The New York Times has a front-page story this morning about the growing rift between Joe Lieberman and many Democrats, which is interesting but not exactly stunning. This, however, is news to me:
This week…former [Connecticut] Gov. Lowell P. Weicker Jr. criticized his continued support of the Iraq war and said that if no candidate challenged the senator on it next year, he would consider running.
It was Weicker — then a liberal Republican incumbent senator — who Lieberman successfully challenged (basically from the right, if I’m not mistaken) to win the first of his three terms in the Senate in 1988. I remember it well; I was barely seven years old, and, astute political mind that I was, I supported Lieberman because he had the same first name as my dad. :)
Weicker then became an independent and was elected governor in 1990 on the “A Connecticut Party” ballot line… and I became a big supporter of his. But he became an immensely unpopular figure in Connecticut when he pushed through the state’s first income tax, and served only one term. In 1994, Republican John G. Rowland (the “G” is for “graft”) was elected, thanks in part to a split in the liberal vote between Democratic nominee Bill Curry and A.C.P. nominee Eunice Groark, Weicker’s lieutenant governor (who I, as editor-in-chief of The Living Room Times, endorsed; pragmatism be damned, she was the best candidate). Rowland was re-elected twice, became embroiled in a corruption scandal, and the rest is history, bringing us right up to the woman who replaced Rowland after he resigned in disgrace, the now immensely popular Jodi Rell.
Anyway… Weicker has been in political retirement ever since Rowland took over his job… but now he’s apparently thinking about a comeback, running for Senate against the guy who ousted him from that job. Wouldn’t that be something? A Lieberman-Weicker rematch would be very interesting, as political theater if nothing else.
UPDATE: The Hartford Courant had an article and an editorial last week about the possibility Lieberman-Weicker II. And here’s a story from the Greenwich Time.
P.S. Here is the Lieberman speech that has the Dems so riled up. (Hat tip: Craig.) Specifically, they’re upset about this paragraph:
It is time for Democrats who distrust President Bush to acknowledge that he will be Commander-in-Chief for three more critical years, and that in matters of war we undermine Presidential credibility at our nation’s peril.
The thing is, it really needs to be read in context. For one thing, in the very next paragraph he makes a parallel statement suggesting how Republicans need to change their attitudes:
It is time for Republicans in the White House and Congress who distrust Democrats to acknowledge that greater Democratic involvement and support in the war in Iraq is critical to rebuilding the support of the American people that is essential to our success in that war.
Also, for those who think that Lieberman’s attitude is that Bush can do no wrong, you may want to take note of his statement that the current strategy for victory in Iraq “is a plan that has resulted from trial and yes, many errors.”
More importantly, Lieberman isn’t saying “agree with the president or you’re a traitor.” He’s saying that, to the extent Democrats and Republicans actually already do agree about most of the relevant issues regarding what we need to do next in Iraq (which he argues is actually quite a substantial extent), it’s wrong for them to play up the differences and ignore the agreements for the sake of purely political advantage. Read the whole speech and this is quite clear. In other words, he’s NOT attacking principled dissent over the war; he’s attacking the unprincipled act of playing politics with the war. Those are two very different things.
And he’s right — Bush is going to be around for three more years, so Democrats are doing themselves no favors if they pretend they don’t have to keep dealing with him; and we do undermine Presidential credibility at our nation’s peril, which is why, on matters of foreign policy and national defense, we should not attack the president’s credibility lightly — i.e., not if it’s for political gain, only if it’s truly a matter of principle. (So in other words, saying “Bush Lied” is deeply irresponsible unless, you know, Bush actually lied.)
Admittedly, Lieberman probably could have chosen his words better in that particular paragraph, and thrown in an extra caveat or two. But the criticism of him is way overboard when you look in its entirety at what he actually said, which is, as always with Senator Joe, quite reasonable.
|
Categories: Joe Lieberman, Election 2006
|
December 10th, 2005 at 6:50:30 am
Wow, Brendan talk about a very young political nerd…I have a vague memory of voting in elementary school during the 1972 elections. The school allowed a mock vote for kids. The choices, obviously, were Nixon and McGovern, and they actually announced the results over the school’s speakers. Of course, the forces of evil won even the pure abd innocent hearts and minds of children. I don’t think this could happen today because it would be considered too political…Well, maybe it does happen today, for example, the Weekly Reader poll? I didn’t really get interested in politics until high school and college.
