Lieberman to attend GOP convention.
By on Mar 17th, 2008 at 4:49 pm
Lieberman to attend GOP convention.
In a Friday interview with the Stamford Advocate, Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT) — one of Sen. John McCain’s (R-AZ) foreign policy advisers — said he would attend the Republican National Convention this summer:
Friday, Lieberman said he will attend the Republican National Convention this summer, “if Senator McCain thinks it will be helpful to be there in some capacity.” […]
“I am not going to attend the Democratic Convention for obvious reasons,” Lieberman said.
Lieberman, whose Democratic superdelegate status was stripped earlier this year, also added that he’d likely support Rep. Chris Shays (R-CT) against his Democratic challenger. “I am going to wait and see, but let me just say Chris Shays is a great congressman,” Lieberman said.
View Most Popular
Advertisement
Visit Our Affiliated Sites
What We're About
What We're Fighting For
What We're Fighting Against
Featured
Subscribe to the Progress Report
Got a hot tip?
Have a hot news tip? We'd love to hear from you. Use the form below to send us the latest.
Reports
In depth studies on select topics
Topic CloudView topics sorted by popularity
Afghanistan
Bailout
Big Oil
Bolton
Bush
Cheney
Civil Rights
Congress
Earmarks
Economy
Energy
Environment
Ethics
Fox News
GI Bill
Global Warming
Guantanamo
Health Care
Immigration
Iran
Iraq
Justice
Kristol
LGBT
Lieberman
Limbaugh
McCain
McClellan
Media
Military
O'Hanlon
O'Reilly
Obama
Palin
Politics
Race
Radical Right
RNC Convention
Rove
Terrorism
Third Bush Term
Torture
Veterans
Wiretapping
Women's Rights
ArchivesBlog Roll
Obvious reason #1:
He’s a neocon Republican in an Independent disguise.
March 17th, 2008 at 4:51 pmIt is shameful that Lieberman tries to maintain the fiction that he isn’t purely Republican.
March 17th, 2008 at 4:51 pmWhether he is invited or not, he wants to go to one of them. He knows which one he isn’t going to be invited to.
March 17th, 2008 at 4:52 pmIsn’t everyone surprised? I sure am.
I bet all of those Connecticut Democrats who got duped into supported Rape Gurney Joe over Ned Lamont are enjoying the representation their senator is providing them.
March 17th, 2008 at 4:53 pmWhy in the world doesn’t Lieberman just come out of the closet and admit he’s GOP? Surely he’s not afraid of what might happen to him if he turns the Senate majority over to the Republicans?
March 17th, 2008 at 4:54 pmChris Shays is an idiot. Man I dislike that guy.
As for Lieberman, I say let the rethugs have him. He’s no use to us anyway.
March 17th, 2008 at 4:55 pmPerhaps if we can put Obama in the executive it will make for a speedy expulsion of these DINO’s from their committee seats.
March 17th, 2008 at 4:55 pmI wonder what the republicans have on Lieberman
March 17th, 2008 at 4:58 pmLieberman, whose Democratic superdelegate status was stripped earlier this year, also added that he’d likely support Rep. Chris Shays (R-CT) against his Democratic challenger. “I am going to wait and see, but let me just say Chris Shays is a great congressman,”
Great timing, Joe. LIEberman’s flirtation with Republicans is reaching the third date stage, and Holy Joe has decided that “tonight’s the night”, just as his suitor is about to implode in a ball of flame.
March 17th, 2008 at 4:59 pmTobie Tall Says:
March 17th, 2008 at 4:58 pm
I wonder what the republicans have on Lieberman
It is all about Israel with Lieberman IMHO.
March 17th, 2008 at 5:00 pmHey Joe~! where you goin with that dick in your hand?
Give Israel’s regards to all the delegates at the pigfest.
March 17th, 2008 at 5:01 pmhe’s all yours, repugnicans!
March 17th, 2008 at 5:06 pmhe’s all yours!
enjoy!
See ya there Jo-Jo. I’ll be the one with a bandanna over my face and a molotov cocktail in my hand.
March 17th, 2008 at 5:06 pm“I am not going to attend the Democratic Convention for obvious reasons,” Lieberman said.
Wow. If even indirectly, this summer’s Democratic National Convention was actually alluded to right here on TP.
Democrats are in the middle of their most compelling and historically significant nomination in modern times, but the race can’t even get a mention here? Strange stuff.
Instead of ignoring Denver, Democrats should be embracing it.
