Joe Lieberman -- Weasel.

They won because the crafty sky is falling mantra of the Democrats, combined with the result of slow success in Iraq and the price of gas at the pump had people in the middle pissed off. It wasn't that everyone was looking at the Democrats and saying "God, they do have the answers. Liberalism works!" Hell, no.

The only magic is if somehow Pelosi's Congress manages to do ANYTHING in the two remaining years of power.

 

What exactly has he done that many other politicians haven't, mostly on your side - that is, to do anything to get elected? Fact - he's always been on the side of Bush regarding the war. And that's a good thing. You of course won't ever admit it. But those on the right know.

 

Yeah, just keep telling yourself the Republican way hasn't been repudiated, built as was on hating commies and hating "welfare queens" even more. And make no mistake, it's Bush who hates the troops, not those who want them out of where they didn't belong in the first place.

 

Well, that's one interpretation of the 2006 elections.
People are stupid.

 

I'm not even sure you're reading this, as you ignored my last question, FB, but he doesn't become a Republican because on most issues, he's quite liberal. There are a couple, including one that is currently of supreme importance with which he disagrees with his party, and he says so, bravely IMO. What's your theory, he's playing drama queen to wield power re committees & chaimanships? Do you doubt for a second that if he would offer to swing the Senate to the Rep.s, that he could choose his leadership position?

 

Once again, there's not guarantee that the Senate would go to the GOP with a Lieberman defection because there is no "kick-out" clause in the organizing rules of the current Congress:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/04/AR2007010400802_pf.html

This is probably the only thing preventing Mr. Man Of Principle from holding an auction for his caucus affiliation on the floor of the Senate.

 

When did you ask that question? I didn't ignore it, Guy. If it was there, I just didn't see it.
Now, as to your point. Joe pretty much summed up the institutional arguments against what you said, but I think you'd be hard-pressed to find an single big-ticket, spotlight issue -- from cloture on Supreme Court nominees, to the extra-constitutional powers of the president, to the war -- on which Lieberman hasn't lined up with the other side, to the detriment of his party and, to my mind, of the country. That he remains a nominal Democrat is all about his own political status and not about principle.

 

Again, what political status? What's your theory on why he's doing it?

 

As a Democrat -- one, he maintains his seniority given the changeover in 2006, which would not have been the case, as Joe R pointed out, if he'd switched parties; two, he gets to hold the balance of power in the Senate in his hands. He gets to watch his party leadership - most of which supported him in the primary against Lamont -- court him on every issue and he gets to spit in their eye. Does this mean I think he's a vengeful little egoist fuckstick? Well, yes, it does. He gets his appearances on the pundit shows and he gets to style himself as being beyond partisanship, even though he's done more to enable the most partisan administration in my lifetime than almost anyone else.
He gets to feed his ego, which is all he has left.
My guess? He speaks at the RNC and gets a better timeslot than the incumbent president does.

 

But he could have held out and said he wouldn't caucus with Democrats, which he pledged to do from the time he won re-election. He could have played it down the middle waiting for the best deal. That would have given the GOP much more leverage with an evenly split chamber, and then they could have demanded the "kick-out" clause.

 

He got the best deal.
He looked at the new Congress and realized that he had it.
Yes, he could have voluntarily joined the minority.
But then he wouldn't be Joe Lieberman.

 

Basically, Leiberman does what he does because he enjoys getting Lewinskyed by the likes of Russert and Imus. It's ego more than ideology.