Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Doomsday scenario in the Connecticut race?

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
EarlG ADMIN Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 12:15 PM
Original message
Doomsday scenario in the Connecticut race?
Edited on Tue Aug-22-06 08:36 AM by EarlG
Okay, I'm going to preface this by saying that I think this scenario is unlikely, and that it is pure speculation on my part. But while unlikely it is nonetheless a possible scenario so I thought I'd throw it out there for you to chew on.

Consider...

Joe Lieberman beats Ned Lamont and wins the Senate seat in Connecticut.

Early in 2007, Don Rumsfeld quits as Secretary of Defense.

George W. Bush offers the job to Lieberman, who accepts.

Connecticut's Gov. Jodi Rell (R) appoints a Republican to fill Joe's vacated Senate seat until 2008.

Result: George W. Bush gets a "bipartisan" Secretary of Defense, and the Republican party gets a free Senate seat in Connecticut - a seat which they didn't even contest in the 2006 elections.

Just a thought. Should I go get my tinfoil hat now? :)

(On edit: I was just informed that pabsungenis already beat me to this theory with his post yesterday.)

(On edit again: Now it appears that KnaveRupe beat us by almost a week. Nice going :) )
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Lerkfish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 12:17 PM
Response to Original message
1. in this bizarro world, that actually seems plausible.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
focusfan Donating Member (884 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 02:59 PM
Response to Reply #1
34. i guess if Liberman became secretary of defense
he would get what he wanted}(
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DirtyJersey Donating Member (129 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-22-06 09:23 AM
Response to Reply #1
68. I disagree
Lieberman has shown by running for Seante and VP at the same time in 2000 and by running as an Independent after losing the primary this year that he cares about nothing more than holding onto that Senate seat. If he was Sec. of Defense, that gig would be up come January 2009, whereas he'd be senator until at LEAST January 2013, and I can virtually guarantee that Joe will run for a fifth term in 2012 if he wins this year, so it could be even longer. What's much more likely is that he's become Sec. of Defense if he LOSES this year, as a consolation prize of sorts.

I also don't think this is a doomsday scenario. Obviously the best scenario is Lamont winning and Joe fading into obscurity, but this is not the worst. The worst is Joe winning re-election and staying in the Senate until he dies. This situation would be prefarable - Joe would only have two more years in public service, and the type of Republican likely to be appointed by Rell would quite possibly be preferable to Lieberman - certainly easier to stomach, anyway. I would happily vote for a Jodi Rell/Chris Shays type Republican over Joe.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lerkfish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-22-06 02:19 PM
Response to Reply #68
70. I'm sure you would vote for a republican, but I however, would not.
:shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DirtyJersey Donating Member (129 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-22-06 02:52 PM
Response to Reply #70
71. You didn't read my whole post, did you...
Edited on Tue Aug-22-06 02:53 PM by DirtyJersey
Ordinarily I would never vote for a Republican...that's why I don't suppport Joe. My point is that I find Joe so repulsive, I would vote for a reasonable Republican over him.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lerkfish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-22-06 02:55 PM
Response to Reply #71
72. I read it.
I simply would never vote for a republican under any conceivable circumstance.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Higans Donating Member (819 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-22-06 08:13 PM
Response to Reply #71
73. Um.... Reasonable Republican is an Oxymoran.
Edited on Tue Aug-22-06 08:14 PM by Higans
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
flyarm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 12:20 PM
Response to Original message
2. THAT THOUGHT SHOULD BE EXPOSED TO CT. dems!!
Edited on Mon Aug-21-06 12:21 PM by flyarm
send your thoughts to Lamont!!
or firedoglake!!

