think a maverick like Weicker would be more likely to.

Blumenthal wouldn't run against Rowland, who was very popular and polls show that even though he has very high favorable ratings in the state, he'd be creamed in a contest against the current governor, who is the most popular politician in the state. And he's never going to take on Lieberman simply out of a sense of party loyalty. (Lieberman was Atty Gen before Blumenthal).

onenote

One thing to consider is that the base votes in the primary...and the base hates Holy Joe. It's not simply an "Eh, we can do better" feeling the base has for LIE-berman, they HATE him. If he has any kind of primary challenge, he's toast!

First, Connecticut has closed primaries, so independent voters can't vote (unless they switch registration). Democratic party registration declined from 685,000 in 1999 to 630,000 in 2004, even as overall registration was climing to over 2.1 million. I'm not sure of the repub registration today (it was 465,000 in 1999) but its probably higher now. And independents are the largest bloc in the state, undoubtedly more than 900,000. Weicker is unelectable in a Dem primary. The statewide party is undoubtedly very beholden to Lieberman who has been the state's senior Dem for years. You claim that the "base" is dissatisfied with Lieberman,but I'd be curious to see evidence of that in Connecticut (as opposed to here on DU). The power of incumbency is not easily overcome and Lieberman clocks in with approval ratings in the high 60 percent range.

But, let's assume you're right and Lieberman could be knocked off. Let's even assume its Weicker -- there's no guarantee that a repub doesn't end up capturing the seat. Remember, the most popular politician in the state by far is the repub governor and 3 of 5 of the state's members of Congress are repubs.

So you knock out a sure Democratic seat and open up the substantial possibiity of a republican capturing the seat, which means not only have you spent money to unseat Lieberman, but also money to keep the seat Democratic --- all money that could be directed to support the efforts of Democrats trying to capture repub seats from incumbents like DeWine or Santorum or vacant repub seats (like Cunningham's).

Not a smart move at all.

onenote

on edit: Why wouldn't Weicker just run as a republican?

And get yur minds around the fact that Joe Lieberman will be reelected...easily, and will be in the Senate for many years to come. I don't like alot of what he does, but on most issues (environment, women's rights etc), he is reliable. Most of all he is a reliable vote for Harry Reid as Majority leader.

Instead of wasting time and money trying to knock off Lieberman, MoveOn should be spending their money where it could really make a difference (I say this as a contributor to MoveOn)

I thought at one time she was being pushed to run.

Just an anecdote on Lieberman here - my 81 year old Mom is a long time Dem and CT resident, and she can't stand him. His appeal in CT (and I lived there for many years) is 5 miles wide and 1/2" deep - I don't give a rat's ass what the approval ratings show.

The problem is that Joe is very heavily monied with "traditional" Dem dollars.

THAT is why he will be hard to beat, but if MoveOn wants to give it a shot I am betting you will be surprised at how many CT Dems will come out in support of his opponent.

Even if we give Lieberman a scare it sends a message to other people who would like to get on the GOP gravy train by being the Democrat to get the GOP talking points into the media.

In politics winning isn't always everything. Look at what Dean has done to the Democratic party with his primary run. In my oppinion he's breathed new life into the party. He's the biggest person in our party that gives me hope, that's for sure. If he hadn't run I probably woudlnt know his name.

because we have no way of stopping this war.

Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi have both come out against the war and demanding a timeline for pulling our troops out of Iraq. But they can't do it because Frist & Hassert won't bother with debating/voting the issue.

Winning is everything because I don't want anyone else to come home in a body bag.

And thats what I was refering to.

While Joe's a pain...he's the least of the Democrats problems. His enabling of this invasion and regime have all but ruined his national political ambitions, and his impact on events...other than playing media annointed "conscious of the Senate" is minimal. There's a lot more important races to spend efforts, money and resources next year.

I would hope the Democratic party is still large enough for many different voices. A monolithic party is what we're fighting, no??? Many here love to jump on any quote or even body language from a Repugnican who dares to take on their leaders...and double and triple that if some Freeper or other moran takes a shot at that person. Popcorn all over. Do we need to provide this kind of entertainment to those scumbags? I'm kinda getting used to seeing them constantly on the defensive. I'd like to keep it that way.

If and when a time comes that there's a Democratic majority...and a strong one, then we can play whose a "true" Democrat and who isn't. Lieberman, while he's a neo-con and I don't condone or endorse anyone who supported this invasion...his vote is on the right side of many important issues...choice, health care, education. Let's clean up messes first, before creating new ones. Ignore Joe...most of us do anyway.