Posted on 11/05/2006 11:27:03 PM PST by MadIvan
ONLY three months ago Joe Lieberman’s long political career looked over.
The Democrats’ 2000 vice-presidential nominee and three-term Connecticut senator had been dumped unceremoniously by voters in the party’s primary election, losing to the anti-war Ned Lamont because of his staunch support for President Bush over Iraq.
The party’s establishment shunned him, rallying behind Mr Lamont as the Democrat candidate for Tuesday’s Connecticut Senate race.
But suddenly, Democrats are being awfully nice to Mr Lieberman again.
After his primary defeat, Mr Lieberman rejected Democrat calls to quit the race, and instead has run as an independent.
Polls indicate that he will soundly defeat Mr Lamont on Tuesday, with most independents in the state — and the majority of Republicans — backing his candidacy. Should Democrats gain six seats in the Senate this week, that would give them a total of 50 — but they would need Mr Lieberman on board if they are to actually have a majority, albeit the narrowest of one.
Although Mr Lieberman has promised that he will caucus with Democrats after the election, Republicans still harbour outside hopes of persuading him to defect, because his hawkish stance on the war isolates him on the issue of Iraq from his own party.
Many of his Senate colleagues openly backed Mr Lamont after the primary race. But the thought of a Lieberman defection, and the Democrat need for his support if they win six seats this week, means that Mr Lieberman is suddenly one of the most powerful figures on Capitol Hill again.
Regards, Ivan
Ping!
Yep, Joe defecting on the Dims in the name of national unity during a time of war and btw gettting CN a senator in the majority since the Dims won't get to 50 would be an amusing sidelight in the post election period.
At the very least, I would doubt Joe would be voting to keep Bush nominees from coming to the floor any more.
Anyone else remember the Dims
threatening to strip Leiberman
of all his panel seats??
I hope Joe does Caucus with the GOP. I think if the GOP holds the Senate decisively there is a chance he might otherwise if the Dems win control I doubt he'd ruin the party though I'm sure he'd make them pay dearly to get him on board. Liebermann is going to be even a greater force after this election. I wouldn't be surprised to see him try a run for the Presidency though it would be doomed but that hasn't stopped politicians before. It isn't their money they are spending to try to win and you get to fly all over the country be wined and dined.
Democrats aren't going to gain six or more Senate seats against us this week. In all of the races in which Democrats would even stand a chance to gain a Senate seat (i.e. a seat currently held by the GOP), Democrats are *losing* or within the margin of error in all polls...except for one race: Casey over Santorum.
Of those races within the polling margin of error, it would defy statistical oddsmaking for the Dems to prevail in 4 or more of them.
So the Senate stays GOP. The rest of the debate is by "how much" as well as what happens in the House, which could see *either* Party gain seats...the House could go either way.
Any reporter, Senate GOPer, and/or FREEPER who imagines that Joe would EVER switch parties has rocks in their heads and should stop doing illicit substances.
Also, Democrats are *losing* current Democratic Party seats to Sanders in VT, to Lieberman in CT, and to Kean in NJ.
The current Senate is 55 GOP, 44 DEM, and 1 Independent (Jumpin' Jim Jeffords of VT). Dems will lose 2 Senate races in core Blue states this week to Independents Sanders and Lieberman, both of whom could caucus together as swing Indies (power voters), or not caucus at all (no law requires them to).
That would take the Senate to 55 GOP, 43 DEM, and 2 IND. Should they lose in NJ to Kean, then the Senate would be 56 GOP, 42 DEM, and 2 IND.
Should Casey beat Santorum, then the Senate would be 55 GOP, 43 DEM, and 2 IND.
GOP'er Kyl now leads by 8 in AZ. Allen and Webb are tied in VA. GOP'er Burns leads by 1 in MT. Corker leads Ford by 12+ in TN. Chaffee leads by 1 in RI.
So where is this big Democratic Party Senate sweep? The polls show quite the contrary.
...and Steele is tied or ahead in MD.
If the GOP hold the Senate and can offer Lieberman a nice chairmanship (albeit one of the smaller chairs), he most likely will switch.
