CT Sen. Lieberman is being challenged from an old foe!

and someone that I voted for as an independent. I listened to Lowell Weiker last night on the CT am 1080 and he a former republican senator and Governor of CT is left of Lieberman on the war and on * domestic and foreign policy.... We in CT should think of drafting Weiker, a senator who as a republican helped bring down Nixon. He knows a bad egg when he sees one. Not to mention he is extremely bright.


any thoughts???

Dr. M

What a terrible choice he was as a running mate for Gore.

how "civics" work someday.

He then ran for Governor of Connecticut as an Independent in 1990 and won. He served until 1994 when the corrupt John Rowland won his open seat. If he were to defeat Lieberman, he would likely be an Independent who caucuses with the Democrats (like Jeffords and Sanders.)

He was literally run out of the GOP by Jesse Helms and his cohorts.

as opposed to the media creation of John McCain as "maverick" for very occasionlly opposing the far right's agenda.

Mr. Weiker is an Independent and yes was defeated by Mr. Lieberman. But we as progressives, which I am an elected progressive, we can not make the same mistake that the republicants have and put PARTY above all else! Mr. Weiker may not be Chris Dodd or Sen. Kennedy but he is more level headed than Mr. Lieberman. I could only hope to have an Independent to vote for in '06 instead of "good ol" Joe.

Dr. M

I want Leiberman to go down but I don't want anyone else organizing with the Republicans in the 07 senate.

I firmly believe that people like Lieberman are part of the problem and not part of the solution. Any Democrat who is not outraged is not paying attention and Leiberman is one of the worst offenders.

I won't pull the lever for him no matter who he runs against.

I'd love to have a Primary opponent to vote for against the Zell Miller of CT.

I wasn't living in CT the last time him ran. I usually just vote for the DEM no matter what. I don't feel so good about doing that anymore.

Weiker is more liberal in philosophy and practice than Lieberman is on his best days.

By the way, Joe already beat Republican Lowell Weicker once...

At least pretend to be a Democrat once in awhile, eh?

when Joe does. Just calling himself a Democrat doesn't make him one. Zell claims to be a Democrat, too.

If there's someone out there with Democratic values who wants to run against the DINO, the party should support hir. Joe needs to go.

since you look like more of a DINO than Joe ever did.

"If there's someone out there with Democratic values who wants to run against the DINO, the party should support hir."
Sez you.

Like Holy Joe? lol

" In 2004 Weicker was a supporter of former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean's presidential bid.

Weicker is the current President of the Board of Directors of Trust for America's Health, a Washington, DC-based non-profit, non-partisan health policy research organization.

Rumors are surfacing that Lowell Weicker is considering a rematch to Sen. Joe Lieberman in the 2006 election cycle. He would run as an independent."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lowell_Weicker

Former Republican, current independent.

Then have somebody explain to you why independents are no fucking help whatsoever to Democrats.

I got all day. This should be amusing.

I see no reason to have to go overr it for hours.

How are committee chairmen assigned in Congress? Ever wonder about that?

For god sakes this is a respectful message board, not a place where children come to play.

Weicker becomeing and an Indepdendent, beating Lieberman is just as good as becoming a Democrat cause he will "SUPPORT" the DEMOCRATS on our backed bills and whatever we do, he'll be just like a Dem only with a "I" by his name, not a "D"

Wish somebody would explain to some people how committee chairmanships in Congress get decided....

1. Senority on that certain committee

or

2. The Majority leader decides who is chairman of what

But thanks for playing.

The chairman of any committee comes from the party that has control of Congress....when the Democrats take control of Congress, they can pick the chairmen and control what items come to a vote, what investigations are made.

Which makes an independent utterly useless in that regard.

the senior member of the majority party becames Chairman and the minority party picks it's ranking member on Congressional committees. For decades this has been done based on senority of each member on that certain committee, although sometimes Majority leader picks the chairman..but only if the highest ranking, partisan member is unable to fill this position.

But partisanship and seniority both play a part in the selection committee chairmen.

For god sakes this is a respectful message board, not a place where children come to play.

Really, I love this place, but I don't harbor any illusions about it either.

