No doubt a good number of Democrats already think that he has left their ranks, but regardless of such perceptions, he still caucuses with the Democrats–a rather significant face, given that the current partisan split in the Senate is 51-49 (actually 49-49-2, but at the moment, both independents caucus with the Democrats).
The Politico reports: Breaking News: Lieberman Says War Vote Could Prompt Party Switch - Politico.com:
Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman of Connecticut told the Politico Thursday that he has no immediate plans to switch parties, but suggested Democratic opposition to funding the war in Iraq might change his mind.Lieberman, a self-styled independent who caucuses with the Democrats, has been among the strongest supporters of the war and President Bush’s plan to send another 21,500 combat troops into Iraq to help quell the violence there.
“I have no desire to change parties,” Lieberman said in a telephone interview. “If that ever happens, it is because I feel the majority of Democrats have gone in a direction that I don’t feel comfortable with.”
We’ll see. While not outside the realm of the possible, I have to think that this still remains rather improbable.
The basis of the story is from a piece in Time.
Sphere: Related Content
February 22nd, 2007 at 4:32 pm
Well, I expect Lieberman to throw tantrums like this.
I also am unsure if his actual defection is as improbable as you suggest, Steven. Although his voting in the Senate has long been near the center of his own party’s caucus, his reelection constituency in 2006 was overwhelmingly Republican and independent. If he wants another term, does it make sense for him to seek it after having continued to caucus as a Democrat? I’m not so sure.
February 22nd, 2007 at 4:49 pm
Tantrums are usually illogical, out of control responses to something you don’t like. Lieberman is far from doing that.
This appears more like a well thought out strategy to sway many away from a vote showdown over the Iraq “surge”. As a purely symbolic vote it’s easy to take sides but Lieberman has now put something of value on the table which could have a real effect on betting.
This could switch control of the Senate and have real consequences. This is very shrewd in his part, he has more influence on the vote now than he would have with any floor speech if it were debated. When it comes to Iraq he now is the most powerful Senator of all.
February 23rd, 2007 at 8:38 am
A Lieberman switch would not flip control of the Senate to the Republicans. The rules are different now compared to when Jeffords switched and the Dems would retain control thru the 08 elections.
Thus, it seems politically impractical for him to make the switch. Also, on issues other than the war, he is generally a reliable Democratic vote. I understand he sides with them on the war issue, but what happens when other votes come up?
This all seems like an attention-grabbing move from Lieberman and an attempt to blackmail the Dems into maintaining funding for the war.
February 23rd, 2007 at 9:50 am
This all seems like an attention-grabbing move from Lieberman
I think that that pretty much sums it up.
February 23rd, 2007 at 10:05 am
Andy raises an interesting issue. If you go to his blog, he links to a story from Political Insider regarding a claimed difference in Senate rules now compared to when Jeffords switched. I also post some thoughts on the matter over there if for some strange reason anyone should be interested.
Andy may be right, though not necessarily for the reasons he (quoting Political Insider) states.
February 23rd, 2007 at 11:29 am
He is just flexing his “independent” muscles and reminding the Democrats that they need him.