December 10th, 2005 at 6:55:34 am
That sort of thing still happens. In 1996, when I was a sophomore in high school, we voted in the National Student-Parent Mock Election between Clinton and Dole. I also staged my own Living Room Times poll between the two… well actually, it was between the three, and as I recall, Perot did EXTREMELY well among NHS kids… I think he won among those of voting age, and finished a strong second among all students who I polled (I arranged with several teachers to do surveys in their classes)… LOL.
(The Living Room Times was sort of like the pre-cursor to The Irish Trojan’s Blog. It was the unofficial school paper of NHS, produced on my home computer and brought into school by me… not mass-produced, I’d just bring in a few copies and show them around.)
December 10th, 2005 at 12:56:55 pm
1. It is well to remember that Lieberman probably owed his winning margin in 1988 to conservative commentator and fellow Connecticut resident William F. Buckley, who so despised Weicker he actually formed a PAC (BuckPac) to defeat him and elect Democrat Leiberman. If Weicker runs again, watch for its renewal, or whatever is allowed post-McCain/Feingold, especially in light of Lieberman’s recent comments.
2. All signs point to three Democratic candidates coming out of New Hampsire in ‘08: Hillary, the Dean/Sheehan/Moore candidate, and the Joe Leiberman candidate. I seriously doubt Leiberman himself will run, but look for Mark Warner or someone like him to start echoing Leiberman in the coming months.
December 10th, 2005 at 1:03:46 pm
Ack. Political commentary and I spell “Lieberman” incorrectly.
December 10th, 2005 at 3:50:00 pm
Lieberman needs to become a Republican, just like Lincoln Chaffee needs to become a Democrat. At some point in time people need to stop kidding themselves.
December 10th, 2005 at 4:45:14 pm
I could support Warner, if he at least isn’t one of those fundamentalist c*cks*ck*rs who thinks media needs to be regulated… which is more than I can say for Lieberman… or Hillary.
December 10th, 2005 at 9:23:15 pm
texasyank, that’s excellent recollection about BuckPAC ‘88. You get the Good Political Point of the Week award. :) Certainly Saint Joe’s :> narrow win over Weicker was entirely owed to Crossover votes from conservative Republicans and normally-Republican-leaning unaffiliateds ~ the 1988 town-by-town voting patterns plainly show it. IOW Lieberman gained more from the usually-Republican folks than he lost from the Soft-on-Lowell Democrats; ergo, victory.
However, 17 years on, Chairman Bill :) is now quite elderly (being even more Ancient than Weicker :), and is Retired from National Review, and I gather is, sadly, not in very good health. Also, while I’m sure he’s no convert to the ranks of the Weicker Likers :>, the venerable Mistuh Fuhbuckley ;} has said that if he Knew Then what we all Know Now he ~ he! ~ would Not have supported going to war in Iraq. // So, whether we’d get BuckPAC Redux, I dunno.
“…It was Weicker…who Lieberman successfully challenged (basically from the right, if I’m not mistaken) to win the first of his three terms in the Senate…”
You are Not mistaken, BL. Oh, Joe did some pretty Fancy Dancing all around the old Left-Right Continuum, being a Past Master of such Fleet Footwork :), but yeah: From the Right was the Basic idea. And, it worked. / And many CT Repubs had never been so Happy to Lose, too. :)
“…astute political mind that I was, I supported Lieberman because he had the same first name as my dad. :)”
Yes, that Was shrewd of you. But what’s with the Smileyface? Did I Miss something? :>
The Weicker ‘06 talk has been around for a while ~ Yer Man, Himself, started it up (and Who Else would we Expect to? :) on some radio talkshow a few months’ back I think ~ but it hadn’t gone so MSM until now.