Dems control of the Senate?

Please explain it....

He switched from a Republican to a independent and caucused with the Democrats (just as Weicker would do).

ANSWER:L The GOP lost their numerical advantage of one seat in the Senate and had to share power with the Democrats. But the Democrats didn't gain Jeffords' seat and take power alone.

Jeeze louise, do you people REALLY not get htis?

Jeffords caucused with the Democrats. Remember when Paul Wellstone died? His appointed replacement was an independent who did not caucus with either party, and the Republicans regained control of the Senate before the new Congress came in.

"Remember when Paul Wellstone died? His appointed replacement was an independent"
Which put the count back to 49-49 and Cheney became the tie breaker.....

http://www-tech.mit.edu/V122/N53/minnesota_53.53w.html

If Wellstone's replacement had chosen to caucus with the Dems, we would still have controlled the Senate.

"Without Barkley, the Senate is narrowly controlled by the Democrats. Each party has 49 votes"
And as result, the Democrats got to share committee chairmanships with the GOP, and got a say in what issues came to a vote and what was investigatied.

"As of Monday, it was unclear whether Barkley would align himself with the Democrats or Republicans -- or with neither -- in the “lame-duck” session. Without Barkley, the Senate is narrowly controlled by the Democrats. Each party has 49 votes, and Vermont Sen. James Jeffords, an independent, sides with the Democrats, giving them a one-vote majority."

And even if your claim was true, which it ain't even close to being, you got nothing but wishful thinking to make you think this asswipe Weicker isn't another Barkley.

By the way, why DID Democrats lose control of the Senate upon Wellstone's death? Because his replacement wasn't a Democrat.

Independents can caucus with a party, thus they count as whatever party they caucus with. That's a fact. Weicker was hated by Republicans in the Senate, and was defeated by a William Buckley sponsored Lieberman candidacy. Weicker left the Republican party after that and was elected Governor as an independent. He opposes Bush, why would he choose to not caucus with a party or with the Republicans? Of course he wouldn't. If you support Lieberman, that's fine, but it's not the case that electing Weicker would hurt, in any way, Democrats control of the senate.

Let him become a goddamn Democrat then.

"it's not the case that electing Weicker would hurt, in any way, Democrats control of the senate. "
Unless you actually understand how the Senate works.

Independents can caucus with a party-thus counting as the party they caucus with. Independent Jim Jeffords counts in favor of Democratic control of the Senate. Bernie Sanders is not a Democrat, yet the DNC and the DSCC are not going to be supporting a candidate against him-because he will caucus with the Dems.

In fact I believe Howard Dean and other Democrats have offically endorsed Sanders.

But I fear you're just continuing to be out of touch with reality....

"In fact I believe Howard Dean and other Democrats have offically endorsed Sanders."
So I guess Dean's "50 state" strategy is just so much horseshit, then, eh?

I think Sanders would make a great Senator. You don't agree?

the Republicans controlled the Senate. Post switch it was 51-49 and the Democrats controlled the Senate. There was no power sharing. The Dems controlled all Senate chairs. They controlled the agenda of the Senate.

And Cheney acted as tie-breaker.

Actually post-switch it was 50-49, not 51-49. And Wellstone's death cost us a Democratic seat (just as Weicker's election would) and the Democrats dropped back into a tie.

You're right about the no power sharing though. My bad.

"The Dems controlled all Senate chairs. They controlled the agenda of the Senate."
And independents don't contribute to making that happen in any way...no matter how much wishful thinking some people want to do.

And speaking of wishful thinking, we yet to see any promise that Weicker is actually going to side with the Democrats.

For that matter, I can't find any comment by Weicker anywhere on the war, pro or con...for all anyone knows here, he supports it too.

to the contrary!

It is highly amusing.

Jeffords switched. Caucused with the Dems. Dems regained control.

You can't spin it away, no matter how hard you try.

Especially since the "EVIDENCE and PROOF" so far backs what I had to say up......

That was only about 4 years ago.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Jeffords

I think the gig is up on your DLC "defense."