I have heard that Lowell Weicker is working with Lamont to bring indy's and Moderate repugs to the Lamont camp..and he has been on NY talk show slamming lieberliar..

thanks Earl G

by the way..how is married life going??

congrats again!

fly

p.s. i have a friend working in Lamonts camp...i am sending this to her!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
really-looney Donating Member (330 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 12:23 PM
Response to Reply #2
5. Thats just great
Along with driving up the republican vote in the three republican districts, we now have this to think about. Someone needs to ask him if elected, will he serve out his whole term. Lamont needs to sign a pledge and pull it out at each and every TV interview, campaign stop and editorial board meeting. A vote for Lieberman is a possible vote for a Republican Senate with no ability to reverse it at the ballot box for as much as 2 years.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MaryRN Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-22-06 12:08 AM
Response to Reply #2
61. All set.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
patricia92243 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 12:21 PM
Response to Original message
3. NEVER underestimate Rove's strategy techniques. This sounds blood-
curdlingly on the money. I hope we have not been had by the Republicans - again.

All the more reason for CT to please get out the vote for Lamont.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wisteria Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 12:23 PM
Response to Original message
4. How about this one. Lieberman get elected, screws the Dem's and
loses a couple of races for us. They won't allow him his committees back. He has no power with the Dem's any longer, but he could be useful to the Re pubs as a Republican senator and with a few little incentives thrown in from the Re pubs, he becomes a Republican Senator- a moderate one, but a Re pub no less. I don't think he will be able to hold onto his Democratic committee seats as an Independent. Not when "real" Democrats would love to sit on some of those committees he is on.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hvn_nbr_2 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 01:46 PM
Response to Reply #4
19. That scenario would not surprise me
Especially since the Pukes are openly helping him. He could become a turncoat even if the Dems don't take away his committee assignments.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Totally Committed Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 12:25 PM
Response to Original message
6. I don't know if this is a compliment or what, but I thought of that
just the other day. :tinfoilhat: (I swear!)

Se.... I think he's a big enough a**hole, and power-hungry ego-maniac to do that. And, Rove KNOWS it'll drive us CAH-RAY-ZEE!

TC
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Magistrate Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 12:26 PM
Response to Original message
7. Not Impossible, Sir
There is a great deal riding right now on Mr. Lamont's abilities as a campaigner, and the good sense of the people of Connecticut.

The surest way to foreclose this posssiblity is a victory by Mr. Lamont, and that is certainly a possible outcome....

"LET'S GO GET THOSE BUSH BASTARDS!"
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MrModerate Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 12:37 PM
Response to Reply #7
10. Hear Hear! Ultimately we want the guy who'll be . . .
The best senator.

Lieberman isn't it, because he's both wrong on the single most critical issue of the day (his liberal votes on other issues notwithstanding) and because he's unreliable -- a poster boy for power over principle (I seem to recall mention of his promise 18 years ago to serve a maximum of three terms -- 18 years -- no matter what).

I hope Lamont gets enough support from Dem leadership (and not "republican lite" defeatis type) to help him win this. But he'll have to do it on his merits and on how well he gets a broad message out.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Sower Donating Member (48 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 12:29 PM
Response to Original message
8. It's possible, and certainly something voters should be warned about.
I'd recommend your thread, but I don't have enough posts yet.
:shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lasher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 01:11 PM
Original message
Here, I'll do it for you, Sower.
Everybody here had the same number of posts as you at one time.

Lasher
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pazuzu Donating Member (97 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 12:33 PM
Response to Original message
9. Republicans get Super Majority = doomsday unqualified
n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
-..__... Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 12:38 PM
Response to Original message
11. Does the CT state law allow the governor to fill the vacancy...
or does there have to be a special "run off" election?

If the governor does have that authority, does the CT Senate and House have enough power to overturn the law?

A similar situation was a possibility in MA during the 2004 elections.

Had Kerry won, Rep. governor Mitt Romney had the authority to fill Kerry's seat in the Senate.

"Democrats eye plan to protect Kerry Senate seat"

By Frank Phillips, Globe Staff, 2/19/2004

Massachusetts Democrats are devising a plan to keep John F. Kerry's US Senate seat in their party's hands by blocking Governor Mitt Romney from naming an interim replacement if Kerry wins the White House.


Beacon Hill lawmakers want to pass legislation that would leave Kerry's seat vacant for two months or more, until a special election is held to fill it. That would prevent the Republican governor from naming an interim senator, as is currently required by state law.

