Note in that same cite, Sen Lieberman said "MR. RUSSERT: You will caucus with the Democrats?
SEN. LIEBERMAN: *I will caucus with the Democrats. I said that to my constituents throughout. I’m going to caucus with the Democrats * …MR. RUSSERT: And yet you’re caucusing as a Democrat.
SEN. LIEBERMAN: Well, it’s, it’s for the reasons that I’ve—that I’ve stated. But it also explains why I consider myself to be an Independent Democrat…SEN. LIEBERMAN: Well, I, I’ve already given my commitment, and I said to my constituents during the campaign that I would organize with the Democrats for the reason I said…"
So- no less than THREE freaking times during that interview, SEN. LIEBERMAN made it very clear he would join the Democratic caucus, yet you two are leaping on his hypothetical answer to a hypothetical question and ignoring the *three * other fucking times in that same interview SEN. LIEBERMAN answered that very question for real.
As opposed to “hypothetical”, which I still have doubts some here understand the meaning of. Especially when placed in that context.
Dude, I missed spoke-'s post 85. I blew it and admitted it. But realistically, how can talk of switching parties be anything but a hypothetical? If he were to do it, he would continue to give noncommittal answers to hypothetical questions until he actually switched. I dare say if you were to ask Bush if hypothetically he might switch parties, he could give you a firm unqualified no doubt about it NO to the question. That’s all I ask of Joe.
Joe gave such an answer. Three times in just that interview you linked to.
I bet I could word a question to GWB where he’d also say he’d consider changing parties: “If the GoP came out with a pro-guncontrol, pro-tax increase, pro-choice, pro-impeachment of GWB, anti-faith platform, would you consider changing parties?”
When JL says he couldn’t rule anything out I count that as a weasel answer. If he had said there was no possibility of a switch whatsoever, I’d rest easy. The hypothetical you imagine for Bush is a good deal less likely, approximately on the order of Dick Cheney running a 4 minute mile.
But he IS going to caucus with the Dems!!! And the animnosity towards JL long predates this election, going back to when it was the conventional wisdom that the Pubbies would retain control of the Congress. What you say may be true of you, Bob, but it doesn’t explain the longstanding bad press JL get around here. I think people are just responding to what happens to be in the headlines without really looking at the full situation in the Senate.
Gee, I wonder why. Between Joe making kissie-face with Bush, and his regular visits to Fox News to play patty-cake with Sean Hannity, and his implicit accusations that anti-war Democrats were undermining our troops in Iraq, and his fishing around for a Bush cabinet post after the 2004 election, I can’t imagine why Democrats might be upset with him.
I imagine Bob is aware of the existential limits on certainty, John. I think his point is that the second quote is a deliberate weaseling of his position, he wants the door left ajar for one reason or another.
I think he is merely squeezing the Dem leadership’s 'nads out of spite. As well, I imagine that he is getting all manner of sweet blandishments from the Pubbies, and, hell, who doesn’t like flattery? I wouldn’t be a bit surprised to hear that some subtle hint of a possible Presidential nomination was being bandied about. I would be surprised if Joe was dumb enough to believe it.
Maybe you didn’t read the part of my post that says:
There’s no reason why I should go looking for another cite, just because you have obscure reasons for not liking that one.
I’m half-Jewish; that’s not the problem.
The problem a lot of Dems have with Lieberman is his membership in the “Dems who hate Dems” club. Kinda like all the DLC Dems, his guns are primarily aimed left. And it isn’t like the left is responsible for any of this country’s problems in the past five years.
We’re tired of the so-called centrist Dems who set themselves up as the arbiters of how liberal it’s OK to be - which basically amounts to, “you may be as liberal as I am, but absolutely no further; one step to my left is the Edge of Acceptable Discourse, and the minute you step there, you’re anathema.” Meanwhile, the President can chew up a whole 'nother country, and the entire Fourth Amendment at home, and we shouldn’t criticize him because there’s a war on, y’know?
This also translates into their saying, Dems who actually take a stand against the GOP are wrongheaded, or at least politically suicidal. (That last, at least, has been proven false.)
That is why many of us can’t stand Lieberman and his crowd. We believe that Bush and the GOP are wrong about many things, and need to be opposed. Lieberman doesn’t like us saying that, and we return the favor.
No. You have to take that *in context * of it being a hypothetical answer to a **hypothetical ** question. You need to look at this in the context of JL saying no less than 3 other times in the same interview- outside of a hypothetical- that he’d be with the Dems.
Show me somewhere where JL (since his re-election) has said anything like that- outside of that hypothetical.
Can you give some cites where JL has done the things you mention, especially the part about saying no on can be to the left of him? I’d like to see actual quotes fomr JL, too, not some editorial by someone who is trying to trash him.
Chafee is an interesting case. Apparently, now he says he thinks that the Democratic takeover will be good for the country and he admitted to being open to switching parties now. He said he stayed a Republican because being in the majority party helped him bring federal money to Rhode Island. Cite
I did. But since I had indicated that I had already read that cite, dismissed it as a out of context hypothetical, and then asked for another, that is to say differnt cite- just coming back with the very same out of context hypothetical indicates you got nuthin.
You know- someone has to be the Dem who stands at the right-most edge of the party. And, actually that’s Ben Nelson. But even if you get rid of them both, someone else thereby will be the most conservative Dem. Get rid of everyone who is the most right wing Dem, and you get rid of the whole party.
We get it, Doc, we get it! “Hypothetical”, right, got it. No further need to repeat it. Please be assured of that. Nonetheless, “Little Joe” seems quite content to leave the door ever so slightly ajar.
I disagree. He has said nothing of the sort. Other than the taken out of context hypothetical answer to the hypothetical question. In fact, he has slammed the door quite solidly in quote after quote after quote.
Wouldn’t surprise me in the least. I think it’s all about Joe’s ego at this point, and if bolting to the GOP means they’ll polish his id, he might accept the offer.
Realistically, though, I think he’ll just keep the specter of a defection over the head of the Democrats, in an effort to strongarm them into kowtowing to him instead.
Well, then, we’ll see, won’t we? I quite agree with one part, he has said he would remain “loyal”, but he said those things during the campaign, yes? Had he said otherwise, he would have lost, most likely, yes? And now that it is done, it appears to many of us that he is being rather coy. It is, however, in the very nature of coyitude to present some ambiguity.
By now, he has seen the reaction his statements have engendered, he is entirely at liberty to underline and emphasize his “loyalty”, which he apparently feels no need to do. One has to wonder why. One does.