"Jeffords' Independent status changed the Senate composition from 50-50 (with a Republican Vice President, Dick Cheney, who would break all ties in favor of the Republicans) to 49 Republicans, 50 Democrats, and one Independent. Jeffords promised to vote for Democrat control after being promised a committee chairmanship by Democratic Leader Tom Daschle, thus handing control of the Senate to the Democrats."

So now please show us where Weicker has made a similar promise.

from hundreds of your recent posts that you're not interested in either furthering progressive policies or regaining Democratic control of the House or Senate.

Hence my statement that the gig is up.

what some kids here think is "progressive".....since they haven't got a clue?

"regaining Democratic control of the House or Senate"
Says the guy who wants to toss a Democrat out of the Senate and replace him with a non-Democrat (snicker)....

"Hence my statement that the gig is up. "
And hence my raucous and well-deserved jeering.

The gig is up, honey.

You've lost.

Still very amusing tho!

Jeffords switch caused the Democrats to regain power!

Jeffords was a big help to the Democrats when he went independent. I would gladly have a liberal independent like Weiker in the Senate over a RW Democrat like Lieberman. And Lieberman has always been to the right of Weiker. Why do you think that Jerry Falwell endorsed him when he ran against him?

Including Mr. "I can't/don't support Murtha" Saint Kerry.

I think perhaps not.

Weicker is considering running as an independent. He would organize with the Democrats. We would gain an independent progressive voice and vote in the senate and lose an asshole. But I guess that doesn't matter to you as Leiberman, for some peculiar reason, continues to pretend that he is a Democrat.

"Leiberman, for some peculiar reason, continues to pretend that he is a Democrat"
Lieberman IS a Democrat...who's got a 69% approval rating among voters in the Nutmeg state...who seem less than impressed with adolescent left wingers and their childish slurs.

"We would gain an independent progressive voice"
Let the asswipe become a Democrat then.

Why?

Boy, you picked your nickname well.....

Come on - you made the statement. Explain why. List some reasons. Here I will help you get started.

I think Lowell Weicker is an asswipe because:
1) he used to be a Republican.
2)

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Be sure and trot out anything he's had to say on Iraq.

"A Dean presidency will restore sanity to Washington and end the fiscal irresponsibility of President Bush and all-to-complacent Members of Congress from both parties who have gone along with the administration's reckless domestic policies and misguided adventures in foreign policy," said Weicker.

"I'm endorsing Governor Dean today because he, more than all the other candidates, speaks to the issues that I care about-- health care, civil rights, fiscal responsibility and most of all, a government that is truthful with the American people," said Mr. Weicker, who spoke with Dean via conference call this afternoon. "I firmly believe that Dr. Dean has his priorities straight. I have been impressed with the way that, when so many others were silent, Governor Dean spoke out against the hurtful and divisive policies of the Bush administration. He is a fighter and he works from the facts. Dean is not afraid to stand for what is right-- no matter how politically unpopular it may be," Weicker said.

http://www.blogforamerica.com/archives/000768.html

Nor have you got any promise from this asswipe that he IS going to side with Democrats.

Lowell Weicker is not a Republican, and he would caucus as a Democrat in the Senate. He has been an opponent of Bush and supported Howard Dean and John Kerry in 2004. When Lieberman beat Weicker back in 1988, Joe ran a campaign to the right, claiming Weicker was too liberal.

the part where Weicker promised to join the Democrats after he was elected....

Please show me where he said that.

Bernie Sanders is not a Democrat, but he counts as one because he caucuses with the Democrats. Just as Jim Jeffords in the Senate. Lowell Weicker would be the same.

"he counts as one because he caucuses with the Democrats"
No he doesn't. He counts as an independent. He's not a Democrat.

Do some research to learn how Congress works.

It's clear you're the one who doesn't know.

Weicker would caucus with the Democrats, thus if the Senate make-up was 49 Republicans, 49 Democrats and independents Sanders and Weicker, the Democrats would be in control of the Senate.

And let's point out that with Lieberman in the seat we don't have to worry about it.

