Why Can't Lieberman Be Challenged in a Primary?
Sam Rosenfeld points out accurately that I have warned against the temptation of the idea that congressional Democrats should emulate the Republican machine in enforcing rigid party discipline on all issues. But that doesn't mean I don't think there are any lines that should be enforced. There are lines. And so I agree that it's right that Nancy Pelosi should put the screws to Rep. Edolphus Towns for skipping the vote on the budget bill, which was a party vote if ever there was one, and for repeat offenses. (When I challenged the argument that Towns and others should be punished for voting for the Central American Free Trade Agreement, my point was that trade bill votes had never traditionally been party line votes; I don't need to revisit that question here.)
Another line was certainly crossed by Joe Lieberman last week, when he said, "It's time for Democrats who distrust President Bush to acknowledge that he will be the commander in chief for three more critical years and that in matters of war we undermine presidential credibility at our nation's peril."
I've always cut Lieberman a lot of slack. He was my state rep when I was a little kid, and probably the first politician other than Nixon I could name. (Which makes it ironic that he would endorse such a Nixonian view.) When I worked in the Senate, I worked with his staff a lot on student loan and child support enforcement issues, and their intelligence and sincerity reflected their boss. A friend who worked for him would often remind me that despite his posture, his voting record was not notably different from that of Senator Dodd, which is true, and on environmental issues, he not only votes right but has accomplished a lot.
But that endorsement of the Cheney view of the role of dissent, together with his blindness to the fact that only the president undermine's presidential credibility, crosses the final line for me.
Which brings up the question, why can't Lieberman be challenged? Yes, he's generally very popular in the state, but via Ezra Klein, I notice a new poll suggests his support is eroding to 59% among Democrats. And among activist Democrats most likely to vote in a primary, Lieberman in theory ought to be especially vulnerable. Yet all the buzz seems to be about finding an independent anti-war candidate, such as former Republican Senator and independent governor Lowell Weicker, who Lieberman defeated in 1988. Why can't there be a primary against Lieberman?
The answer has to do with Connecticut's political culture and rules. Primaries don't happen. Until a federal court ruling in 2002, a candidate who wanted to appear on a party's primary ballot had to get 15% at the state party convention. That meant a grueling, expensive, and usually futile ground war in small town nominating conventions at which the state convention delegates were named. According to the Brennan Center for Justice, which filed suit challenging the rule, in 50 years, not a single incumbent member of Congress or Senator, and only one governor, faced a challenge in a primary. (Nationally, 34% of incumbent Senators seeking reelection faced primaries in 2000.)
The 15% rule was found unconstitutional in 2003, and I'm not sure where things stand or whether the state has rewritten the law. Looking at the state Democratic Party rules, it appears that to appear on a statewide primary ballot, you have to get either 15% of the delegates or petition signatures representing 2% of the state's registered Democrats, or about 13,000 signatures. But without a culture or habit of primaries in the state, it seems unlikely that they would start now.
What's interesting about this is the history: Connecticut's politics is the legacy of a severe but benign political machine, especially on the Democratic side. The system created by John M. Bailey, later national party chair and father of former Rep. and failed gubernatorial candidate Barbara Kennelly, was as disciplined as the Hague machine of Jersey City -- exemplified by the 15% rule -- but the politicians it produced were decent, smart admirable liberals like Senator Abraham Ribicoff and governors Chester Bowles and Brien McMahon.
And how do I know any of this history? When I was in high school, I read a great book about Bailey and the Connecticut machine. The author had written it as his senior thesis at Yale. His name was Joe Lieberman.
So maybe it's time for the Democrats in Connecticut to send him back to book-writing.
Thank you for your explanation of how primary politics don't work in Connecticut. I was really at a loss as to why nobody was challenging Lieberman.
At this point, Lieberman has become an anchor for the Democratic party. Much as I would rather wait until we have a majority in the Senate before going about the risky business of replacing an incumbent with a newcomer to the Senate, Joe must go. At a time when it is critical the Democratic party define where it stands with voters, Lieberman has severely undercut those efforts with his remarks.
Now any Democrat who takes a stand on the war will find himself scolded by gleeful Repugs quoting Lieberman. It's pretty sickening.
December 15, 2005 9:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
What this has to do with is the plain and simple fact that Democrats will categorically renounce anyone or anything which is in line with the Bush Administration. It certainly has nothing to do with credibility as you claim. Starting in the early part of 2004 (when the campaign truly began in earnest) the DEMS made a conscious effort to fillibuster the president on almost every front. This blind intolerance on the part of the left is not so much based on errors or bad judgement by Mr. Bush (if it were, constructive conversation on the issues would have resulted, as opposed to smear campaigns). Lieberman is quite right when he says Bush still has 3 years left as president. If the left continues to oppose him on every front imaginable it will be long 3 years and will likely not look good seeing as how most Americans hate to hear bitching and moaning.
December 15, 2005 9:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
All that is well said. However, the worst thing that can happen is that an independent runs and splits the Democratic vote with Lieberman and then the Republican wins.
Whatever you may say about Liberman, he still will vote as a Democrat when the Senate is organized.
So an in-party challenge is fine. An independent candidate challenge can cause worse than what now exists.
Caution.
December 15, 2005 9:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
What this has to do with is the plain and simple fact that Democrats will categorically renounce anyone or anything which is in line with the Bush Administration.
You know why we Democrats take statements like this with a grain of salt? (And I'm being kind.)
It's because when the last Democrat was President, not to mention the Congress, we had Republicans categorically renouncing anyone or anything which was in line with us.
So unless your comeback is to somehow convince us that, yes, the GOP was really the party of compromise and coalition-building when we had office, I'd say your words ring hollow.
Now with that said, if you've seen the polls lately, I'd say that the American people are with the Democrats now. Nothing the American people hate worse than having a President lie us into a war.
I'd say the next three years are going to be quite good for Dems.
December 15, 2005 10:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
"Much as I would rather wait until we have a majority in the Senate before going about the risky business of replacing an incumbent with a newcomer to the Senate, Joe must go."
The two choices are two sides of the same coin.
Lieberman is a roadblock to a Dem majority.
It would be better for Democrats, at least in the long run, to lose Lieberman's seat than continue with Lieberman as an albatross around the party's neck.
Lieberman is a huge liability fro the Democratic party. He perpetuates the meme that Democrats are in disarray, without a spine, a weak imiation of the GOP. At a time and on an issue where the party needs to draw sharp contrasts with the GOP Lieberman blurs the distinctions.
This is nothing new. Lieberman did the same thing during Monicagate, in effect legitimizing the GOP lynching of Clinton and giving momentum to the impeachment effort. He did the same thing during the 2000 election, blurring distinctions with the GOP and agreeing with Cheney on a lot of issues during the debate and thus making Cheney look like a reasonable moderate.
I can see and forgive a confederate state Democrat doing this. It would be out of political necessity. But Lieberman represents a true blue state. So if he is undermining his party it is not from political necessity. It is deliberate.
Lieberman has become a cancer on the Democratic party. It has nothing to do with his stand on the Iraq war. It is his decade long history of spitefully damaging his party. He needs to go.
December 15, 2005 10:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
If it takes 13,000 sigs to get a name on the ballot, I'd think Moveon.org could get that from their 50,000 Ct. members.
December 15, 2005 10:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
Please read my comment above.
This is the kind of defensive short term thinking that is keeping Democrats in the minority.
It is better for Democrats, in the long term, to rid themselves of Lieberman and lose his seat than continue with the Lieberman albatross around their necks.
Lieberman's net effect on the party is negative. Which means he is hurting the party's chances of defining itself, drawing sharp contracts with the GOP, challenging Bush and winning seats in OTHER states. Lieberman hurts the party nationally.
He has to go.
December 15, 2005 10:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
Schmitt is correct. As for Americans not approving of bitching and complaining, this is exactly what we shouldn't care about. Democratic posturing is how the Democrats got in this lamentable position. Worrying how people perceive us is the type of navel gazing that is anathema to true leadership.
Joe Lieberman is actually suggesting dissent is un-American because Bush will be in office for 3 more years. We're opposing Bush because his policies and "leadership" are wrong for America, period. You don't back someone whose policies are incredibly negative just because the American people don't like to hear people bitch. I've never heard of anything more spineless or politically preposterous.
As for an independent, roll the dice, baby. Jim Jeffords signed the Democratic Party's letter to Bush yesterday. We wouldn't be any worse off if we had an independent.
Lieberman has earned a primary challenge. I hope he gets it.
Taylor Marsh
December 15, 2005 10:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
Bitching and moaning during the Clinton presidency, name calling, denouncing and trashing him, his wife and daughter for EIGHT years did not do much damage to the GOP. In fact it did them a lot of good. They control all three branches of goverment.
So your assertion that Democrats better be nice to Bush or else they will pay a political price is not supported by facts.
Democrats have paid a heavy political price for accomodating Bush for the last 5 years.
December 15, 2005 10:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
Democrats will categorically renounce anyone or anything which is in line with the Bush Administration. Gettysburg
Is there some reason not to?
December 15, 2005 10:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
Joe must go! I have not doubt Gore would have had a much more sizeable majority (and hence, the presidency) in 2000, if it were not for Lieberman. The man is out of touch and obviously in love with Bush. I would even prefer a Republican in his seat. That way you could just expect to be screwed all the time, not just when it really matters.
December 15, 2005 11:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
cscs:
"I did not have sexual relations with that woman."
The President of the United States openly, intentionally, and calmly lied to the entire world with those hallowed remarks. For his part, Bush can still play the faulty intelligence card as opposed to admitting to lying. Receiving fellatio in the Oval Office, in addition, is something which most main stream Americans could not reconcile.
Being that most Americans are moderate Christians, I would not count on this anti-Bush rally to translate into any landslide victories. The Republicans waged an offensive on Bill Clinton because his lie was not only caught on tape, but was part of an address on live national television. There is no such smoking gun with George W. Bush. Democrats will claim that there is, but let's be honest, there is not otherwise Bush would have been impeached just like his predecessor. Furthermore, the Republicans were much more adept at attacking Clinton than are the Democrats attacking Bush. For one, the GOP smartly kept a lot of the dissention "in house" by using lobbyists and other forms of special interest to coerce the Clinton Administration. The Democrats, however, are simply joining with the already biased, liberal media and "spinning" stories about the administration which are not only openly public, but malicious and largely untrue. If it is quid pro quo you speak of, may I suggest a bit more subtelty. The American people really do not like contrived bashing.
December 15, 2005 11:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
I am a Democrat, who has served on one of the small CT town committees as Chairman, Vice-Chairman and Treasurer. I can tell you that not one member of our committee would support Lieberman if there were an alternative. I also know John Orman, professor at Fairfield U., who set up an exploratory committee to start the process of challenging Joe. Unfortunately John found the problem of money to be insurmountable. Lieberman has access to so much cash now that it is almost quixotic to mount a challenge. I know I would do it if I had the resources. He has played the political game well, attracting enough of the right in the state and closing the door to the liberals that we are left with no alternative. It truly is a sad thing.
December 15, 2005 12:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
The candidate considering a really threatening run against Lieberman is Weicker. He is thinking, apparently, of running only in the general as an independent. He should be encouraged to start earlier and to run in the primaries first, as a Democrat, although he most likely would be unwilling to do so.
But one of the most important issues is to find candidates to run on antiwar platforms of Weicker like stature. It is a grave error that people are focusing so singularly on Lieberman, or to treat this as an issue of party discipline. First of all, there are still a number of hawk and fudgyhawk Democrats who are, including Joe Lieberman and Hillary Clinton, sufficiently powerful so that not only does the Democratic Party not have a national antiwar plank to enforce, but surely will not have such a plank for the 2006 elections. And even when the party DOES have a plank, such as on abortion, it is generally not "enforced" by the party.
It is silly to talk about enforcing some kind of 'line' on the issue of the Iraq War in the Democratic Party before such a line has been established. Where the Democratic Party is now is at the phase of struggling to establish an antiwar plank as its position. This requires a group of prominent Democrats, in and out of government, people well-heeled like Arianna Huffington, Michael Moore, and/or Tom Hayden, etc. to form a kind of 'collective Al Lowenstein 68' for 2006. This group could both recruit a raft of really strong antiwar candidates to run in the Democratic Primaries against EVERY hawk and 'fudgyhawk' (the latter illustrated by Hillary Clinton voting for the measure calling for a timetable and then coming out with an emailed plan for redeployment and continued occupation) Democrat either House who is up for re-election in 2006. Sure, most of these candidates wouldn't even come close to winning. But it would generate a national focus on the war, and a few close calls and even some upsets of incumbents would electrify the Democratic Party for the future -- towards uniting around an antiwar position. In 2008, hopefully, these campaigns will be the basis both for an antiwar presidential nominee (not having Hillary and/or Clark or someone like that forced down the throat of the Democratic Party that year) and for a NATIONAL antiwar plank calling at least for rapid, phased, negotiated withdrawal along the lines of Feingold/Murtha/Kucinich.
The kind of group I am calling for could recruit really strong candidates of stature to run campaigns to really contest victory, not just people of little resource running quixotic campaigns that might generate a little buzz but little more. We need winnable candidates with winnable platforms. And of course, they need to have not only been recruited by a group that are in a position to entice strong candidates, but they must be then powerfully BACKED once they do volunteer.
The failure of the antiwar forces in this country to put forward a really strong winnable outspoken antiwar candidate in the Maryland Senate primary for an open seat is really a travesty, and reflects the kind of 'culture of ineffectuality' as well as enforced ineffectuality that defines authentic progressive politics in the US today.
This position might also seem to some to be "divisive". But sometimes such a struggle is necessary in order to move to a position of principled unity. At this point MOST Democrats in Congress either opposed the war all along or have moved to the Feingold/Murtha/Kucinich position, or are doing so, but not enough to form a tipping point to make it the national position of a divided party. Like in 2004, you will have a gung-ho prowar party (along the lines of Lieberman's position) on one hand, and a party that is fragmented and led in significant party by hawks and fudgyhawks on the other. Then the defeat of the Democrats, who wouldn't even come together as antiwar, and as I have repeatedly outlined didn't really go to the mat to fight to win, is then sold to the public as a "mandate" for the war.
December 15, 2005 12:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
But that endorsement of the Cheney view of the role of dissent, together with his blindness to the fact that only the president undermine's presidential credibility, crosses the final line for me.
This totally misunderstands what Lieberman meant when he said that in war, we undermine the President's credibility at our peril. In no way does Joe Lieberman think like Dick Cheney when it comes to the role of dissent about the war.
Why do I say this? All you have to do is look at Lieberman's record: he has been a consistent critic of the way the war has been conducted and has heaped scorn on Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld in the boneheaded decisions they've made about the way to run the war.
He makes these criticisms because,fundamentally, he wants America to be successful in achieving the goals that it has set out - a stable Iraq with a democratic government that treats its people well and doesn't threaten its neighbors.
By contrast, most Democrats don't seem to give a rat's ass about whether Iraq is stabilized of whether it succeeds or not. Such is the depth of hatred for Bush that they either ignore successful events in Iraq or else sneer about how it's all irrelevant. It's this attitude that Lieberman was getting at when he made that comment. It is in no one's interest to see Iraq fail. Only the most myopic partisan would hope for that. But that does not mean that Bush should be immune from criticism.
I'll grant that Lieberman's statement was not very well put. But there is simply no question of him thinking that ALL dissent is wrong. Otherwise he'd be condemning himself.
Our very own Marshall Wittman, a/k/a The Moose, said it best this morning:
A few years back, some on the right wanted Bill Clinton to lose in Kosovo more than they wanted America to win. When President Clinton attacked Iraq or went after Osama, the right viewed it as a "wag the dog" conspiracy or a nefarious plot to serve his own personal ends. That is the way it is today with some on the left in regard to Iraq. Their rage towards this President knows no limits. They cannot even take a pause to celebrate the third time in a year that an Arab nation has exercised democratic rights.
Politically speaking, the American people will never select a party to lead them that appears infected with a Tourettes like rage. They will always opt for strength and optimism over weakness and pessimism. Think FDR,Truman and JFK.
The Moose has many differences with the President - both with his domestic plutocratic policies and his Administration's incompetent prosecution of the war. But, President Bush will be Commander in Chief for three more years and he wishes him success in the achievement of our nation's national security objectives. That was this author's view when Clinton was President and so it is today.
THAT's what Lieberman was getting at.
December 15, 2005 1:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
If your going to go after Democrats in the primary, you should look for those that are giving the GOP political cover on their radical reverse Robin Hood agenda. Democrats who backed the Bush tax plan should be at the top of the list.
On the other hand, a full fledge intraparty war on exactly how fast we withdrawal troops from Iraq is giving Karl Rove an early holiday...err...Christmas present.
Joe should clarify/retract his statement and then we should all move on (yes, even MoveOn) to the task of regaining the majority.
BTW, at this point I fully expect the obligatory "Joe was a schmuck on bankruptcy and was scheming to sell us down the river on Social Security" response. Point noted.
December 15, 2005 1:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bush:
"We found the weapons of mass destruction. We found biological laboratories."
Bush lied, thousands died.
I think there are smoking guns. That's why Libby is indicted. And we'll see who else is indicted next.
I'll give you one thing -- the case against Clinton was cut and dry. The case against the Bush Administration is a lot more involved, because they had to do a lot more to cover it up.
December 15, 2005 1:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
PS, I should add that by "cut and dry," I'm agreeing that he lied.
I'm not agreeing that blowjobs, or lying about blowjobs, are an impeachable offense. The case was a complete waste of time and millions of taxpayer dollars.
December 15, 2005 1:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
December 15, 2005 2:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is a democracy. Undermining the credibility of elected officials is what people in a democracy do - whether that official is president, Governor, Alderman or Dog Catcher. People fight to win elected office, and once in office, others fight to weaken them and remove them from office. It's a wonderful thing.
Some seem attracted to the theory that during a war we must always be silent, and stand behind the President. But this is stupid. America is always fighting a war of some kind or other. If such a rule was actually practiced we would soon cease to have a real democracy. Fanatics like Lieberman are apparently attracted to this despotic conception of government, reminiscent of the Roman institution of the Dictator. History shows what the Roman tradition of authoritarian rule mixed with sometime republicanism lead to - empire and emperors.
Some others argue that disagreement should end at the water's edge - that while we may freely disagree among ourselves here at home, we must back up our leaders when they relate with others abroad. But this is absurd. Domestic discussion does not take place behind a lead curtain. We're transparent - it is right out there for all to see. If we have a free society, with free discussion, open government and popular sovereignty, then everyone is going to know what's going on. And that's a great thing.
When Democrats were pushing progressive social programs through the legislatures, they had to fight conservative opponents tooth and nail. They did it by building a majority coalition that triumphed over vociferous opposition. The fact that there was open opposition did not weaken these politicians - instead it gave them the opportunity to beat their enemies and show their strength. The notion that opponents of a national security policy or other foreign policy should keep quiet lest they "weaken" the President is a feeble-minded and pre-democratic way of thinking. Only cowards and weaklings have the temerity to rely on the babyish argument that people should just shut up and support hem. Any self-respecting democratic politician with an ounce of moxie craves a fight, and seeks to win the debate - not cancel it.
War is no different than any other public policy. A successful politician in a democracy manages to pursue the policies he wants while fighting off nummerous rivals and opponents and dissidents. Wars are politics. There is no reason to have special, different non-democratic rules for carrying out military actions, and debate about them, as opposed to other government actions. If Bush is right, and a good politician, he will persuade the country to support his policies and carry the day. If he is wrong or inept, he will lose the debate and be forced to pursue a different course. Obviously, a lot of Americans disagree with his foreign policies. So let's just argue it out and let the best side win. Enough of this monarchical whining and effete sensitivity about opposition and dissent.
The only rule for a democratic citizen should be to support to policies you agree with, and work to change those that you don't; to back the leaders whose performance meets your approval and to defeat the one who don't.
Government employees in a democracy know that they have to carry out policies which are perpetually contested. When an IRS agent goes out to collect taxes, he does so knowing that lots of people are opposed to the policies he is enacting, and who say so publicly are are seeking to change the very laws he is enforcing. Well too bad - collecting taxes is his job. The majority sets the rules and he puts them into effect, even in the face of dissent. No IRS agent, I presume, would dream of whining about the fact that the lack of 100% public support is hurting the "morale" of him and his fellow agents. Similarly our soldiers must know that when the President sends the military into war, a whole bunch of Americans will typically disagree and will be working to change the policy even as the soldier works to execute it. Tough. If he can't live with that normal functioning of democratic society then he should quit the job he has and get a different one - or move to some dictatorial country where no one dissents and everyone always says "we're behind you boys!" Otherwise just grow up.
However, it is my impression that our soldiers are a lot tougher and more grown up about this than the craven politicians who seek to defend the war with a soggy and sentimental "defend our boys and support our Leader" appeal.
December 15, 2005 2:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Looking at the state Democratic Party rules, it appears that to appear on a statewide primary ballot, you have to get either 15% of the delegates or petition signatures representing 2% of the state's registered Democrats, or about 13,000 signatures.
So what's the problem? If a candidate can't get 13,000 signatures, then he/she shouldn't run anyway. But that's not an especially high hurdle, with anti-Lieberman sentiment as high as it is among Dems. It shouldn't take more than a week or two, with a little organization. Poor excuse, in my mind, for no primary challenge. The bigger issue is finding the candidate. Who's it gonna be?
December 15, 2005 4:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
he wants America to be successful in achieving the goals that it has set out - a stable Iraq with a democratic government that treats its people well and doesn't threaten its neighbors.
As a former Iowan, the final straw for me on Lieberman was when he wouldn't campaign in Iowa after having abundant time and money to run around Israel and Iraq. The guy is obsessed with the Middle East and has little regard for the grunts of Iowa, Illinois, Indiana and Idaho who fight the war for his obsession. But if the people of Connecticut want him, that's their decision. Just don't pretend he represents anybody but a faction of one state.
Our very own Marshall Wittman,
Wittman is a neocon Republican. He can take personal credit for my vow to reject any DLC candidate for any office. Strength and optimism? Bush and the neocon gang who lead with fear and intimidation? Anybody out there strong enough to lead without an aircraft carrier or a regiment in the background? FDR lead with fireside chats.
December 15, 2005 4:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
The reason why so many middle Americans do not vote for Democrats is not because they aren't sure how the Democrats stand, but that they don't know whether or not the Democrats pass a threshold on certain litmus test issues. While they might have a general preference for some degree of social tolerance and an economic balance geared more to the average American, the failure to pass the threshold on any litmus test issue could push those voters to the Republicans.
One of these issues is security policy with the threshold being recognizing that there are nefarious forces out there and that there are certain hot areas where these nefarious forces can gain traction. Meet that threshold, and the middle voter will look to the issues where Democrats are stronger.
Joe recognizes what the nefarious forces are like and articulates that it is imperative to win against them, not endorsing Bush's disastrous policies that have failed to do so. Purging the party of the like of Joe would worse, than muddling where the Democrats stand on the issue, prove that they do not cross the critical threshold.
December 15, 2005 4:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
One of these issues is security policy with the threshold being recognizing that there are nefarious forces out there and that there are certain hot areas where these nefarious forces can gain traction. Meet that threshold, and the middle voter will look to the issues where Democrats are stronger.
We tried that with Kerry--it didn't work.
DLC-style Republican-Lite politics aren't a winner. We can't be the "Me, too!" party.
December 15, 2005 5:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Because we wouldn't want to offend Marshall Whitman?
Why he might bolt to another party..we wouldn't want to lose him now would we
December 15, 2005 8:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
"The Democrats, however, are simply joining with the already biased, liberal media and "spinning" stories about the administration which are not only openly public, but malicious and largely untrue."
As soon as you say "already biased liberal media" we KNOW you are a troll.
Go back under the bridge.
December 16, 2005 10:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
A Boy and His Dog
Oliphant Cartoon
Brought to you by
The NLF
Nutmegger Lieberation Front
December 16, 2005 11:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
challenger. And success/failure should not be considered. Sending the message, to simply flex the "outsider" muscle and not get bogged down in issues and ideology.
We've got to get out of the habit of making the perfect the enemy of the good. The reality of the CT electorate can't be ignored.
Which probably leaves out such celebrities as Newman/Woodward, Sarandon/Robbins, Meryl Streep, and Phil Donahue. Though one of these would be a better choice than a no-name lefty.
What I'd suggest to CT folks like PoliticalSports (above) and DFA/Moveon folks there would be to have a serious sit-down with David Letterman (yes, really). He's a parent now, old enough to be considering his "post-TV-boy" options, and may not want to let Franken have all the fun.
Besides, the overture to a celebrity itself would scare the crap out of JoJo the Monkey's Boy.
A fallback option might be Cheryl Howard Crew (Mrs. Ron Howard) who travelled (illegally) in Afghanistan to research her recent novel and is a certified sharpshooter.
--
www.january6th.orgDecember 17, 2005 5:37 PM | Reply | Permalink