According to Media Matters, several media outlets noted a statement Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman made to Time magazine that there is a “very remote possibility” he will stop caucusing with Senate Democrats but failed to mention his pre-election promises to continue to caucus with them.
Media Matters:
Several media outlets, including The Politico, ABCNews.com, Fox News’ Special Report and The Washington Times, reported on Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman’s (CT) statement in the March 5 issue of Time magazine that there is a “very remote possibility” he will stop caucusing with Senate Democrats, but failed to note Lieberman’s repeated pre-election promises to the voters of Connecticut that he would caucus with Democrats. Additionally, The Politico and Special Report inaccurately reported that Lieberman’s decision to caucus with the other party would “give control of the [Senate] back to the Republicans.” In fact, in order to change the makeup of committees and their chairmen, as well as the president pro tempore, the Republicans would have to pass new organizing rules, which could be filibustered by the Democrats.
In a February 22 article, Editor & Publisher reported that Lieberman is quoted in the March 5 issue of Time acknowledging “a remote possibility” that he will “jump[] to the Republican side.” But as blogger Greg Sargent noted, on October 3, 2006, The Empire Zone, The New York Times’ weblog about politics in New York, New Jersey, and Connecticut, quoted Lieberman promising: “I’ve given my word that’s what I intend to do. I am going to caucus with the Democrats.” Prior to his August 2006 loss in the Democratic primary but while collecting signatures for his independent bid, Lieberman told New York Magazine: “I’ve been a Democrat for 40 years, I’ll die a Democrat, I’ll probably be a Democrat after my death, I may still be voting Democrat in some cities in Connecticut postmortem.” Sargent compiled additional examples of Lieberman or his communications staff promising that he would caucus with the Democrats. Further, in October 2006, blogger spazeboy posted a video in which Lieberman is asked the question: “Would you unequivocally ... caucus with the Democrats?” Lieberman responded: “I’ve said that 1,200 times.” When asked to clarify with a “yes or no” answer, Lieberman responded: “Yes. Yes.” Read more
If you have trouble leaving a comment, review this help page. Still having problems? Let us know. If you find yourself moderated, take a moment to review our comment policy.
By FeldsteinRocks, February 25, 2007 at 7:27 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
Bravo…to Lieberman for standing up for his beliefs. Do we not have enough room in this Democratic Party of ours to have a spot for those who may not always vote with the party majority? Lieberman has always been loyal to the party, that is a fact. Now, of course, most in our party don’t support the war, including myself, but we need to have the debate and differing views within our party to keep it a vibrant, breathing party, instead of the polarization of going too far left, like the Reps going too far right, that has killed us in the past few elections. We need to appeal to the “Moderate Majority”.
By Big Al, February 25, 2007 at 9:35 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
Lieberman cares only about making sure that the US keeps killing massive numbers of Arabs and Muslims and wrecking their countries for Israel’s “security,” regardless of the cost.
He does not care about the United States of Americe. We are only a means to an end. We fools are supposed to spend and borrow and bleed and murder for Israel until we are bankrupt and ruined, so that the Chosen Nation shall have dominion uber alles.
Of course he’ll switch parties, if that’s what it takes to keep his war-for-Israel agenda on track.
By Aaitje, February 24, 2007 at 9:27 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
Tsk-tsk, Truthdig!
You should *know* by now that Traitor Joe is a Republican all but in name.
His “Democratic” votes he so pats himself on the back for were either required by the Democratic Caucus to vote for, or, were almost guaranteed to be “tabled”.
When it comes down to it, Holy Joe sides with the Repubs every chance he gets—that is, IF even the Repub’s agenda doesn’t go against AIPAC’s.
And when it comes to the dirty laundry by Repubs in general, the “media” do their diligent duties, and go deaf, dumb, and blind.
Don’t forget that the U.S. media is wholly owned and operated by corporations, and the Repub party have long ago decided that a corporate-governed country (Fascism) is better than a people-governed one (Democracy).
So why again the surprise Holy Joe’s gettin’ a pass regarding his blatant show of treason against his constituents, country, and party?
By Christopher Robin, February 24, 2007 at 9:10 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
To say I have contempt for Lieberman would be an understatement.
It’s time here in Connecticut to work for a recall law. Perhaps we could learn how the California law works? The ground here, should be fertile for such an initiative.
