Democratic leaders are planning ahead for what they’ll do if they retake the House of Representatives in November:

Democratic leaders, increasingly confident they will seize control of the House in November, are laying plans for a legislative blitz during their first week in power that would raise the minimum wage, roll back parts of the Republican prescription drug law, implement homeland security measures and reinstate lapsed budget deficit controls.

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (Calif.) said in an interview last week that a Democratic House would launch a series of investigations of the Bush administration, beginning with the White House’s first-term energy task force and probably including the use of intelligence in the run-up to the invasion of Iraq. Pelosi denied Republican allegations that a Democratic House would move quickly to impeach President Bush. But, she said of the planned investigations, “You never know where it leads to.”

In recent days, Democratic confidence has been buoyed by a series of polls indicating that not only is Bush growing increasingly unpopular, so are Republicans in Congress. An Associated Press-Ipsos poll released Friday found that 33 percent of the public approves of Bush’s job performance, the lowest rating of his presidency. And only 25 percent approves of the job Congress is doing, a figure comparable to congressional approval ratings before the 1994 elections that swept Republicans to power.

The AP-Ipsos poll found that 51 percent of Americans say they want Democrats rather than Republicans to control Congress. Only 34 percent favor Republican control.

“We have to be ready to win,” Pelosi said, “and we have to tell [voters] what we will do when we win.”

The Democrats need a switch of 15 seats to take over the House. Most analysts think that’s a longshot, but the Dems think they can do it:

Despite waves of redistricting that have solidified the positions of incumbents from both parties, Pelosi said 50 Republican seats are in play, while fewer than 10 Democratic seats face strong challenges. That figure of GOP seats is disputed by independent analysts, but even the most cautious estimates put more than 15 Republican seats in jeopardy.

Stuart Rothenberg, editor of the nonpartisan Rothenberg Political Report, said his most expansive estimate classifies 52 seats as “unsafe,” 40 of them Republican, 12 of them Democratic. But, he said, only a tidal wave would dislodge the incumbent party from many of those seats, and more realistically, 30 Republican seats and five Democratic districts are vulnerable.

One of the targeted Republican seats is South Bend’s district, the 2nd Congressional District of Indiana, where incumbent Chris Chocola faces a rematch with the man he beat in 2004, Democrat Joe Donnelly. Chocola and Donnelly both won primaries last Tuesday — an election I didn’t know about until I noticed that I couldn’t buy alcohol, making this the first time I’ve ever missed an election I was eligible to vote in (doh!) — and now the campaign will kick into high gear as the national parties will be funnelling tons of money to this “swing” district.

As a political junkie (albeit one who clearly hasn’t been paying attention to local politics the last few months) who has lived in solid blue Connecticut, California, and New York, and in solid red Arizona and Indiana, it’ll be nice to be in a national political battleground, for once! One thing’s for sure: I definitely won’t miss the November election. :)

There’s been a lot of talk in the national press lately about Greenwich businessman Ned Lamont’s grassroots challenge to Connecticut Senator Joe Lieberman. From the glowing coverage, you’d think that Lamont was running neck-and-neck with Lieberman, that the mighty incumbent of “Joe-mentum” fame is shaking in his boots because of the Little Millionaire That Could and his plucky liberal insurgency. Well, the poll numbers are out, and it turns out Lieberman’s support has indeed dropped in the last three months — by three whole percentage points! Instead of leading Lamont 68% to 13% among party members (as he was in February), Lieberman now leads by a paltry 65% to 19% margin.

Heh.

Of course, the key for Lieberman, if there’s a primary (Lamont first needs to win 15% of the party’s delegates at the state convention on May 20 — and Genghis Conn thinks this poll may hurt his quest to win over delegates — or else roughly 15,000 petition signatures, in order to force a primary), will be turnout. Lamont’s supporters are more fervent (not to say feverish :) and thus more likely to come to the polls. But c’mon… Lamont is going to have to do a little better than 19% of the general party membership if he expects to have a serious chance. Honestly, I would have expected him to be at 30% or higher, given everything I’ve been hearing. I’m pleasantly surprised at these numbers.

In other Connecticut political news, Newington’s state senator, Biagio “Billy” Ciotto, will not seek re-election.

UPDATE: On the other hand, these numbers show a significantly tighter Lieberman-Lamont race.

