Blue Mass Group

Reality-based commentary on politics.

Lieberman might switch parties

By

Oh, this is great.  Reports the “politico”:

“I have no desire to change parties,” Lieberman said in a telephone interview. “If that ever happens, it is because I feel the majority of Democrats have gone in a direction that I don’t feel comfortable with.”

Asked whether that hasn’t already happened with Iraq, Lieberman said: “We will see how that plays out in the coming months,” specifically how the party approaches the issue of continued funding for the war.

He suggested, however, that the forthcoming showdown over new funding could be a deciding factor that would lure him to the Republican Party.

“I hope we don’t get to that point,” Lieberman said. “That’s about all I will say on it today. That would hurt.”

Despite reservations about this new “politico” website and its willingness to latch onto right-wing talking points, this story appears to be straight from Joementum’s mouth.  I’d say good riddance to bad rubbish, if it weren’t for that whole pesky control of the Senate thing.

Please share widely!
fb-share-icon
Tweet
0

Comments

  1. …if Lieberman might remain independent but choose to caucus with the Republicans.  The Johnson situation seems to be resolving itself, but it’s hard to know.

    <

    p>
    That’s what makes this ‘sweeping mandate’ thing so overstated.  The country didn’t vote to go in a whole new direction if one guy getting hit by a Grayhound bus changes the course of the entire body.  BOTH sides need to work with one another.

    • that doesn’t really make sense, PP.  Fact is, almost nobody thought that the Senate could swing from 45-55 to 51-49, but it did.  And the House shifted by about 30 seats.  It was about as sweeping a mandate as is possible in this era of gerrymandered House districts and entrenched, moneyed incumbents.

      <

      p>
      Doesn’t mean they shouldn’t work together when they can.  But the notion that the ’06 election wasn’t a sweeping rejection of the past few years of GOP-dominated government strikes me as laughable.

      • the entire Senate was not up for election (it doesn’t work that way), so voters had limited opportunities to throw the bums out. Even before the election, the Democrats represented more Americans than Republicans did, because the Senate is not a demographically representative body like the House. So pitching the election results as a “partial win” for Republicans is a real accomplishment.

  3. and leave the GOP stuck holding the bag.  The Dems are having trouble moving along in the Senate anyway.  The Dem House can put out good legislation, and let it langusih in the GOP Senate, with Dick Chaney and his 30% approval rating constantly in the news breaking ties with the GOP that most people love to hate right now.

    <

    p>
    Short term loss?  Sure.  Long term gain of extra Senate and House seats if Joe bolts, plus an increased chance at the White House?  Methinks so.

    • Yes, there is a possible partisan advantage here. The Republicans are much more likely to aggressively pursue filibusters than Democrats so there are fewer legislative victories than we would like.

      <

      p>
      (If you remember, the Republicans in Congress had a policy of proving that the Clinton Administration had no legislative accomplishments. The Democratic base simply does not put up with shenigans of that sort — from Democrats.)

      <

      p>
      One problem is that Democrats have long been underrepresented in the major media. The recent Congressional victories have made Democratic Senators more powerful and thus more likely to be asked to show up on the teevee. There’s the further advantage that controlling the majority means controlling the topics being debated. It is better to baste Republicans in populism sauce for two years than to have to fight off their spicy mix of jingoism and social regression.

      • One problem is that Democrats have long been underrepresented in the major media.

        <

        p>
        People on my side of the fence feel that the major media outlets (i.e. network news, CNN, most major newspapers) are sidely liberal and biased in that direction. 

        <

        p>
        Anyone ever see an honest assessment of media bias?

        • This has been a large area of discussion on right v. left. I can’t imagine tracking it all down and neatly summarizing it into a comment — never mind a diary.

          <

          p>
          The place to start from our side is Media Matters for America. Eric Alterman is one of our side’s point men on it. You can even examine the back and forths of the various books on the subject, or the statistics on who is invited to talk shows. Before the last elections, for example, it was not at all unusual to “balance” conservatives with journalists — as our guys have amply documented. Journalists are not supposed to advocate liberal positions. Further, the lead up to the Iraq War had enormously slanted press coverage so that anti-war voices were rarely heard from. (Again you can read our guys if you want to hear our side of it.)

          <

          p>
          There is an identity politics angle that conservatives commentators in this controversy apply: they point out how reporters et al. are more likely to be liberal than conservative. Alas, it is just an hypothesis to assert that liberal reporters would cause liberal news without more data. Alterman’s “working the refs” hypothesis fits a lot of stuff better from what I’ve read.

          <

          p>
          Very salient for us is the fact that Judith Miller, who was key to selling the Iraq War, worked for the New York Times.

  4. If he switches parties, he is guaranteed to lose in 2012. So he will only switch if he is planning to retire anyway. He didn’t win by much already, switching parties would be enough to defeat him. It is also likely that the Democrats will pick up more seats in 2008, so he would be condemning himself to minority status in 2 years. I find it more likely that he would accept a political appointment in the Bush administration and then become a lobbyist.

    • I expect him to do whatever he feels will keep as much focus on him personally.  Right now, that’s talking about switching, more so than actually switching – because he can “talk” about it for years and keep reaping the benefits (attention) without giving anything up.  Actually switching might be great for his publicity & ego in the short term, but it carries a lot of risks for the long term, and that’s probably why he hesitates.  I could see him jumping either way, but his goal will be to keep getting attention.

      • Than hold us prisoner. Let the bum join the rest of the bums. He’ll feel the wrath at home and maybe the people of Connecticut will learn a very good lesson.

        • will find himself cleaning the minority leader’s toilet in 2008, when even Republicans expect to see an increased Democratic majority.

  5. More than a Democrat, Republican or Independant, Joe Lieberman is a Patriot.  When Saddam was rewarding the families of suicide bombers only the Republicans would take the fight to Iraq.  While many of the Democrats that voted for the measure now bark that they were deceived or brainwashed, Joe still stands by his decision to help America’s littlest ally. 

    <

    p>
    Granted that now Iraq poses no more threat to Israel and can be left to its own stife, Iran now poses a threat to Israel and the opportunity to take action to protect Israel is again upon the United States.  With the many US Senators now being briefed in Israel I only hope that or their return, Joe Lieberman can lead them in a bi-partisan effort to end the threat on Israel. 

    • <

      p>
      Iraq, in the 21st century, posed no real threat to Israel. It was a country that couldn’t even maintain its own complete sovereignty, with the Kurds being autonymous.

      <

      p>
      Further, no Democrats have claimed to be “brainwashed,” yet, it is true they didn’t have all the information. President Bush horded that. They should still all apologize for their vote, because invading Iraq has killed over 100,000 (largely innocent) people.

      <

      p>
      Lastly, the invasion of Iraq had nothing to do with Israel. I’m all about protecting Israel too, but we can’t protect them from the boogeymen. Boogeymen don’t exist.

  6. I don’t believe control of the Senate is at issue anymore.  At the beginning of each session, the Senate passes rules that will govern how it is conducted that session.  In the 50-50 Senate elected in 2000, they passed rules giving each party equal representation on the committees and allowing for a switch in party control if the partisan makeup of the Senate changed.  But in the current Senate, they passed rules giving Democrats all the chairmanships, majorities on all committees, and the majority leadership slots.  I believe that the rules they passed for this session do not include any provision for a change of control.

    <

    p>
    And whatever Lieberman does, we’re likely gaining some more seats in 2008.

    • They can change that in a flash. Senate resolutions aren’t exactly constitutional amendments…

      <

      p>
      Regardless, the people of Connecticut were very shortsighted. I saw this morally bankrupt !#$*# coming from a mile away.

      • I’d rather see him officially out of the party if it means denying Bush the opportunity to say he has ‘bipartisan support’ for anything anymore. For 6 years bipartisan has been translated as every Republican and Lieberman.

        <

        p>
        And while having Cheney as the tie-breaker in the Senate would in the short-term lead one to contemplate slashing one’s wrists, in the long-term it would serve the Democrats advantage. Pelosi and the House Dems could ramrod all this stuff through that would never pass the Senate, and come election time, Reid and the gang could blame the do-nothing Republican no-voting bloc for thwarting progress.

        <

        p>
        It serves Conn. Dems and Independents right for voting for  Lieberman in the first place.

        <

        p> 

      • They couldn’t change the rule unless they got control of the Senate … which the rule in force prevents them from getting in this session.  It wouldn’t even get out of committee without at least one Democratic Senator in support.

  7. …the national Democratic senatorial finance operation is little more than an incumbent protection racket.  The national Democratic senatorial finance committee could not abide a grass-roots uprising against one of the Democratic incumbents, regardless of how nominally Democratic that incumbent is or how loyal he (or she) is to the party, because similar things may occur in regards other Democratic incumbents.  They could not allow a maverick such as Ned Lamont to succeed, and so they supported incumbent Lieberman instead of the Democratic party’s nominee to tell other potential mavericks: mavericks need not apply.

    <

    p>
    That really is the long and the short of it.

    <

    p>
    Someone above suggested that it doesn’t matter which party controls the senate.  I suppose that that is based on the fact that a minority party might be able to filibuster a matter that is brought to the floor of the senate, and that it would require 60 votes to pass a measure.  I’m sorry, but that is terribly naive.  The majority party in the Senate (and the House) controls the agenda–it controls what is brought to the floor of the Senate (and the House).  If the Democratic party had controlled either the Senate or the House in 1996, Bob Barr’s Defense of (some-peoples’) Marriage Act would probably never have been brought to the floor of the respective house for a vote.

    • In 2006 and 2004, I found it difficult to contribute to either and found myself collecting thank you notes from around the country from the different campaigns I had contributed to. Most Democratic campaigns avoided the word “Iraq” altogether until January 2006 or so.

      <

      p>
      The advantage of contributing to those institutions, though, is that they can move money around rapidly as opportunities opened up.

      <

      p>
      Would the Pendergast have beaten Kyl in Arizona with more sustained support?

      • ActBlue allows users to create fund raising pages, and is a quite savvy way to funnel your funds directly to the candidates who you want to support.  Maybe that’s a long shot who’s raising awareness of your pet issue.  Maybe it’s a “net roots” candidate.  Maybe it’s a local guy, or a local-guy-in-an-adjacent-state. 

        <

        p>
        stomv ActBlue page.  Over the years candidates have come and gone, and hence the dollars raised shown on the page is less then the total dollars raised.

  8. And the notion of him jumping ship, after carrying the banner as a vice presidential candidate under the flag of the Democratic Party, only makes me want to start swearing. So I will just be quient.

    <

    p>
    But then again, maybe Joe will start a trend. Isn’t it time for Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins to jump from the Republican Party?

    • Republacrats.  Democans.  Whatever.

      <

      p>
      Lieberman, Snowe, Collins, Specter, Nelson, a chunk of northern GOPers and southern Dems, assorted wrasslers turned governors, Texans with huge ears.

      <

      p>
      I think it would be fascinating to watch.

      • The trouble for these third way types is that they don’t really have a shared platform or a common core set of beliefs. It is tempting for a lot of people to imagine some sort of third party that could attract their votes, but it’s not going to happen. It’s like imagining the Just For Me Party.

        <

        p>
        The middle doesn’t have 3 issues they all agree with the Democrats on and 3 issues they all agree with the Republicans on. Rather on any issue, they’re split. They have no cohesion. They’re not all socially liberal. They’re not all clustered together in the same region of the jingoism-pacifism scale. They’re not all civil libertarians or free market libertarians or environmentalists. They might all be fiscal conservatives, but there it ends.

        <

        p>
        Reflect briefly on Perot and the political party he attempted to launch. Hardly anyone joined it. It did not win seats anywhere. It won maybe one governorship. It was a non-starter.

  9. I have admittedly not followed Joe’s fall out with the Dems to closely, mostly because he represents CT not us.  But I don’t understand the fall out with him.  Is it solely due to his vote on the Iraq war and not backing down from that vote?

    <

    p>
    Then again, I don’t understand the hatred for Romney either.  Is that because he has an (R) after his name and opposes same sex marriage?

    • And in Leiberman’s case, it’s because he has the cajones to take an honest and principled stand, and not march in lock-step, which is a capital offense to many on the left.

      • We on the left, you see, only take unprinicpled stands, but we don’t just stand still in our unprincipled stands. We march in them in lockstep. We have been doin—-

        <

        p>
        Sorry! Gotta go. My orders are arriving from Kos Central now. Til later.

      • and it was one in which Democrats didn’t agree.  So, they voted for somebody else in the primary.

        <

        p>
        Look, elected officials are still beholden to voters, in both primaries and general elections.  Joe Lieberman constantly took pot shots at other Dems on the Sunday talk shows.  He consistently supported the war.

        <

        p>
        Connecticut Democrats didn’t like those actions — and so they nominated and supported someone else to represent them (Connecticut Democrats) in the CT senate race.  That’s how these things work.

        <

        p>
        It turned out that Lieberman was able to ride the middle to victory.  Hey, that’s how these things work.  There were enough conservatives in CT who ignored the GOP candidate and voted for Joementum that the big Lieber was able to win.  S’OK.  The CT left made their message clear — they don’t support the war.  The message wasn’t loud enough to win.

        <

        p>
        I’d give you 5:1 odds that Lieberman doesn’t get reelected to the US Senate in 2012.

    • You must have started reading Democratic blogs as a New Year’s Resolution or something. For example, there were complaints on Daily Kos that people were spending too much time talking about Lieberman-Lamont.

      • Started reading this blog during the last election for governor.  After the election the right-winged blog I was reading, Hub Politics, took this boring turn and the quality of posts dropped off.  Then I started posting here.

        • Lieberman has made his name on the T.V. being the unDemocrat among Democrats. Not only does this make Lieberman a fascinating and often-invited guest, it undermines us. For example, he commented that criticizing Bush on Iraq is perilous. On the social security debate, Democrats had some trouble reining him in.

          <

          p>
          Lieberman also does all this in a sanctimonious tone that’s particularly grating. We liberals think we’re advocating moral positions, too.

    • …my disdain for Romney as a politician comes from a number of different directions, too many to mention at this late hour.  But I can’t let this pass…

      <

      p>
      Then again, I don’t understand the hatred for Romney either.

      <

      p>
      I’m sorry, but I do not hate the glorified accountant and salesman Mitt Romney.  I don’t even know the man.  I disdain him.  And I disdain more than a few of his policies (whatever they might be today).

      <

      p>
      There is a difference between hate and disdain.  (Or maybe reject would be a better word than disdain.)  I know that it has become commonplace among the Bushians to bitch&moan that people who reject (or disdain) Bushian policies to claim that those who do hate Bush.  But there really is a difference.  Please understand it.  Someday, it might serve you well after you graduate from high school.

      • Glad to see that instead of answering the questions honestly, you instead discuss language and throw in a personal attack.

        <

        p>
        If you are uncomfortable with hate, fine use disdain but answer the f’n question don’t try and insult me. 

        <

        p>
        Personally I don’t feel hate is too strong of a word after reading some of the posts about him.  Just looking back at the last topic about Mitt, you insulted him on a personal level.

        <

        p>

        Romney probably expects to prevail to the pResidency, not on his ideas–of which he has none–or his values–of which he also has none–but on his bravado and salesmanship.

         

        <

        p>
        Something tells me if I dug deeper I could find more attacks on him that are of a personal nature by you.

        <

        p>
        So instead of trying to throw childish insults, why not answer the question.  Name some policies you disagreed with that lead you to think that he has no ideas or values.

Archives