Sen. 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."
And then there's this bit of charming party chain-yanking delivered via Time Magazine:
…last month, after Lieberman told Reid he had stopped attending the weekly Democratic lunch because he didn't feel comfortable discussing Iraq there, Reid offered to hold those discussions at another time. Lieberman has started attending again.
Aw, poor Joe. He didn't feel comfortable? How sad. Let's all thank Harry Reid, Chuck Schumer, Rahm Emmanuel and Bill Clinton for putting us all in this position, weakening the party, hurting the ability of Democrats and Republicans alike to get us out of the Iraq quagmire by giving Bush "bipartisan" cover (*cough*) for his McCain/Lieberman surge, and basically making the activist base of the party (and Democratic voters in Connecticut) feel like they mean nothing when measured against their own political ambitions. Nice going. Really.
Then there is the fact that as chairman of the Committee on Homeland Security and Government Affairs, Lieberman (unlike his House counterpart Henry Waxman) has no intention of looking into war profiteering, one of the key issues voters claimed they wanted their representatives to investigate.
If there is a good reason for this state of affairs, I confess it escapes me.