In the next few days and weeks, I strongly suspect that the growing political consensus will be that the “Day without an Immigrant” march/boycott backfired. I list the reasons why, in no particular order:

1. Americans will not appreciate the association with May Day, communism, ANSWER, other left-wing groups like MECHA, and groups that go around shouting, “We didn’t cross the border, the border crossed us!”

2. It’s one thing to wave your country’s flag at the World Cup or on Cinco de Mayo; it’s quite another to wave the Mexican flag when you’re marching to demand citizenship in America.

3. Americans are turned off by the entitlement mentality these marchers were exhibiting; most Americans’ ancestors came here humbly and doing everything they could to be in good graces with the law and to secure a better future for their children. In contrast, these illegal immigrants were boycotting work, pulling their kids out of school, and demanding they be handed a piece of the citizenship pie after cutting in line ahead of all the legal immigrants. Americans do not appreciate feeling like they must “appease”, although certain politicians are more than glad to offer promises of government largesse in exchange for political support and votes (this is typical of liberals, but increasingly Republicans like Bush are engaging in this mentality as well).

4. Americans don’t respond positively to protests and boycotts. The Civil Rights movement led by Dr. MLK Jr. was an exception: although the majority of white Americans did not support ending segregation and granting equal rights to blacks at first, they were forced to see the brutal evil of Jim Crow in the South on TV. MLK Jr. said all the right things and asked for opportunity and equality, couching his demands in religion and appeals to our nation’s highest ideals. No other major movement has followed that tactic, and thus no other major movement has gained the implicit support of “the silent majority”. The silent majority were turned off by the Vietnam protesters and and reelected Nixon in a landslide; the silent majority defiantly crushed the anti-globalization movement in the 1990s; the silent majority only gave more support to the Afghanistan and Iraq wars and rallied behind President Bush when protesters filled the streets; and the silent majority will now turn against yesterday’s protesters and deal a fatal blow to their goals. Solid public support will now swing in favor of strong border enforcement, more employer crackdowns, and a strict path to citizenship (if any form of amnesty is accepted at all).

5. The boycott failed in its stated purpose: To show that “a day without an immigrant” would hurt the U.S. economy. Not only were the economic effects slight, the areas hardest hit were the ethnic immigrant enclaves, as many stores that serve and hire members of those communities were closed and/or lost money. As for the rest of society, Americans saw traffic ease, commutes shorten, 911 calls decrease, emergency rooms empty, and gang activities quiet down. For American educators in the inner cities, class sizes were advantageously smaller for the day, and the students who came to school were disproportionately more eager to succeed and learn than their peers whose parents pulled them from class. For most average Americans, yesterday had precisely the opposite effect of that intended by the organizers.

Republicans have an excellent chance here to snatch victory from the jaws of defeat and pass immigration reform that heightens our nation’s security, severely cracks down on the incentives to come here illegally by going after employers, and bring 10-20 million people out of the shadows in a way that pays for itself by making illegal immigrants not only earn their citizenship, but pay monetarily for the right to live here, receive government services, and/or remit income to their families abroad. The path to citizenship is key: Make the process difficult enough and bound with enough strings, and you’ll separate the wheat from the chaff. Simultaneously though, Republicans would be doing this nation a great disservice if they did not overhaul completely the process by which we let in immigrants legally. A great deal of face can be saved if Republicans do these two key steps:

1. Show their pro-immigration bonafides by making legal immigration much easier, smoother, fair, and better designed to help strengthen America; and

2. Make the path to citizenship for illegals sufficiently difficult that only true Americans will take that path, humbly and willingly paying restitution for coming here illegally for the right to be a part of our great nation.

Anything short of those two options risks ceding the middle to Democrats who would gladly offer amnesty to illegals and change the Pledge of Allegiance to Spanish to pick up a quick 10 million votes nationwide. Republicans are also at risk of alienating their base, and when the base doesn’t show up to the polls, GOP victories like we saw in 2002 and 2004 simply will not continue in 2006 and 2008. Doing the first step will satisfy the concerns of the American middle, while the latter will craft a balance between the sympathetic Center with the angry anti-illegal immigration base of the GOP.

I’m not sure how I missed this, but apparently, there’s a possible major Congressional sex/corruption/lobbyist scandal brewing… and it may have involved (Republican) member(s) of Congress having sex with prostitutes — provided by lobbyists — in the Watergate Hotel. This has led, inevitably, to Wonkette labelling the scandal “WatergateGate.” Heh. Also: “Best. Scandal. Ever.” And, in an earlier post: “Boring Ol’ Congressional Corruption Case NOW WITH HOOKERS.” Daily Kos has more — and before you dismiss this whole thing on the basis of the fact that I just linked to Daily Kos, consider that the Kos post in question actually links to an article from that Thursday’s edition of that commie pinko left-wing rag, the Wall Street Journal. Excerpt from the WSJ:

Federal prosecutors are investigating whether two contractors implicated in the bribery of former Rep. Randall “Duke” Cunningham [(R-California)] supplied him with prostitutes and free use of a limousine and hotel suites, pursuing evidence that could broaden their long-running inquiry.

Besides scrutinizing the prostitution scheme for evidence that might implicate contractor Brent Wilkes, investigators are focusing on whether any other members of Congress, or their staffs, may also have used the same free services, though it isn’t clear whether investigators have turned up anything to implicate others.

In recent weeks, Federal Bureau of Investigation agents have fanned out across Washington, interviewing women from escort services, potential witnesses and others who may have been involved in the arrangement.

As yet, it’s hard to tell if there’s really any there there, aside from the picadillos of the already-disgraced Mr. Cunningham. But if this scandal has legs (er, so to speak) and spreads (ahem) beyond Cunningham, it obviously has the potential to capture the public’s imagination in a way that mere bribery and corruption cannot. There’s nothing the public loves to pretend they hate more than good old-fashioned sex scandal… except, perhaps, a good old-fashioned sex scandal involving Republicans. (If only it were a gay sex scandal involving Republicans… alas.*) Add in the illicit nature of the sex (prostitution is illegal, after all), and better yet, the honest-to-goodness importance of the lobbyist/corruption issue, and suddenly — voila! hallelujah! — there’s a legitimate reason for the media and blogosphere to talk endlessly about all the tawdry and embarrassing details that are sure to come out if this thing progresses (kinda like how Clinton’s perjury and obstruction of justice gave us all an excuse to read Ken Starr’s glorified porno… c’mon, admit it, you scrolled past everything until “Sexual Encounter #1″). Bottom line, if this thing blows up — and if it stays confined to Republican members of Congress (not necessarily a sure bet) — it’ll damage the GOP way more than any mere lobbying scandal. And it’ll also be way more fun.

*Actually, come to think of it, if it were a gay sex scandal, the general public would probably not want to hear the gory details so much. Unless of course it involved gay women — preferably NFL cheerleaders. Conservative Republican congressmen having threesomes with the Carolina Panthers cheerleaders, provided by lobbyists, in the Watergate hotel… now that would be a sex scandal. :)

With rising gas prices emerging as a major political liability for shaking-in-their-boots Republicans as the November elections approach — and also emerging as Matt Drudge’s new favorite topic — President Bush today heeded Bill Frist’s and Dennis Hastert’s call for political grandstanding an investigation. AFP reports:

President George W. Bush has ordered an investigation into possible manipulation of prices at gasoline stations and suspended deposits into America’s strategic oil reserves, as the US government tried to rein in record-high fuel costs. …

“By deferring deposits until the fall, we’ll leave a little more oil on the market. Every little bit helps,” the US president said. …

In addition, the president called on oil companies to give up billions of dollars’ worth of tax breaks.

Bush acknowledged that the spike in gasoline prices has been felt clear across American society, hurting consumers and putting a damper on business.

“Gasoline price increases are like a hidden tax on the working people. They’re like a tax on our farmers. They’re like a tax on small businesses,” Bush said.

“Energy experts predict gas prices are going to remain high throughout the summer. And that’s going to be a continued strain on the American people.”

Bush vowed that, with the measures announced Tuesday, he would “make sure that the American consumers are treated fairly at the gas pump.”

That story is Drudge’s top headline right now. It’s right underneath the following breaking-news bulletin: “On way to speech, Bush motorcade passed the EXXON station next to the Watergate, where gas prices were $3.29, $3.39 and $3.49 a gallon…” Heh.

Drudge is also linking to a cool map of nationwide gas prices, broken down by county. Oh, to live in Idaho, Utah, Wyoming or Montana! :)

P.S. Did I say “political grandstanding”? Yes, I did… and this is what I meant:

If history is any guide, these investigations will end with no conclusive evidence of oil-industry price-gouging. The Nexis database of newspaper articles contains hundreds of stories that capture seemingly endless repetitions of this time-tested Washington version of the hokey pokey where there’s a lot of spinning and gyrating but no forward motion.

Gas prices rise. Politicians demand answers from the oil-industry. Then lawmakers order up probes. Those investigations basically determine that market factors were behind the price hikes at the pump. Gas prices eventually fall and the issue goes away. The closer an election, the quicker and louder the calls for probes.

I asked John Felmy, a spokesman of the American Petroleum Institute how many federal investigations there’ve been. “There’ve been dozens,� he said. And how many had found gouging or collusion by the large, integrated oil companies. “None. Nothing has ever been found and we’ve been exonerated every time.�

On occasion, some small operators or service-station owners have been found guilty of gouging by state attorneys general. But not Big Oil, the people the lawmakers are concerned about.

Lawmakers no doubt know this history just as well as the petroleum institute. But many irate constituents don’t. So lawmakers call for these investigations to at least look like they’re doing something on behalf of those they represent.

I think we could formulate a broader rule of politics based on that last sentence. It relates to everything from this silly “investigation” to President Bush’s immediate post-Katrina actions to former Connecticut governor Thomas Meskill’s infamous ski trip during an ice storm. The rule is that one of the most important political skills, at all levels, is the ability to “at least look like [you’re] doing something” when people are ticked off. The Republicans know that, and that’s why President Bush suddenly cares about gas prices.

Senator Joe Lieberman (D-CT) met with Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas on Tuesday. From the sparse reports I can find, it’s hard to figure out exactly what the agenda of their meeting was, but it’s certainly interesting that they met.

Lieberman may want to come back home and meet with New Britain Democrats, though. Unfortunately, he may find them a more hostile audience…

As the immigration debate rages on, one key criticism has been continually ignored by the supporters of the pseudo-amnesty and guest-worker plans circulating in Congress. Nobody seems to want to acknowledge that the argument that the illegal immigrants are merely doing jobs that Americans won’t do is a blatant lie. The truth is that these undocumented workers merely displace American workers who simply refuse to work for such low wages. There’s a great example of this occurring right now in decimated New Orleans, where construction contractors–many of them funded by FEMA and other government agencies–are dumping black resident workers, who are told “Go home!” as soon as they can get the chance to replace them with illegal immigrants (listen online or download the podcast segment entitled “Go Home!” under Bill Handel). Of course, not only are the Mexicans cheaper, but they speak little English, don’t unionize because of fears of deportation, and (as many will confirm anecdotally) are much harder workers than the Americans they replace.

Still, many don’t see this as a problem: This is simply the global labor market at work! Now, although I give the Wall Street Journal props for finally coming to the defense of this argument that illegal immigrants are simply filling jobs Americans won’t take, their reasoning is a little weak. Essentially their position is, “If they don’t come here, our jobs will go there”–except in neither case are they “our” jobs anymore, so what’s the point?

Imagine, for a minute, that China was our northern border, and India was our southern border. Would we continue to have no problem with 3 billion neighbors ready to come to America at a moment’s notice willing to work for as little as $5 a day–far more than they earn in their own countries? Mexico is poor to be sure, but Mexico’s got nothin’ on rural India or rural China.

Considering that a frighteningly high percentage of African-Americans are either high-school dropouts or not college graduates (not to mention the lower rates of white workers who fall into this category that nevertheless constitute millions of people in raw numbers), how can anyone morally justify displacing these people from a chance to work because unskilled immigrants are willing to work for less?

(more…)

But will Chris scratch? :) And of more Immediate interest, will Joe jump ship?
First the Old news ~ story April 5, but actually dating back much longer than that :) ~

Sen. Christopher J. Dodd is tinkering with his presidential bandwagon again.

Dodd said Monday that he’s thinking about a 2008 run but won’t say much more. He told the Associated Press: “It’s an itch. Could grow. Could disappear. It’s an itch. It’s not a bad word to use.”

He’s had the itch a long time…

…The Connecticut Democrat has played this game before, notably in the 2004 race, when he eventually decided not to pursue the White House…

Read whole thing.

