It does indeed appear Lieberman intends to attend the Senate as a Democrat and not “an Independent who caucases with the Democrats”.
I thought the part about Evil transcending pary affiliation answered the question, but I’ll make it simple for you:
I think any politician would at least consider taking advantage of the situation. I won’t be surprised if Lieberman does.
I think running for public office is not an option for me, mainly because of some posts I’ve made here. 
The great thing about Democrats over the last few decades is that they have a healthy tradition of breaking with their party.
Of course Lieberman’s going to caucaus with the Democrats, unless he wants this to be his last term in the senate. Connecticut doesn’t vote Republican too often, and if Joe betrayed them to become a Republican, they’d be even less likely to vote for him than Joe Republican.
Joe Lieberman on Meet the Press yesterday:
Looks like we’re going to have to keep an eye on Joe.
Only if the Dems don’t honor their agreement to let him keep his seniority. Now, why on earth would they do something as stupid as that? He has to say that he’s not ruling out switching until the committee asignments are finalized. Well, he doesn’t have to say it, but it’s smart to do so in order to be sure he’s not taken for granted.
“Little Joe” is an attention whore of the first magnitude. He will milk this for all its worth, which is a lot. But he makes a very big deal out of his “integrity” and he swore up and down that he would stick with the Dems, so a switch would be very, very costly.
Thing is, the bleeding isn’t over for the Pubbies, its just starting. They’ve managed to cover their tracks for years now, since they could control and short-circuit investigations into corruption and Iraq. You think Bush is unpopular now? Just wait.
“Little Joe” might very well jump ship, but not to one that’s sinking. He’s had a whiff of the perfume Eau de Oval Office, and he’s hooked. Its all about positioning himself as a “centrist”, and independent thinker. He’s neither, of course, but since when did that matter?
He’s like a guy who’s wrapped himself in dynamite and taken hostages: he can only pull the trigger once, and when he does, thats all she wrote. But he can threaten and bargain all he likes. And he will.
Ah, the demonization of Joe Lieberman. He defied the party, and so he must be shunned by the party faithful. He’s not an indpendent thinker-- only people who stick to the party line are independent thinkers. :dubious:
He said at least twice - once early on, and once shortly before the election - that he would caucus with the Democrats.
Guess his constituents are the ones who can’t take him for granted.
It may be ‘smart’ for him to go against his word, but it’s still lying.
You really think this is all just about rhetoric and symbolism? Years after everyone else with a brain has realized what a big freaking mistake Iraq was, Lieberman continued to give the Bush administration cover, not only by refusing to admit error, but to accuse his fellow Democrats of disloyalty to the country for criticizing the president. Since 2001, Lieberman has been systematically undermining the party. Sure, his overall voting record might be solidly liberal, but that’s only in matters in which his vote didn’t make a difference. If someone has done an analysis of Lieberman, I bet he’d find that when Lieberman’s vote was critical he used it in the Bush administration’s favor.
And, for freak’s sake, he ran against the party’s nominee. That really shows you that to Lieberman, it’s Joe Lieberman that matters and not any of his sanctimonius lecturing about principle.
I think that’s up to the CT to determine, not you or me. And he isn’t going “against his word” since he’s clearly going to caucus with the Dems. Now, if you don’t think he will, hows about we make a little wager on it?
I’ll be happy to do this analysis provided you’re serious about making the bet. Let’s make the stakes high since you’re so confident that you’re right. OK?
You mean you wouldn’t be satisfied just to prove me wrong? 
Here’s what Salon had to say in July:
I’d prefer to do both. 
Look, this meme about him only voting with the Dems when it doesn’t matter is utter nonsense. First, there are maybe a handful of times, if any, when only one vote matters in Congress. But if what you say is true, then surely Lieberman will choose to caucus with the Republicans, right? There is no other time that Bush needs his vote than right now. Lieberman can give control of the Senate back to Bush and the Republicans. Let’s simpligy things and just wager on this one upcoming event. Come on, you know you’re right!!!
I don’t particularly like Lieberman, and don’t agree with him on much. But the idea that he’s a Republican stooge instead of a non-partisan thinker is ridiculous. Liberals hate JL for the same reason conservatives hate McCain-- they both refuse to toe the party line when it goes against their beliefs.
Just for the record, I don’t believe Lieberman is a Republican stooge, if by “stooge,” you mean some kind of double-agent.
I do believe he is arrogant, deluded, and egotistical and that his whole “I’m such a great bipartisan” shtik is just to get him attention.
I used to believe that McCain was a principled maverick, or whatever, but his ass-kissing of the Christian right all the way through the 2004 elections proved me wrong there. He’s just looking out for No. 1.
I forgot “sanctimonious prick.”
Oh, so when you said he votes to support Bush, you meant GHW Bush!
Laughable. First of all, how does one go about determining who was the last one to commit to a no vote, and note the weasel wording: he wasn’t the last one to commint, he was “pretty much the last senator” to commit (my empahsis). What the hell does that mean? And besides, there were 11 Democratic Senators who voted for Thomas. Eleven! What does that make them?
I won’t argue with you over that one. Like I said, I don’t much care for him, I just don’t understand why it’s necessary to make stuff up about him in order to demonize him. He’s a Democrat, he almost always votes with the Democrats, he does try to work in a bipartisan manner, he is a centrist*, and he is very well liked in his home state.
*You can’t just look at one issue, like the Iraq war, and declare that a person isn’t a centrist because of his position on that issue. If you look at his overall voting record, and the fact that he appeals to both Democrats and Republicans, I don’t see how he can’t be called a centrist.
I have to agree with John here. Control of the Senate is critical. If Joe is a “closet Repub” then he’ll caucus with the GoP. :dubious: But I am willing to bet along with John here that he won’t.
Vote tracking is all very nice and all, but who gets to appoint the chair of various commitees is even more critical.
Suppose the Senate is split 50-50: who gets to head the committees? Can Sanders and Lieberman command special powers? After all, they could opt out and keep the senate split.