The initiator of the proposal -- Representative William M. Straus, Democrat of Mattapoisett -- insisted he is not being partisan. But Republicans say the Democrats are being premature.

"John Kerry and his supporters are doing everything but measuring for drapes at the White House," said Eric Fehrnstrom, Romney's communications director. "We have a long campaign in front of us."

Drawing on some Massachusetts political history, Fehrnstrom recalled that a Democratic governor named an interim senator when John F. Kennedy was elected president in 1960.

"The last time a temporary appointment was done, it was by a Democratic governor, and I don't remember the Democrats having a problem with that," he said. "Why suddenly now do they have a problem?"

Complete article


In that situation, the MA legislature successfully thwarted any possible attempt by Romney to fill the vacancy with the person of his choice.

Romney veto overridden
Governor can no longer fill vacancies in the US Senate


By Scott S. Greenberger, Globe Staff | July 31, 2004

In a pair of votes that lacked suspense but not passion, Beacon Hill Democrats yesterday stripped Governor Mitt Romney of his power to choose a replacement for Senator John F. Kerry if the newly-minted Democratic presidential nominee wins the White House.


The vote on the bill, which would establish a special election to fill the Senate vacancy, ends more than six months of wrangling, arguing, and maneuvering over the issue. A number of ambitious Massachusetts Democrats are eager to run for the post if it becomes open, and national Democratic leaders believe that the seat could make a difference in their drive to reclaim the Senate.

Hooting and hollering broke out on the usually staid House floor as Speaker Thomas M. Finneran pushed through the bill yesterday afternoon, the final day of formal legislative business for the year.

"Inevitably, whether it's a Democratic governor or a Republican governor, it's a political deal," Finneran said. "It's very raw politics. Each side was just putting on a little bit of


Complete article
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
buddhamama Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 01:15 PM
Response to Reply #11
15. If my memory serves me correctly
yes, the CT Governor can appoint a replacement, but only temporarily ( I do not recall the length of time, if any, before a special election would have to take place).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hijinx87 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 12:38 PM
Response to Original message
12. stranger things have happened. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
windbreeze Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 01:06 PM
Response to Original message
13. NOT to far off the mark..methinks....
I have a couple questions....WHY was it so important for Lieberman to keep his seat even if he had to register as an Independent to do so??? Wouldn't most up and up persons have done the right thing, accepted defeat and walked away??? WHY didn't Lieberman? WHAT was his motivation for going so far as to ditch his party and file to run independent..???WHY/WHAT/WHO made him willing to sell his integrity down the river and thoroughly trash his reputation...???? Musta been an offer he couldn't refuse...and those are answers I'd like to have answers to...because in my opinion...there IS more to this whole story than what meets the eye...

I put nothing past any of them...
windbreeze
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
madfloridian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 01:11 PM
Response to Original message
14. If the people of CT choose that path....it is their choice.
Many of us can already see Lamont's win being used to put blame. Like...oh look what you've gone and done now...kind of thing. You actually voted against an 18 year incumbent...kind of thing.

Lamont won. Anything that happens now is the choice of the people of that state.

If Lieberman is important enough to them to vote him in again even though he lost the primary, then it will be that way.

But it is not Lamont's fault, and that is how this is going to shape up. If that happens, if blame is placed, there won't be a party left to bother with. Cause this loyal Democrat and many I know will be gone gone gone.

I am glad Lamont won, and I think if CT voters vote Lieberman in again...then let's not keep calling them blue anymore.

Your scenario is very likely, he was already being talked about for that position. But what bothers me is that there is so much utter shock and outrage that Lieberman lost. It was a primary. Things happen. That is why primaries are supposed to be held.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lasher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 01:18 PM
Response to Original message
16. That makes a lot of sense and sounds just like Rove & Co.
But allow me to take this scenario one step further: Senate Democrats block Lieberman's confirmation. If I were the Senate Minority leader that's exactly what I would do, despite the possibility that this would be a Pandora's box that would lead to his defection to the repuke party.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
trogdor Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 01:18 PM
Response to Original message
17. I'd save that for Halloween.
A REALLY SCARY STORY:

November 11th (Veterans' Day) Headline: RUMSFELD RETIRES FROM DOD.

