NY Times reported Lieberman "has not ruled out switching parties" without noting his promise to caucus with Dems
SUMMARY: The New York Times' Mark Leibovich reported that Sen. Joe Lieberman "has not ruled out switching parties but has stopped short of saying he has moved so far from the Democratic Party -- or, in his view, the other way around -- that he is at a point of no return" but failed to note that if Lieberman did so, he would be breaking his 2006 promise to caucus with the Democrats if re-elected to the Senate.
In a July 14 New York Times article, reporter Mark Leibovich asserted that Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman (CT), "a self-styled 'independent Democrat,' " "has not ruled out switching parties but has stopped short of saying he has moved so far from the Democratic Party -- or, in his view, the other way around -- that he is at a point of no return." But Leibovich did not note that if Lieberman joined the Republican Party, he would, as Greg Sargent documented on Talking Points Memo, be breaking his promise during the 2006 campaign to caucus with the Democrats if re-elected to the Senate, a promise Leibovich himself has previously reported.
In a November 15, 2006, article, Leibovich reported: "During the campaign, Mr. Lieberman said repeatedly that he would continue to vote with the Democratic caucus." Indeed, in October 2006, after Lieberman lost the Connecticut Democratic Senate primary to challenger Ned Lamont and decided to run for his seat as an independent, blogger spazeboy posted a video in which Lieberman was asked: "Would you unequivocally ... caucus with the Democrats?" Lieberman responded: "I've said that 1,200 times." When asked to clarify with a "yes or no" answer, Lieberman responded: "Yes. Yes."
In January 2007, Lieberman reportedly "asked to be called an Independent Democrat," and "his office made clear that, if the compound modifier that the senator prefers was not going to take hold, then Lieberman's second choice is to be described as an Independent."
From the July 14 New York Times article, headlined "Lieberman Finds Middle a Tricky Path":
It has grown increasingly so for Mr. Lieberman, once his party's vice-presidential candidate and now a self-styled "independent Democrat." He has zigzagged the country on behalf of Mr. McCain, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, and, in recent weeks, amplified his criticism of Senator Barack Obama to a point that has infuriated many of his Democratic colleagues.
At least two have asked Mr. Lieberman to tone down his rhetoric against Mr. Obama, the presumptive Democratic nominee, two colleagues said, and at least three have advised Mr. Lieberman against speaking at the Republican convention, a prospect he has said he would entertain.
Clearly, Mr. Lieberman's already precarious marriage with the Democrats has reached a new level of discord and could be approaching divorce, if not necessarily a remarriage into the Republican Party. The strain has been rooted largely in Mr. Lieberman's steadfast support for the Bush administration's engagement in Iraq and his hawkish views on Iran. He has not ruled out switching parties but has stopped short of saying he has moved so far from the Democratic Party -- or, in his view, the other way around -- that he is at a point of no return.
"I don't have any line that I have in my mind," Mr. Lieberman said in an interview. "If it happened, I'd know it when I saw it."
Mr. Lieberman was leaning back in a chair in his Senate office, wearing a loose-fitting pinstriped suit, grinning a lot and appearing quite comfortable while describing "my uncomfortable position." He compared his predicament to the old Groucho Marx conceit, "I don't care to belong to any club that will accept me as a member."
[...]
He added that he was having a blast with Mr. McCain on the campaign trail, accompanying him on a trip to Colombia and Mexico this month. He has been a regular on Mr. McCain's Three Amigos circuit, which includes Senator Lindsey Graham, Republican of South Carolina.
All of which has angered his Democratic friends, or former friends.
"I think there's a difference in the way Joe has been treated now by people in his caucus compared to the beginning of last year," Ms. [Susan] Collins [Republican senator from Maine] said. That was when Mr. Lieberman returned to the Senate after losing the Connecticut Democratic primary, running as an "independent Democrat" and prevailing in the general election.
Mr. Lieberman continued to vote with his party most of the time, while the Democrats, clinging to a 51-to-49 majority, smiled tightly and tried to hold on to their flight-risk colleague.
It has been tough, though. Mr. Lieberman has declared himself "liberated" from the shackles of party affiliation and seemed to delight in bucking Democrats on foreign policy matters. "There were times in my career where I really wanted to be supported, dare I say liked, by everyone," Mr. Lieberman said in the interview.
undermine any Progressive movement from the Democrats.
