Disclosure: I worked for the Lamont campaign doing web design and production and some writing for the official blog (from 9/5/06 to 11/07/06).
Saturday, September 30, 2006
Why Wouldn't Joe Jump (Again)?
In his recent interview with a right-wing blog (the same one where he threatened Sens. Dodd and Kerry for having the gall to support CT Democrats), Sen. Lieberman may have given away more than he intended (hat tip TalkLeft):
Lieberman, in his own words: "the critical thing" about even nominally remaining a Democrat is to maintain seniority. Because that maintains influence.
Otherwise, he'd switch.
But, following that logic, and assuming (for the minute) an election resulting in an evenly split senate with Sen. Lieberman-for-Lieberman holding the balance of power... wouldn't it be just as "important to the folks back home" for him to caucus with the Republicans and really maximize his influence?
Especially when (again, hypothetically) he will have remained in the senate only due to Republican political support, Republican financial support, and - most importantly - Republican votes?
Again, Novak this weekend:
He has already vociferously attacked Maxine Waters, Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, Marcy Kaptur, Chris Dodd, Howard Dean, John Kerry, Wesley Clark, and other Democrats this campaign.
Not a thing about Shays, Simmons, or Johnson. Or Rell. Or Bush. Or Cheney.
He just rolled out "Dems for Joe" (with a roster as thin as "Dems for Bush") with much attempted fanfare.
Not a thing about "Republicans for Joe"... because it would be so obviously redundant.
Sen. Lieberman is already functionally a Republican. Switching would just be a formality.
SIMON: -- on this. That if you do win -- and you're doing well at the moment -- if you do win as an Independent, you will still then become a Democrat, stay as a Democrat and caucus with the Democrats.
LIEBERMAN: Yeah. The critical thing is to caucus with the Democrats because if you don't caucus with a party, you don't have the opportunity to hold your seniority in the committee assignments that you've got and that's important to the folks back home.
Lieberman, in his own words: "the critical thing" about even nominally remaining a Democrat is to maintain seniority. Because that maintains influence.
Otherwise, he'd switch.
But, following that logic, and assuming (for the minute) an election resulting in an evenly split senate with Sen. Lieberman-for-Lieberman holding the balance of power... wouldn't it be just as "important to the folks back home" for him to caucus with the Republicans and really maximize his influence?
Especially when (again, hypothetically) he will have remained in the senate only due to Republican political support, Republican financial support, and - most importantly - Republican votes?
Again, Novak this weekend:
Lieberman has announced he will stay in the Democratic caucus if re-elected. But Republicans backing him against antiwar candidate Ned Lamont, the Democratic nominee, hope for a change of heart by Lieberman.
He has already vociferously attacked Maxine Waters, Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, Marcy Kaptur, Chris Dodd, Howard Dean, John Kerry, Wesley Clark, and other Democrats this campaign.
Not a thing about Shays, Simmons, or Johnson. Or Rell. Or Bush. Or Cheney.
He just rolled out "Dems for Joe" (with a roster as thin as "Dems for Bush") with much attempted fanfare.
Not a thing about "Republicans for Joe"... because it would be so obviously redundant.
Sen. Lieberman is already functionally a Republican. Switching would just be a formality.
posted by tparty at 8:42 PM 