It's common sense, if Weicker were to run he would have to promise to caucus with the Democrats, or his campaign would not go very far. Weicker is to the left of Lieberman, but Lieberman being a centrist is not really the problem. Joe goes on Fox News and all the other shows and attacks other Democrats. There is a difference between Senators like Ben Nelson of red-state Nebraska and Lieberman's solidly blue-state of Connecticut. Nelson is a moderate, and I disagree with him on some issues, but he still doesn't go on all the cable news shows and attack other Democrats. Lieberman goes on these shows and uses Bush talking points, and that is why there is a number of people who are interested in Weicker running.

"Lieberman being a centrist is not really the problem"
Sure as shit seems to be.

"Joe goes on Fox News and all the other shows and attacks other Democrats"
Does he? Let's see some examples....

Weicker supported Dean then Kerry in the general, why would he caucus with the Republicans (who helped kick him out in 1988)? If you ever see Lieberman on TV or on the radio like the other day on Imus, he does not promote a Democratic agenda, but uses talking points that sound almost exactly the same as the one's coming out of Bush's speeches.


http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2005/3/17/15322/5717

http://www.newshounds.us/2004/07/28/hannitys_favorite_democrats.php

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/3/17/152518/576

http://www.nhregister.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=13889164&BRD=1281&PAG=461&dept_id=517515&rfi=6

Im' sure he doesn't give a crap what MoveOn does..

And it's noticeable that in none of your links is there any quote in which Lieberman is attacking Democrats, despite your claim. The closest you got is the guy at Newshounds complaining about a supposed lack of praise.

"No big deal"!

I'm done with you - it's like argueing with a repuke.

LIE-berman supports bunkerboy on most issues.

He has CRITICIED other democrats and KERRY in particular DURING THE LAST ELECTION!

He has been very PROMINENT in that!

Somebody needs to learn to comprehend what they see and read.

You even contradict your own statements.

ID controls Senate chairs. So 49 Dems, 2 Ind (let's say Weicker and Sanders), 49 GOP in 2007. If the Inds caucus with the Dems they have a majority organizationally and control the Senate. If the Independents go with the GOP, they control the Senate and all the power.

This is not so hard to figure out. Where am I wrong on this???

Holy Joe was kissed on the cheeks by Bush. Holy Joe loves Bush and he loves Bush's criminal war in Iraq.

Holy Joe is a disgrace, a Yankee version of Zell Miller!

just because of the "d", maybe they will start to act more like we would wish them to.

If we automatically give them our vote, no matter how many times they slap us down, then what incentive do they have to change?

And even when the dem wins, they marginalize us and vote against our interests.

Sorry, but doing the same thing over and over again and expecting the same result is my prime definition of insanity!

I could never vote for any repuke, tho. Withholding my vote IS a valid option!

I don't think we should turn into Republicans who blindly support
incompetence and criminal behavior as long as there is a (R) after their name. The country is at stake, we should be thinking about saving it.

he's a no freaking brainer - just like his Chimp pal.

Then Weiker would get my vote.

Best thing that could happen to the Democratic Party (and its candidates througout the country) would be a public repudiation of Lieberman and the image that he constantly projects.

There's a reason that the corporate media loves to have him on as a guest or "analyst."

then again, so was Attila the Hun.

Met Weiker many times. Seems to be a good guy. And, yes! -- Very bright. If he's running as an independent, I'd support him in a heart-beat against Holy Joeses.


TC

But still when Weiker runs as a independent and promises to support the Democratic Caucus then support him cause if may be the only best way to get that DINO Joe Lieberman out of office.

Only if he runs as a Democrat or Independent.

then Weicker could run for the Senate as a Democrat. :hippie:

Lowell Weicker is great. I remember Weicker during the '70s as a Senator, an extremely rare example of a Republican who was actually better and more liberal, than the Democrat; the only time during my whole life when I was glad that Weicker won and not the Democrat. Weicker is moderately liberal on almost all issues, was for women's rights and an early supporter of legal abortion during the '70s, for progressive taxation and against heavy sales tax and payroll tax, etc., and was actively fighting to get Nixon impeached, right from the beginning of the Watergate scandal--and made enemies of many Republicans for it. Weicker was always aware of the Constitutional threat that Nixon posed, and was always honest and fair; an American first, not a Republican. I think Weicker would be great to replace Lieberman, as that person is not a Democrat anyway.

now..good for him. What do you think? Are there any signs he would love to be the next Senator from Connecticut?