March 17th, 2008 at 5:12 pmgood_golly Says:
March 17th, 2008 at 4:56 pm
Question: What would happen to the Democrats 51-49 margin in the Senate if Lieberman would stop caucusing with the Democrats? I presume it would become 50-50 with the Vice President holding the tie-breaking vote, but would the Democrats still be considered the “majority” party?
——————
Oh, please — even you know the answer to this one. If Lieberman caucused with the Republicans, that would make a 50-50 split, which always goes to the party of the Vice President. Same situation as when Jim Jeffords left the GOP.
Lieberman could do that, of course. But a GOP majority would be rather short-lived, since elections are right around the corner. Joe may have some political reason for staying with the Dems, although it beats the heck out of me what it might be.
March 17th, 2008 at 5:18 pmThis suprises NOONE!!!
RIP
March 17th, 2008 at 5:18 pmSGT Stephen R. Sherman
C CO 1-5 IN (STRYKER)
KIA 3 Feb 2005
Mosul, Iraq
“I am going to wait and see, but let me just say Chris Shays is a great congressman,” Lieberman said.
In comparison to whom ?
Goofy ?
Pluto ?
As if a Zionist traitor to the Democratic party has any credibility ………….Let’s see how badly McSenile , your butt buddy , gets trounced in November ……..
March 17th, 2008 at 5:19 pm…thus making him the oldest whore who will attend the convention…
March 17th, 2008 at 5:20 pmJoey Two Times!
Get lost you warmongering shitheel.
-GSD
March 17th, 2008 at 5:23 pmRodham Gin Says:
Liebermans behavior reflects badly on him. No one else. He is the one who misrepresents himself. You can try to make it about someing else if you are that warped but he is the traitor to those who he misleads……no one should trust this man.
March 17th, 2008 at 5:23 pmLiberman retains much more power if he maintains his Independent status. Made himself a fulcrum.
March 17th, 2008 at 5:23 pmI’m glad he’s finally out of the closet.
Now those 33% of CT’s Democrats who voted for him cannot avoid seeing his true colors. (Joe also got 70% of CT’s republicans and 65% of the state’s Jewish voters. The Republican candidate was a joke and Rove & friends poured money into Joe’s campaign.)
March 17th, 2008 at 5:23 pmThe obvious reasons why he won’t attend the Democratic convention is that he is not a Democrat. He is not an Independent either…he is a died in the wool Republican.
March 17th, 2008 at 5:29 pm.
Zell Miller lives again in McLieberman!
.
March 17th, 2008 at 5:29 pm#24 mary Says:
March 17th, 2008 at 5:23 pm
Why do Connecticut Democrats hate Democrats?
.
March 17th, 2008 at 5:31 pmSo Lieberman went over to the dark side. Anything for Israel, right, Joe?
Let’s see if I get this right and feel free to add to or detract from as you see fit:
Republican foreign policy is based on;
March 17th, 2008 at 5:31 pmDeath, conquest, lies, bullying, fantasy, destruction, gross misappropriation of funds (lots of missing money out there), fear, hypocrisy and God is on our side (I envision God sitting on his la-z-boy cloud, with beer and brat in hand or floating next to him, he is God, btw, waving an American flag screaming go, go, go! God’s version of football Sunday). Blame anything bad on Al-Qaeda.
There will be a Democratic majority in the Senate in 2009
A F@cking BIG Dem Majority.
Joe is doomed.
So who cares aboutsuch a treacherous smarmy ugly little pig.
March 17th, 2008 at 5:32 pmJoe showing his Biwhoretisan spirit.
March 17th, 2008 at 5:32 pmgood_golly Says:
March 17th, 2008 at 4:56 pm
Question: What would happen to the Democrats 51-49 margin in the Senate if Lieberman would stop caucusing with the Democrats? I presume it would become 50-50 with the Vice President holding the tie-breaking vote, but would the Democrats still be considered the “majority” party?
What majority? The Democrats don’t have a majority. You need a 60-40 margin in the Senate to have a majority, otherwise you lose every cloture vote.
March 17th, 2008 at 5:33 pmI will give him credit for at least knowing where he belongs… bids of a feather flock together…. what a bunch of shameful, lying warmongering thugs.
March 17th, 2008 at 5:36 pm**********Had Hussein Enough**********
Apparently the people of Connecticut are susceptible to, or really like, flim-flam men.
March 17th, 2008 at 5:36 pmI meant birds of a feather
March 17th, 2008 at 5:37 pmLieberman is neither dem or gooper. He’s a neocon which is like $hit and will float to wherever local it desires. As long as the war continues and we continue to support Israel, which is doing more and more and more to make us not support them, good ol’ Joe will stay wherever that war support is strongest.
And I would love to ask Gore what he was thinking and what he thinks now.
I used to like Lieberman, too. ICK.
March 17th, 2008 at 5:38 pmMs_Joanne Says:
And I would love to ask Gore what he was thinking and what he thinks now.
You can’t blame Gore or the Democrats. Joe is a liar and it takes time to find that out sometimes…..this is Joes charactor flaw….no one else to blame.
March 17th, 2008 at 5:44 pmLiebermann is a TRAITOR. His primary concerns are Israel, Liebermann, and the Republican Party.
March 17th, 2008 at 5:45 pmUmm, yeah. Lieberman is clearly a Republican. When will the Democrats figure this out and take away his leadership positions? Don’t they have any self respect as a political party?
March 17th, 2008 at 5:47 pmWill Joe Lieberman bravely repudiate the calls from McCain’s radical religious supporters that our own government be violently overthrown?
March 17th, 2008 at 5:51 pm#37, I disagree. Lieberman supports the goopers now because they are war hawks. THAT is all he cares about and if it was the dems who were hawking, he’d be right there.
He doesn’t care about our politics. He cares about Israel.
And before anyone calls me an antisemite, I was raised Jewish. You have to call them as you see them, though. And I am an American with American values. REAL American values before those values became greed in the nth degree and war and torture. That is not the America I grew up in nor is it anything any American would have ever thought of supporting.
9/11 did not change that much. Hatred did. Hate radio. Hate television. Blaming icky brown people for everything.
March 17th, 2008 at 5:59 pmMax-1 Says: (and Namtillaku at 5:36 pm)
at 5:23 pm
Why do Connecticut Democrats hate Democrats?
Answer:
As far as I can tell from talking to the people who usually voted Democratic, but, who made up the 33% of the state’s Democrats who voted for Joe, they didn’t know what to make of Lamont, and the $2M republican campaign money swayed them into believing that Lamont was a one-issue (anti Iraq war) candidate.
Those generally decent people seemed to also be people who perhaps didn’t take the time to inform themselves fully and basically voted for the guy whose name they recognized.
March 17th, 2008 at 6:07 pmG.I. Joe caucuses with the Dems because he was allowed to maintain his seniority. With the Rs he would probably have to get back in line. He has slit enough Dem throat during the past year to ensure that come next year when the majority widens even his clown friends like Schumer who campaigned for him over their party nominee won’t be able to save him.
Never liked that sanctimonious little hobbit to begin with. Good riddance.
March 17th, 2008 at 6:09 pmRemember 2006, when Ned Lamont won the CT Demo Primary? Good Dems like Chuck Schumer and Hillary Clinton supported Lieberman over Lamont. Look at the mess they got us in.
Never ever should the DSCC Chairman (Schmer) refuse to support the Democrat. Heckuva Job, Chuck.
March 17th, 2008 at 6:12 pmThanks Ditch Mitch KY for reminding me that Hillary and Schumer supported Lieberman over Lamont.
Joe Lieberman, August 2006:
“I’m a devoted Democrat.”
and this (from same link):
Earlier this month, Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid talked privately to Lieberman about committee assignments. “Sen. Reid left no doubt in my mind that I would retain my seniority and committee assignments within the Senate Democratic Caucus should I be re-elected,” Lieberman said, “and that has been confirmed to me by several other members of the Democratic Caucus.”
http://www.swamppolitics.com/ news/ politics/ blog/ 2006/ 08/ joe_makes_schumer_trod_egg_she.html
March 17th, 2008 at 6:24 pmFrom what I understand, losing Lieberman will not change the fact that Democrats will maintain the majority. When the organizing rules for this Congress went into effect after the 2006 elections, the control of the Senate was locked in for the Dems through the 2008 election.
If so, time to kick his sorry weasel ass off the DHS chairmanship…a job that he’s not doing, anyway.
March 17th, 2008 at 6:32 pmComing out of the closet?
March 17th, 2008 at 6:38 pmRodham Gin Says:
March 17th, 2008 at 6:09 pm
Ms_Joanne Says:
March 17th, 2008 at 5:59 pm
And before anyone calls me an antisemite, I was raised Jewish.
And some of my best friends are JOOOOOs too.
I thought for a minute that I had logged into the progressiveindependent by mistake.
You thought wrong ; that’s simply par for the course ………
March 17th, 2008 at 6:50 pmThe Connecticut voters now look like fools as they voted Lieberman in office not knowing he was a true Republican. I must say the Republican are full of lies and get away with it. No need for the Republicans in Connecticut to run for office when all a slick Democrat has to do is say their an Democrat/Independent but really their a Republican. This is a perfect example of how Bush got in office twice. I must say the Media did a great job at spreading the propaganda it worked.
March 17th, 2008 at 6:51 pmMcMetal, I wouldn’t respond to a c*nt like Gin. She’s an embarrassment no matter how you slice it.
March 17th, 2008 at 7:07 pmWOW! What breaking news!!!!
Instead of reporting on the latest Barrack Hussein scandal you libs love junk like this!
March 17th, 2008 at 7:21 pmCaption Contest
Come to the RePUG Convention and your gonna be sitting on lots of thumbs!
March 17th, 2008 at 7:54 pm“I am not going to attend the Democratic Convention for obvious reasons,” Lieberman said.
But of course. Too bad he’s enough of a lying sack’o’shite not to have mentioned than in Nov. of 2006.
Cheers,
March 17th, 2008 at 9:06 pmIndependent? What a vessel of garbage this guy is. He won’t attend the Dem event for ‘obvious reasons’? - Yes- obviously this guy is a complete nasty Repub. And now we all know. As if we didn’t already.
March 17th, 2008 at 9:08 pmImmediately after the general election I would hope that the Democratic party would show this jackass the door, and in fact hit him in the ass with it as he leaves. What a traitor this creep is. A total sellout!
March 17th, 2008 at 9:12 pmLet’s not forget the Ol’Joe is also raising money and helping BFF Collins(ME), his co-chair on the Homeland security committee.
Looking through the Homeland PR’s from Ol’Joe himself, this part struck me as unusual in that he seems to actually have a morsel of compassion - Jan. 15, 2008
http://tinyurl.com/2d4cd3
LIEBERMAN COMMENDS POLICY AGAINST FORCED DRUGGING OF DETAINEES
SENATOR RAISED ISSUES ABOUT ICE POLICY AFTER 2007 HEARING
“….Lieberman discovered last year that ICE had permitted forced administration of anti-psychotic drugs to immigration detainees to facilitate their removal from the country…”
March 17th, 2008 at 9:18 pmFine with me Joe. It’s where you belong.
March 17th, 2008 at 10:28 pmZell Miller redux, perhaps? (At least Lieberman isn’t actually a Democrat anymore, if in fact he ever really was one to begin with…)
For pity’s sake, Lieberman…enough with the pretense, already! You’ve shown time and time again where your true loyalties lie — we all know that you’re really a Republican at heart, so why not simply make it official?
March 17th, 2008 at 11:37 pmNettles Says:
March 17th, 2008 at 5:12 pm
“I am not going to attend the Democratic Convention for obvious reasons,” Lieberman said.
Wow. If even indirectly, this summer’s Democratic National Convention was actually alluded to right here on TP.
Democrats are in the middle of their most compelling and historically significant nomination in modern times, but the race can’t even get a mention here? Strange stuff.
Instead of ignoring Denver, Democrats should be embracing it.
Well, the primary purpose of Think Progress is to make certain that some people know the bad things that the right-wing is doing (or desperately trying to keep under cover).
March 18th, 2008 at 2:41 amThe Democratic Convention doesn’t fit into TP’s coverage.
missmolly Says:
March 17th, 2008 at 5:18 pm
good_golly Says:
March 17th, 2008 at 4:56 pm
Question: What would happen to the Democrats 51-49 margin in the Senate if Lieberman would stop caucusing with the Democrats? I presume it would become 50-50 with the Vice President holding the tie-breaking vote, but would the Democrats still be considered the “majority” party?
——————
Oh, please — even you know the answer to this one. If Lieberman caucused with the Republicans, that would make a 50-50 split, which always goes to the party of the Vice President. Same situation as when Jim Jeffords left the GOP.
Lieberman could do that, of course. But a GOP majority would be rather short-lived, since elections are right around the corner. Joe may have some political reason for staying with the Dems, although it beats the heck out of me what it might be.
I think it’s a bit more complicated than that.
From a Washington Post article dated Jan 5, 2007:
The Senate margin is even more tenuous because Sen. Tim Johnson (D-S.D.) is sidelined after emergency brain surgery.