November 13th: LIEBERMAN TAPPED FOR SECDEF SLOT.

November 15th: <SCARY GOOPER WINGNUT> APPOINTED TO LIEBERMAN SENATE SEAT.

MESSAGE: Don't let this happen to you, Connecticut. Elect Lamont on November 7th.

Can you do that in 30 seconds?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
madfloridian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 01:39 PM
Response to Original message
18. Your scenario would explain Lieberman's call for Rumsfeld to step down.
Edited on Mon Aug-21-06 01:43 PM by madfloridian
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/21/nyregion/21campaign.h...

HARTFORD, Aug. 20 "Senator Joseph I. Lieberman, facing continued criticism from many in the Democratic Party because of his support for the war in Iraq, leveled his most pointed criticism yet at the Pentagon during a television interview on Sunday, calling for the resignation of Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld.

Ned Lamont, who defeated Mr. Lieberman in the Democratic primary this month, said later that he had advocated that stance for months, and he questioned the timing of the senators criticism.

With the nation profoundly divided over the war, the men sought to hone their positions in increasingly pointed remarks.

I think its still time for new leadership at the Pentagon, Mr. Lieberman said on CBSs Face the Nation. With all respect to Don Rumsfeld, who has done a grueling job for six years, we would benefit from new leadership to work with our military in Iraq.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dpbrown Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 01:51 PM
Response to Original message
20. Spot on.


I have no doubt Lieberman is already counting his chickenhawks before they're hatched.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Recovered Repug Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 02:00 PM
Response to Original message
21. OK, so I'll ask. Why would Lieberman give up a 6 year job for
a 2 year job? He'll be in the senate for 6 years, so there's no need to worry about paying them back for their support.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
yebrent Donating Member (500 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 02:00 PM
Response to Original message
22. Huffpost blogger has the same theory.

Eric Alterman - SEC/DEF Lieberman?

snip>
"Here's my prediction: If Lieberman wins the election, he will not switch to the Republicans, as some fear. But he will do the functional equivalent, which is accept Bush's appointment to replace Rumsfeld as Secretary of Defense, resign his seat and allow the Republican governor of Connecticut to appoint a Republican in his stead. That is the implicit deal between the Lieberman camp and Rove, Cheney, Bush etc and the reason, that alone, in the entire country, this is the only race where this most partisan of political operations, refuses to support the Republican in the race. Bush Rove and Cheney do not make political decisions on the basis of what they think is good for the country. They care only about their party and themselves. If Lieberman supporters are genuinely supporting him as a Democrat, is it not enough for him to pledge to vote with the party in the Senate. He must pledge that, under no circumstances, will he accept an appointment from Bush or resign his seat under any circumstances, so long as a Republican occupies the state House."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Skinner ADMIN Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 02:10 PM
Response to Reply #22
24. Let the record show that EarlG beat Eric Alterman by half an hour.
EarlG posted this thread at 01:15 PM

Eric Alterman posted at Huffpost at 1:46 pm
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/eric-alterman /

And he posted at MSNBC at 2:15 pm
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3449870

:thumbsup:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Canuckistanian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 02:28 PM
Response to Reply #24
28. Duly noted!
Although I never really believed the trial balloons of Lieberman as SecDef earlier this year, it would make sense NOW.

EarlG has good instincts!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
farmbo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 02:43 PM
Response to Reply #24
32. The "G" in EarlG stands for ...Genius!
And I fear he may be right.

:scared:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NMDemDist2 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 02:45 PM
Response to Reply #24
33. methinks Eric is reading DU and getting his "scoops" from us! LOL n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bahrbearian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 03:03 PM
Response to Reply #24
35. Let the Record show that "pabsungenis " beat EarlG by
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Skinner ADMIN Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 03:27 PM
Response to Reply #35
40. Nice!
Looks like EarlG got beat. The record is now corrected. ;)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pab Sungenis Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 03:31 PM
Response to Reply #35
41. Thank you.
But if the message gets out, who cares who's doing the shouting?

