Lieberman and Hagel Speak Out (re: Lieberman switch to GOP)

[Goobieman]

Lieberman calls jumping to the Republican side, and tilting the Senate, "a remote possibility," which means there's at least a chance of that. Time seems to push Lieberman in this direction, as the article concludes: "Lieberman's GOP flirtation has its risks--and a time limit....The longer he waits to capitalize on his moment, the greater the danger that he'll be tagged as one of those politicians for whom having power is more important than using it."

Last month, after Lieberman told Democratic chief Sen. Harry Reid that he had "stopped attending the weekly Democratic lunch because he didn't feel comfortable discussing Iraq there, Reid offered to hold those discussions at another time," Time's Massimo Calabresi reveals. "Lieberman has started attending again." But Lieberman also keeps in touch with Bush aide Stephen Hadley "every week or two."

Preview of Friday's 'Time' Magazine: Lieberman and Hagel Speak Out

 

[aps]

I have really come to dislike Lieberman. I hope he switches. He will be voted out of office at his next election. Connecticut would not stand for that.

 

[Kandahar]

I have really come to dislike Lieberman. I hope he switches. He will be voted out of office at his next election. Connecticut would not stand for that.

His next election isn't until 2012. What makes you think Connecticut cares?

 

[Goobieman]

His next election isn't until 2012. What makes you think Connecticut cares?

CT elected him as an independant over the endorsed Democrat.
Clearly, they were interested in HIM not his party.

 

[Kandahar]

CT elected him as an independant over the endorsed Democrat.
Clearly, they were interested in HIM not his party.

I agree...

 

[aps]

His next election isn't until 2012. What makes you think Connecticut cares?

Because it's a blue state. The only reason Lieberman won was because the republicans knew that their candidate had NO chance of winning whatsoever.

 

[Kandahar]

Because it's a blue state. The only reason Lieberman won was because the republicans knew that their candidate had NO chance of winning whatsoever.

And if he runs as a Republican in 2012, why wouldn't the same people vote for him against the Democrat again? Plus the small fraction who voted for the Republican candidate this time around.

Just because it's a blue state doesn't mean it won't elect a Republican senator. Maine has two Republican senators, and North Dakota has two Democrat senators.

 

[aps]

And if he runs as a Republican in 2012, why wouldn't the same people vote for him against the Democrat again? Plus the small fraction who voted for the Republican candidate this time around.

Just because it's a blue state doesn't mean it won't elect a Republican senator. Maine has two Republican senators, and North Dakota has two Democrat senators.

I guess it's possible, but I don't see it happening.

 

[Goobieman]

And if he runs as a Republican in 2012, why wouldn't the same people vote for him against the Democrat again? Plus the small fraction who voted for the Republican candidate this time around.

Because they're partisans?
Oh wait -- they weren't partisans in 2006. Hmm.

aps has trouble getting past the idea of 'partei uber alles'.

 

[Cremaster77]

Why does it matter if Leiberman calls himself a Democrat or a Republcan? He's shown he's willing to vote independently regardless of the party he's labeled with. If he calls himself a Republican but still holds the same Democratic leaning positions he has on the majority of issues, why does it make a difference?

 

[Goobieman]

Why does it matter if Leiberman calls himself a Democrat or a Republcan? He's shown he's willing to vote independently regardless of the party he's labeled with. If he calls himself a Republican but still holds the same Democratic leaning positions he has on the majority of issues, why does it make a difference?

If Lieberman goes to the GOP, then the GOP will control the Senate.

 

[Cremaster77]

If Lieberman goes to the GOP, then the GOP will control the Senate.

I guess my understanding of how the committees, etc. are chaired is not that clear. Leiberman is not a democrat now, correct? I thought he was one of 2 independents with the Republicans and Democrats each having 49 seats. I thought the committee chairs went to the Dems because the 2 independents typically vote Democratic and therefore when it comes time to naming chairs, the Democrats get the chairs. Unless Leiberman switches the way he votes in about 80% of the cases, he'll still vote more Democratic than Republican. So why would his party label suddenly give control to the GOP? If he does switch the majority of his votes, I don't see how he could hold his office in 2012.

 

[Goobieman]

I guess my understanding of how the committees, etc. are chaired is not that clear. Leiberman is not a democrat now, correct? I thought he was one of 2 independents with the Republicans and Democrats each having 49 seats. I thought the committee chairs went to the Democrats because the 2 independents typically vote Democratic and therefore when it comes time to naming chairs, the Democrats get the chairs. Unless Leiberman switches the way he votes in about 80% of the cases, he'll still vote more Democratic than Republican. So why would his party label suddenly give control to the GOP? If he does switch the majority of his votes, I don't see how he could hold his office in 2012.

The party label is what matters -- if it didnt, then there would be no point in switching parties, you'd just switch votes. The fact that the independents vote with the Democrats mean the Democrats have an effective majority in the Senate. If Lieberman moves to the GOP, there will be a tie and the GOP will have control.

 

[RightinNYC]

I guess my understanding of how the committees, etc. are chaired is not that clear. Leiberman is not a democrat now, correct? I thought he was one of 2 independents with the Republicans and Democrats each having 49 seats. I thought the committee chairs went to the Democrats because the 2 independents typically vote Democratic and therefore when it comes time to naming chairs, the Democrats get the chairs. Unless Leiberman switches the way he votes in about 80% of the cases, he'll still vote more Democratic than Republican. So why would his party label suddenly give control to the GOP? If he does switch the majority of his votes, I don't see how he could hold his office in 2012.

