Will Joementum bolt if the Senate Dems pass the Iraq bill today?
posted at 11:55 am on April 26, 2007 by Allahpundit
Send to a Friend |
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
Michael Illions is keeping a vigil. He’s certainly right that Lieberman has threatened before to switch parties if the Dems do anything overly defeatist. From February:
“I have no desire to change parties,” Lieberman said in a telephone interview. “If that ever happens, it is because I feel the majority of Democrats have gone in a direction that I don’t feel comfortable with.”
He seemed to suggest in the same interview that funding was the key, not a timetable for withdrawal, but “direction” can of course mean a lot of things. Indeed, he’s got an op-ed in WaPo this morning that might, if one were so inclined, be read as a shot across the party leadership’s bow:
[T]oday, perversely, the Senate is likely to vote on a binding timeline of withdrawal from Iraq.
This reaction is dangerously wrong. It reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of both the reality in Iraq and the nature of the enemy we are fighting there…
When politicians here declare that Iraq is “lost” in reaction to al-Qaeda’s terrorist attacks and demand timetables for withdrawal, they are doing exactly what al-Qaeda hopes they will do, although I know that is not their intent…
The challenge before us, then, is whether we respond to al-Qaeda’s barbarism by running away, as it hopes we do — abandoning the future of Iraq, the Middle East and ultimately our own security to the very people responsible for last week’s atrocities — or whether we stand and fight.
To me, there is only one choice that protects America’s security — and that is to stand, and fight, and win.
He won’t flip. Coming from a state as blue as Connecticut, it’d make his prospects for reelection in 2012 exceedingly dim. Only if he’s approaching this issue the way McCain is, as something worth gambling his political future on, would he make a move like that. Also, what would switching parties achieve vis-a-vis Iraq? He already votes with the GOP on war measures so they’re not picking up any votes that way. It’s also my understanding that the committee chairmanships wouldn’t change. It’d be a purely symbolic gesture with far greater costs than benefits. Finally, if he bolts, the Dems might well be able to engineer a counterbolt among some anti-war GOP senator. Hagel and Gordon Smith from Oregon would be the obvious candidates.
In any case, Liebs isn’t going to do this with Bush promising to veto the bill anyway. If the Dems come back with some alternative after the veto that’s equally recalcitrant, then maybe. But not today.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Like Alaric at the gates of Rome, the threat of switching parties is probably more valuable to Joementum than the actual switching would be.
SWLiP on April 26, 2007 at 12:03 PM
No upside for Joe.
Now he’s hated by the nutroots and an admired darling of the right, who love to ignore his actual voting record. But as soon as there’s an (R) after his name, he’d be more hated than Olympia Snowe, Susan Collins, or Lincoln Chafee.
Well, maybe not Lincoln Chafee.
a4g on April 26, 2007 at 12:06 PM
Joe is welcome in the foxhole. I don’t care if he is blue or red.
Limerick on April 26, 2007 at 12:07 PM
joe isn’t a republican. he’s a democrat who isn’t completely insane. he’s abnormal for their party.
lorien1973 on April 26, 2007 at 12:08 PM
As for the benefit to the GOP, I think it would also be purely symbolic. He would instantly replace Smith as our most liberal Senator on domestic issues. Although he would be middle of the pack on national security, Israel, and the war — how pathetic is that?
Jaibones on April 26, 2007 at 12:08 PM
I think he’s more useful with a D next to his name. If he bolts the entire Dem party is on board with defeat and hand full of republicans, atleast now we have a prominent Democrat to point to in the debate.
jp on April 26, 2007 at 12:10 PM
The thing to remember about senator Joe is that he willingly and knowingly participated in attempted election fraud together with the Goracle in 2000. No apology has ever been heard from him about this.
I have never understood the Right’s embrace of this nullity. If he was serious about the war, he would have left the Treason Party long ago. Joseph has serious personal guilt issues…
Halley on April 26, 2007 at 12:14 PM
while over at poli, there is a certain unhinged blogger there that needs to be dealt with.
jp on April 26, 2007 at 12:14 PM
Politics, pragmatism, strategy…are the answers to these questions.
jp on April 26, 2007 at 12:15 PM
I’m one of those radical ‘neo-cons’ who believe the other side has not only the right but the responsibility to counter my arguments. I don’t want homogonized politics. Joe and I would scream and yell at each other about domestic issue until we are blue in the face but one thing about Joe I believe, he knows which way to point a rifle and isn’t afraid to do so. We can argue about the nuts and bolts after the smoke clears.
Limerick on April 26, 2007 at 12:22 PM
He’s a Democrat who woke up, and smelled the Trade Center burning. He was mugged by reality.
amerpundit on April 26, 2007 at 12:26 PM
Joe Lieberman shook my hand and didn’t try to sell me something. Screwed up voting aside, I like him.
Ringmaster on April 26, 2007 at 12:29 PM
A great big “R” after Joe’s name could be mostly symbolic, but the word “Former” in front of “Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid” would be very cool.
DJ Dubya on April 26, 2007 at 12:52 PM
100% correct. Joe will NEVER become a Republican.
Warner Todd Huston on April 26, 2007 at 12:52 PM
Remember that Joe is currently an independent. He doesn’t have switch anything just vote with the Republicans to organize the Senate. I see several advantages to him doing that. Generally sensible people would be in charge of committees, and the Republicans would have majority control of both the committees and the Senate agenda.
duff65 on April 26, 2007 at 12:56 PM
As a D he is coddled and mollified, as an R, he would be one of many moderate Rs. Ego trumps all in most politicans.
honora on April 26, 2007 at 12:56 PM
Actually in the official Senate records he identifies himself as an “independent Democrat”
honora on April 26, 2007 at 12:59 PM
You’re right, Allah. He won’t flip (at least over this). He gives us a big clue with the key phrase:
db on April 26, 2007 at 1:01 PM
Maybe we could trade Joe for Specter.
Tony737 on April 26, 2007 at 1:22 PM
Joe needs to step across the asile, if he doesnt then he is agreeing with Harry “I’m a GOD DAMN TRAITOR” Reid…….
Rock on……………….
doriangrey on April 26, 2007 at 1:36 PM
I believe that the organizing resolution for the Senate actually locks in Democratic governance — committee assignments, leadership positions and Majority Leader status — for the full two year term, and Joe’s flip wouldn’t change that. Remarkably and by contrast, when the Republicans were 50/50 + Cheney in 2000-2001, before Jeffords, Daschle convinced the Republicans not to include the “lock in” term and Jeffords caused a complete recasting of the leadership.
Anil Petra on April 26, 2007 at 2:00 PM
Come on over Joe. They tried to fire you, now its your turn to fire Harry and the band of traitors. Joe be the man,
Wade on April 26, 2007 at 2:12 PM
I guess my take on politics is different than yours. He sold you Joe Lieberman, and you bought him. Hook, line, and sinker.
Jaibones on April 26, 2007 at 2:37 PM
Uncle Joe….
As Socialist as Stalin, but without the bloody hands.
Tim Burton on April 26, 2007 at 4:13 PM
He has more political capital being known as a Warrior Democrat than he would as a Social Liberal Republican.
- The Cat
MirCat on April 26, 2007 at 8:55 PM