You just KNOW he would be singing a different tune if the Republicans had stayed in power.
Lieberman: Call me a Democrat
WASHINGTON (AP) -- Sen. Joe Lieberman, who won re-election as an independent, has a message for his Senate colleagues in the next Congress: Call me a Democrat.
The three-term Connecticut lawmaker defied party leaders when he launched his independent bid after losing to Democrat Ned Lamont in the August primary. During the campaign, he vowed to be an "independent-minded Democrat" if he were re-elected. In Tuesday's election, Lieberman won strong GOP support and given the closely divided Senate, Republicans are expected to court him.
So will he count as a Democrat or an independent who caucuses with the majority Democrats? In an e-mail message late Thursday, Lieberman spokesman Dan Gerstein said the senator will begin his new term as a Democrat.
With the Democratic takeover of the Senate, Lieberman is in line to become chairman of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee.
In a post-election news conference, Lieberman said he was reassured by Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid that he would retain his seniority when the new Senate convenes.
In case you were asleep in 2000, here is an excellent and concise piece on why Lieberman is the most self-serving politician in American history.
http://www.indignantonline.com/humor/lieberman
BREAKING NEWS: Lieberman is a FLIP-FLOPPING douchebag
Lieberman Leaves GOP Door Open
By DAVID LIGHTMAN And MARK PAZNIOKAS
Courant Staff Writers
November 13 2006
WASHINGTON -- Four days after calling his party affiliation a "closed issue," U.S. Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman said Sunday he was "not ruling it out" that he could turn Republican.
He told NBC's "Meet the Press" he will return to Washington as an "Independent Democrat" - "capital I, capital D."
But the R is lurking.
"I'm not ruling it out," he said, "but I hope I don't get to that point. 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 want you to switch over.'"
Lieberman also left open another controversial door - supporting more U.S. troops in Iraq.
"I think we have to be open to that as a way to succeed to achieve a free and independent Iraq, which would be an extraordinary accomplishment, but it's got to be tied to a new strategy," he said.
That strategy may be "tied to commitments from the Iraqi government to disarm those militias and to bring more Sunnis into a national unity government."
Lieberman is considered unlikely to switch to the Republican Party, but his comments triggered a fresh round of outrage by liberal bloggers Sunday. His comments came after insisting during his primary and fall campaigns that he would remain a Democrat.
He was asked about the prospect Wednesday at his post-election news conference.
"There is a little playfulness in me that wants me to make a joke about that, but it's too serious. The answer is no," he said. "When I give my word I stick with it, and I am definitely going to organize with the Senate Democrats."
Earlier last week, after delivering a speech that he called his "closing argument" for his re-election, he called the matter of his party affiliation a "closed issue."
"It is a totally closed issue. I know this is a great sport ... but I pride myself on keeping my word," Lieberman said. "And I have said explicitly that I will, if I am re-elected, I will organize with the Democrats."
Democrats know they have to be careful not to offend Lieberman. They will hold a fragile 51 to 49 majority in the Senate next year. A switch by Lieberman would swing the majority to the GOP, because Vice President Dick Cheney would break tie votes.
Republicans have said they have no intention of trying to get Lieberman into their caucus. Asked about the prospect Thursday, outgoing Republican Party Chairman Ken Mehlman said no high-level effort is being made.
"We take him at his word, that he's staying a Democrat," Mehlman said.
Lieberman won re-election last week by garnering about 70 percent of the Republican vote and 33 percent of Democrats, according to exit polls.
Some national observers have called him potentially the most powerful person in the Senate, because he is beholden to no party. But Lieberman also knows that if he wants to become chairman of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, he needs to stay a loyal Democrat.
He reiterated that point Sunday.
"I'm going to caucus with the Democrats ... because it's good for my constituents in Connecticut," he said.
But he also stressed his independence, saying he was following the model of former Sen. Harry F. Byrd Jr. of Virginia. Byrd, a Democrat, became an independent in 1970 after refusing to sign a pledge to back all Democratic nominees.
