It’s the presidential ticket that liberal Democrats dread: It’s Newt Gingrich, that’s with an “R” — and Sen. Joe Lieberman, and that’s with a “D” (or an “I”). Far-fetched you might say — but remember, it was only a while ago when Sen. Edward Kennedy got Sen. Barack Obama confused with Osama!

Liberal Democrats have always had trouble with Lieberman, especially his tough positions on the Iraq war and terrorism. And, while Lieberman lost the Democratic primary in Connecticut on those very issues, there proved to be far more “at large” and mainstream Democrats who supported him in the general election — which he won handily as an Independent.

Furthermore, the latest threats against Israel could easily vault Lieberman into new favor with moderates of both parties. So much so that his presence on the Republican presidential ticket, for example, could win for it in New York — even against Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y.

OK, if you’re with me so far, how might something like this start?

This story continues below
Advertisement

Easy: Newt Gingrich and Joe Lieberman simply decide to see if it would work, beginning with a series of structured discussions around the country, reminiscent of the grand Lincoln-Douglas style debates of the 19th century.

In fact, former Speaker Gingrich has already proposed versions of this, but against his potential opponents. I suggest here that he do it with his potential running mate — Lieberman. This is also consistent with Gingrich’s past statements that he might run if “no front-runner emerges.”

This split-ticket tactic would simply steal the agenda from everyone else, Republicans and Democrats alike. The two of them could then partner up officially and would sail through the primaries. Stunned by this developing groundswell, the Democrats would quickly nominate “Clinton and somebody else” — and it wouldn’t much matter who the “somebody else” was, with one possible exception.

Meanwhile, the Gingrich–Lieberman juggernaut would roll on and could easily win in the November 2008 general election popular vote.

As important is that the Republicans would dodge the Electoral College dynamics that could have easily defeated George W. Bush in 2000 and 2004 — in fact, the bigger “swing states” would love a Gingrich–Lieberman ticket, especially Florida, Ohio and Pennsylvania.

There is a serious caveat: The 2008 election could be a lot tighter if the “somebody else” with Clinton was a Republican like former Secretary of State Colin Powell — and you know that Hillary and Bill have already thought of these possibilities.

No matter which of these split-tickets might win, the clear message now is that the center wins in 2008. The Democrats always move that way at general election time, and the Republicans had better “get it” soon, or just lose.

A Gingrich–Lieberman White House could also signal the end to the extreme partisanship on the Hill, and between the Hill and the White House. The division of labor for this important work would be: Gingrich “works the House” and Lieberman “works the Senate.”

Just as important would be the external political side effects of this new political coalition: U.S. foreign relations would be in for a serious “reality check” by our friends and enemies alike. Gone should be the exploitable differences in our international policies with regard, for example, to terrorism and the Middle East.

Elective politics at the center can achieve these things; continued partisanship cannot. And, for the still doubting pollsters and pundits, is a split ticket really possible for 2008? Sure it is, and the Republicans should be thinking about it very seriously. We can be sure that the Democrats already are.

Daniel Gallington is a senior fellow at the Potomac Institute for policy studies in Arlington.