A Majority Shift?
Wouldn't this just be delicious?
Senator Joseph I. Lieberman of Connecticut told the Politico on Thursday that he has no immediate plans to switch parties but suggested that Democratic opposition to funding the war in Iraq might change his mind.
Lieberman, a self-styled independent who caucuses with the Democrats, has been among the strongest supporters of the war and President Bush’s plan to send an additional 21,500 combat troops into Iraq to help quell the violence there.
"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."
Imagine, just imagine the hatred, the vitriol, the absolute acid nastiness he would get from the drooling moonbats on the Left. Oh.my.gosh. Looks to me like the Democrats have a choice: either start supporting the troops and stop undermining them, or lose their Senate majority. Talk about a tough choice for a Democrat!
JASmius adds: Not for Lieberman, since he'd be in the majority either way. And didn't he already take an avalanche of "friendly" fire during last year's campaign? I'm still frankly mystified why he still caucuses with the Donks anyway, after the way he was betrayed and run out of that party. He doesn't owe them squat, and his crossing the aisle would be poetic justice of orgasmic proportions, as well as a very nice receipt for the Jumpin' Jim Jeffords caper.
I've been wondering why the Dems haven't formally defunded the war yet; I guess this is my answer, and why they're taking the "slow bleed" route instead. The question is how long will this nibbling at the war effort take to cumulatively tip Lieberman or call his bluff.
Jenny adds: Oh, I meant a tough choice for the OTHER Democrats, not Lieberman. I'm with you when it comes to being mystified why he continues to caucus with the people who betrayed him. Guess it's because on just about everything other than the war, he is a true blue Democrat...at least what Democrats USED to be: Wrong, but sincerely wrong. As to why the Democrats haven't defunded the war yet, it's because they don't have the stones or the principle to act on what they say they believe. They know they'd pay quite a political price for that, because even though the electorate was out to lunch in November, America collectively does not want to abandon our troops like that, and they know it.
I'd love to see Lieberman jump, if for nothing else than to watch Harry Reid's face get even more pinched and ugly.
Senator Joseph I. Lieberman of Connecticut told the Politico on Thursday that he has no immediate plans to switch parties but suggested that Democratic opposition to funding the war in Iraq might change his mind.
Lieberman, a self-styled independent who caucuses with the Democrats, has been among the strongest supporters of the war and President Bush’s plan to send an additional 21,500 combat troops into Iraq to help quell the violence there.
"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."
Imagine, just imagine the hatred, the vitriol, the absolute acid nastiness he would get from the drooling moonbats on the Left. Oh.my.gosh. Looks to me like the Democrats have a choice: either start supporting the troops and stop undermining them, or lose their Senate majority. Talk about a tough choice for a Democrat!
JASmius adds: Not for Lieberman, since he'd be in the majority either way. And didn't he already take an avalanche of "friendly" fire during last year's campaign? I'm still frankly mystified why he still caucuses with the Donks anyway, after the way he was betrayed and run out of that party. He doesn't owe them squat, and his crossing the aisle would be poetic justice of orgasmic proportions, as well as a very nice receipt for the Jumpin' Jim Jeffords caper.
I've been wondering why the Dems haven't formally defunded the war yet; I guess this is my answer, and why they're taking the "slow bleed" route instead. The question is how long will this nibbling at the war effort take to cumulatively tip Lieberman or call his bluff.
Jenny adds: Oh, I meant a tough choice for the OTHER Democrats, not Lieberman. I'm with you when it comes to being mystified why he continues to caucus with the people who betrayed him. Guess it's because on just about everything other than the war, he is a true blue Democrat...at least what Democrats USED to be: Wrong, but sincerely wrong. As to why the Democrats haven't defunded the war yet, it's because they don't have the stones or the principle to act on what they say they believe. They know they'd pay quite a political price for that, because even though the electorate was out to lunch in November, America collectively does not want to abandon our troops like that, and they know it.
I'd love to see Lieberman jump, if for nothing else than to watch Harry Reid's face get even more pinched and ugly.
posted by Jennifer at 6:49 AM
<<< Home