LAGuy, Lieberman, Little Love Lost
While the Lamont victory may signal unfortunate things for the Democrats, it's not as if Lieberman is any prize. I was going to write a little piece on one of the most annoying Senators around, but I see my semi-friend Tim Cavanaugh has beat me to it.
PS. Yet another reason to read Pajama Guy before anyone else:
On Thursday, Mickey Kaus wrote:
So if Lieberman wins as an independent, and the Democrats pick up six seats in November, doesn't that mean Lieberman gets to decide which party controls the Senate?Then Kaus realizes James Taranto said it on Wednesday:
Suppose the Democrats do win all contested Senate races on Nov. 7, and Lieberman beats Lamont in Connecticut. That would, as we said, give Democrats a 51-49 advantage in the Senate. In order to be elected majority leader, Reid would need every single Democratic vote--including Lieberman's.And here's PJGuy way back on Tuesday:
[If] Lieberman wins... [w]ill he take back his "independent" status and say he's a Democrat again?....This issue is especially important if he can put his party into the Senate majority.
posted by LAGuy @ 12:14 AM
1 Comments:
I think it's very likely Lieberman will vote for the Democratic leadership in January (assuming he's elected) -- even if this isn't a decisive vote.
Why? Because all the big-wig Democratic politicians turned out to stump for Lieberman in his primary. He still thinks of them as his buddies. Why wouldn't he vote with them?
If the split is close, the Republicans will try to woo him. I think it's very unlikely he'll switch. I suppose it would be possible (especially if, by January 2007, the Democratic party is swinging firmly into the anti-war camp), but unlikely. But if it isn't a close split, he'll vote with the Democrats for leadership.
Which means, by definition, he's not an independent, but a Democrat.
Post a Comment
<< Home