ah, lieberman. how rich that there was a 'civility conference' at AEI. and that lieberman attended.

it just defies parody

both parties = the republican and connecticut for lieberman parties

He's probably just trying to set himself up for another Presidential run by casting himself as the "non-partisan" candidate.

Of course, Joe Lieberman's views are completely self-serving. His calls for bipartisanship and non-partisanship have come primarily after the Democratic Party of Connecticut rejected him. He has tried to turn his lemon of a political career into lemonade, but he just comes off like a very sour, whiny, little man.

the dream indy run:

President: John McCain
Veep: Joe Lieberman
Communications director: David Broder

"If the two major parties don't hear this going into '08, there is a real chance of an independent third-party candidacy -- and watch out if that happens."

Yeah, "watch out if that happens" ... because he's desperately hoping to be their nominee.

The undistinguished Senator from Lieberman is an ass. He literally pulled a Boehner at the press conference. It was kind of like David Duke (or Ken Mehlman) speaking out against racism and race-bating.

Anecdotal experience. I once was a Green Party organizer, even going back was a Perot organizer in '92. I was fed up with the Dem's and worse the GOP. But the Dem's underneath are coming around, in State and local governments they have built a capable network of political activists who are responding to the causes of the progressive/liberals. Here in CO yesterday they passed a workplace anti discrimination bill that now protects gays. They are taking on the authoritarians of the Right or worse the Israeli shadow government.

I think Lieberman is a todie of some power structure of the Right, and doesn't understand how the nation is being moved by the electorate and not visa versa.

As for the Greens they have many good ideas but can't find ways to implement them.

Yet in the end it might be that the Republican Party might have to reform under a new name and banner once all that is learned from the Bushies and Co emerge.

This is the same man who given the vice-presidential nomination in 2000, could not commit himself to the race and stayed on the ballot in Connecticut for Senator. That's really all I needed to know about him.

Lieberman's definition of bi-partisain is to betray your party and all its principals for the sake of your own ego. In Lieberman's book, Benedict Arnold was a bi-partisain patriot.

Lieberman's right. Democratic gains have come largely as the result of astonishingly incompetent and often corrupt Republican leadership, not as the result of new Democratic leadership. No one I know is particularly enamored of either party.

Lieberman and Hatch to co- sponsor a DC voting rights bill.

WASHINGTON - For the first time ever, a powerful Republican senator is backing the bill to get D.C. a full vote in the U.S. House of Representatives.

Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, and Sen. Joe Lieberman, D-Conn., are expected to introduce a new version of the D.C. voting rights bill at 2:30 p.m. Tuesday
http://wtop.com/?nid=596&sid=1129781

Personally I am almost as fed up with the Democratic Party's right turn since Clinton... Clearly the GOP has been taken over by extremists of the worst kind, but where are these "extreme" Democrats he's talking about? All the front-running Dems are, IMHO, right-of-center.

Of course, Joe's statements can always be chalked up to his, as other posters have eloquently put it, self-serving and self-delusional picture of things. This is as obvious a "threat" to run again as I ever saw. Keep dreaming Joe. I'd love to see a 3rd party win an upset, but sure as hell not YOURS.

please, please, please let there be a mccain-lieberman third party run in 2008. in fact, where can i give money to make that happen?

Lieberman wouldn't recognize the Democratic party if it jumped up and bit his whiny rear end. A lot of Democratic party voters would prefer to recognize him only as a target.

Yesterday this seemed so delusional that it didn't deserve serious attention.

But reading it over a little more carefully, I'm wondering if there isn't a darker side to it than just nutty old Joe.

My sense is that after his loss in the primary, Lieberman became Karl Rove's pawn. Cheney and the White House knew that he was on their Iraq team, and that he was going to be as hawkish and supportive on the war as just about anybody.

At the same time, Rove had been shockingly given an actual government job to do, with some sort of oversight of Katrina recovery. He undoubtedly executed this with his eye to the PRM (permanent Republican majority) as always. But he also knew that Joe was the ranking member of the Govt. Affairs committee, the Senate equivalent of Waxman's (renamed) Oversight committee. It's doubtful that it ever occurred to Rove that the GOP would lose the Senate, but regardless Lieberman was a nice piece to have on the board. And Rove may have spent a little extra time getting Joe elected as a hedge. A big part of the strategy was Joe campaigning on using his Affairs committee status to dig deep into Katrina. Funny how not one single thing has happened on any of that. I'm still waiting for a real deep analysis of exactly what Joe's Gov't Affairs Committee is doing in comparison to the way that Waxman is cranking on all cylinders.

