2 Bush appoints Lieberman as Defense Secretary, replacing Rumsfeld.
3 Gov Rell appoints a Republican to complete Lieberman’s term
The Republicans wind up picking up a seat in the Senate in one of the bluest of states.
[/QUOTE]
And, as a bonus from Lieberman’s POV, he wouldn’t even have to break his pledge to caucus with the Dems if he won re-election.
Laura Rozen of War and Piece claims that Bush has asked at least one person if s/he was interested in replacing Rummy, and was turned down. (No surprise about the rejection: who’d want the job, in the shape it’s in right now?) Take that with the appropriate shaker of salt. I’ve yet to hear a bad word about Rozen from anyone, but I’m only an occasional reader of her blog myself, so I can’t vouch for her reliability.
I’m not up on my bylaws, but can’t the Democratic Party just give Joe the heave-ho already? I mean, it’s their party, they’re supposed to set the membership rules…
[QUOTE=rjung]
I’m not up on my bylaws, but can’t the Democratic Party just give Joe the heave-ho already? I mean, it’s their party, they’re supposed to set the membership rules…
[/QUOTE]
Nationally? I doubt the Democratic Party at the national level has any criteria for membership; generally how it works with political parties is that you participate in one if you agree with most of what they say and do; it hardly makes sense to do otherwise.
Just like no one expects the Spanish Inquisition, one doesn’t expect someone to be part of a party and spend most of his energy slamming that party while cozying up to another one.
The national party leadership could say something like, “As long as Lieberman is running against the Democratic Party candidate for U.S. Senator from Connecticut, we do not recognize him as a member of our party, and will not regard him as a member of our caucus,” but they’re too chickenshit to do that.
So it’s apparently up to local Dem activists in New Haven to use state laws delimiting party affiliation to do what the national party lacks the gumption to do.
[QUOTE=rjung]
I’m not up on my bylaws, but can’t the Democratic Party just give Joe the heave-ho already? I mean, it’s their party, they’re supposed to set the membership rules…
[/QUOTE]
Don’t you think the Pubs would have expelled David Duke if they could? It doesn’t work that way, not in the Big Two.
[QUOTE=BrainGlutton]
Form his own ad-hoc party and keep running as an indie right up to e-day? Whatever the consequences? Even if he ends up a pariah in the Dem Party?
His website certainly seems to indicate that intention . . .
[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=RTFirefly]
The national party leadership could say something like, “As long as Lieberman is running against the Democratic Party candidate for U.S. Senator from Connecticut, we do not recognize him as a member of our party, and will not regard him as a member of our caucus,” but they’re too chickenshit to do that.
[/QUOTE]
Or too smart. What do they gain by doing that, other than a great big “attaboy” from their hardcore base.
2 Bush appoints Lieberman as Defense Secretary, replacing Rumsfeld.
3 Gov Rell appoints a Republican to complete Lieberman’s term
The Republicans wind up picking up a seat in the Senate in one of the bluest of states.
[/QUOTE]
Do you really believe Lieberman would rather be DefSec than a very senior senator? Or that he would be willing to do something that would completely burn his bridges WRT to ever again being accepted as a “Democrat”?
[QUOTE=RTFirefly] They’re trying to fix that.
[/QUOTE]
Um, I was referring to whatsisname, Schlesinger, the GOP’s official nominee, not getting supported by his own party.
They’re supporting their nominee with the full force of their funding and organizing, and doing jack for some independent who’s not even using the party’s name. What else do you want them to do?
[QUOTE=John Mace]
Or too smart. What do they gain by doing that, other than a great big “attaboy” from their hardcore base.
[/QUOTE]
Indeed. Already the Republicans are trying to portray this whole thing as an example of how beholden the Dems are to extremists. This is unfair, but it’s their strategy. The best Democratic response, IMO, is to ignore it as the silliness that it is. If they expel Lieberman, it’ll serve no material purpose except to make their enemies cackle with glee as they put together new talking points.
[QUOTE=ElvisL1ves]
They’re supporting their nominee with the full force of their funding and organizing, and doing jack for some independent who’s not even using the party’s name. What else do you want them to do?
[/QUOTE]
Are they? How much funding is Lamont getting vs other condidates? It’s an honest question, Elvis. I really have no idea what’s going on, but I suspect it’s a bbit too early to tell. Won’t the real funding come (if it does come) after Labor Day? You don’t really campaign in these elections until all those white shoes are put away…
[QUOTE=John Mace]
IOW, you have no fucking idea what you’re talking about. I should’ve known better than to ask you an honest question.
[/QUOTE]
Try asking a coherent one, after first getting the point that is. :rolleyes:
The newest poll I found - and I don’t know anything about the American Research Group - shows a dead heat. 44 percent for Lieberman, 42 percent for Lamont, 3.5 percent for margin of error, and 3 percent for Schlesinger.
The alternative stratagem being murmured about: Lieberman wins, accepts post as Sec Def, and Republican governor of CT picks next Senator. Hey, them’s the rules!
[QUOTE=BrainGlutton] William Greider’s take on the situation.
[/QUOTE]
Too Machiavellian. It makes Lieberman look to be driven more by ambition for power and less by sheer ego than I suspect is the case.
[QUOTE=elucidator]
The alternative stratagem being murmured about: Lieberman wins, accepts post as Sec Def, and Republican governor of CT picks next Senator. Hey, them’s the rules!
[/QUOTE]
