Maine Senator Angus King, an independent who caucuses with the Democrats, is considering changing his allegiance to the Republicans if they win a majority in November. (Story here.) This is apparently due to his belief that he can do more good for Maine as a member of the majority.
It is apparently not due to his having any beliefs of his own. His voting is as liberal as most Democrats–he supports the ACA, for instance. He wouldn’t do himself any good by switching to the Republicans and then continuing to vote as he has been. He’s willing to consider throwing away everything he’s worked for and to oppose everything he’s supported simply for being a member of the majority.
I consider this to be rank opportunism, and a demonstration that King holds no values. He is the type of politician who gives politicians a bad name, and his consideration of this ploy adds to the distaste and disgust with which Americans view politicians.
It makes a certain kind of sense. Angus King’s not a Democrat, and he doesn’t owe the party any kind of loyalty. He just caucuses with them, partly, I’m sure, to be in the majority. If that changes, he’s got to do what’s best for himself and his constituents. I don’t know that I’m particularly outraged by this, really.
Did Senator King look at Joe Lieberman’s political opportunism and how it affected his reputation and think, “Gee, the problem is that Joe didn’t take it far enough?”
If he’s a liberal independent and say, the Republicans win 50 seats and he caucuses with them (and thus his decision actually gives them control of the Senate) that’s one thing. His constituents almost certainly would not like that, he was elected as a liberal and handed the Senate to the conservative party.
But, if they win 51+ and he just caucuses with them in exchange for getting committee positions I don’t see a problem morally. Politically I question if either party would want to treat with a guy who is going to caucus with whoever is in the majority, as it basically rewards having no loyalty and makes it questionable why either party would want an association with him. But morally, he’s not a Democrat and I assume he wasn’t elected as a Democrat. He doesn’t owe the Democrats loyalty.
He owes some loyalty to the ideals he’s espoused in his campaigns, but just caucusing with the Republicans doesn’t mean he has to vote with them on all legislation. He could ostensibly benefit from committee positions while still voting his liberal interests on legislation.
I certainly don’t think he owes loyalty to the Democrats, but looking at his votes it’s hard to see what the Republicans gain from him, unless he changes to vote with them more often. If he does that, then he’s showing himself to be a man of no principles. He’s giving no indication that his beliefs have changed, only that he wants to be part of the majority, whichever party that may be.
He recently voted against the paycheck fairness act. Still, I’m thinking this is more of an inside baseball type political move. He wants more from the Democrats or is pissed at the arm twisting over the paycheck vote, which he might see as just a vote to create an issue to run against Republicans on.
Assuming that he only changes if the Republicans already have a majority, and he doesn’t change his voting pattern, what would be the practical significance of his caucusing with the Republicans?
I don’t know if Lieberman’s alliance with the Republicans during his last term had so much to do with political opportunism as it did with his still being bitter over the Connecticut Democrats dumping him in the primary and spitefully deciding the screw the party over.
As for King, he’d be difficult fit with the rest of the congressional Republicans. The party’s shifted so far over into the crackpot right that, in comparison, he’d be like Che Guevara. Of course, I’m assuming he won’t do an ideological 180 and join the other obstructionist assholes and try to block everything with Obama’s name on it.
"I wanna play on the winning side’? Is that it? I will turn my back on the principles I claimed I had when I convinced my constituents to vote for me?
There HAS to be something I’m missing. I mean, I think players who go from the Dodgers to Giants should be tarred and feathered. Were I in his district, I would start letting my tomatoes rot so I would have shit to throw at him every time he made an appearance.
[sub]maybe I’m taking this stuff too seriously…[/sub]
For the Senate at large the significance will be essentially nothing, it won’t determine who is in the majority. For King himself, it will mean that any committees of which he is chairman, he would be able to remain chairman in the GOP controlled Senate. I just looked and since King has only been in the Senate since 1/1/2013, and committee positioning is typically given out on the basis of seniority he’s actually the junior member of all of the committees he is on, and none of them are particularly attractive committees.
Realistically then it probably matters not much at all as it wouldn’t preserve a committee chair position.
So about the only thing left is, caucusing with the GOP means within those committees he will be on the side of majority. While that doesn’t mean the committee chair will let a piece of liberal legislation to the floor, it does mean on certain issues he would have a more sympathetic ear from the chair than he would if he was from the opposition. Similar to getting legislation passed once out of committee, McConnell or whoever is Majority Leader would be somewhat more receptive to any proposals King has if he’s caucusing with the GOP. But, that still doesn’t mean he’d be able to get anything passed that the GOP had strong or even moderate antipathy towards.
Also, since he’d have shown himself to be a crass opportunist it’s likely the Republican leadership won’t do all that much for him as they have little reason to expect him to stay on their side come the next election.
Well, he ran as an independent, so presumably, the people who voted for him didn’t see party affiliation as being particularly important. If he crosses over to caucus with the Republicans, but doesn’t change any of his stances on the issues, I’m not sure his constituents will care too much. I mean, basically, he got elected by not being either a Republican or a Democrat. It doesn’t seem to matter, on that basis, who he caucuses with - he didn’t run as an ally to either party, and does not seem to have been elected under the assumption that he had any particular loyalty them.
If ran as an independent, but made “Seriously: fuck the Republicans” a major part of his campaign, it would be a different thing, but I’m guessing “I’m not beholden to party interests” was a bigger plank, and this seems in keeping with that.
I don’t see the outrage. He’s an INDEPENDENT, after all. He may caucus with the Democrats right now, but there’s nothing stopping him from caucusing with the Republicans as well- that’s what being independent is all about- he’s free to do what he thinks is best for Maine without regard for party loyalty or ideology.
Of course, this may look like, and can be political opportunism, but castigating the guy because he doesn’t toe the Democratic or liberal (or Republican/conservative) party line is just silly; that’s not what his constituents elected him to do.
At worst, you can chew on him for being personally inconsistent, if that’s even the case.
For renaming post offices, sure, but not on anything of significance. He’s the reason ACA does not have a public option, even a lowered Medicare eligibility age, for instance - his patrons in the Hartford insurance business made sure he leveraged his swing vote, and he was willing to do so because he knew he’d never be re-elected anyway.
I really don’t get the attractiveness of self-styled “independents” to Maine voters. Sure, King was a pretty good governor and that’s what got him in the Senate, but Cutler’s candidacy put LePage in the office currently, with disastrous results.