Aren't we all supposed to be on the same team? :)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mucho macho Donating Member (73 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 02:06 PM
Response to Original message
23. NOT LIKELY
CT law now manadates a Special Election, not Governor appointment, and has since 2004.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
onenote Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 02:15 PM
Response to Reply #23
25. is that right? I thought this was the current CT law:
Edited on Mon Aug-21-06 02:16 PM by onenote
Sec. 9-211. United States senator; vacancy. In case of a vacancy in the office of senator in Congress, the Governor is empowered to fill such vacancy by appointment as herein provided. If such vacancy occurs sixty or more days prior to a state election, the appointee shall serve until the third day of January following such election, and at such election there shall be elected a senator in Congress to serve for the remaining portion, if any, of the term vacated. If such vacancy occurs within less than sixty days of a state election and the term vacated does not expire on the third day of January following such election, the appointee shall serve until the third day of January following the next such election but one, and at such next election but one there shall be elected a senator in Congress to serve for the remaining portion, if any, of the term vacated. If such vacancy occurs within less than sixty days of a state election and the term vacated expires on the third day of January following, the appointee shall serve until such third day of January.

I'm not sure what is meant by "state election" but it may be that the next state election in CT (after 2006) won't occur until Nov. 2008.


on edit: I should add that I think the scenario imagined in the OP is highly unlikely since I don't see Lieberman giving up a six year Senate term for a short term position in chimpy's administration.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jacobin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 02:15 PM
Response to Original message
26. Lieberman's already a republican
Who are we kidding?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Wizard Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 02:26 PM
Response to Reply #26
27. So what was
Al Gore thinking about in 2000?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
9119495 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 02:28 PM
Response to Original message
29. Possibly...but obviously Joe hates to give up a job. He would be
out of work in early '09 if he took a cabinent position. I don't see that happening. He couldn't even run for president as an independent if he took a job such as that. I think he thinks he's going to be McCain's running mate in 08 or that he could run seriously as a third party candidate.

What is common to all the senarios here is that Joe comes across as a real dick.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
oc2002 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 02:35 PM
Response to Original message
30. I trust the people of CT to throw the bum LIEberman out on his bum.

You have to!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
symbolman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 02:41 PM
Response to Original message
31. Unless we can use PR to convince people that LIEberman is a PUPPET
Here's my latest work all about Joe LIEberman's ridiculous run as a "Party of One", which reminds me of "Army of One" (which gives ME a mental image of a guy stuck under fire in a foxhole, looking around and saying, "WHERE the hell IS EVERYBODY!!") :) -- Makes about as much sense in a marketing vein. Party of One, Translates into "Party of NONE" when it involved LIEberman, might as well be saying, "Party of ME", eh?

This flash also incorporates the fact that the Terror Lockdown on Liquids, etc came so close on the heels of Joe's Smackdown by Lamont as to not be considered credible - even today they are confirming that people will walk FREE because they don't have the evidence to hold them, let alone that there were NO Explosives in their possession, they hadn't even made reservations, etc, etc..

Meanwhile they talk about charging a PREGNANT woman for having some water, and a face wipe - this flash addresses those concerns as well, the fact that WE are being used as PUPPETS in a The Politics of Terror.

Remember, a republican said they'd ride this last nonThreat all the way into November. Let's prove them wrong.. Let's VOTE for Lamont, as we all know this last Primary was a referendum on Bush and his faked "war". The Nerve of LIEberman to shit all over the Democrats. It's like using a girlfriend to get you through medical school and then snatching up the Trophy Wife once you've graduated. How can we ever trust this Puppet again?

One of my best Flash works ever, and to the Tune of "Masters of War" by Mr Bob Dylan, and no truer words were spoken in our time.

Have a look at:

http://web.takebackthemedia.com/geeklog/public_html/sta...

