Lieberman is a Republican
POSTED BY: kaneman
UPDATED: Monday, November 20, 2006 07:08
VIEWED: 3311
PAGE 1 of 3
Here in insurance land, I was given the wonderful news last night(an insider celebrating at mayor Mike's) that Lieberman can not wait to "stick" it to Dems for turning their backs on him. He is a Republican.....
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
That was an interesting chain of events wasn't it? Maybe challenging people's definitions of themselves might stir things up in a good way. Sometimes we get too comfortable in our own skins. I'm not sure what I think of Lieberman. He was awfully friendly with Cheney during the presidential debates in 2000. That was commented on more than once.
I suspect he is mad as hell and feels pretty cocky at the same time. He did turn it around didn't he?
This should be a fascinating next few years - hard to tell who'll be left standing.
Siri
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Wishful thinking (at least on my part). 
I wonder though. Lieberman is liberal on about 95% of the issues. The only issue (of which I'm aware) that he has really stood up against the majority of his own party was the war.
Seeing how many in his own party said some really terrible things about him in this last campaign, though (and completely abandoned him), and how many Republicans supported and endorsed him (Mayor Bloomberg for one)(although, Bloomberg is a former Democrat, himself, so that really shouldn't count 
), I can't see him sticking with the party who betrayed him.
Although, Churchill stayed a conservative throughout (and even after) a two decade period when his own party hung him out to dry, I can't say what Lieberman will do. (Yes, I know Churchill started off in the Conservative party, then switched parties around the time of WWI, before going back to the Conservative party again, but I'm referring to the period between the wars when he couldn't buy a government post even though his own party was in charge for a significant portion of that time, i.e. Baldwin & Chamberlain.)
Lieberman has publically stated that he will continue to vote with the Democrats, but it would be nice if he switched over -- particularly now. Instead of 49 + 2 vs 49, it would be 49 +1 vs 49 + 1 (with Cheney breaking the tie). That would be sweet.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Well the established democrats did not betray him, and quite frankly I would characterize the dynamic as him betraying his democratic base, and consistantly undermining democratic principles with his opposition to something as fundamental as...opposition.
He had established politicians as liberal as Barbara Boxer still campaigning for him until he lost hte primary. Quite frankly it's the right thing for Democrats to honor their voter's wishes. They had no choice but to endorse Lamont, and so they did, finally, at that point.
As it stands now though, they have promised Lieberman that he will retain his offices in the Senate, inspite of him abandoning the democratic party, ignoring and dishonoring the primary even after participating in it, and being a spoiler for any democratic opposition to the Bush administration.
They need him, so there's nothing gracious about letting him keep these things, but I think he needs them too. If he flips he won't win in connecticut next time...though I guess that's what, 6 years down the road?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Righteous9:
Quite frankly it's the right thing for Democrats to honor their voter's wishes.
Well, Lieberman was a Democrat, and apparently the wishes of the voters in Connecticut must've been the same as his -- as he defeated both the Democrat and Republican candidates there.
Quote:
Originally posted by Righteous9:
As it stands now though, they have promised Lieberman that he will retain his offices in the Senate, inspite of him abandoning the democratic party...
I imagine the Republicans would give him anything he wanted to vote with them (which would prevent the Democrats from holding a majority in the Senate). Literally -- anything.
Quote:
Originally posted by Righteous9:
If he flips he won't win in connecticut next time...though I guess that's what, 6 years down the road?
Well, he won in Connecticut without them this time, why not next time? I can't say, though. A lot can happen in six years, and he can win or lose, either way. If he's truly a liberal (and I believe he is), he should stick with the party which best reflects his idiology -- which at this time, would be the Democrats. If he wanted some payback. and quite frankly, anything else he could dream of (as far as appointments, etc.), he should go to the Republicans.
Either way, he's sitting pretty, and can pretty much dictate whatever he wants. Personally, I think the Republicans would give him more at the moment, but who knows. I'm not privy to their backroom dealings.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
So you're suggesting, as many of us feared already, that he's a hack looking for the best possible position for himself? That he could be swayed by the party that could give him more? That he mayin fact, have no principles?
I guess we're seeing the same Lieberman after all.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Lieberman certainly had the respect of both parties before the 2000 election. When he was chosen as Gore's running mate, many saw him morph into somewhat more of a Left winger. Afterwards, he returned to the same ol' Joe that everyone knew before.
Gotta admire a guy who would run on his convictions, get dumped by his own party, and still win his seat back , and remain civil through it all. A rare cat in politics, Joe is.
People love a happy ending. So every episode, I will explain once again that I don't like people. And then Mal will shoot someone. Someone we like. And their puppy. - Joss
" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Righteous9:
So you're suggesting, as many of us feared already, that he's a hack looking for the best possible position for himself? That he could be swayed by the party that could give him more? That he mayin fact, have no principles?
I guess we're seeing the same Lieberman after all.
No. I think Lieberman obviously has principles. He wouldn't have stood up against his own party on the war if he didn't.
I disagree with Lieberman on most of his positions, but I respect him because he follows his idiology, and not his party or the direction of the wind.
He has to decide where he thinks he could be of more use. As he's in a position to call the shots, either way, he has a lot of latitude, and can pretty much name his price.
If he feels he will help his constituents more by staying with the Democrats (with whom he is more idiologically alligned), he will likely do that. If he feels he can do more for his constituents through various positions of power (likely offered by the Republicans), he will likely choose that.
Either way, though, the decision is his. I don't see him losing on the deal, whatever he choses.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Wait a second. Were we all watching the same Senate race in Connecticut? I've been reading the local newspapers since well before the primaries, watching the debates and reading what the people who live in Connecticut were writing. And I got a very different picture of Joe Lieberman than the resident Republicans on this board have. So, all you Republicans who seem so very excited that Lieberman won the Senate race, how closely were you following things up there?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SoupCatcher:
Wait a second. Were we all watching the same Senate race in Connecticut? I've been reading the local newspapers since well before the primaries, watching the debates and reading what the people who live in Connecticut were writing. And I got a very different picture of Joe Lieberman than the resident Republicans on this board have. So, all you Republicans who seem so very excited that Lieberman won the Senate race, how closely were you following things up there?
I had not been following the specific race in Connecticut, but I have been following Joe Lieberman. I've heard more than a half dozen interviews with him (some quite in depth) just in the past 4 days. I base my opinions of him on what he's said in those very-recent interviews.
What have you determined from following the race that seems to contradict anything I've surmised about him? Please, clarify. Thank you.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME