Lieberman Says He Won't Switch To GOP! Or Did He?
The Associated Press is now moving a story with a big headline that blares: "Lieberman ends speculation of switch to GOP." Yes, but did he actually do this? Here's what Lieberman said in the piece:
“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.”
Okay, that's stronger than past statements, but it still sounds like there's some wiggle room there, wouldn't you say? Some of the language is similar to this one from November 13:
"I'm not ruling it out, but I hope I don't get to that point. And, 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, we want you to switch over,' " he said.
And, God dammit, in today's story the Associated Press just doesn't mention the fact that Lieberman repeatedly promised during the campaign to stick with the Dems. Why not? Didn't the AP get our care package?
At this rate, we'll soon be muttering this while digging through garbage cans for food, but really: Isn't that kind of an important piece of information?
Update: On this score, don't miss Ana Marie Cox's deft skewering of a similarly hyped Politico "scoop."
“I hope and believe we’ll never get to that point,
He is leaving the door wide open to later saying "They made me do it".
February 23, 2007 3:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Take a stand, Joe.
February 23, 2007 4:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
And I thought that he was a Republican all along.
On a more serious note, the time left for Bush and the meager Democratic majority in the Senate, let him go. He nay be contagious for all we know.
February 23, 2007 4:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'll never convert. (Subject of course to divine inspiration.)
February 23, 2007 4:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why does Lieberman even mention switching parties, or allow it to be bandied about so often, when he votes with the Democrats over 90% of the time? What politician thinks about switching parties over one issue? What is it about this one issue, IRAQ, that is driving Lieberman to all but threaten to switch over it and throw the Senate to the Republicans?
February 23, 2007 4:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Er, it's the MEDIA, not Lieberman, that keeps bringing up this issue. Why do they do it? Because the media thinks that a switch would create a frenzy akin to the Jeffords "switch".
The better question is why Lieberman is considered a Republican by so many Democrats because of how he votes over that one issue.
February 23, 2007 4:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is different because he said "believe." He's saying he does not currently see things in the Senate going to where he would feel the need to break a vow to his constituents. You never say "never" in politics (Right, Bush-41?). Joe is saying he will not unconditionally reject a potential change in caucus affiliation, and no intelligent person says he'll never switch sides. He's wrong on Iraq, and it's a bad thing to be wrong on, but I believe his ADA rating is in the 75% range. So he's right on most things.
February 23, 2007 5:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
right, I agree that this was a stronger statement. I just find it troubling that he could be so unequivocal during the campaign then as soon as it ends he's suddenly not quite as unequivocal anymore. If I'd voted for him, I'd be pretty irked
February 23, 2007 5:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
"The better question is why Lieberman is considered a Republican by so many Democrats because of how he votes over that one issue."
The reason we consider Lieberman a Republican is because he was elected due to the financial support and the votes from Republicans. A true Democrat would have accepted his defeat in the primary and supported the Democratic nominee.
February 23, 2007 5:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
The reason this goes on is because nobody has any good reason to believe anything that Joe Lieberman says anymore. That's really the heart of the matter.
thosethingswesay.blogspot.com
February 23, 2007 5:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's far more than one issue; you haven't been listening. For a preliminary list, check here.
February 23, 2007 6:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
On 10/18/06 Lieberman said "No one wants to end the war in Iraq more than I do."
http://thinkprogress.org/2006/12/03/lieberman-iraq-troops/
Now he's saying "I have no desire or intention to leave the Democratic Party or the Democratic caucus."
February 23, 2007 6:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
For all his bluster, Lieberman is actually fairly boxed in. Considering the chances of the Democrats increasing their majority in '08, if Lieberman aligns himself with the Republicans now he risks being ignored by Republicans and Democrats alike for the last four years of his term with virtually no hope of appearing on the ballot for '12.
Even if he continues to caucus with the Democrats in the immediate future, he most certainly will be a non-factor after the '08 elections.
I would assume that he would prefer having minimal influence in Senate matters over having absolutely none at all outside of a filibuster. The Republicans would be wise not to overuse that maneuver (of course, there's no guarantee that they won't).
February 23, 2007 8:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
I've never understood the obsession with LIeberman. He's a Democrat with some red stripes who represents a blue state, he's not the first Democrat with Republican leanings and won't be the last. If he was a Democrat who represented a red state we'd never hear any comments about his votes.
After his win in 2005 he's now beholden to the Republicans for the strong financial and electoral support he received and I have no doubt that he gets regular reminders from them. I strongly disagree with Lieberman on Iraq, but he won in 2005. The story is tired, I wish the press and some bloggers would give it a rest.
February 23, 2007 11:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Did anyone note he voted No on Iraq debate cloture with all those other Repubs?
Richard Silverstein
Tikun Olam>
February 24, 2007 4:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
Take a number.
Lieberman was unequivocal about stepping down after 3 terms, until it came time to step down, and then suddenly the country really needed him to stay.
He was unequivocal about bringing the troops home in 2007 until the day after the general election.
He's not stupid--he can do these things because the media ignores it, and he knows that.
Don't mind me, though. I'm just an embittered and angry CT Democratic voter.
You know, one of those shrill ones.
February 24, 2007 3:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Joe Lieberman places the interests of Israel over that of the U.S.
Perhaps he should start an AIPAC party:-- which would certainly attract quite a number of politicos from both the Democratic & Republican parties, who already are more loyal to the Israelis than they are to the American people!
Sooner or later, the American people will wake-up to the fact that neo-cons like Lieberman, Bush, Cheney, Rice, Rove, McCain, et. al. have ruthlessly betrayed our nation. Connecticut voters should realize already that they've been duped! Pathetic!
February 24, 2007 3:39 PM | Reply | Permalink