I dont think the problem is being a bit progressive. The problem is trying to radically change an entire society to far left ideology. Same as trying to change the entire society to far right ideology. Majority of people do not like extreme left/right radicals, they are too level headed for either one.
I'd say that rational tax policy, the kind that worked like gangbusters in the 90s, is one of the far-left ideas that nobody wants.
I'd say that universal health care, which works easily all over the world, is another one, although no one in Dem leadership is going nearly all the way with it.
Forgiving all of Bush's crimes isn't a far-left position, but it's certainly espoused by nearly all Dem leadership.
Refusing to dismantle social security might be another far-left position that everyone hates. And caring for veterans, and funding medicare, and supporting alternative energy.
Seriously, how much more spineless and weak do Democrats have to be before people stop accusing them of being radical?
You forgot "refusing to impeach Bush". That's another of those far-left inactions this congress has taken.
Thinking about the congressional Democrats makes me want to throw up.
Be specific, what "far left ideology" are you talking about?
Anything that Columbus1492/Science101 disagrees with is "far-left ideology".....
Go ahead and switch parties Mr. Lieberman, you were never anything but a ringer anyway whose purpose it was to undermine any Progressive movement from the Democrats
Just curious Lefty, did you feel this way when the guy was your VP nominee? Or is this disgust more recent?
BTW, please keep him. The Republicans don't need or want him. Then again, many feel the same way about McCain ;-)
Sorry, candidate not nominee...
Not that I doubt you Lefty but I don't recall any unrest among other Dems when Gore tapped Lieberman to be his VP. Or any mumbling about him being selected to appease the corporate and right wing foundation financed DLC.
I've never liked the guy because I've always felt his support for Bush's invasion of Iraq was based primarily on his support of what was in Israel's best interest ahead of his own country.
Foolish me, I've always thought that the invasion of Iraq was about the control of their oil reserves, pretty much what the "neo-cons" stated in their PNAC documents. As far as Bush, Cheney and the rest of the "neo-cons" are concerned, Israel is but a strategic hamlet. It just couldn't be that Lieberman is just a belligerent American nationalist who happens to be Jewish, could it?
But then again, I'm not an anti-Semite, so maybe I'm drawing a different conclusion than you.
Wow. Sorry I bothered to even strike up a conversation with you. You aren't a laughing lefty, you're a looney lefty.
Whatever Bush & the neocons reasons for the invasion, Lieberman's seems to have been based more on his unflinching support for Israel. And just because I suggest this you imply I'm some anti-semite? Lieberman's support for Israel is hardly a secret.
Pro-Israel groups rally support for Lieberman
By Susan Haigh, AP Political Writer | July 19, 2006
HARTFORD, Conn. --Pro-Israel groups, afraid of losing one of their staunchest supporters in Congress, are pouring money into beleaguered Sen. Joe Lieberman's campaign as he tries to fend off a tougher-than-expected primary challenge.
The three-term lawmaker is struggling to dispatch millionaire businessman Ned Lamont in the Aug. 8 primary. Lamont's fierce criticism of Lieberman's backing of the Iraq war and perceived closeness to President Bush have won him followers among hard-core Democrats.
The primary is Aug. 8 and Lieberman has said he will run as an independent if he loses.
Pro-Israel political action committees have donated to his campaign and have urged their national membership to give generously now and later, if Lieberman is forced to run as an unaffiliated candidate.
"Joe Lieberman, without exception, no conditions ... is the No. 1 pro-Israel advocate and leader in Congress," said Mark Vogel, chairman of the National Action Committee, a pro-Israel political action committee. "There is nobody who does more on behalf of Israel than Joe Lieberman. That is why he is incredibly important to the pro-Israel community."
The rest of the article can be found here:
http://www.boston.com/news/local/connecticut/articles/2006/07/19/pro_israel_groups_rally_support_for_lieberman/
You're a little touchy aren't you? I never called you an anti-Semite. I do say however, to claim that Lieberman's only reason for siding with the Republicans, is that he's Jewish, is racially tinged at best.
Lieberman has long been a foil against Progressive policies and attacked his Democratic colleagues on many occasions over many issues predating the invasion of the Iraq war. For example, just what did the Terri Schiavo case have to do with Israel, or the bankruptcy bill or other examples to numerous to mention for that matter?
I don't believe his support for Israel is solely responsible for his betrayal of the Democratic party or his support for the invasion of Iraq. I find it more likely that Lieberman has always been a tool of the US National Security State, the Military Industrial Complex and corporate interests. Yes, his rabid right wing Zionism and the invasion of Iraq dovetail nicely, but I think you put the cart before the horse.