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lindacooks Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 03:11 PM
Response to Original message
36. Unfortunately, I'm afraid that
you're brilliant.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
madinmaryland Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 03:23 PM
Response to Original message
37. I'm not so sure about that:
If Jodi Rell is re-elected as governor and Lieberman happens to get elected as Senator, I am not sure that Lieberman would accept the position of Sec of Defense. As much as he has bolted from the Dem party, I don't think he would allow the Senate to fall back to the repub's or to even give them an additional seat. I beleive he still wants to be part of the democratic caucus and not part of the repubs and that he thinks that either he or Ned Lamont will win, thus keeping his seat in the Blue.

While a comparison can be made to his 2000 position, he was not picked for VP until shortly before CT was scheduled to have their primary, and thus all of the major state democrats were out of contention, which could have allowed Phil Giordano to be elected. :scared:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pab Sungenis Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 03:25 PM
Response to Original message
38. Great minds think alike. :)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
asthmaticeog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 03:25 PM
Response to Original message
39. EarlG, why do you think that scenario is unlikely?
I think that, given that talk of Lieberman as SecDef was floated before even the 2004 elections, it's exactly the Lieberman campaign's strategy, and unfortunately, exactly what's going to happen. I think I should add that I consider myself, with some justification, I hope, among the least tinfoilishly inclined DU forum users. This whole thing stinks to the stratosphere.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EarlG ADMIN Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 03:35 PM
Response to Reply #39
42. Because of the question raised in post 21
Joe would have to give up a six-year (minimum) Senate job for a two-year (maximum) SecDef job.

But then, SecDef is much more high-profile. Jomentum 2012, maybe?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CTyankee Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 03:55 PM
Response to Reply #42
45. But as SecDef he would preside over a disaster
and that smell would cling to him way after the Bush Admin in finito. At least in the Senate, he would go about his usual routine as old sobersides, the "distinguished" Senator from CT. The SecDef job is a loser, a no win situation. It sets him up for nothing but misery.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
asthmaticeog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 03:55 PM
Response to Reply #42
46. Does the SecDef get a higher pension than a Senator, I wonder?
A two-year gig for better retirement perks? Hell, I'd do that, myself. ;)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hippo_Tron Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-22-06 09:16 PM
Response to Reply #46
75. It depends
Some Senators have a higher profile than than high level cabinet members and sometimes it's the other way around.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BootinUp Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 03:41 PM
Response to Original message
43. I put nothing past Joe at this point.
He is a loose canon on deck.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Independent_Liberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 03:44 PM
Response to Original message
44. You must have been reading my mind...
Edited on Mon Aug-21-06 03:45 PM by Independent_Liberal
Actually, this is how it will go.

1. Democrats win back the House and Senate with big margins. Ned Lamont wins in Connecticut.

2. January, the new Congress is sworn in and the Libby trial begins.

3. Libby implicates Cheney and Cheney is indicted and forced to resign.

4. Congress forces Bush to appoint a VP who both sides of the aisle can agree on. They go with McCain and McCain is confirmed by both houses of Congress. Arizona Governor Jane Napolitano appoints a Democrat to the Senate increasing our numbers.

5. Larry Franklin implicates Rumsfeld in the AIPAC case and Rumsfeld is indicted and resigns.

6. Congress forces Bush to appoint a bipartisan Defense Secretary. Bush picks Lieberman.

7. Enough Democrats and Republicans decide that Lieberman is acceptable and Lieberman is confirmed as Defense Secretary.

8. The GOP forces Bush to resign because he's going to be impeached and convicted.

9. Bush resigns. McCain becomes President and he appoints George Pataki as his Vice President. McCain, Pataki and Lieberman are the caretakers until January 2009.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
paulk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 04:11 PM
Response to Original message
47. why would he give up six more years in the Senate
for two years as Sec of Def in a failure of an administration?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
larryepke Donating Member (524 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 04:21 PM
Response to Original message
48. Based on absolutely nothing...
I think Lieberman may be thinking something like this.

If the R's hold the Senate, he'll go over to them and be welcomed into the fold. Then he can get some cushy committee seats, and perhaps even a chairman's spot.

