When will Lieberman switch parties?

[hgc]

To quote Joe Klein on The Chris Mattews Show yesterday:

This is just a guess, but it's an educated and a reported guess. The Democrats in the Senate are getting really, really angry at Joe Lieberman, especially because he's been accusing them of undermining the troops' morale. And Joe Lieberman isn't too happy with the Democrats, either. I think there's going to be an explosion and perhaps a party switch pretty soon.

http://www.thechrismatthewsshow.com/transcripts/02112007.shtml

Definition of party switchin' (for the purpose of this poll): Joe announces he will caucus with the Republicans. This does not necessarily mean he will become a Republican. It will be accompanied by his removal by Reid from chairmanship of the Senate Homeland Security Committee.

 

[Darth Rotor]

To quote Joe Klein on The Chris Mattews Show yesterday:


http://www.thechrismatthewsshow.com/transcripts/02112007.shtml

He won't, and he does not have to. He has a constituency who does not seem to care what party he is in, so long as he is in the Senate.

PS: You forgot the Planet X option.

"On Planet X, the only parties we have are keg parties."

DR

 

[Mephisto]

Lieberman will never switch parties (again) . . . He's betting on the likelihood that Independant candidates will be seen as either conservative Democrats, or Repuglican Lite.

 

[Luke T.]

Lieberman will never switch parties (again)

What do you mean "again"? AFAIK, he has always been a Democrat, including serving as the Democratic Senate majority leader in the CT state legislature.

But I agree he won't switch parties. There's more to Party than the war in Iraq.

 

[hgc]

But I agree he won't switch parties. There's more to Party than the war in Iraq.

Indeed. For instance, his campaign promise to use his committee's subpoena power to dig into the Katrina thing ... oh .. uh ... not a great example. How about supporting the nominee's presidential candidate ... um .. not too secure on that one either. Anyway, Joe's a good Dem up to the minute he jumps.

 

[Merko]

Isn't Lieberman a Jew? I thought Jews couldn't be republicans. At least not if they are senators.

 

[hgc]

Isn't Lieberman a Jew? I thought Jews couldn't be republicans. At least not if they are senators.

Norm Coleman and Arlen Specter didn't get the memo.

 

[Spindrift]

To quote Joe Klein on The Chris Mattews Show yesterday:


http://www.thechrismatthewsshow.com/transcripts/02112007.shtml

Definition of party switchin' (for the purpose of this poll): Joe announces he will caucus with the Republicans. This does not necessarily mean he will become a Republican. It will be accompanied by his removal by Reid from chairmanship of the Senate Homeland Security Committee.

If Joe caucuses with the Republics, Reid ceases being the Majority Leader. And the Republics would probably be willing to give Joe that chairmanship, if they gained everything else.

 

[Darth Rotor]

Isn't Lieberman a Jew? I thought Jews couldn't be republicans. At least not if they are senators.

William Cohen might find that remark hilarious, or offensive. Republican Senator from Maine, his father was a Russian Jewish immigrant. He was Clinton's third Secretary of Defense

DR

 

[hgc]

If Joe caucuses with the Republics, Reid ceases being the Majority Leader. And the Republics would probably be willing to give Joe that chairmanship, if they gained everything else.

You know, I read something about this back in January, but can't find any reference to it now. I'll paraphrase to the best of my memory.

The 110th Congress is organized, namely the allotment of committee assignments has been done, and was accomplished by the organizing vote at the beginning, at which time Lieberman voted for Reid as majority leader, etc. That means that even if the Republicans come into a numerical majority during this Congress, the Dems won't necessarily lose control. This was discussed at the time within the context of Tim Johnson's illness and extended absense.

The change in control to the Dems with the Jeffords switch came at a time when the Dems and GOP had a 50-50 situation, with equal representation on committees and co-chairmanships.

I don't know how correct this is; just repeating what I've read somewhere.

 

[hgc]

William Cohen might find that remark hilarious, or offensive. Republican Senator from Maine, his father was a Russian Jewish immigrant. He was Clinton's third Secretary of Defense

DR

Though his father was Jewish, William Cohen is Unitarian.

 

[hgc]

If Joe caucuses with the Republics, Reid ceases being the Majority Leader. And the Republics would probably be willing to give Joe that chairmanship, if they gained everything else.

Oh, absolutely they would give him that chairmanship. The only thing keeping Lieberman from switching today, this very minute, is the prospect of Republicans remaining in the minority in the senate for the 111th Congress.

 

[steverino]

Though his father was Jewish, William Cohen is Unitarian.

Hmm. We lose more of our tribe to that pretend-church.

 

[Darth Rotor]

Though his father was Jewish, William Cohen is Unitarian.

Thank you for the correction, my bad.

DR

 

[BPSCG]

My dad was a Jew and a Republican.

And what about Rudy Jewliani?

 

[Rob Lister]

Technically, the poll is moot sense Joe already has switched parties to Ind.

He may continue to caucus with the dems till hell freezes over (he's far more dem than most dems with the exception of one single issue) but he'll never, ever caucus with the reps unless he sees a guaranteed election loss by not doing so (and given the current political tide, I'd say the forecast for hell still quite warm for at least a decade or two into the future).

 

[hgc]

My dad was a Jew and a Republican.

My dad was also a Jewish Republican. Growing up in NC, that meant my first memory of attending a political event was a Jesse Helms campaign rally in 1972. I'm pretty sure we were the only Jews in the joint.

 

[hgc]

Technically, the poll is moot sense Joe already has switched parties to Ind.

See the OP. I address this by defining "switch" very specifically.

He may continue to caucus with the dems till hell freezes over (he's far more dem than most dems with the exception of one single issue) but he'll never, ever caucus with the reps unless he sees a guaranteed election loss by not doing so (and given the current political tide, I'd say the forecast for hell still quite warm for at least a decade or two into the future).

I don't know why you think he'd never caucus with the GOP. Why not? Even if they won back the majority in 2008?

 

[Rob Lister]

See the OP. I address this by defining "switch" very specifically.

I don't know why you think he'd never caucus with the GOP. Why not? Even if they won back the majority in 2008?

para 1) my bad.

para 2) If CN goes majority GOP, maybe then, but if then, GOP will not have the same meaning, if you know what i mean. He's a lib, a dem, through and through. I suspect he is, deep down where it counts, more lib than both obama and hillary put together -- with the exception on one single issue on which he will not every compromise.

That's a good thing, I suppose. I happen to strongly agree with him on that issue personally, but that really is the only issue i would even mildly agree with him on.

Still, had he got the dem nod roughly 6 years ago, he'd most certainly have beaten bush and you'd be defending his poll data. The thought makes me smile.

 

[Math Maniac]

I know some of his immediate family members. I met Sen. Lieberman in 1997 or 1998, can't remember exactly.

I would be -absolutely shocked- considering the longstanding clear democratic party ideals that he has held since his time as Attorney General of Connecticut. I know that he has been a rather conservative democrat at many points along the way, but to me the likelihood of him changing from Democrat to Republican is as likely as Oklahoma voting as a state to elect a Democrat, which has not happened since FDR.

Who knows, politics tends to be a corrupting factor to some.