But never underestimate the depth of Rove's machinations. Lieberman's seemingly pointless and delusional statement--right up their with Broder's attack on Harry Reid--really only serves the purpose of Lieberman running as an independent for President. He would never win, of course, but it might suck away moderate conservative votes from the Democratic candidate, and narrow the margin for the Republican candidate. I doubt it would work, but I'm also sure that Rove has analyzed just where all of the votes that got Lieberman elected in Connecticut came from. Was all of this part of the deal that Joe made with Rove to win his seat? Anything is possible.

Like Michael Jackson and Liza Minelli, Lieberman seems determined to morph into the parody of himself.

groan.

Al Sharpton/George Allen '08!

A third-party candidate will do the same thing third-party candidates have historically done in the U.S., which is to tip the election to one side or the other, depending on which parties' voters they appeal to more.

See Perot '92, Perot '96, Nader '00.

That's why we should found a Draft Roy Moore for President group immediately after the GOP primaries (or whenever the deadline is to file for President). Convince him to run and get him on the ballot in Florida, Ohio, and maybe a few other swing states, and the Democratic nominee is a shoe-in.

That's why so many GOP donors also donated to Nader in 2000.

I think Lieberman has taken the victory that Connecticut Republicans gave him this fall far too much to heart and really thinks that if he staged an insurgent 3rd party candidacy that he'd be a shoo-in. I really think that his brain works that way. He is such an insufferable egomaniac. But its not something to be worried about, at this point in American history, he would not be taking any Dem. votes away from any candidate, people are far too aware on the whole of who he is.

Liebermann is like a broken clock. He's right once in a while.
At this point I would vote for anyone on the ballot who did not have an R or D after her name.

So why would Joe say this now, when he just sounds like an idiot? Well, first of all, he's an idiot. But secondly, the 08 race is getting off to a quick start and if he doesn't at least begin making noise about it he would never be able to get started. Begs the question of just how much GOP money Joe got to win his seat, and if the money would be there for an independent run.

All of this is very unlikely, even though you never know with Rove, and chances are that it's just number one: Lieberman is a deluded idiot.

I would love to see Harry Reid start calling him out, though I suppose I would settle for some scrutiny of his do-nothing committee.

I've never been a fan of Joe, but I have to agree with him, "no party" is the fastest growing party...

and not the "only-pay-attention-two-weeks-before-the-election" independents. I mean the people who are on top of this stuff and follow the crap going on day-to-day - they are disallusioned.

These statistics don't write the story that your using to counter Joe's point. If you called me for a poll and said "who do you identify with" I'd say Democrat...

That doesn't mean I'm not looking for/and am passionate about something else.

Lieberman is a self-hating Democrat.

You know, let him piss away his money and energy on a campaign. I think the Democrats don't trust him and the Republicans see him as a Democrat.

Let him suck that R money and we will see if his civility prevails.

Security Code: nose Like in Bronx cheer.

He's probably begging McCain to take him as his VP candidate.

I put Lieberman in a category I like to call "Couric" wherein public visibility is inversely proportionaly to irrelevance. The more you see him, less he matters.

Maybe it's just me, but when Lieberman says "a third-party candidate could emerge..." I think he's talking about himself. Ridiculous? Yes. But the man is clearly delusional and has a messanic complex.

Ahhh. Lieberman and McCain for irrelevance! If only we could get both Joe and John to get up their seats in the Senate for a real run at the Oval Office it would be an all around unqualified success. Here's a hope and a toast to the end the craptastic duo!

code word Spring as in hope springs eternal

Earth to Joe: We are fed up with you, buddy.

"I put Lieberman in a category I like to call "Couric" wherein public visibility is inversely proportionaly to irrelevance. The more you see him, less he matters."

Doc, I agree, but that's 'direct proportionality.' A small point, but almost as sharp as the point on Bush's head.

I actually believe Joe's agenda is much more benign than we think... I think he just loves to hear himself talk. Agree?

Lieberman is such a cad. I think the main reason he has us all fascinated, is the utter superhuman extent of his mendacity. The more we learn about Joe, the more he is revealed as the ultimate political animal, and not in any good sense. Joe, please fall on your own knife.

If you say that people are fed up with both parties equally enough times on TV, it doesn't matter if it is true. It becomes true.