If the Dem's take the Senate, he'll "stay" one and hope to get some good committee chairman spot.

Ideally (in Joe's world) it'll be 49 R, 50 D. Then
1. the Dem's will court him so that they get the majority. They'll HAVE to promise him something good.
2. The R's will do the same, since in case of a tie the VP gets to control. They'll perhaps offer something BETTER.

Make sense?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
theanarch Donating Member (523 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 10:21 PM
Response to Reply #48
56. no, it doesn't make sense...
...if the R's hold the senate, then there's no reason for Lieberman to switch (why risk anything on an irrelevancy?). Yes, if the D's retake the senate he remains with the Party on organizational matters, but still votes for Bush's wars, appropriations, corporate welfare, etc...just as he always has. If it's a 50=50 split, then neither party controls the senate, unless one turncoats; and this is the mostly likely scenario for Lieberman to switch parties...unless one of his DLC senate-bud's beats him to it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Time for change Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 04:31 PM
Response to Original message
49. I think it's more likely that if Lieberman wins
he'll just cross over the isle.

I can't see him staying with the Dems under any conditions -- regardless of what he's promised.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mnhtnbb Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 05:00 PM
Response to Original message
50. Who in their right mind would want to be Sec'y of Defense?
Besides, Joe is going to lose in Nov.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
femrap Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 05:05 PM
Response to Reply #50
51. Joe would....and his big fat wallet, AIPAC,
would be thrilled.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nevergiveup Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 05:46 PM
Response to Original message
52. Earl Earl Earl
Don't we have enough to worry about?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KnaveRupe Donating Member (700 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 06:24 PM
Response to Original message
53. Ahem. check the date on THIS prediction - Aug 15!!
Edited on Mon Aug-21-06 06:26 PM by KnaveRupe
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

I do believe I beat y'all by almost a week.


As to why Holy Joe would take a 2-year job over a 6-year job? It's not about the money - it's about Joe's mighty ego. I think he really views himself as a moderate, bipartisan Democrat who wants to save the world from the horrific partisanship that has polluted the once fine streets of our Capitol. In topsy-turvy Joe-land, it's only possible for him to do that if he ignores 3 things:

1) It was the Republicans who have, at every opportunity, spent the last 30-plus years driving the political wedges in and prying the American public apart in their efforts to win elections.

2) The people who are opposing him are not the far-flung radical leftists of a modern-day SLA/Black Panther/Weathermen coalition, but the Democratic mainstream who want some balance and accountability in Washington.

3) The right wing neither likes nor respects him; they embrace him not because they want to bridge the gaps between parties and heal the wounds caused by modern political discourse, but because they view him as a complete and utter tool. A dipshit, to be used and then cast aside. His usefulness to them runs out when he stops being a Democrat who criticizes the Democratic Party.

Oh, and one other thing: CT Gov. Jodi Rell (R) appears to be a genuine, old-style, East-coast, moderate-to-liberal Republican (from the limited info I've been able to dig up on her - I don't live there). Even if the Connecticut Doomsday scenario pans out, she may appoint someone even less palatable to the Republicans than Holy Joe. But it will be better for everyone if Lamont just wins.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EarlG ADMIN Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 06:36 PM
Response to Reply #53
54. Very nice
I edited my original post to acknowledge you :)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
benfranklin1776 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 09:54 PM
Response to Original message
55. A plausible and unsettling scenario
Edited on Mon Aug-21-06 10:01 PM by benfranklin1776
There is but one way to guarantee that will not happen, ensure that Rell is not reelected:

