Lieberman Says War Vote Could Prompt Party Switch Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman of Connecticut told the Politico Thursday that he has no immediate plans to switch parties, but suggested Democratic opposition to funding the war in Iraq might change his mind. Lieberman, a registered independent who caucuses with Democrats, has been among the strongest supporters of the war and President Bush’s plan to send another 21,500 combat troops into Iraq to help quell the violence there. "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." Republicans have long targeted Lieberman to switch – a move that would give them control of the Senate. And Time magazine is set to report Friday that there is a “remote” chance Lieberman would join the GOP. http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0207/2865.html
So Lieberman is threatening to pull a James Jeffords. If he feels that strongly about it he should but other than the War Lieberman is more like the Democrats than Jeffords was like the Republicans.
Really it is the only honorable thing for Lieberman to do if his party betrays his Jewish constituency by giving the terrorists a victory.
With 21 Republican senators up for re-election in 08 and the very real possibility of the party becoming even more of a minority, it would render him irrelevant. He might want to think about that.
His constituency is the people of Connecticut, not the Jewish people. I can't believe you are stupid enough to post such ridiculousness. Oh wait....yes I can believe it.
Considering the way the Democratic Party in Connecticut treated Lieberman, I have a hard time understanding why anybody would consider this some sort of betrayal by Lieberman. You reap what you sow.
Please correct me if I'm wrong, but are you stating that the War in Iraq has a "pro-Jewish" agenda? You said that withdrawing from Iraq would be betraying the Jewish constituency. That's quite a statement there.
Joe should just do it already. He needs to stop holding it over the Dems head, and just do it if he's going to do it.
What a yoyo. Before 2000, he was a "principled" centrist Democrat. In the 2000 presidential election, he morphed into a partisan hack. After losing the 2000 election, he stayed in partisan mode until Iraq became an issue. Then he morphed back into "independent" mode. After losing the Democratic primary in 2006, he runs as an independent and wins the general election as the defacto GOP candidate, also drawing support from moderate Dems and independents. Now he is threatening to bolt the party and go Republican. What a flip-flopper extreme. The Democratic V.P nominee of 2000 is going to switch parties. Of course, the soul-less GOP who ripped him as a liberal in the 2000 election would now welcome him as one of their own. Sickening! Stuff like this is just one reason I will never EVER be a Dem or Republican.
Joe needs to stay a Democrat or "Liberal-leaning independent". His views are still closer to the Dems. He's definitely left of Harry Reid (who might be more conservative than the President).
He's blowing smoke and feeding his ego. There's no political benefit to him moving and actually a great benefit to the Republicans if he stays in the Dem camp... So, under the current organizing resolution, Dems would maintain control even if he switched. And if he did, he would be in the Minority Party and lose his Chairmanship of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee. This committee has enormous power to investigate everything from Katrina to Halliburton contracts, yet Joe is pursuing a committee agenda of essentially no oversight. If he were to switch, another, certainly more aggressive, Dem would step into the chair and coordinate with Waxman's House Committee on oversight. This would mean the Repubs would have to fight off two committees instead of one. He will stay a Dem, not that it matters.
Well, maybe democratic party should push him to do that. They have been considered too calculated and not standing firm to their principles etc. This is a good time to show the public that they have guts, and won't be held as hostage by anyone. What's more important, lose control over the senate temporarily or lose credibility of the whole party? They should send out a speak person to tell Joe and the public, that Joe can go to any party if he thinks that represents his value more. However it's absolutely wrong to place the interest of people in CT as his personal bargaining chip. If he views his party membership and the people he represents as cheap as a chip in his hands, he shouldn't hold it as long as the majority of Dems don't want to sell out their party.