Howard,

You can sign up to be a Unity08 delegate and help make it happen!

http://www.unity08.com/

I wonder how many of their delegates will be saboteurs...

Joe is right. The public is tired of having a real choice come election day. They want to go back to the days where there was almost nothing to tell the two parties apart and America had the lowest voter turn out in the democratic world. And the more Americans want to have less of a choice, the more likely they are to vote for a third party who will give it to them. Makes perfect sense to me.

Did Lieberman ever say this?

I've listened attentively to more of this session than I can stand, and I don't find anything in it about the public being equally fed up with both parties.

It's not there, is it? And thus, none of Greg's case for unequal partisan preference (never mind the gratuitous mind-reading demonstration that follows from it) addresses Lieberman's thesis, does it?

Meanwhile, any earnest doorbeller in any precinct can find plenty of people who will tell you they're fed up with both parties.

Can anyone here disagree?

No one I know is particularly enamored of either party.

At least when Pauline Kael said no one she knew voted for Nixon in the 1972 landslide, some people knew she was kidding about data by ancedote.

This stuff is legion, lazy and drives me insane. Nader, Lieberman, hell, George Wallace -- it's long been the mantra of those looking for the easiest way to dodge responsibility while positioning themselves as some kind of messiah of the 'best interests'. It allows the convenient fiction that if only there was a 3rd party then we'd have the government we deserve!

And until we go to a Parlimentary-style democracy, which will never happen, it's a particularly useless pipe dream.

Here's why: The "Republican" and "Democratic" parties are just coalition groups. Sometimes driven by common interests, sometimes torn apart by competing ones. Yes, there are certain brand characteristics of "Republican" and "Democrat", but they've changed in the past and certainly can do so again.

You want change? You want a voice? Take over the fucking party! Get a groundswell of people who support your vision and you can push the party toward your point of view. This is how it works.

When corporate money was ascendent in the Democratic coalition, we got Clinton. However, as their money made the party ever more timid and drew them into abortion of the Iraq war, the passionate backlash by progressive/netroots Democrats has once again started to turn the party.

Just look at the difference between 2002 (or even 2004) and today. Dick Gephardt and Tom Daschele hid. Kerry was torn between his vote and the voice of the base. Now, though, the Democrats have hammered home bills in the House and Senate requiring a timeline for withdrawal. Pelosi and Reid both have toughened up the rhetoric (which IS vitally important) provided reinvigorated oversight, as well as delivered the votes. T

he candidates on the trail all support universal health care, among other genuinely progressive initiatives. Internet money (as evidenced by Obama) has leveled Clinton's DLC-corporate funding. The dynamic has completely changed -- why? Because a motivated group within the Democratic coalition got organized and got smart.

That's why when I hear Lieberman whine about incivility or pine for a 3rd Party (which, at best, becomes a representative rump of one of the two established coalitions) -- or I read things like this:

I mean the people who are on top of this stuff and follow the crap going on day-to-day - they are disallusioned [about both parties].

I find it to be the same tired whine. The case for hoplessness. The built-in excuse.

With Democratic enrollment spiking, a progressive message getting out, the issues tilting left from the war to the environment to gay rights AND an increasingly powerful representational grassroots component I find it immensely frustrating to hear it. There are millions of us fighting a lazy media, trying to oust a malignant GOP and strenghthen the "democratic wing of the democratic party" all at the same time -- and despite progress on all fronts in a very short amount of time, and all of four months having a slim majority in Congress some still want to preach 'disillusionment'? Pox on both houses?

You may as well believe that a magic wand will give you everything you want.

In the movie, "Scrooged" Bill Murray's character says at one point..."The Jews taught me a word....schmuck. I was a schmuck." Well, Joe Lieberman should already know that word because he is, has been, and always will be a schmuck.

Ron, not to be an a-hole or anything, but I seem to recall you saying some pretty snide stuff in response to my assertion that in retrospect The Politico's editors certainly wished they'd revealed Gerstein's payment arrangement. If memory serves, you disputed that they thought this.

Then, of course, it emerged that in fact they did think they'd muffed it and that they did think they should have.

As for this case, obviously my "equally fed up" line is polemical. It's not a literal quoting of the man. It's a rhetorical device, clearly. You're a smart guy; you know this. My point is that Lieberman is heavily invested in a false-equivalence. I've seen absolutely zero evidence of Lieberman's notion that the public is "fed up" with partisanship -- indeed, the empirical evidence suggests the opposite. Virtually every poll I've seen shows that solid majorities *support* Democratic efforts to confront the GOP and the White House both on corruption and on Iraq. Those Dem efforts are by nature partisan. The public supports them. Lieberman doesn't want to admit this -- or simply can't admit this.