Chris Dodd is a good man. And one helluva Stump Speaker too. If we’d run him in ‘04 I think he’d have won. Unlike our admirable but Dour neighbor to the North whom we Nominated, Chris is neither Haughty, Sepulchral, Aloof, nor Frenchified. :) Quite the contrary: he’s a Jolly Irish Man of the People through & through. :) (Granted, he always Wannabee a Kennedee :> but we could’ve Finessed that stuff for a campaign season. :)

Now for the New (albeit Predictable) News ~ emphases & campaignsite Links added ~

Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman refused today to rule out an independent candidacy if he loses the Democratic nomination, saying his re-election to a fourth term is too important for Connecticut.

“The definitive answer is that I am not foreclosing the option,” Lieberman said. “If I wanted to run as an independent I would do it today. I don’t. I am a Democrat. I want to run as a Democrat.”

(more…)

Given that the Republican Party’s symbol is an elephant, one can’t help but wonder if it was a Freudian slip, a clever double entendre, or simply an unfortunate choice of words, when Barack Obama said of Connecticut senator Joe Lieberman, after Lieberman’s speech at a Democratic fund-raiser was met with a mixed reaction:

“I know that some in the party have differences with Joe. I’m going to go ahead and say it. It’s the elephant in the room. And Joe and I don’t agree on everything. But what I know is, Joe Lieberman’s a man with a good heart, with a keen intellect, who cares about the working families of America. I am absolutely certain that Connecticut’s going to have the good sense to send Joe Lieberman back to the United States Senate.”

Some are less certain, as the above-linked New York Times article indicates, and Democratic primary challenger Ned Lamont intends to keep it that way. Read the whole thing.

In a related story, check out Bayou Buzz’s April Fools joke. Heh.

Connecticut’s kindly, calm & avuncular Saint Joe is getting a wee bit Testy over the Primary challenge from rich Greenwich liberal Ned Lamont.

Joe has a Point here: the Quote in Question has long been ripped from its Context & misused to portray him as a Supressionist of Free Speech. / But Still: when Joe Throws an On-air hissyfit at Local Liberal Icon Colin McEnroe, he throws Red meat (i.e., his Arse :) to the ravening blogospherical Blue Beasts and thus Harms himself for August.

It’s a bit of a Dilemma, for a Dyed-in-the-Wool Harry Truman/Jack Kennedy/Scoop Jackson/Tom Dodd Democrat.

We shall See whether St. Joe can Solve it. / Prediction: this upstart Challenge to him is going to Prove Serious. (And, I think he Knows it. )

My favorite senator, Joe Lieberman (D-CT), announced Thursday that he will vote no on Alito.

I wonder if Senator Joe is feeling the heat from the Left… and, apropos of that, I wonder if he’ll join in Senator Kerry’s filibuster effort. (I doubt it.)

JAN. 12 UPDATE:

…A Quinnipiac University poll released Wednesday suggests that Lieberman’s outspoken support for the war has cost him in his own party: Republican and unaffiliated voters overwhelmingly endorse his job performance, while his approval among Democrats dropped from 70 to 55 percent.

Seventy-four percent of Democrats say they disagree with Lieberman over the war. Still, only 39 percent would rather see their party nominate someone else this year as Lieberman seeks his fourth term.

…Only 27 percent of voters polled said they want Weicker to oppose Lieberman.

Whole thing. We return you now to the Original post. :>
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
The emergence of SOME left-Dem challenger is inevitable, I believe. / This is going to get Interesting. I don’t think Saint Joe has had a Primary battle (apart from the Presidential ones, Oy veh :) since 1970 when he challenged & whupped the powerful & feared State Senate Majority Leader, the cantankerous Ed Marcus (and this coming hard on the heels of the hapless Marcus’s lousy last-place finish in a 3-way Dem primary for the US Senate seat that Lowell Weicker eventually won that November [concerning which, and Whom, more below:]; but I Digress :). / Joe Loy, guestmeandering. :>

Hartford Courant: Possible Foe For Joe ~

After months of searching for a Democratic anti-war candidate willing to challenge Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman, the political left’s best hope may rest with a millionaire Greenwich businessman.

Ned Lamont, whose family tree includes a Who’s Who of Wall Street and a famous student of socialism, said Monday he is leaning toward challenging Lieberman for the Democratic nomination.

…Lamont, 52, the president and founder of a cable-television company, Lamont Digital Systems, said he would run only if he concluded that Lieberman could be defeated in a primary.

“If you go in, you don’t go in to make a statement,” Lamont said. “You go in to win.”