In repeatedly Woofing in Public about how he Really Really Doesn’t Want To Run ;>, the former Grand Duke of Greenwich & Nixon’s Bane has stressed that this resolute Noncandidacy, should he feel dutybound to Undeclare it for the Nation’s sake :), would be (again) as an Independent. // I think that if he Bit the Bullet and enrolled as a Dimmycrat he’d actually have a decent chance of wupping Lieberman in a Dem Primary. But Lowell wouldn’t want to sully his carefully-cultivated image of being Above the Pettiness of Party Politics - plus, the old fox knows that in a 3-way November contest, with His Independent Eminence ;> hauling in all the flat-out Anti-war vote & the moderate-to-right-leaners Split between D Lieberman and a Republican nominee, we could very well see a U.S. Senator Lowell P. “42%” Weicker, Jr. / Again. :|
* * * * * * * * *
Footnote: that was his Percentage in 1970 when first elected to the Senate as a Republican. The Dynamics were Different, though. It’s long been Connecticut Conventional Wisdom ~ no doubt because it’s Not True :) ~ that Weicker won because the independent re-election candidacy of Censure-disgraced Dem incumbent Tom Dodd (25%) drained the vote for the Democratic nominee, Reverend Joseph D. Duffey (33%). But the late great Senator Dodd (like his runningmate, God :) was a talons-bared Hawk on Vietnam (and on the Commie Reds in general :) while Holy Joe Duffey was so gentle a Dove that he virtually Mourned his way through the Campaign. [Mounting Up on Wings of peacenik Eagles, Rev. Duffey had Plurality-whipped the Party-endorsed candidate, one Alphonsus J. Donahue ;>, in the 3-way Dem Primary.] Smack in the Middle, between the Hardhat Senator & the Softhead Clergyperson, Stood: the 6′8″ Greenwich Congressman, pontificating. :) IOW absent Dodd, his bluecollar-Dem vote would have gone massively to moderate [not Yet liberal] Repub Weicker, who thus would have Won with a large Majority. /// We return you now to the present Century. :)
December 11th, 2005 at 1:26:57 am
And now, some actual 2006-era [as distinguished from 1970 Jurassic :] Thoughts:
Connecticut being a decidedly Blue state ~ and accordingly our damnyankee Dimmycrats being at least as Indigo as the Next Girl’s (the comparable Neighbors being, say, RI or MA, albeit not Deep-tie-dyed VT :) ~ it is a tribute to the great personal Respect, not to say the considerable political Fear :), in which Senator Joe is Held that no credible Democratic challenger to him has Emerged. / Yet.
However, inevitably, there IS intra-party Disgruntlement, both Inside the DC Beltway and also at the CT Grass Roots.
Were Saint Joe not so Iconic, CT’s 2 Dem Congresspersons, John Larson (CD 1, to include Newington :) and Rosa DeLauro (CD 3 ~ of New Haven, Joe’s home town) would probably be Chomping at the proverbial Bit about now. But, Noooo. :) And in the liberal-but-Still-hierarchical Nutmeg State, no Lesser Lights amongst the Dems, e.g. state legislators, have publicly Stepped forward as yet.
One Mentionee whose name I’ve seen Mentioned :) is Bill Curry ~ former State Senator, former Congressional candidate, former two-time Gubernatorial candidate, good man but a wee bit Yesterday.
A Mentionee whom I’ve heard Mentioned only by Mee :) is State Senator Don DeFronzo, D-SD 6 ~ a strong liberal who has taken bigfat political Risks before, i.e., leaving a secure state job to run a high-risk challenge for a state-employee Union presidency; having won That sinecure, later on Leaving it to challenge & defeat a longtime popular conservative Dem Mayor in a primary in his home town; and later on still, having left that Mayoralty after 2 terms, challenging and defeating a longtime veryrightwing Dem State Senator in the Primary and going on to Whup him [now Reincarnated as the Republican nominee] again in the General; and getting easily Re-elected since. /// But I don’t really want Senator Don to run. Because, that would pose me a Terrible choice: between two men, Both of whom I greatly admire, One of whom [Don] I Know & Owe personally & agree with approximately Half the time, the Other of whom [Joe] I’ve never met but Agree with Almost All of the time. /// Wait ’til Congresswoman Nancy Johnson (R-CD 5) retires, Don. It can’t be Too much longer, & it’s the CT hierarchical way. :)
* * * * * * * * *
Normally I’d fully-Guestblog this CT item, but so as not to Disrupt the Heismann celebrations, I’ll just Sneak it in Right Here:
CT ex-Gov. Rowland selects Big House over Halfway House to serve out Remainder of his Term. What for, I wonder? :>
December 11th, 2005 at 1:50:43 am
Good stuff, J. Loy, save this: Buckley’s influence is now well into its second generation (Lowry, Goldberg, Lopez) and my expectation is that an anti-Weicker PAC would be formed, pretty much on general principle, and that money would be raised, pretty much on general principle. In the internet age, such a group would thrive–just ask Dan Rather.
December 11th, 2005 at 4:59:14 am
Don’t you think Lieberman knows what gets filtered out in a statment like that? And what the real message is with his actions? Duhhh…
December 11th, 2005 at 8:41:24 am
Lieberman sounds like the father from Alf. Lieberman’s high point was when he chided Bill Clinton for not being forthcoming about the whole Monica Lewinsky thing. I think he has gone downhill ever since.