Join the Discussion
Ignoring Lieberman campaign vow to "die a Democrat," Fox "All-Stars" pronounced him free to switch parties
On the "All-Star Panel" segment of the February 26 edition of Fox News' Special Report with Brit Hume, nationally syndicated columnist Charles Krauthammer falsely claimed that Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman (I-CT),* in his 2006 re-election campaign, "ran openly and did not hide anything " when he "risked his career" by supporting the Iraq war "in a blue state." By winning re-election, Krauthammer said, Lieberman "essentially ... won a mandate on that issue since it was the main issue of the election," and therefore, if Lieberman decided to caucus with the Republicans because of the war, "it would be a credible position." But, as Media Matters for America has repeatedly pointed out, Lieberman -- although a strong supporter of the war both before and since the campaign -- distanced himself from his pro-war rhetoric during various campaign events after his August 2006 Democratic primary loss to challenger Ned Lamont. During his general election campaign, he also repeatedly promised that he would caucus with the Democrats if he won re-election and would not switch parties.
Read more
Threaded Comments: on / off
Posted by wolf kotenberg
i am free to swap parties also. freedom of choice in America.
Posted Tuesday February 27, 2007 6:36:15 PM EST / Flag this comment
Posted by mefirst in reply to wolf kotenberg
and you are free to break a promise that you unequivocally promised you would not break. that would make you a liar.
Posted Tuesday February 27, 2007 6:56:10 PM EST / Flag this comment
Posted by greekfurnace in reply to mefirst
Amen to that Brother! The right-wingers don't seem to think lying to get elected is that big a deal (obviously). False pretenses.
Lieberman should switch parties... that way, we'd know who he is once and for all.
Posted Tuesday February 27, 2007 7:02:52 PM EST / Flag this comment
Posted by mefirst in reply to greekfurnace
i hope he doesn't, but he called it a settled issue before the election and then immediately afterward it was, well, i don't know, maybe, i don't think so, but....
Posted Tuesday February 27, 2007 7:14:58 PM EST / Flag this comment
Posted by wolf kotenberg in reply to mefirst
You are correct. I hope there is a mechanism in existence to remove these elected wayward officials.
Posted Tuesday February 27, 2007 7:13:58 PM EST / Flag this comment
Posted by steve expat
Be gone, Lieberman. You will not be missed.
Posted Tuesday February 27, 2007 7:41:23 PM EST / Flag this comment
Posted by wesley in reply to steve expat
You may not miss Lieberman but you'll sure miss control of the senate. It would prove so ironic...after the famous Jeffords switch.
However, I am opposed to anyone switching parties. If you are elected by a party you should serve in that party's framework. If you become disenchanted with that...you should not be able to switch...you should resign and run in the next election for the party of your choice.
It was wrong for Jeffords...and it's wrong for Lieberman.
Posted Tuesday February 27, 2007 8:06:34 PM EST / Flag this comment
Posted by jeter2 in reply to wesley
wesley,
Liebermann ran as an INDEPENDENT, not a Democrat. Technically he is under no obligation to caucus with the Democrats. Or remain an Independent. Other than his word...for whatever that's worth.
Many here were irritated whenever journalists referred to Liebermann as a Democrat, insisting the man was not worthy to hang a "D" by his name and should have an "I" there instead.
IF Liebermann decides to become a Republican there shouldn't be any squawking here since he's been pretty much disowned by Democratic/Liberal posters.
Posted Tuesday February 27, 2007 10:00:25 PM EST / Flag this comment
Posted by wesley in reply to jeter2
I'm well aware that he ran as an INDEPENDENT. He was also elected as an independent...not a democrat or republican.
I did not address the issue of caucus. I agree that his status as an independent means he has to caucus with someone...that being understood by his electorate. He promised to vote his principles rather than bowing to the whims of either political party.
You're right on the money about the mmfa crowd...they have trashed him to no end...
Yet, in a purely political sense, I would welcome Republicans regaining control of the senate...there's nothing I can do about that.
I still firmly believe that no one should be allowed to switch parties...a selfish slap in the face to the electorate that trusted them with their vote.
Posted Tuesday February 27, 2007 10:20:12 PM EST / Flag this comment
Posted by mefirst in reply to jeter2
jeter, he is under an obligation, because he did give his "word". and he gave it over and over. he made a flat out promise to caucus with the democrats.
Posted Wednesday February 28, 2007 6:26:25 AM EST / Flag this comment
Posted by solon in reply to wesley
We will miss it for two years. Then in 08 when 24 Republicans are defending THEIR seats while only 12 Dems are defending THEIR seats the Dems take the Senate again and Lieberman is completely and permanantly irrelevant. Lieberman knows this as well as we do which is why he will almost certainly NOT switch parties.
Posted Wednesday February 28, 2007 4:39:17 PM EST / Flag this comment
Posted by mooner15715
Joe has one thing on his mind; it's his undeclared creed that Israel will not be "wiped from the face of the Earth". His Jewish heritage is the only real reason he's hanging out with Bush (and the money, of course). We've been having that same argument forever here in CT. and that is what motovated him to run against his anti-war opponent, Ned Lamont. I personally think that he doesn't give a damn about Iraq; he's worried about Iran and that is what will force him to jump ship. Also, I think he knows that Bush/Cheney will attack Iran and his swing vote will make that legal.
Posted Tuesday February 27, 2007 8:50:39 PM EST / Flag this comment
Posted by evilliberals
The problem I have with LIEberman is that he could not accept the reality that the Democratic constituents of Connecticut felt he no longer represented their views and wanted a change. Holding on to his political office was too important to him. He raised his middle finger to the Democratic party the day he vowed to run as an Independent if he lost the primary. The Republicans helped him get elected by putting up a candidate with no party support and a troubling past, then helping fund his campaign.
LIEberman has only stayed true to his caucusing pledge because it was the safe play for him; it was clear the American public was going to turn the Senate blue. Unfortunately for the Democrats, LIEberman holds the Senate in his hand. When the Dems came up 51-49 in the Senate, I knew he was going to leverage his caucus affiliation to serve his own ends. He owes the GOP bigtime for his re-election, and this is how he will pay them back.
Joe, please, just switch sides now and get it over with. Don't let the doorknob hit ya...
Posted Wednesday February 28, 2007 3:02:12 AM EST / Flag this comment