Besides Lieberman, We just dispensed with former Gov. John Rowland “Republican”. Who was taking “gifts” from construction contractors for bids awarded (among other shady activities). Even after the facts and quilt were undeniable, Rowland hung onto office and refused to resign, garnering more time toward his pension
We had to endure the humiliation of a corrupt Governor sitting in office, long after his deeds were public. Until the time consuming impeachment process was finally just about to remove him.
Now he’s lecturing on C-Span claiming he’s found God? Corruption story: Link
Then there’s the on going saga of the old industrial city of Waterbury (Rowland’s home town)Which has had three corrupt mayors in a relatively short period of time. Former Waterbury mayor Philip Giordano “Republican” is in prison now on child molestation charges among the usual corruption charges. (Warning: do not read on a full stomach) Link
I think the public here would welcome the chance to recall these poli-corruptians, before they further disgrace and betray the public trust.
Three Questions Left Unanswered by Obama’s Counterterrorism Speech
Email 
Print
Share
Email to a friend
Newsletter 
Like Us
Follow Us
Get Our Feed
By FeldsteinRocks, February 25, 2007 at 7:27 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
Bravo…to Lieberman for standing up for his beliefs. Do we not have enough room in this Democratic Party of ours to have a spot for those who may not always vote with the party majority? Lieberman has always been loyal to the party, that is a fact. Now, of course, most in our party don’t support the war, including myself, but we need to have the debate and differing views within our party to keep it a vibrant, breathing party, instead of the polarization of going too far left, like the Reps going too far right, that has killed us in the past few elections. We need to appeal to the “Moderate Majority”.
Report thisBy John Hanks, February 25, 2007 at 6:17 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
I think I will ignore his extortion too. I’ll probably regret it.
Report thisBy Big Al, February 25, 2007 at 9:35 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
Lieberman cares only about making sure that the US keeps killing massive numbers of Arabs and Muslims and wrecking their countries for Israel’s “security,” regardless of the cost.
He does not care about the United States of Americe. We are only a means to an end. We fools are supposed to spend and borrow and bleed and murder for Israel until we are bankrupt and ruined, so that the Chosen Nation shall have dominion uber alles.
Of course he’ll switch parties, if that’s what it takes to keep his war-for-Israel agenda on track.
Report thisBy anonymous, February 25, 2007 at 8:19 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
Lieberman’s first loyalty is not to the people of his state or this country.
He’d make an excellent republican.
Report thisBy Aaitje, February 24, 2007 at 9:27 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
Tsk-tsk, Truthdig!
You should *know* by now that Traitor Joe is a Republican all but in name.
His “Democratic” votes he so pats himself on the back for were either required by the Democratic Caucus to vote for, or, were almost guaranteed to be “tabled”.
When it comes down to it, Holy Joe sides with the Repubs every chance he gets—that is, IF even the Repub’s agenda doesn’t go against AIPAC’s.
And when it comes to the dirty laundry by Repubs in general, the “media” do their diligent duties, and go deaf, dumb, and blind.
Don’t forget that the U.S. media is wholly owned and operated by corporations, and the Repub party have long ago decided that a corporate-governed country (Fascism) is better than a people-governed one (Democracy).
So why again the surprise Holy Joe’s gettin’ a pass regarding his blatant show of treason against his constituents, country, and party?
Report thisBy Christopher Robin, February 24, 2007 at 9:10 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
To say I have contempt for Lieberman would be an understatement.
It’s time here in Connecticut to work for a recall law. Perhaps we could learn how the California law works? The ground here, should be fertile for such an initiative.
Besides Lieberman, We just dispensed with former Gov. John Rowland “Republican”. Who was taking “gifts” from construction contractors for bids awarded (among other shady activities). Even after the facts and quilt were undeniable, Rowland hung onto office and refused to resign, garnering more time toward his pension
We had to endure the humiliation of a corrupt Governor sitting in office, long after his deeds were public. Until the time consuming impeachment process was finally just about to remove him.
Now he’s lecturing on C-Span claiming he’s found God? Corruption story: Link
Then there’s the on going saga of the old industrial city of Waterbury (Rowland’s home town)Which has had three corrupt mayors in a relatively short period of time. Former Waterbury mayor Philip Giordano “Republican” is in prison now on child molestation charges among the usual corruption charges. (Warning: do not read on a full stomach) Link
I think the public here would welcome the chance to recall these poli-corruptians, before they further disgrace and betray the public trust.
Report thisBy trantieungoc, February 24, 2007 at 12:09 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
We are fed up with this two-faced man !
Report this