Posted on 11/24/2010 5:42:12 PM PST by Vigilanteman
Joe Lieberman essentially has two options for 2012: Retire or become a Republican.
The Connecticut senator and Democratic exile hasn't made up his mind whether to seek a fifth term, Lieberman and those close to him say. But if he does, the GOP ticket appears to offer his best shot at reelection.
"That's his only hope," said John Olsen, president of the Connecticut AFL-CIO and a former state Democratic chairman.
Even that, Olsen and others involved in Connecticut politics say, looks like a long shot. But no other avenue appears to be open to the 68-year-old Lieberman, who won a three-way contest in 2006 after losing the Democratic primary to a challenger from the left, Ned Lamont.
One reason is that the ballot line for the Connecticut for Lieberman party, the vehicle he used in 2006, is no longer available to him.
Read more at Politico.Com
(Excerpt) Read more at politico.com ...
In both cases, the liberal media claims they're “thoughtful moderates” and “centrists” who are the conscience of their party, while in reality they're lying douchebags who pretend to be torn over an issue but ALWAYS side with the left on the important stuff.
LIEberman and Kirk are extremely far-left on social issues, like supporting partial birth abortion, and supported things like cap n’ trade that many loyal card-carrying RATs wouldn't be caught dead supporting, but the liberal media continues to promote the propaganda about they're middle of the road guys who bridge the partisan divide and bring people together, blah blah blah. Both gave a speech claiming they were opposed to Obamacare, but after it became law they won't lift a finger to repeal it (I bet LIEberman is repeating the “let's make it better” line)
The Dem establishment, like Clinton, Gore, Obama, etc., get along well with Lieberman & Kirk and have no problems “working with” them. However, the grassroots fringe like DailyKos, MoveOn.org, etc., can't stand them. Their basic justification for that is constantly showing a photo of LIEberman/Kirk shaking hands with George W. Bush from eight years ago. They use this to insist the guy is a George W. Bush lackey, though if they were pressed to name a SINGLE policy where the candidate went to bat for Bush besides the Iraq War, they'd be stumped.
On a related note, pretty much the ONLY thing these guys are remotely “conservative” on is support for Israel and the WOT, and even in that case, both LIEberman and Kirk have shown a willingness to sell their souls if the “polls” tell them voters aren't happy with the GOP’s foriegn policy.
Both of these socialists have shown a sly ability to convince conservatives that they have their best interests at heart, so that the kool-aid drinkers here will line up here to electing the socialists and even waste valuable time and money to promote them at the expense of decent conservatives in close races who need our help. And of course both are good pals with John McCain, who will be happy to vouch for them.
In both cases, we're supposed to believe their re-election and presence in the Senate is good for our side in the PR war, because it “embarrasses Obama”, as if Obama is somehow shrinking in horror that the unofficial Democrat won.
LIEberman is even more liberal than Kirk, but if he tossed an “R” next to his name I'd be willing to bet a bunch of “conservatives” here would line up to promote him as the only “electable” candidate in CT and help him win the GOP primary. The CT GOP establishment would also jump at the chance to run a “big name” candidate and openly embrace LIEberman no matter how liberal he is, rather than try to recruit a credible GOP candidate who is actually a Republican.
The thing is, if LIEberman was even remotely conservative and wanted to help the GOP, he would have caucused with the GOP after winning re-election as a “independent”. Of course he's not independent, he's a socialist, and that's why he comes crawling back to the party after they treated him like garbage.
As field mentioned, LIEberman is better than Lowell Weicker, if only for the fact that LIEberman doesn't pretend to be a “Republican” and damage our party. Of course if he switches parties, then he will be in Weicker territory.
And on a final note... Linda McMahon in 2012? Ugh. Please, no. She only got 43% against Richard “I served in Vietnam” Blumenthal for an open senate seat, in an otherwise bright year for the GOP. On the issues, she's better than a RINO like Simmons, but that's not saying much. Her private sector baggage sunk her candidacy and it would do so again. She's married to the GOP version of Al Franken for crying out loud. No wonder the CT GOP is so pathetic, when they have plenty of elected Republican officials and yet they're looking at Linda McMahon and Joe LIEberman as GOP material.
=========================================
HERE'S HOW LIBERMAN LIED HIMSELF INTO OFFICE Lieberman is a staunch supporter of abortion rights, and even voted against banning partial-birth abortion six times in a row.
