Lieberman refuses to close door on switching parties

[madanthonywayne]

Sen. Joe Lieberman on Sunday repeated his pledge to caucus with Senate Democrats when the 110th Congress convenes in January, but refused to slam the door on possibly moving to the Republican side of the aisle.
Asked on NBC's "Meet the Press" if he might follow the example of Sen. Jim Jeffords of Vermont, who left the Republicans in 2001 and became an independent, ending Republican control of the U.S. Senate, Lieberman refused to discount the possibility.

"I'm not ruling it out but I hope I don't get to that point," he said.

A spokeswoman for Lieberman would not elaborate when contacted by The Associated Press. http://www.boston.com/news/local/connecticut/articles/2006/11/12/lieberman_refuses_to_close_door_on_switching_parti es/
How ironic. I doubt he'll switch and am sure he will initially caucus with the Democrats, but if he see's them following a straight "cut and run" philosophy or they appear to shut him out it will be a different story.

[Prince_James]

The Democrats will face an existential crisis when they realized they sold part of their soul in order to win the election. They also must face the fact that "we're not Bush!" is not a party platform.

[one_raven]

they sold part of their soul in order to win the election.


How so?

[Prince_James]

One_Raven:

The prominence of "conservative" Democratic candidates. There are pro-lifers, pro-gunners...

Basically, everything the Democratic party isn't. The one reason they were Democrats seems to be Iraq.

[The Devil Inside]

One_Raven:

The prominence of "conservative" Democratic candidates. There are pro-lifers, pro-gunners...

Basically, everything the Democratic party isn't. The one reason they were Democrats seems to be Iraq.

this is probably the most ignorant statement i have heard on this subject yet.

have you absolutely no knowledge of what political maneuvering is?

[Prince_James]

The Devil Inside:

If you sacrifice your ideals to achieve your aims then your aims are vacuous to begin with. A big tent ultimately seats none.

[one_raven]

Prince James,

Being a Democrat does not require you to be Pro-Gun and Pro-Choice.
Just as being a Evangelist Christian does not require you to be a Republican.

The issues are completely separate, and that's one of the main problems with politics in a system dominated by only two parties.

What if Bill's black, Pro-Choice and Pro-100% federally funded secondary school - yet he's Pro-Gun, he thinks that the federal government should be small & manageable and he support state's rights?

Does that make him a sell-out Democrat, or a sell-out Republican in your book?

[Prince_James]

One_Raven:

Whilst I agree that no two parties are capable of housing the flavours of every individual belief, you have two things to account for:

1. Beliefs tend to come in packages. There are plenty of Democrats which tout the party line and plenty REpublicans who do, too. In fact, pretty much everyone who believes one way believes the other, save for maybe on abortion. Abortion is the only thing that people seem to have some reservation or support of in both political alignments.

2. If the political parties begin to allow people of different perspectives in, they cease to be parties. Thus parties either have to stay ruthlessly the same, or die another way.

[zanket]

Any member of Congress could switch parties, or threaten to. This is no big deal.

[madanthonywayne]

Any member of Congress could switch parties, or threaten to. This is no big deal.
True, but the difference here is that Lieberman was basically kicked out of the Democratic Party. Furthermore, he was elected with more Republican than Democratic votes. And his stance on the war on terror is perfectly in line with the Republicans. So clearly it would not be unreasonable for him to switch parties.

This is not the same thing as idle speculation that someone else might switch parties for some unknown reason.

[spidergoat]

If the political parties begin to allow people of different perspectives in, they cease to be parties. Thus parties either have to stay ruthlessly the same, or die another way.
Then you have a party that is willing to comprimise and adapt, and one with a rigid ideology that might prove impractical.

[one_raven]

The only difinitive diving line between Democrats and Republicans is that the Democrats want the federal government to be a Democracy and the Republicans want it to be a Republic.
That's where the names come from.

While it is true that the simple proposition of whether the federal government should be a Democracy or Republic tends to force some economic ideals upon the electorate - such as having a smaller federal government, amount of Federal Taxation, and other such things - all the completely unrelated issues, such as seperation of church and state, abortion, personal morality, crime and punishment... are exactly that - unrelated.
Many of the issues that are supposed to divide "party lines" are not political issues at all, and they are made out to be such by manipulative politicians and other subversive assholes, or simple-minded, people for a variety of reasons. More often than not those reasons come from a place of arrogance and grasping to hold onto power. They are people who care more about keeping their jobs and making money than they do about representing the electorate, so they conjure up a "with us or againt us" state of mind and grasp onto such divisive issues, like abortion, to manipulate people's emotions.
Divide and conquer.

Of course if you had a party for every persons specific set of ideals, you would have at least as many parties as you have people - that is simply unrealistic, unnescessary and silly (or simple anarchy) - but to take all the issues and limit it to two parties, pits itself squarely against the very ideals and goals of Democracy itself.

[Roman]

1. Beliefs tend to come in packages.

Only if you're buying what they're selling.