Joe Lieberman is a sad case. He may be delusional about himself and his own greatness and popularity (I doubt he could even win his Senate seat were the election held today) but that said, he is not delusional about how a third party ticket could affect the 2008 election.

I do not think it is beyond the pale that we will see a McCain/Lieberman ticket in 2008, mdelled along the lines of the Lieberman campaign in 2006. Leaving aside the merits or qualifications of such a ticket for the moment, it would undoubtedly hurt the Democrats much more than it would the GOP, Elections are about choices, and some percentage of self-identified Democratic are really non-Republicans who would choose a third party over the Dems. Even if this is 1%, although it is probably more, that could be enough to tip one or more swing states over to the GOP. Also, third party candidates obviously have a superficial appeal to that part of the electorate who put a pox on both Dem and GOP. In the absence of a viable third choice, most of those votes would tip democratic.

Frankly, I don't think either one of these clowns care about who wins the next election or what is best for the U.S. Their narsiscism knows no bounds.

Lieberman is getting as soft in the head as McCain. Anyone so firmly ensconced in their ego bubble that they simply can't grasp reality has in my opinion no right to collect a significant salary and all the perks that go with a senatorial seat, all at our expense.

Time for new blood. Go Tester!

I would strongly urge Holy Joe to run for the Unity Party ticket--and in typical Holy Joe style, to still run for president when he loses the Unity party vote. The Democratic party will lose no votes if this happens, as it will only suck votes from Republicans.

How many Electoral votes did Perot get, with nearly one in five voters pulling for him? Not one, you may recall. So let's stop the delusions on this one: There will be no viable third party (just spoilers, like Nader), as long as the Electoral College exists as it does now. And there will be no real meaningful reform on that one until the Republicans get burned. (That almost happened in '04; just imagine the howls of indignation had Kerry won in Ohio but lost the popular vote!) The Electoral College guarantees the two-party system. Hell, George Will has written about this as though it were a virtue.

And can we please divest ourselves of The Big Lie that there are no meaningful differences between the Republicans and the Democrats? Anyone who keeps that up must have been in a coma the past six years.

aznew: Leaving aside the merits or qualifications of such a ticket for the moment, it would undoubtedly hurt the Democrats much more than it would the GOP, Elections are about choices, and some percentage of self-identified Democratic are really non-Republicans who would choose a third party over the Dems.

You may be right -- but I don't think a Lieberman or McCain 3rd Party run would hurt the Democratic ticket. It's the Republicans who are the completely disaffected party looking for saviors this time around. Moreover, it's not always clear that 3rd Parties tilt the scales toward Republicans.

Nader's failure of a campaign drew in enough Democrats to sink Gore's bid, but Perot's first campaign at least drew in equal numbers of Democratic and Republican votes (in other words, Clinton would have won anyway, according to various polls and studies).

Also note Joe's "base". In CT, it consisted mainly of Republicans. That's where he's been getting the love since the war, not from the Democratic party (and, because he's so in favor of this ruinous war, Independents won't vote for him either).

In the end, the notion that there's some deep yearning for a bland middle ground between the Democratic and Republican poles is a joke. The parties have all the organizations, they have most of the motivated voters and, if the past few months of rallies have told us anything, there is a palpable excitement for the Democratic candidates that didn't exist in 92 or 2000.

A 3rd party run in 08 by one or two of the war cheerleaders WON'T hurt a candidate who courts the dominantly anti-war electorate.

I loathe lieberman, but it's true, Democrats assume people think BETTER of them the worse they feel about Republicans.

BUT REAL PEOPLE don't trust politicians, period, fact, end of transmission, INCLUDING Democrats.

Maybe it would be different if Democrats had an ideology, even a murkey one, rather than a bunch of false assumptions.

The good news for ole Joe is this: As long as there's a Dick Cheney, then he won't be the most despised politician in America.

Let's make it clear what Joe's really saying here: "America doesn't know it yet, but it's desperate for ME." Non-partisan, civil, dishonest and self-centered, Joes' got the Unity08 nomination in his sights, fer sher.

I'm with Broderman and Lieberella here. You see this incivility everywhere nowadays, in rural farms and city alleys alike: Sheep bleating and running from wolves, creating a fuss. A guy violently resisting a group of muggers. Women acting all shrill and hostile toward would-be rapists.

