tparty at MLN has already done the hard work, so I will just provide the link, but the internets’ tubes are all atwitter regarding the possibility that Senator Lieberman (D ID I CfL R? – CT) is close to moving across the aisle…
Lieberman to Switch?
by Gabe · February 22nd, 2007, 4:22 pm · 13 Comments
Tags: Democrats · Elections · Joe Lieberman · Republicans · U.S. Congress
13 responses so far ↓
I’d like to see Lieberman switch states. What’s he done for the state of CT except to year after year have it become a “donor state” to the federal government?
I’m not sure what any senator or rep could do to reverse the donor state status of Connecticut. We get more than we contribute for roads.
My guess is that when the donor state measurements are done, they are heavily influences by retirees (social security), military personnel, people receiving assistance (food stamps, welfare, etc). Contributions will be influenced by the number of wealthy people and the corporations here.
So it would seem that if we wanted to relinquish or position as a donor state, we’d have to drive the high earners out, and get more people on welfare and social security, and more military bases.
Lieberman’s switching would not be good for the Republicans.
Lieberman is quite liberal on domestic policy. Add in a few other liberal Republicans (Mainers, Specter, etc), and the Republicans wouldn’t have a functional majority. But they could get blamed for obstructing the house, in a way that they aren’t with the filibuster. I just don’t see what this nominal control brings. Better to have Lieberman remain a Democrat. But then, I’m not a hill staffer (for them, it’s a big deal who is in the majority because of how many positions are allocated).
Also, it seems tremendously cheesy when people switch parties after being elected, especially to swing control of the chamber. I hope he stays a Democrat.
Didn’t see this outrage from the left when Jeffords switched. Humorous.
Architect,
Lieberman ran as a candidate for the Connecticut for Lieberman Party. He promised Democratic leadership that he would unequivocally caucus with them if re-elected. In return, he was promised his seniority.
It’s bollocks. That’s why the outrage over Lieberman.
spaze,
Jeffords ran as a Republican and actively campaigned for Bush (http://www.time.com/time/pow/article/0,8599,127919,00.html), then switched his affiliation after the election.
Sounds “bollocks” to me as well. Except it benefited you folks so it was A-OK.
Ha, ha, ha…
This is amusing. Joe won beacuse of R’s, so switching does make sense.
As much as I would like to get it over with, I don’t think Lieberman will switch. He would be the center of attention for a news cycle and then he would be nobody. Jeffords wasn’t afforded a high profile in the Democratic caucus; Lieberman won’t get one in the Republican caucus. On a subjective level, I would like to add that Jeffords switch was a matter of conscious. Lieberman’s would be a matter of egomania, delusion, arrogance,…….
It’s worth pointing out that, because of an organizing resolution passed in early January, a Lieberman switch wouldn’t throw the Senate to the Republicans. In essence, Joe would be throwing away committee chairmanships and a lot of clout to make a point. I’m not saying he wouldn’t do it, just that he has a lot to lose and little to gain.
Maybe he is looking to become a Republican candidate for VP .. someone’s running mate..
It could be a way to get the Jewish vote away from Hillary.
Don’t think for a minute some back door deal hasn’t been cut..and perhaps this was the reason why Schlesinger was thrown under the bus by his own party.
There’s much to speculate on this one.
Don’t forget “the kiss”..
LOL this is so outrageously funny..
Joseph W Lieberman. He will switch. If not now than later.
Considering that some Democrats are ready to abandon Israel and that virtually no faction within the Republican Party is prepared to do anything like that; he might be motivated to do so.
There are in fact groups to the left, that are not any part of the Democratic Party but that do seem aligned politically with them, that are currently sending aid in the form of cash to Hamas. Ostensibly for “humanitarian aid” but if that were their true intent they’d be sending goods, not cash. I suspect Lieberman finds such activity to be more than slightly disconcerting – I sure do.
The situation within Israel itself is hardly a homogenous population on the issues: http://www.cfr.org/region/406/israel.html
You must log in to post a comment.