Will Joe Lieberman go Republican?
I've been wondering why everyone in the US seems to be counting Joe Lieberman - who ran as an Independent - as being in the Democratic column in the US Senate. Now, the Boston Globe is reporting that Joe just might go Republican.Hat Tip: Allahpundit
Asked on NBC's "Meet the Press" if he might follow the example of Sen. Jim Jeffords of Vermont, who left the Republicans in 2001 and became an independent, ending Republican control of the U.S. Senate, Lieberman refused to discount the possibility.I'd be thrilled if Joe did it. It would be a proper response Daily Kos and other extreme leftists who worked to defeat him.
"I'm not ruling it out but I hope I don't get to that point," he said. "And I must say -- and with all respect to the Republicans who supported me in Connecticut -- nobody ever said, 'We're doing this because we want you to switch over. We want you to do what you think is right and good for our state and country,' and I appreciate that."
A spokeswoman for Lieberman would not elaborate when contacted by The Associated Press.
And Joe would put in a good word for Israel at the White House....
posted by Carl in Jerusalem @ 2:07 PM
7 Comments:
Here's the saddest part of Joe Lieberman's political career:
He and Gore were robbed in 2000. If they'd won, Joe might be on track for a Presidential run of his own in 2008. How's that for a nice fantasy?
Michael,
You may be right - I'm not going to go back over hanging chads. But right now, Joe doesn't stand a shot in hell of being either party's nominee in 2008. If he goes Republican, I could see him making a run in 2012 or 2016 (depending whether there is a Republican incumbent in 2012). And maybe McCain would tap him as VP in 2008....
It is my understanding that Joe would lose his seniority if he wouldn't "caucus" with the Democrats (whatever that means). If he feels his seniority would be worth more than his singular vote, he would still stick with the Democrats.
Lieberman and Gore weren't robbed in 2000. The idea that the vote of someone who didn't follow the rules (to completely detach the chad) should have his vote count is absurd. Besides, when news organizations went over the different ways of counting after the fact they discovered that Bush still won the election (except, I think, in one scenario.)
Yishai is right about seniority. Apparently seniority is important to Lieberman (in terms of committee assignments, etc.) and that's why he'll remain a Democrat.
The Republicans can (and would) agree to give him equivalent seniority if he switched over. In his case, it is easily defensible -- the man did, after all, serve 18 years in the Senate, just for the other pary.
Heck, they would probably agree to give him a Committee Chairmanship that he wants (probably foreign relations). If he switches over, then it's 50-50 and with the VP Cheney tie breaker, the Republicans get back control of the Senate.
I agree with Tal. It doesn't make sense from either the Republicans' perspective or from Lieberman's perspective to let control of the Senate hinge on someone's seniority in committees.
Joe doesn't have to do anything right now. He can wait and see if the Dems will continue to shaft Israel and the US by siding with the terrorists. Jeffords made the leap in May of 2001, so Joe can do the same at any time and the balance would immediately switch.
My bet is that the Dems will force his hand sooner rather than later because they won't be able to control their desire to see W not only defeated, but embarassed as well. To do this means bringing down the US military and anything it is doing. That means Joe will have to either go along with his fellow Dems or do what's right. Eventually, he'll do what's right.
Post a Comment
<< Home