…If Lamont jumps into the race, his progress will be closely watched by former U.S. Sen. Lowell P. Weicker Jr., who has promised to challenge Lieberman if no strong anti-war challenge emerges.

“I hope Ned does gangbusters,” said Weicker, who has known Lamont for years and met with him as recently as last week. “But this doesn’t get me off the hook.”

Weicker, who would run as an independent, said he still might oppose Lieberman [in November] if Lamont seems unlikely to win the primary, which would be held Aug. 8…

Interlude. :> (CT Electionlaw Technicalities Desk: Weicker needs to Launch his independent Petition drive long before 8/8 in order to Make the November ballot. In fact he must Complete his Signature filings by Aug. 9 ~ The Day After the Major-party primaries. / In CT, Minor parties don’t Have primaries. But Lowell won’t be running as a Minor party anyway. CGS Sec. 9-372 (6) defines a Minor Party as…oh, nevermind, just Trust me. :) IMO, the above Lowellweickeries are Bull. :) I think he wants to run Anyway. I think he Pines for Past glory. He wants a Triumphal Return to His Senate Seat from which Lieberman had the colossal Chutzpah to Oust him in back in The Black ‘88. :> He’d prefer the revenge of personally Giving him Who Began It :) but if he Has to pull it off, and figures that he Can, by Pluralitying up the Middle between a Lefty Dem primary winner (Lamont) and a 3rd candidate to the Right (whatever Stiff the Republicans dig up :) ~ just as he did as a “moderate” Republican in November 1970, against antiwar Dem-primary-challenge-winner Rev. Joe Duffey, and hardline anti-Commie independent-candidate Dem incumbent Tom Dodd, RIP ~ he’ll Take it. / ~ the guestbasher :)

…As a Greenwich businessman descended from a long line of Wall Street bankers, Lamont laughingly concedes he is not Central Casting’s idea for the role of a candidate who would challenge Lieberman from the left.

His great-grandfather was Thomas W. Lamont, a partner of J.P. Morgan and an adviser to President Woodrow Wilson. In November 1929, Thomas Lamont was featured on the cover of Time magazine as a symbol of Wall Street. Ned Lamont’s grandfather and father also held prominent positions at J.P. Morgan & Co. Lamont’s stay at the firm was limited to an eight-week internship when he was 19.

…His grandfather’s brother was Corliss Lamont, a philosopher, civil libertarian and student of socialism who was cited for contempt of Congress after defying the authority of Sen. Joseph McCarthy to inquire into the political beliefs of private citizens.

>> [Oh, a Red Commie Rat, eh? :) “At long last, sir, have you no Decency left at All?” Good night and good Luck. / ~ the guestbircher :]

… [Lamont supporter & Connecticut Citizen Action Group executive director Tom] Swan said Lamont could become Connecticut’s Jon Corzine, the former Goldman Sachs chairman who won a U.S. Senate seat in New Jersey in 2000.

The comparison may be a stretch. Corzine spent tens of millions of dollars of his personal fortune to win a Democratic primary and then the general election for an open seat.

Lamont is expected to invest his own money, but not on Corzine’s scale.

Read the whole thing. Sadly, I think Saint Joe might be in more Trouble than he may realize. Sure, he’s personally popular & admired and will have a big War Chest (so to Speak :) of his own, though not from a personal Fortune (he’s Affluent but far from Superrich). But he really Has pissed off the Dem Left. And this IS liberal Connecticut. And therefore Our Dems are more liberal than Your Dems. (Well. Unless you’re in Vermont or Massachusetts or California. :)

Gird up your Loins & don your shining Armour, saintly Sir Joe. The Chickendoves are Flocking home, for to Roost right smack Dab in your Joe-mentum & Peckpeckpeck upon your patriot Butt. :>

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.

Joe Lieberman’s only announced Democratic primary challenger for the 2006 Senate race, John Orman, has raised about $1,000 so far for his campaign. Lieberman has raised about $3.8 million. Orman says “this just highlights the unfair advantage that incumbents have,” but honestly, if a thousand bucks is all you can manage, you have bigger problems than the unfair advantage that incumbents have. At that point, you clearly have no support, and/or you aren’t trying hard enough.

Over on Daily Kos, they think Joe could be vulnerable to a primary upset. I seriously doubt Orman is the man to do it, however. (And of course, I hope no one does it, as I think Lieberman is pretty much the best thing the Democratic Party has going for it right now.)