Very interesting take on the Lieberman’s motivations Laughing Lefty. I had always assumed that everybody agreed with Jeter2’s but just didn’t give voice to it out of fear of being branded anti-Jewish---that his view was the common wisdom. You’ve made at least consider it differently.
I've argued this point on many a left wing and Liberal blog. Lieberman has been a favorite foil for a long time, it's not just the Iraq war. He is now, and always was, a ringer. There are others in the Democratic fold, and it has nothing to do with Israel.
Check out who funds the DLC.
The DLC and its close associate, the PPI, receive grants from many Fortune 500 companies and various right-wing foundations such as the Bradley Foundation. According to the a 2002 study by the Capital Research Center, corporate contributors to the PPI have included the AT&T Foundation, Eastman Kodak Charitable Trust, Prudential Foundation, Georgia-Pacific Foundation, Chevron, and Amoco Foundation. The Third Way Foundation, an umbrella group of the New Democrats in the DLC, receives funding from the Lynde & Harry Bradley Foundation, Howard Gilman Foundation, Ameritech Foundation, and General Mills Foundation. According to John Nichols in the Progressive, the DLC has had funding from Bank One, Citigroup, Dow Chemical, DuPont, General Electric, Health Insurance Corporation, Merrill Lynch, Microsoft, Morgan Stanley, Occidental Petroleum, and Raytheon (Progressive, October 2000).
You'll find that CT is the fourth smallest state and defense department spending per capita puts CT pretty high on the list of states receiving defense contracts.
Lieberman is the past has been more moderate than he is today. And he's consistently brought money into the state.
I'm not defending him in any way, but don't ever think that anyone will ever be elected in the State of Connecticut who does not support defense spending. I lived in CT for more than eighteen years and there are very few jobs that don't depend in some way on defense spending.
Your argument that I didn't oppose Lieberman in the past because I voted for Gore is entirely specious.
I cast my vote for Al Gore and against George Bush even though I was appalled by the selection of Lieberman, thank you very much. My point about the bankruptcy bill and Terri Schiavo was that they had nothing to do with Israel.
Here's a few that go way back:
Lieberman served as chair of the Democratic Leadership Council. (see above post for information on the DLC
In 1998, Lieberman was the first prominent Democrat to publicly challenge Bill Clinton for the judgment exercised in his affair with Monica Lewinsky.[12
Consumer protection
Lieberman was one of four Senate Democrats to side with Republicans in 1995 in voting to limit punitive damage awards in product liability cases.[28]
In February 2005, breaking ranks with fellow Senate Democrats, Lieberman voted for the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005, S. 5, which is a bill to curtail the ability of plaintiffs to file class action lawsuits against corporations in federal courts. The bill was backed by the White House and business groups as an essential tort reform measure that would reduce what they said was a debilitating number of frivolous lawsuits. The bill was opposed by consumer advocacy groups and trial lawyers who argued that many valid claims against corporations would be dismissed, leaving consumers without legal recourse.[29][30]
Free trade
Lieberman supported the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and continues to do so.[87] During a 2004 Democratic presidential primary debate in South Carolina, he said, "though it's cost some jobs, has actually netted out 900,000 new jobs that were created by NAFTA".[88]
He's always been a self-serving opportunist and a pawn of big corporations as well as a belligerent nationalist on foreign policy. I voted for Gore because he was, if not the lesser of two evils, far better than Bush.
Not that I doubt you Lefty but I don't recall any unrest among other Dems when Gore tapped Lieberman to be his VP.
During the 2000 Campaign, Joe LIEberman was at least six months away from becoming George W. Bush's lap dog. I don't know about anyone else, but I started losing respect for LIEberman the more he was sucking up to Bush. At this point, I have no respect left for LIEberman.
That's the exact same reason I don't like Lieberman. When he was on the ticket with Gore, Lieberman wasn't the same as he is today (not that I remember, anyway).
When the war for oil in the Middle East began, Lieberman moved to the right - and he does everything he can to ensure that the interests of the State of Israel come before the interests of the American people. Lieberman should be kicked out of office.
And before anyone even thinks of painting me as anti-Semitic because of my remark about Lieberman, think again. I am pro-Israel and pro-Palestine.
Figure that one out. ;)
I am still in shock how badly Lieberman has been treated by the dems. This guy was your choice for VP just a short time ago. Concerning his re-election to the senate, the voters of his state must have wanted him regardless of what the primary voters had to say.