As he said, he harbors no ill will towards his democrat friends, but he does remember how they treated him.
Furthermore, should Steele win, that takes yet another seat away from Dems, as that was Democrat Sarbane's seat.
Which is to say, Dems stand to lose 2 of "their" Senate races to the GOP (Kean-NJ and Steele-MD) as well as lose 2 of "their" Senate seats to two Independents (Sanders-VT and Liebrman-CT).
On the other hand, the polls don't show the GOP losing 4 seats to Indies or Dems.
Presuming that Allen-VA and Burns-MT pull their races out, the GOP would gain a Senate seat this year except for Ohio.
Frankly, the national vote on Tuesday may mean that the GOP keeps 55 Senate seats, Dems drop to 43, and Indies raise to 2.
Senate Election 2006
Best Case:
GOP 55, DEM 43, IND 2
Worst Case:
GOP 51, DEM 47, IND 2
LOL --- we're on the same page.
Beltway punditry predicting a democrat sweep of the US Senate by interpreting polls weighed in the democrats favor.
I did not know that Chafee is now leading Whitehouse in RI? I just heard Mort or Fred say that Chafee is toast and trailing badly. Ditto, they deemed for DeWine in Ohio.
Chaffee is +1 RI. DeWine is toast in Ohio.
I've got to modify my above worst case. Should we lose RI, then the worst case would be:
GOP 50, DEM 48, IND 2
Which is to say, the Dems won't take the Senate this week.
I think we'll do quite well.
Prepare for "exit polls" to claim democrat victories in a last gasp attempt to supress GOP voters.
I'm very excited about Steele's chances. Let's dance on the moon when he wins!!!
We will win in Mo, Mt an Va. Who cares of Chafee?
"At the very least, I would doubt Joe would be voting to keep Bush nominees from coming to the floor any more."
I like Joe. He is one of the good ones. Yes, he is a lib. But more importantly, he is an American first. In the end, he will do what is right for this country.
Joe got his wakeup call and he saw that supporting lunatics doesn't mean you are safe. Hopefully more on the left will also wake up and tell the left to go back to Havana.
Connecticut ping!
Please Freepmail me if you want on or off my infrequent Connecticut ping list.
Lieberman continuing to caucus with the Dems is like the old Proverbs verse: Fools return to their folly like dogs return to their vomit.
Independents should not be allowed to caucus with either Dem or GOP.
They are independent.
But, he will caucus with the Dems. Anybody thinking he will with the GOP is kidding themselves.
They are independent.
Shouldn't every Senator have the right to vote (ie: Caucus) however he or she chooses?
Not that I am happy that Lieberman will still be voting with the liberals, but if a Senator wishes to vote along the opposing party lines, that's their prerogative.
They should have the right to vote how they choose on bills.
Not in who they ally themselves with. Unless they are a Dem or a Republican, they should be a Dem or a Republican.
By caucusing, they are a quasi-member of a party, all the while they claim to be independent. They add another member to that party in the chamber.
It is dishonest and dirty.
IOW, while Lieberman can vote whatever he wants on he issues, he should not caucus with either party.
He is an independent, and to caucus with the Dems is to add another Democrat to the Senate in effect. If they are independent, they should be forced to be truly independent, not piggy-back onto a major party.
"Lieberman, who is running as a petitioning third-party candidate, remains a registered Democrat and has said he will continue to caucus with the Democrats if he wins;"
"Lieberman, a three-term incumbent, is highly regarded in Washington circles, and his campaign finance report showed his Democratic donor base remains eager to give him money."P>
They still want to keep close ties with him. Another quote:
Democrats know they can't afford to alienate Lieberman," said political analyst Jennifer Duffy, not only because they want his cooperation on legislation if he wins, but because of the potential that Democrats will win Senate control next month by a 51-49 majority.
Lieberman will caucus with the Democrats regardless who has control of Congress. Voting for Lieberman is a vote for Democrats taking control of Congress. We all know what a disaster that would be for our national security.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