I think Lowell Weicker is great, but I have two problems with his campaign. First..he's now 74, so how old will Weicker be six years from now? Second..if Connecticut doesn't have runoffs when no candidate gets a majority, Weicker and the Green party candidate would ultimately take more votes away from Lieberman than from a Republican nominee. Ultimately this would only boost the Republican candidate, especially a hardcore neocon!

Weicker won as an independent for Governor in 1990, but there were several differences in that election. There was no incumbent running for re-election, and Weicker had promised not to support a state income tax. This enabled him to take as many votes away from each party.

Now Republicans blame Weicker for supporting the state income tax as Governor, and Democrats blame Lieberman for supportering the Iraqi war resolution. I might consider voting for Weicker, but only if he ran in the Republican primary.

licking ways.

Lieberman is a war hawk but generally votes with the Democrats on domestic issues i.e pro-choice, pro environment.

Weicker is very pro-union, and I think he is for some form of universal health care. He supported Bill Bradley in 2000 and then Howard Dean in 2004.

"Meanwhile, Attorney General Joe Lieberman on the campaign trail stresses that unlike Weicker, he approved military action against Grenada and Libya, and the naval role in the Persian Gulf. And yes, he approves of a moment of silence for children in public schools. But not necessarily for prayer."

and

"Meanwhile, Senator Weicker keeps his inventory of civilized commentary well stocked. Asked his opinion of the 1988 GOP platform: "I think the platform sucks." And this vignette, ftom the Waterbury Sunday Republican: "Senator Lowell P. Weicker, who rarely receives attention unless he's calling it to himself took advantage of a trip aboard Air Force One to call Attorney General Edwin Meese a 'son of a bitch' . ."

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1282/is_n19_v40/ai_6670952

and was promptly voted out in the next election.

the dems and his lt gov running as an independent (both favored the income tax) were able to get over 60% of the vote. Repub Rowland won by a minority in a split vote.

In 1991, as governor of Connecticut, Weicker pushed through the first-ever income tax in the state after striking a budget spending cap deal with his General Assembly. But the statutory spending caps were never followed through, mainly due to the governor's projected spending policies. After passing the first state income tax, Connecticut citizens burned Weicker in effigy.

http://www.baconsrebellion.com/Issues05/03-14/Sisson2.htm

When did it really start going downhill? Pretty clearly, it was when former GOP Senator Lowell Weicker was elected governor of Connecticut in 1990. Prior to Weicker’s reign, Connecticut was one of the few last holdouts with no state income tax (or at least, earned income tax). Weicker ran for governor as an independent, on a clear campaign of opposing an income tax. Once elected, of course, he abandoned this pledge and became an income-tax crusader. He got the tax enacted; then, after massive protests, the legislature repealed it, but Weicker vetoed the repeal. Among other things, we can thank governor Weicker for the fact that Connecticut was the only state in the union to actually lose population between the censuses of 1990 and 2000.

http://www.claremont.org/weblog/002888.html

Maybe this is why Rowland won:
From NYT Archives (sorry, I can't access more than the blurb from the article):

METROPOLITAN DESK | September 8, 1994
Times Select Content

Rowland Pledges an End To the State's Income Tax
By GEORGE JUDSON

The leading Republican candidate for governor, John G. Rowland, pledged today that he would eliminate Connecticut's personal income tax over the next five years and reduce the state's business and inhe…

Lieberman ran to the right of him, with the endorsement of Jerry Falwell, when he won that seat. I would happily donate to a Weiker campaign to take it back.

Yesterdays Eisenhower is todays liberal Democrat or indepedent if you will....


Tell me where to send the money!

nominated

My philosophy is much like Garry Trudeau's. I vote for the candidate, not the party; it's just that the Republicans have never nominated anybody I could vote for. I don't honestly recall ever having voted for a Republican, but party loyalty is less important to me than getting the country back on the right track. I would rather have a Congress made up of all liberal Republicans than one made up of all conservative Democrats.

My mom's fault, she kept telling me he was one of those "good Republicans".