You know, if victims would all just tone down the rhetoric and the partisan posturing and work cooperatively with these sorts of people, maybe they wouldn't have to get rough in the first place. Really, can't we all just get along?

I agree that third party tickets don't always hurt Democrats, and Jay B's analysis of the effect of Nader and Perot is spot on, but I believe that both the 2006 election and, to a lesser extent, the 2008 outlook owe a great deal to anti-GOP sentiment, not necessarily pro-Democratic sentiment, and that some of this would drift to a third party. The GOP, on the other hand, is down to its dead-enders, for the most part.

The difference between this election and the Perot runs in 92 and 96 is that back then, there was an usually large swath of voters who were against all politicians. That was Perot's appeal, and that is why he drew equally from both parties. I just don't think that is the case now.

Jay B. is correct- the only way Lieberman's third "party" worked in CT was through his HUGE Republican voter support here. If he hadn't exploited a now closed loophole in our election law, his loss in the Democratic primary would have been the end of his Senate career.
If he sees himself as the national third party candidate...............

You mean I'm not fed up with both parties?

Whew.

That's a relief.

I don't want to beat a dead horse (uh, perhaps a bad expression to use here), but the idea that Joe L. won CT because of GOP voters is not true. In fact, Lieberman drew support equally from Democrats and Republicans. See this Wiki page for details:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Connecticut_United_States_Senate_election,_2006#Election_results

Also, the average GOP voter in CT is way more moderate, if not liberal, than the average GOP voter in most Red states. So, even though Joe won a majority of GOP voters in 2006, that is simply not p[redicitive of what would occur in a national election in the swing states that will decide it -- OH, WI, NM, AZ and CO. In those states, unfortunately, McCain/Lieberman is much more likely to draw from independents and democrats. And, of course, not many votes need to change to affect the outcome.

Of course, if Guiliani or Romney end up as the GOP nominee, it is possible, if not likely, there will be another type of third party candidate that emerges from Fundamentalist wing of the GOP, since both Rudy and Mitt will not be acceptable to a large portion of those voters. Pat Buchanan, perhaps.

Spoken like a man who's lost his relevancy.

Joe may be right about an independent presidential candidate in 2008, and that candidate may even be a Connecticut Yankee, but Shoeless Joe doesn't have a leg to stand on. This will be his last term as Senator.

It sounds like Marshall Whitman wrote his speech.....show yourself Mr Moose!

I for one, am fed up with Holy Joe LIEberman.

Of course, the telling thing as far as I'm concerned was that back when Republican partisanship ruled the day, Lieberman didn't really seem to ever see that as a problem-- heck, he participated in it. Back then, his vision of "bipartisanship" was "let the Republican Partisans do what they want".

I think Lieberman has a point. The only reason the Democratic or Republican parties grow is because of people fleeing a party and having no place to go other then the other party. The current POTUS campaign is a perfect example how both parties are running their riskiest candidates. What are our choices going to be, Giulianni or Clinton? They're representative of what's best for Americans?? Come on!! Clinton is too pro-Hillary and Giulianni is just a jerk.

If America has a truly centrist third party, one that didn't demagogue issues of race, war, abortion, sex, firearms, but truly focused on what was best for all Americans and their place in the world community, I think both the DNC and RNC would be out of business in 6 months. The two party system is corrupt. No matter how bad one party is, there's only one other party as an alternative. Even developing countries have more choice than that.

I don't like Lieberman either, but he has a point about the utter and dismal failure of the two-party system.

Very good website you have here. I found it very interesting. http://birkenstock-shoes-repair.thesouthplace.info >birkenstock shoes repair
http://butalbital-capsule-compound.thesouthplace.info >butalbital capsule compound
Thank you.

Very good website you have here. I found it very interesting. http://amstradam-hotels.livereal.info >amstradam hotels
http://indianapollis-hotels.livereal.info >indianapollis hotels
Thank you.

Very good website you have here. I found it very interesting. http://chcago-hotels.livereal.info >chcago hotels
http://aneheim-hotels.livereal.info >aneheim hotels
Thank you.

Very good website you have here. I found it very interesting. http://amstradam-hotels.livereal.info >amstradam hotels
http://renasaince-hotels.livereal.info >renasaince hotels
Thank you.

Very good website you have here. I found it very interesting. http://chcago-hotels.livereal.info >chcago hotels
http://amserdam-hotels.livereal.info >amserdam hotels
Thank you.