But pro-life leaders in Connecticut remember another Joe Lieberman. Lieberman made pro-life pledges about 20 years ago, when he was first a candidate for the US Senate. Lieberman sought pro-life votes in the final stretch of his 1988 Democratic bid to oust 18-year Sen. Lowell Weicker, a pro-abort Republican.
"Joe was very liberal, like Weicker, but we had a poll on abortion that showed which way the wind was blowing," says Daniel Cosgrove, then the Democratic town chairman in Branford, Mr. Lieberman's hometown. The poll showed anti-abortion sentiment outweighed pro-choice views in urban areas throughout Connecticut. "In the Waterbury area, it was more than any, 12,000 [more] against abortion," Mr. Cosgrove says.
Lieberman "expressed himself as coming from a tradition in support of life, not in favor of abortion on demand." "Lieberman expressed himself against abortion, all suicide, and euthanasia. His position on that definitely was well received by the Catholic hierarchy.
State Sen. Regina Smith, who conducted the pro-life poll for the archdiocese, arranged for Lieberman, then the state AG, to meet with Catholic prelates before the election to lay out his support for Catholic pro-life positions.
The strategy worked. Lieberman convinced the archbishop he favored pro-life positions and would vote differently than Mr. Weicker, thus winning Catholic support that pushed him to a narrow 10,000-vote victory — the only Democratic Senate upset of that year. Lieberman's winning margin was less than 1 percent of 1.4 million votes.
Written records of a meeting between Lieberman and top officials of the National Right to Life Committee (NRLC) two months after the 1988 election quote Mr. Lieberman as saying he "thinks there are too many abortions," and promising he would not "apply a litmus test" against pro-life judicial nominees.
Liar Lieberman today, of course, denies any of this ever happened.
An Orthodox Jew, Lieberman defends his pro-abortion, pro-infanticide record, saying Jewish law is deeply divided and Orthodox Jewry construes abortion as "a personal matter."
Well it would have propaganda value but I don’t know about ‘enormous’.
Don’t want him, can’t support him.
Retire. I would rather the dynamic of the elections evolve to polar opposites developing rather than mamby-pamby middle being allowed to define what the middle is.
No way should we take Lieberman. He agrees with us on the War on Islamofascism and support for Israel, but disagrees with us on everything else under the sun. A 5% conservative is a 95% liberal, and we can’t have a 95% liberal in the Senate GOP caucus (it’s bad enough that we have 50% liberals in Snowe, Collins and Kirk).
Lieberman knows that he won’t beat Chris Murphy in a Senate Dem primary, so he’ll run as an Indie. While the GOP has virtually no bench in CT, maybe Tom Foley, who had the governorship stolen a few weeks ago with all that funny business in Bridgeport, can run for the Senate and, with the liberal vote split between Murphy and Lieberman, win with 35% (Foley got, what, 48% for governor?).
Concurring bump. Let him join Chris Dodd in retirement.
I had forgotten about Foley. He originally ran for the Senate this time as I recall, then switched to the governor’s race. He ran better than most expected him to and assuming he hasn’t spent all his money on this year’s election maybe he would have the bucks to run a credible race. But he would only have a shot if there is a big Demo/lefty split between Lieberman and Murphy.
Not sure what other Dems might be interested. There is no heir apparent, as there was with Blumenthal this year.
If Joe Lieberman runs as an independent again, the best candidate for the GOP seems to be Tom Foley (interesting name). He’s shown great appeal and is good on the issues. A three-way race between Foley, Lieberman, and Chris Murphy could be a golden opportunity, perhaps like the 1970 Senate race there.
He could be Sarah Palin’s Secretary of State.
I forgot to ping you to Posting #49.
Foley good on the issues?let’s see:
=does not support parental notification on abortion
-does not support school choice vouchers
-we assume he supports DOMA, but does he?
That I didn’t know. Too bad. At the same time, I think he may be our only hope if Lieberman runs as an Independent or retires.
He could retire and serve in a Palin administration in some national security role.
linda mcMann is runnin’ again.
Ugh. That is not promising.
I noticed that Republicans made gains in the Connecticut sate legislature. Did Linda McMahon’s spending contribute to that?
Pete is right, Linda McMahon is thinking of running in 2012. I don’t think she’s the best possible choice.
Here is a recent article:
We need someone to clean up the putrid State Department. We need a hard charging conservative. Joe can be Ambassador to Isreal.
Or better yet a worthy Jewish Republican can be Ambassador to Israel and Joe can just go suck an egg. ;d
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.