Now I read the party of choice and diversity plans to boot him out of committee roles if he speaks at the RNC convention. I guess the party of choice and diversity only supports you if you follow a very narrow party line.
And the GOP is really nice to Sen. Hagel. Will the Repubs line the street with roses if Hagel speaks at the Dem Convention.
Lieberman can whatever he likes. If he wishes to be part of the minority, who cares. But methinks he is sniffing butt for that VP slot.
SAY IT IS SO ,JOE
Siding with the Republican party isn't diversity, it's mindless conformity.
On the other hand, I don't hear anybody in your big tent party clamoring for Lincoln Chaffee or Bob Barr to come back. You didn't treat Ron Paul very nicely either.
Oh, please.
What else should Loserman expect if he persists in his obsession with licking McCain's shriveled nut sack and basically acting like a Republican? Whatever's been "done to him," he's brought on himself with his backstabbing duplicity.
I guess the party of choice and diversity only supports you if you follow a very narrow party line.
Well, the Republican Party seems to have whipped John McCain back into the party line pretty good. The bottom line is that Joe Lieberman has become nothing more than Zell Miller...without the accent. Lieberman is not a Democrat anymore. The only reason he caucused with the Democrats is to get a committe chairmanship. He should simply demonstrate some integrity by switching parties. Good riddance, IMO...
He voluntarily made that switch.
Correct. Any normal politician with an average amount of scruples would have accepted the mandate of his party and bow out. But not Joe LIEberman - his ego was far more important than anything else.
I am still in shock how badly Lieberman has been treated by the dems. This guy was your choice for VP just a short time ago.
Before he turned traitor.
Concerning his re-election to the senate, the voters of his state must have wanted him regardless of what the primary voters had to say.
The Democratic voters in Connecticut didn't want LIEberman. The only reason he was re-elected was all the RepubliKKKan voters who abandoned their own candidate and voted for LIEberman, the Bush Butt-Kisser.
Now I read the party of choice and diversity plans to boot him out of committee roles if he speaks at the RNC convention. I guess the party of choice and diversity only supports you if you follow a very narrow party line.
Which is their right. The GOP would do the same thing if a RepubliKKKan were to speak at the Democratic Convention.
Geez, POV - for an alleged college professor, there's a lot of things you just know nothing about....
For once in their lives, the media is right.
What in the ever lovin blue eyed world are you talking about?The media gets it right rarely, but it does happen from time to time.
Helping to hide what joe is, is the proper thing for the media to do? In what space time continuum?
An article that mentions Lieberman's love for McCain and GOP conventions says everything that needs to be said, I think.
I do like playing with words, hyperbole is on occasion fun. That hyperbole was from Pogo. A great source of it.
You confused me and I confess, I remain confused.
-- I guess the party of choice and diversity only supports you if you follow a very narrow party line. -- POV
And very narrow minded thinking.
According to Votes Database Lieberman has voted with the democrat party 90% of the time over the last three years.
The American Conservative Union gives Lieberman a rating of 8. Over the last four years...covering 100 key votes...he has opposed the ACU's conservative position 92 times.
Lieberman a conservative...not hardly. Lieberman needed in the republican party...not hardly. Lieberman lynched by radical democrats...most certainly.
Lieberman's support of McCain should be enough for any moderate Dem to find him too conservative. At very juncture in this war, he has mimicked the talking points of the Bush Administration without fail (Ex. Al-Qaeda would control Iraq if we left, "progress" end is near, claims Reid said the war was lost, etc. Liebermann has thrown his energy and support behind a man who has no major substantive differences with the current president. He also ran with the Obama/Hamas smear, has said he would vote for McCain's judges (which would be a major flip against liberals if he does), is thinking about speaking at the RNC convention, wrote a whole article trashing the Democratic Party, refuses to exercise any oversight (which is the biggest problem). Why would this guy be a problem only to the "far-left?"
This guy is a problem for any American, let alone the DemocratIC Party (of which he is no longer a member - so you righties need to get your facts straight - AGAIN).
The DemocratIC Party owes Lieberman NOTHING (which you insinuate by saying that the DemocratIC Party has treated him poorly. He put his personal and Israel's interests before the people who put him in office. If anything, that alone should cause him to be booted out of his seat in the Senate.
The way Lieberman has acted, he may as well change his (I) to an (R). He's not fooling anyone. I'm ashamed of him.