The way it works is that whichever caucus has a majority gets to hold the positions of committee chairs, speaker of the house, majority leaders, etc. The Republicans and Democrats each have 49 Senators right now, but both independents caucus with the Democrats, giving them 51-49. If Lieberman switches, its 50-50, which means the Reps have control because of Cheney's tiebreaking vote.


It's actually an INCREDIBLY important distinction because the majority party effectively controls everything. They decide what bills come up, when, who works where, the rules, the debate, etc etc etc. Talking to people I worked with last summer when the Reps were in the majority, they said its so much different now. The Dems keep them in the dark about whats going to be voted on, they never know anything is coming up until 20 min before the phone call, their motions are quashed, and they get the crappier offices.:lol: (Not to say that the Reps didn't do the exact same thing the other way around).

But yea, its a super important distinction.

 

[TheNextEra]

If Lieberman goes to the GOP, then the GOP will control the Senate.

The leadership of the Senate is fixed until Jan 2009. Let him do whatever the hell he wants.

I personally hope he does switch, since he votes with democrats more than republicans. Then the republicans can whine, bitch, and moan how he is a RINO.

 

[Goobieman]

The leadership of the Senate is fixed until Jan 2009. Let him do whatever the hell he wants.

No its not. If someone changes party and this changes the party in the majority, the leadership changes right away.

See: Jim Jeffords, May/June 2001

 

[Kandahar]

No its not. If someone changes party and this changes the party in the majority, the leadership changes right away.

See: Jim Jeffords, May/June 2001

Technically that's not always correct. Historically, the leadership has been fixed until the next election. There have been a couple times where party majority switched hands mid-session, but 2001 was the only time party control switched hands mid-session.

After the 2000 election the Democrats introduced a procedural measure (that had never been done before) basically saying that if somehow they got a majority before the next election, control would immediately go to them. For some reason that isn't entirely clear to me, the Republicans didn't block this measure.

I'm unsure as to whether or not the Republicans have introduced a similar procedural measure in this Congress (I would assume they did), or whether or not the Democrats blocked it (I have no idea).


I really don't see Lieberman switching sides though. Every politician asks themselves "What's in it for me?" There's not much reason for Lieberman to switch sides.

 

[LaMidRighter]

I really don't see Lieberman switching sides though. Every politician asks themselves "What's in it for me?" There's not much reason for Lieberman to switch sides.

It's a debateable topic honestly, it would all boil down to how he feels personally about the way he is adressed between the two parties and how his concerns are handled within the dialogue. If he feels shunned by Democrats but Republicans will at least hear him out and give him the approptiate attention to his ideals, it could be a very attractive party for him. I guess time will have to be the decider though.

The leadership of the Senate is fixed until Jan 2009. Let him do whatever the hell he wants.

I personally hope he does switch, since he votes with democrats more than republicans. Then the republicans can whine, bitch, and moan how he is a RINO.

I don't see Lieberman catching too much flak about being a RINO only because he typically votes his ideology, most of the RINOS conservatives are concerned about are the "finger to the wind" types that vote based on current polling and current electoral trends, these are the worst types of politicians for the simple fact that you can't vote for them based on their principles, rather, what you hope they will do if elected. While I disagree with much of the principles that Lieberman holds, he has shown alot of spine and I actually trust that he is voting the way he feels will help the country. I respect him regardless of his party affiliation.

 

[aps]

Looks like he won't be changing sides.

Lieberman: I won't switch to GOP - Politics - MSNBC.com

 

[RightinNYC]

Looks like he won't be changing sides.

Lieberman: I won't switch to GOP - Politics - MSNBC.com

“I have no desire or intention to leave the Democratic Party or the Democratic caucus,” Lieberman said Friday while in Hartford to host an education forum. “I hope and believe we’ll never get to that point, so I believe this latest flurry is much ado about nothing.”

Doesn't sound so certain to me.

Though I agree its not likely.

 

[aquapub]

Lieberman threatens party switch over Iraq debate

Capitol Hill Blue » Lieberman threatens party switch over Iraq debate

He's right. Democrats forced humiliating defeats on our troops in Vietnem, in Somalia, relentlessly undermined our efforts throughout the entire Cold War against every group of Communists from the Soviet Union to gorillas in S. America, repeatedly undermined the war in Afghanistan...until it could be used to undermine Iraq, and refuse to let us fight Islamic terrorism.

If these people can't stop sabatoging U.S. efforts, then perhaps the time has come for the few rare Democrats with a spine and an oz. of patriotism to take matters into their own hands and throw off the balance of power.

:mrgreen:

 

[Navy Pride]

Re: Lieberman threatens party switch over Iraq debate

I would love to see Joe switch parties.....That would give the Republicans control of the senate.......I am so tired of hearing "Dingy Harry" Reid whine...........

 

[aps]

Re: Lieberman threatens party switch over Iraq debate

I would love to see Joe switch parties.....That would give the Republicans control of the senate.......I am so tired of hearing "Dingy Harry" Reid whine...........

Well, it's unlikely that it's going to happen. Regardless, I agree with you about Harry Reid. The man puts me to sleep whenever he talks.

 

[Navy Pride]

Re: Lieberman threatens party switch over Iraq debate

Well, it's unlikely that it's going to happen. Regardless, I agree with you about Harry Reid. The man puts me to sleep whenever he talks.

I would never say never aps........I listened to Leiberman being interviewd on the radio the other day and he did not rule it out............

 

[aps]

Re: Lieberman threatens party switch over Iraq debate

I would never say never aps........I listened to Leiberman being interviewd on the radio the other day and he did not rule it out............

I didn't say never, you silly willy. I said it was "unlikely." He said it himself. ABC News: Lieberman says no plans to join Republicans

Speaking of voices that annoy me--I can't stand Lieberman's voice. It is just awful!