Republican leaders decided not to seek special language spelling out the terms of a transition in case of a power shift — say, if Johnson vacates his post and his state’s GOP governor appoints a Republican to replace him. Under that scenario, power would effectively shift to Republicans, because Cheney would provide the tiebreaking 51st vote. But for Republicans to take parliamentary control, the Senate would have to vote for new organizational rules, a move Democrats could filibuster.
A similar scenario unfolded in January 2001, when a 50-50 Senate convened. In 2001, Democrats demanded a “kick-out clause” in organizing negotiations that would automatically scrap agreements on committee ratios and funding levels and force new organizational rules. But Republicans decided this month against a confrontation that would come from demanding a similar clause.
“Nobody over here talked about that at all,” said Don Stewart, spokesman for McConnell.
As far as I can understand it, the Repubs would have to get nearly a dozen REAL Democrats to side with them in order to change the rules. Why they haven’t already dropkicked Lieberman, I don’t know. Lieberman is current chairman of the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs; I’m not sure how things work but he might retain his seat on the Committee even if he were dumped by the Democrats and that would shift control of the Committee to the Republicans. I’d imagine that Lieberman would retain his seat on any other committees which would shift control of that committee to the GOP.
March 18th, 2008 at 3:16 amCheney only comes into play when a measure is voted on by the full Senate, but the REAL nuts and bolts of Senate activity takes place on the Committees and Subcommittees. Bills (as well as Presidential appointments) are introduced in the Committees and they either live or die there–a recommendation advances the matter; otherwise, the bill (or appointment) is dead and has to await resubmission (or, in the case of a bill, “amending”).
Again, mind you, I really don’t know what would happen if the Democrats were to kick Lieberman to the curb with regards to Democratic control of the Senate but I don’t think it’s worth the risk of giving Satan–I mean, Dick Cheney–a chance to cast a single vote in the Senate.
Ditch Mitch KY Says:
March 17th, 2008 at 6:12 pm
Remember 2006, when Ned Lamont won the CT Demo Primary? Good Dems like Chuck Schumer and Hillary Clinton supported Lieberman over Lamont. Look at the mess they got us in.
Never ever should the DSCC Chairman (Schmer) refuse to support the Democrat. Heckuva Job, Chuck.
March 18th, 2008 at 3:47 am————–
Um, sorry guy, but you need to recheck the record. Hillary supported Lieberman in the PRIMARY, but supported Lamont in the General Election (albeit with reluctance; Lieberman was her colleague and the usual practice for ALL Senators is to support their current colleague over a challenger in a primary election). I’d also point out that Schumer’s reaction was the same–Lieberman in the primary, but Lamont in the General Election (this decision was announced on Aug 9, 2006).
If you’re going to bash Hillary and Schumer, slam Barack with it as well. (I can’t find it now, but I do recall reading somewhere that Obama’s endorsement of Lamont came after Hillary’s.)
I can NOT believe this. Has no one else figured out why Lieberman’s going to the GOP convention?
March 18th, 2008 at 3:57 amHe’s going to be there when McCain announces that Joe’s his pick for VP. Lieberman will maintain the fiction that he’s an “independent” in the Senate through the election. If the GOP ticket wins the Presidency, he becomes VP and resigns his Senate seat. If the Dems win, he keeps his Senate seat for another 4 years. He’s got nothing to lose and everything to gain since he can’t be stripped of anything if the Dems win enough seats because of “disloyalty” since he’s an “independent”. If the Dems don’t pick up any extra seats (or, the absolute worst case scenario, loses a seat or two), but do win the White House, he’s got a prime seat in a GOP-controlled Senate; of course, in that case, we’d probably get a “surprise” announcement from Lieberman by November 6th at the latest.
I have been saying that there was a good chance McCain would choose Leiberman for his running mate, (if Clinton or Obama didn’t). No one should be surprised that he is a McCain adviser. It’s just as well that he’s coming out as a repug but I’ve been saying he’s the “missing link” that clearly demonstrates that lack of real differences between the two heads of the corporate party.
March 18th, 2008 at 7:16 amLIEbermann coes out of the closet. It’s about time. THanks again Connecticut
March 18th, 2008 at 10:18 amHow can this fence-straddling whore be taken seriously by anyone on either side of the aisle?
March 18th, 2008 at 11:46 amAs it has been said, Lieberman is a rare example of a rat swimming out to the sinking ship.
March 19th, 2008 at 1:40 pm