http://www.destefanoforct.com/home.jsp
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KnaveRupe Donating Member (700 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 10:41 PM
Response to Reply #55
58. Er.... There's also that whole "Ensure Lieberman is not re-elected" thing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Autumn Colors Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 10:39 PM
Response to Original message
57. We should work doubly hard to beat Rell in November
Edited on Mon Aug-21-06 10:40 PM by Autumn Colors
That could be very, very tough to do, but while getting this message out to other CT Dems, stress that back-up insurance to prevent this doomsday scenario would also be to make sure the Gov. of CT is a Democrat after November.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MaryRN Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-22-06 12:14 AM
Response to Reply #57
63. That's going to be hard to do with DeStefano as the candidate.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DemFromMem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 10:49 PM
Response to Original message
59. Doubt Joe would take the job
If he wins this battle, my guess he's not going to be in the mood to quit that fast. I don't think Secretary of Defense is a very fun job right now.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
flaminbats Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 11:20 PM
Response to Original message
60. will Democrats have a majority if Lieberman wins?
if Lieberman loses, I think he'll accept a position like Secretary of Defense. if he wins, I believe he'll switch parties..and assuming the Republicans still control Congress.

and if Lieberman gets re-elected, but Democrats win control of the Senate? IMO this is another scenario which Lieberman would join the Bush administration. Either way..switching parties makes it possible for him to run in the Republican primaries in 2008.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KnaveRupe Donating Member (700 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-22-06 05:52 AM
Response to Reply #60
64. If Lieberman loses, his usefulness to BushCo drops to near zero.
Oh, sure, he can still spout off a la Zell Miller, but there's no benefit for the maladministration to give him a job. I think they only offer him SecDef under the above scenario - so that they can fill his seat with a Republican.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MaryRN Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-22-06 12:12 AM
Response to Original message
62. We need Ground Troops here in CT - the division is unprecedented.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cessna Invesco Palin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-22-06 07:19 AM
Response to Original message
65. I see one main reason why this will never happen.
Edited on Tue Aug-22-06 07:20 AM by yibbehobba
And it's the same reason that I haven't joined the chorus of people calling for Rummy's head: Whoever is appointed to that post almost has to be a completely trusted insider on the Cheney team. (The reason I don't want Rummy to resign is that whoever replaces him will likely be much worse.) There's a huge risk associated with appointing anyone who isn't an insider. I cannot fathom the job going to anybody else, even with the prospect of (maybe) returning the Senate to Republican control.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mom cat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-22-06 07:35 AM
Response to Original message
66. I will give you the tin foil myself. Frankly, your scenario makes sense
to me.In this age of raw power plays, the one you advance is as likely as any other I have seen.
Solution: Dump Joe Now! Then let him become Sec of Offense.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Donald Ian Rankin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-22-06 07:46 AM
Response to Original message
67. I think this highly unlikely, albeit not completely impossible.
If only because if he does win, the Democratic senate leadership will be aware of the risk and will be being careful not to tread on Lieberman's toes.

It's also worth remembering that on most issues Lieberman's positions are fairly left-wing (the Iraq war being a notable exception).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FighttheFuture Donating Member (748 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-22-06 11:25 AM
Response to Original message
69. I've felt that Lieberman was a plant by the Right Wing to
help destroy the "D" in Democratic after being injected by that virus known as the DLC. The real telling thing to this is Lieberman was supported by William F. Buckley Jr., that crazy RW publisher and crackpot, when he first ran or Senate. His fellating dick Cheney during the VP debates and his backhanded support of the vote recounts tod me all I needed to know about this schmuck. All that has happened since, including exchanging saliva with Bush, is just business as usual for this fascist fucker.

So, I really do think this scenario is quite plausible.

Even if he looses, he could be valuable to Bu$hitCo as secy of Defense as a wronged Dem attack dog and a big shield for Israel's criminal warhawks and BuShitco's neo-cons.

Lieberman is a cancer that we must expose, resist and defeat!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
childslibrarian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-22-06 08:26 PM
Response to Reply #69
74. Oh Boy
I'm getting some Reynold's Wrap
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FighttheFuture Donating Member (748 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-23-06 11:34 AM
Response to Reply #74
77. Well at least you have a job,"Tin Foil Hat Maker:. It's quite
obvious that many of Holy Joe's backers have been right wing for quite some time. Now, there is no disputing which side he has chosen.

Too bad you are so lacking in vision to see what is right before you.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
samsingh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-23-06 12:46 AM
Response to Original message
76. that's actually very plausible
let's just hope Lieberman does not win.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu Apr 17th 2014, 08:21 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC