Joe Lieberman to become a Republican if Dems vote to defund the troops
Pelosi-Murtha might tip Senate balance of power
By Mark Kilmer Posted in The Parties — Comments (23) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
He's still caucusing with the Dems, but Joe Lieberman tells The Politico web site that he might switch.
"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.
If the Dems go Pelosi-Murtha and vote to defund the war, Lieberman said, that will do it; he adds that he hopes it never comes to that, as do I, but "[t]hat would hurt."
Counting Tim Johnson, a Lieberman move would even the Senate, 50-50, summoning Vice President Dick Cheney's vote as Senate president in the case of tie votes.
It would be nice to have him caucus with the Republicans, but not at that price.
« Russ wants to censure the President. — Comments (14) | Conventional Wisdom And Foregone Conclusions — Comments (8) »
Joe Lieberman to become a Republican if Dems vote to defund the troops 23 Comments (0 topical, 23 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
Of course, Susie Collins wouldn't like it, and she's the type (ideologically) who could bolt to the D camp.
I hope they don't cut off funding to the troops so we never find out what would have happened.
Remember,
Bush can veto a funding cut off and then the matter would have to be revisited by a Republican Senate.
"Life is too short, can't we all just eat pork and kill some terrorists?"
Good for him!
now are, and bolts. And I hope when he bolts (because the netroots want a defeat now, not in 2 years, so Pelosi will have to give them something) that the Repubs return the favor by sticking him on every Homeland Security and military committee they can find, but limit him on the domestic ones. Rinos are a problem, but even getting the majority back thanks to Mr Lieberman isn't worth tossing the new majority power away by placing him on domestic committees where he will run the agenda straight left.
He can't be much more liberal than Chaffee, he's right on when it comes to the War Against Militant Islamism, he's a religious conservative, he would be a foil for the Democratic-led House, the fire-breathing screamers on the Left would be chastened by his switch, and Cheney gets to cast the deciding vote for the majority. I see little to no downside for the GOP in this.
Sucking and ruining since October 2003.
Insofar as it informs his politics, he seems to think that the federal government should be regulating the entertainment industry, redistribute wealth, require racial preferences and setasides, and agrees with Roe v Wade.
I'm not a South Park Republican, I'm a King of the Hill libertarian.
If Lieberman jumps ship, you can expect the overwhelmingly Democratic CT General Assembly to pass a "recall election" bill, which CT doesn't have at present.
Come November 2008, Lieberman (R-CT) could find himself ousted by Ned Lamont or (gasp) Rosa de Lauro.
You know, the one that will be necessary after Governor Rell vetoes the bill.
But by all means, give us the list of the State legislators who have explicitly pledged to go with this recall bill of yours. Make sure you include links to their statements of intent!
Moe
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC.
They can recall all the state critters they want. But they'll still need 2/3 of Congress and 3/4 of the States before they can recall a sitting U.S. Congressman. And I don't think that will be a narrowly decided SCOTUS decision when Leiberman challenges the new CT law in Federal Court.
and not that I'm urging that Lieberman should be recalled.
However, I do think the US Constitution should be amended to allow the voters to recall their elected officials.
Especially Senators, as 6 years can be an awful long time.
Of course, I can wish all I want, it is an amendment that will never see the light of day. Pity.
Elections for US Senate are governed by the US Constitution, not state law, and it does not have a recall provision. Although I haven't researched the issue, my first reaction is that any recall would certainly be unconstitutional.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
Economics, History, geography, and anything but "self esteem" and diversity training.
"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle
Who in blue states is up in '08? Mitch has to cover ALL the bases.
It seems like there may not be any benefit in Joe becoming a Republican. As I understand it, control of the Senate, committee membership, and majority leader would not change. Also, we wouldn't get an extra vote on issues because where Lieberman is with us, he's already voting for us, and where's he's against us, he'll still be against us after a party switch. Perhaps there will be more cooperation from him on some procedural issues?
But, there seems to be a downside as well. Right now, Lieberman is identified with the Dems. His votes with us show bipartishanship. Working with him shows Republicans willing to work for the betterment of the country as opposed to playing DC games. I think we lose a PR benefit if he becomes a full-fledged R.
and still maintain the power which comes with being needed by the side with whom you caucus. He's playing that game very well right now, something Jimmy Jeffords loused up big time.
(You can buy his My Declaration of Independence tome new for a quarter from Amazon.com's sellers.)
to hear the shrieks, screams and caterwauling from the Democrats and the media (but I repeat myself).
it would be great to run 'compare and contrasts' with the "Morning in America" Jeffords switch coverage.
Foreign policy has come a long way in the past six years. Governor Bush ran a strongly Realist campaign in 2000, and surrounded himself with his father's foreign policy team. Al Gore was much more interested in projecting American influence abroad, using the same sort of soft power/hard power combination that Clinton had used.
When Bush woke up post-9/11, he brought large parts of the Republican Party with him to the Idealist camp. As soon as that happened, almost all prominent Dems ran hard in the other direction. The Democratic Party today sports a foreign policy combining elements of pacifism, isolationism, and realism (see: Democratic support for Baker-Hamilton report; resurgence of Jimmy Carter as foreign policy speaker). Within the Republican Party, a robust foreign policy debate remains.
I'm rather surprised that Lieberman is the only prominent Democrat to stick to his longstanding idealism and belief in the promotion of liberal democracy and human rights. There really should have been many more. Personally, the Democrats' abandonment of these issues turned me from a lifelong Dem into a Republican-leaning Independent.
Perhaps it just goes to show how few people choose their party affiliation based on foreign policy. Or perhaps it just goes to show that most folks who care about such issues understood that the Dems never really stood behind their rhetorical support of these ideas.
The Informationist
www.theinformationist.com
To us, the raison d'etre of American style Liberalism was always
hate/opposition/obstruction, never much in the way of anything positive. Ok, well a brief period during the Kennedy years was very positive. But much of the left was rooted in hatred of our system, our economic system, our history of oppression and imperialism, and most of all a burning hatred for the middle class and bourgeois values.
SO naturally, anything that protects the status quo is going to be opposed by the left. I don't think they do it intentionally, they just can't help themselves.
"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle
Joe should stay on as Chair of Senate Homeland Security should his vote lead to Republican control of the chamber - even if he formally maintains himself as an Independent and does not make himself a full-fledged R.