Byrd won re-election as an independent in 1976, but became an ally of Republicans on most matters.
Asked on "Meet the Press" whether he would switch to the GOP, Lieberman said, "Well, that's a hypothetical, which I'm not going to deal with. I'm going to be an optimist and take some encouragement from the fact this was an election in which, in the House and Senate, Democrats came to the majority of both chambers by electing moderates mostly."
He noted that the election found "voters in Connecticut and elsewhere saying we're disappointed with the Republicans. We want to give the Democrats a chance."
At the same time, he said, "I believe that the American people are considering both major political parties to be in a kind of probation, because they're understandably angry that Washington is dominated too much by partisan political games and not enough by problem-solving and patriotism, which means put the country and your state first. "


Comments: 137
lieberman will be one of those real stars when it comes to bipartisanship.
he can talk to both sides.
the democrats are lucky to have him.
Like I told R.E. numerous times, I am a Democrat............but a Conservative one. And that made me about as popular as Joe Lieberman. But both he and I have redemption and vindication with the Moderate Centrists who emerged victorious on Tuesday. I was only hoping for the once-and-for-always defeat of the Angry Left. Conservative Republicans don't seem to be the Big Bad Wolf that you, Tony S. and R.E. make them out to be. So I don't have a problem with most of them.
I think the tar-and-feathering of Lieberman was one of the most egregious embarrassments I've ever witnessed in all my years in the Democratic party. Liberman should have been the Democratic nominee and Lamont should have been the Socialist nominee - yep, he's that far Left.
We'll see now how a supposedly Center-to-Center-Right Congress can govern. I'm hopeful.
Lieberman cares deeply. About American and about the Democratic party. What was done to him was shameful...............and done by the Angry Left. Thankfully, they were soundly trounced at the polls on Tuesday. The Centrists, like Lieberman, won and won big.
We should just let the Leftists gurgle back down into the primordial sludge they emerged from..................or better yet, put our boot on their foreheads and help them down a little faster. LOL
re Lauren: Some times the blind just can't see.
It is entertaining that those on the far left 'brag' about their victory, but in turn put down one of their parties victors....
my point, and many people of all parties would agree, that Lieberman acted in a a way that I found self-serving. He jeopardized his parties' control of the Senate by running for two offices.
YOu may like Lieberman, and you may disagree with my asesment, but I fail to see how that constitutes me as blind. It does, however, make you both look like douchey, close-minded jackasses.
If you want this to be the party of hate and anger, then head towards Venezuela or Cuba.
Why do you think this, instead of thinking it means many Republicans were so fed up with their own party that they voted for him instead?
I think you're missing something extremely obvious here.
Joe didn't change from 2000, when he was the Democratic nominee for VP. The party changed around him. He is still the same great guy. Its just that the Leftists almost hijacked his seat. That's why it is so satisfying to see him defeat them.
CT is a Moderate state, but a Democratic one. Party affiliation there is very strong, and Republicans do not do well there - they never have.
Republicans voted for Joe because CT Republicans are very Moderate. That's why he's always gotten a large chunk of their vote. The Angry Left is the only group that didn't vote for Joe. Thankfully, they are a small, defeated minority. Yay! LOL
I'm sure you're pissed that a Leftist like Lamont got smoked on Tuesday - but get used to it. Extremist politics is just not what America wants. The voters validated that.
The "I hate W" crowd has been silenced. Yahoooooooo!
Palm reading? Why would I care?
I just care that the Left was defeated. If you count yourself in those numbers, I'm even happier. Moderates won, and that's all that matters.
And, you guys won the majority?
This is going to be a fun two years! You guys are already eating your own and you haven't even been sworn in yet.
This is the sort of nonsense I've had to put up with for years in the Democratic party. Cannibalization is definitely a problem. Some in our party can't be happy with just a win - it has to be won their way. Unfortunately for those folks, Moderation is the key - and they hate that.
Those are the idiots who want impeachment, stagnation, and purges. Its stupid, really. But they go and do it anyways...........
I don't like Lieberman because he only looks out for himself. I'd be annoyed if he were green party, republican, communist, whateve, and acted the way he did. He's just like Ted Haggard, a big fat hypocrite. (see link in updated article above.)
If you can't understand articles on Gather, maybe you should log off the internet and stick with pop-up books and stay away from sharp objects. You are an embarassment to democracy and unable to understand basic Englsih. Alright, now I'm done with you.
I'm an unapologetic basher of Leftists. When I see them, they get the pinata treatment. Sorry you got in the way of my stick..............
As I said, moderate Dems are the best because they are my party's best chance of winning. And honestly, ANYONE is better than the far right neocons we have sitting in the white house.
Having a little problem understanding basic english?? I was quite clear with my statement.
Get this through your bony thick head : CONSERVATIVE DEMOCRAT. I know its hard for you to wrap your tiny little mind around this concept, but we do exist - and in much greater numbers than your kind. The voting proved it.
When exactly were those decided? I thought I heard Nancy Pelosi say that none of them had been decided yet.
I've also heard that any talks of Impeachment are off the table. Maybe Nancy will prove more Moderate than her record suggests. I'll wait and see.
People in glass houses and all............. check your own posts
I'm waiting .............shall I pass the salt for your filet of sole??
I think that refers to YOU. I NEVER claimed to be a good typist. I never took typing. I am the very first one to claim that I SUCK at it. You criticized me for it and then throw out a word like "carnivorors" (whatever the hell that is.) TWICE!
dumbass.
Lieberman is an embarrassment and a sore loser all around - his own constituency rejected him, so he invalidated their votes and denied their voice. Then he confused everyone about his stance on the war, funnelled money into a slush fund, and rode the fact that he is an incumbent and let the Democratic party ignore the mess in CT and hope it all went away. I'll be interested in seeing how marginalized he is in the next session.
Me too Leona, me too.
"OH yeah that's super cool Bret. Bash anyone that you believe you can categorize. Most people don't fall into such black and white categories. Yes, I have a reputation on Gather as a liberal hippies for being anti-war on pro-gay marriage, but I'm pro death penalty and even against third trimester abortions (with the exception of the woman's health of course.) I am also willing to listen to others. While I would love to see gay marriage, I learned from this past election that it probably wont happen and am willing to compromise with civli unions (see my article on that topic.)
As I said, moderate Dems are the best because they are my party's best chance of winning. And honestly, ANYONE is better than the far right neocons we have sitting in the white house."
I'm sorry to be the one who has to inform you, but you're quite Liberal, by your own admission.
I'm also sorry to be the one who has to inform you, but your wing of the party took a beating on Tuesday.
However, you'll be happy to know that me and my Center took most of the races held Tuesday. You're right, WE are the best hope for the party. I was just worried that there were more of you than there were of me. Your screaming and ranting just made it seem like there was a lot of you. However, we actually come out to vote, and you don't.
um.... yeah... i hope the weather is nice up there on your planet.
it seems to me that democrats are having trouble with diversity and tolerance. your party isn't unified on many positions and that's just right as far as i'm concerned. lieberman agrees with the philosophy of the democrats. as far as i'm concerned, you are entitled to not like him but i don't see what your opinion is based on. he's less partisan and that's what connecticut liked about him.
I guess it would be rude to leave you in ingnorance --a carnivore is a flesh eating animal
TTFN
Here's what I said :
"We'll see now how a supposedly Center-to-Center-Right Congress can govern. I'm hopeful."
There were already a few on the Right, and a few on the Left, but many more who were Moderate or moderate-to-slightly right - in Congress. Bringing in more Moderates only insulates us against the Left Wing Lunatic Fringe. And how can that be bad? LOL
sigh... please see link in the posted article. i don't like lieberman because he screwed over his party in 2000. Even if he were a republican and screwed over his party, i still wouldn't like him. it's hypocritical and dishonorable.
as usual, a post about a self-serving politican (somethign we should all be able to agree on) got turned into a rant between liberals and conservatives. it's like ANYTHING you say people will jump down your throat. sheesh.
misspelled that one too Capn Braintrust.
In what universe was this?
(source)
Bernie Sanders, VT: So conservative that he's a "socialist". His National Journal "liberal" rating is 89.7 (out of 100).
Sherrod Brown, OH: NJ liberal rating is 84.2. For comparison's sake, Harold Ford -- a real conservative Democrat -- had a 58.3 rating.
Sheldon Whitehouse, RI: An unabashed liberal in every definition of the word. ...[H]e defeated a liberal Republican.
Claire McCaskill, MO: She's a progressive on every major issue. In fact, it was one of the GOP's lines of attacks against her.
"McCaskill lost 90 out of 97 counties statewide and has a problem of being perceived as too liberal outside of metro St. Louis and Kansas City."
Amy Klobuchar, MN: There's nothing "conservative" about our newest senator from one of the bluest states in the union.
Jon Tester, MT: One of the people accused of being a "conservative" Dem, yet he's against flag burning amendment, against an amendment banning gay marriage, against the Patriot Act, and against the war. He's an economic populist, social libertarian, pro-choice Democrat. He may be one of the very few senators who actually lives paycheck to paycheck. He's an organic farmer.
He's not Bernie Sanders or Sherrod Brown, but a "conservative" Dem? Ridiculous.
Jim Webb, VA: Politically very similar to Tester. He's libertarian on social issues, an economic populist. He wants out of Iraq and he has a personal stake in the war -- his son is actually deployed to Iraq. Sure, he served in the Reagan Administration, and sure, he can be classified as a "moderate" (whatever that means), but he's no "conservative."
And that's just the Senate. The House Democrats are listed if you follow the link.
One of our party's biggest problems is coming together on the issues.
Next is being able to agree on anything.
For some reason, people in our party seem to think that the Nutty Left has something worthwhile to offer. Unfortunately, this belief has never been proven. Yet we still listen to their nonsense when they form a coherent sentence. This, more than anything else will be our eternal downfall.
Concession is a beautiful thing-- even when it is unaccompanied by an apology.
Your source is the Daily Kos?
You've been outed!
Bad choice.
The lefties you rail against are the ones who delivered long-shot candidates who you'll be adressing Congressman/Congresswoman come January. Don't diss the people who get the message out and the money, time, and effort in.
"Bret,
I regret to inform you that you are in the wrong party. You are just like the Log Cabin Republicans in the Republican party or African Americans in the Republican party!!!!! - most of the Republican party and people who vote Republican HATE GAYS.
If you voted for Dole in 1996 and Bush in 2000 and 2004 YOU ARE NOT A DEMOCRAT..."
Thankfully, we're a Big Tent party.
I am not 'your type' of Democrat, R.E. I know all that "making sense and being logical" stuff is a bunch of hooey to you, but for the rest of the world, it matters. I just don't want you and Tony S. trying to do something like hijack the party and think you can get away with it.
NED IS DEAD, LONG LIVE JOE!
" I may not scream, and I do try not to insult the person when disagreeing with their position (" Leona, you're a better person than I am.
I never quote Left Wing rags or zine-rags like Truthout.com or the Daily Kos.............unless I'm ridiculing them. They have no credibility and everyone knows it - even John Conyers.
Your source is everything, Lauren.
How else would anyone know if you're lying................or worse, trying to slyly spin things to make them seem legitimate. And we all know the Daily Kos is far from legitimate.
Next time try quoting CBS News.............LOL
When exactly were those decided? I thought I heard Nancy Pelosi say that none of them had been decided yet.
I've also heard that any talks of Impeachment are off the table. Maybe Nancy will prove more Moderate than her record suggests. I'll wait and see.
If what you say is true, then why would each of those Senate candidates have sold themselves as Moderates to their voting constituencies? Not one said "I'm a Lefty" then played on it later.
Only Lamont said anything remotely near that - and we all saw what happened to him.
Like I've said a million times : the votes are in the Middle.
Do you Lefties not understand that? Or do you just not like it?
They are Moderate. They're not Conservative.
The votes are in the middle, true. It's what the definition of "middle" is that's up for debate. I'd say someone like Jim Webb or Jon Tester is in the middle.
Then forget the Daily Kos and go right to the much more reputable source and use IT instead. The Daily Kos is propaganda. No one worth his salt takes the Daily Kos seriously. That would be like mistaking John Stewart for a real newsman. Its for entertainment purposes only.
"They are Moderate. They're not Conservative.
The votes are in the middle, true. It's what the definition of "middle" is that's up for debate. I'd say someone like Jim Webb or Jon Tester is in the middle."
Now you're talking.
I'd call Heath Schuler a Conservative...........and he also won. Tester is from Montana - a state with no tolerance for Liberalism, so he'll have to be a Moderate just to stay in Congress. I think a lot of folks will be watching him closely because Montana is very Conservative.
Webb is Moderate too..........and on some issues a bit Conservative. That's why he tried to get the "Reagan Conservative" base behind him in VA. He failed, but at least his attempt had some merit.
Fox News, July 2003
Lieberman Calls Dem Opponents Soft Spendthrifts
August 02, 2006
Senator Joseph I. Lieberman said on Tuesday that he remained confident that the United States could begin withdrawing troops from Iraq as early as the end of this year . . .
August ,2006
Lieberman said that he fired his campaign manager and spokesman, and asked for the resignations of his campaign staff.
"We did not answer, adequately answer, the distortions of my record on Iraq and my relationship with George Bush, that the Lamont campaign put out," said Lieberman, though he said he did not blame campaign workers.
Holy Joe has made it clear he didn't kiss Bush back.
Also John Murtha - strongly anti-war - will run for Majority Leader, at least that is what he promised before the election."
We can only hope that cooler heads will prevail and Steny Hoyer will defeat Murtha, although that's not that appetizing either.
The best we can hope for is non-obstructionism. We only have about a year to make an impact. After that we go into the Presidential election cycle. If we haven't delivered, this slim majority will disappear quickly. To win back 28 seats in the Presidential cycle is easy.
It will be all about performance - and we haven't been in power in 12 years.
"When you constantly criticize the war, even after it's over, even after the world is so much safer with Saddam Hussein gone and the people of Iraq have a chance for a better life, you send a message of softness on defense," he said.
Fox News, July 2003
Lieberman Calls Dem Opponents Soft Spendthrifts"
So who's arguing THAT? Lieberman was dead-on with his assessment then.
I seriously think I might move to Canda.
Bush haters are Gods there.
A pragmatic progressive friend of mine predicted a month ago that the Democrats would sweep both houses and state offices. He also predicted that they would begin to self-destruct before they took office in January.
I was once a Democrat....then people like Lauren took ahold of the party. I wrote an article about how this phenomena played out in The Minnesota Massacre see The Day The Democratic Party Came Undone.
History does repeat itself.
Likewise, generalizing about the make-up of a state isn't going to get you any points. Northern Virginia is an incredibly progressive tech center, and as the cost of living on the coasts increases, more people are moving to places like Indiana, Kansas, and Montana, where Democrats made large gains. Howard Dean's 50 State strategy also paid off because instead of assuming, as most people did, that the center of the country was red and worthless to campaign in, he actually asked people for their vote there. The Democrats didn't win everywhere, but they made important gains in showing that the map's a lot more purple than most people thought.
Republicans, on the other hand, have been largely marginalized to the South.
Crazy Celebrity. Totally agree. Better yet, who doesn't he just form his own part? Lieberman for Lieberman.
Greg, frankly I'm flattered that you could credit me with the undoing of the democratic party, although most historians agree that the party's undoing can be traced to civil rights, when the South was lost for good. Guess that's what happens when you actually fight for morality instead of paying it lip service.
Greg, please go away. I don't want the IQ average of my thread commentators to plummet to about -30.
Bret, if you have a problem with the so-called "lefty nutjobs, why do you even yourself a democrat?
Are you from the midwest? That seems to be where the fiscal democrats but social conservatives are.
And Greg Pulled-this-fact-right-out-of-my-ass Schiller is from MN.
Funny how much we are products of our environment.
Guess it explains why, after living in 2 swing states, and 2 red, I ended up in Brooklyn!
This is getting better everytime I stop back in. There won't be any of you left by Janurary.
BTW Lauren;
Between the "neo-con" comments and your incessant harping on a moderate Democrat Senator who happens to be Jewish, you're not helping quell that anti-semitic reputation you've developed for yourself.
Have fun kids. I'll stop back later to check in on the carnage.
I wasn't talking to you. I was talking to Lauren - the anti-semite.
This is the second article I've had experience with Laren and in both she's been vitriolically attacking Jews -- as a group before and an individual now. How else am I to take it?
Here she states that Lieberman betrayed his own party. Which he did. And the actions of one individual do not, and should not, weigh on the people of the faith as a whole unless he presumes to speak for all of the people of that faith and they agree to it (like, say the Pope).
This issue is really between Lauren and me. I've explained to you the reasoning for my comments and that's really all I care to do, considering my comments were directed to and intended for Lauren. It would be inappropriate for me to go into this any further with you; as, again, my admonition was to Lauren. She is well aware of the specifics of my comments and the reasons behind them.
Sandy, it wasn't just the republican vote that put Lieberman through; it was the moderate democrats, independents, the majority of Americans who choose not to subscribe to the extreme to either side. Rejecting the far left liberals and extreme right conservatives, that is made Liebermans win so important.
Yes, many of the Republicans were fired, but liberal Democrats did not take their place. Rather, moderates such as Casey, Webb, Tester and a host of other (specially selected per the DNC) were voted in. My point is, that main stream America did fire Republicans in protest of scandals, some for the war, and some because they were tired of where we were going in general. But if you do not open your eyes and see who they put in office, then I am afraid the far left of the Democratic party is missing the message.
I believe the number is about 40%, of Americans who consider themselves to be in the middle of the political spectrum. If you, like Bush did in 2004, take this as a mandate rather than to see that the majority in this country want bipartisanship to move us forward, then in 2008 you will pay the same price Republicans paid this year for their ignorance...
Thanks for your concern. I welcome the opportunity to defend myself. When David first charged me with anti-semitism on another friend, I was STUNNED and APPALLED and demanded an explanation. Apparently, one obscure meaning ofthe term neo-con may be anti-semitic. There are lots fo words we use today that once meant something very different. The word "neo-con" has been used in thhe NYTimes (a newspapers RENOWN for its Jewish ties) The Economist, NPR, and in this month's issue of Vanity Fair. Everyone knows that today it's a term used for ultra-conservatives.
To be sure, you can read our exchange over the thread here http://www.gather.com/viewArticle.jsp?articleId=281474976828693
YOu can also read on the same thread where another Gather member present a much more valid charge of anti-semitish against DAVID:
Tony rang in on the "Kill a Jew, Go to Heaven" thread, which was a collection of quotations from Muslim and Arab leaders encouraging and advocating the mass murder and even the extermination of Jews. Tony contemptuously remarked that thinking that Jews were hated for no reason at all was ridiculous (I am paraphrasing, but his complete comment is still available in several places), and that there was "PLENTY of cause for this sort of thing." His clear implication was that there were a number of good reasons to hate Jews.