| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: Politix |
| Will Lieberman switch parties? |
| 2006-08-09 |
| This is just me speculating. Joe Lieberman said that if he wins reelection as an independent, he'll still caucus with the Donks, and there's no reason to doubt that he meant what he said. However, the Instapundit notes that Lieberman (see news article at the link) was sympathetic to Jim Jeffords when Jeffords made the jump back before the war. You also have to wonder how long a sincere, believing Orthodox Jew can pretend solidarity with the viciously anti-Semitic elements that seem to have taken over his party. Plus, if he beats Lamont in the general election despite the party turning on him in such spectacular fashion, I can't imagine he'd feel like he owes them anything. It wouldn't surprise me if Lieberman, if he wins in November, were to announce that he won't caucus with either party. |
| Posted by:Mike |
| #11 Hey DB - everyone's gotta have a straw-horse to beat. |
| Posted by: Pappy 2006-08-09 22:54 |
| #10 LH, it's my belief that the "Religious Right" is given waaaaay to much clout by the MSM in order to "energize the masses" in response to ANYTHING the Republicans do. I disagree with the President on stem-cell research but I do have some moral issues with using embryos. I live in the heart of the Bible Belt and have lived here most of my life. The vast majority of people here who identify themselves as Christians DO NOT want any type of Theocracy. They are people with certain moral principles but do not want laws forcing their morals on others just as they don't want laws forcing other people's lack of morals on them. They believe things have moral consequences. They don't hate homosexuals and certainly don't fear them (the definition of homophobic is fear of homosexuals) but they also don't want that lifestyle forced down their throats. They prefer for most things to be up to the individual. No doubht there are some religious leaders who would like to see a theocracy. They are the vocal ones. You don't see them being elected to public office. I recall Cher telling homosexuals to vote against Bush if they wanted to remain free. This type of bullshit has got to stop. Both on the Far Right and the Far Left. My 2 cents. |
| Posted by: Deacon Blues 2006-08-09 20:17 |
| #9 Joe's campaign should have been 'Even a stopped clock (Bush) is right twice a day, and I know what time it is.' |
| Posted by: Glenmore 2006-08-09 19:04 |
| #8 He has said that he'd caucus with the Democrats. Of course, this morning Kos is demanding that Harry Reid remove Joe from all his committee assignments (which Harry can do as minority leader). If the Dhimmis did that, I think Joe would become a true independent. He might choose to caucus with neither party (assuming he wins in November, which he won't). As noted the Repub candidate is a total loser -- he's got this leee-tle gambling problem. Thanks for playing, back into obscurity you go. Unfortunately, I think we're going to see Senator Ned Lamont, just another rich boy who inherited his money from grandpa and decided to buy himself a Senate seat. |
| Posted by: Steve White 2006-08-09 17:17 |
| #7 Assuming he wins in November, the more interesting question is which party caucas he affiliates with? The donks have disowned him. For instance, Jeffers hangs with the donks. |
| Posted by: Captain America 2006-08-09 14:18 |
| #6 If he were to become more conservative, I could see Lamont winning. |
| Posted by: Nimble Spemble 2006-08-09 11:57 |
| #5 The word I get from my friends in CT and NY is that Leiberman is something of an opertunist. Some of the liberal positions he's taken are at odds with the Orthodox Jewish community and is done to placate wealthy Dem liberal doners. If he were to switch parties, I could easily see him becoming more conservative. Al |
| Posted by: Frozen Al 2006-08-09 11:24 |
| #4 1. He wouldnt fit to well into the GOP caucus (thought I dont know hes THAT much more liberal than Lincoln Chafee) The GOP can offer commit assignments as well. If he stays in the Dem caucus, Id expect him to be even more independent of it than in the past. 2. Some Jews do vote Republican. Many if not most Orthodox Jews do, and even among non-O theres a considerable group that vote GOP. I personally know a Jewish House GOP staffer, and have a friend whos a stockbroker and longtime GOP, a donor I think. OTOH, its my strong impression that most Republican Jews (some of the Orthodox aside) lean toward the RINO-centrist-neocon-McCain end of the GOP spectrum. There are also Jewish independents. And increasingly most Jewish Dems, aside from the Upper West Side lefties, and a few others, lean new Democrat Clintonian politics - the kind of outlook that would have been VERY acceptable in the Republican party in the 1950s and 1960s While I consider myself a third way Clintonian Democrat, I dont know that I can speak for the mass of Clintonian Jewish Democrats, as I am to their left on economic issues, and a tad to their right on cultural-social issues. They are reluctant to go GOP for the same reason other upper middle class soccer mom voters are - theyre scared of the religious right. My motives have more to do with my beliefs in economic justice. A John McCain could be very appealing to them - but so could a Hilary Clinton. Again, not for quite the same reasons as for me. |
| Posted by: liberalhawk 2006-08-09 10:02 |
| #3 Will. Not. Happen. Liberman has some principles, unlike that slut Jeffords. Lieberman may have to run as an independent, but the donks will welcome him with open arms into the Senate Caucus when he wins in November. They need every vote they can get. He those profitable committee assignments to take care of keeping the constituents in the pork. As for the Jewish part, when Jewish voters start voting Republican, I'll not be surpised to see Jewish politicians run as trunks. But that day is far away. Don't ask me to explain why. That's for TW and LH. |
| Posted by: Nimble Spemble 2006-08-09 08:06 |
| #2 It would be good for America (IMHO) to have many more independants. My party right or wrong just leads to pork funding and socialism. |
| Posted by: Bright Pebbles 2006-08-09 07:35 |
| #1 If Lieberman switched parties, he'd be the most liberal Republican in the Senate. And that's saying something, when we have people like Lincoln Chafee and Olympia Snowe in the party. Lieberman would out-RINO every other Republican senator in office. |
| Posted by: Zhang Fei 2006-08-09 05:05 |