No one was surprised to see Joseph I. Lieberman , the Democrat-turned-independent from Connecticut, siding with the Republican leadership this month during the latest Senate debate over the Iraq War.
Lately, though, Lieberman has taken his alliance with GOP leaders up a notch. During the abortive debate on the defense authorization bill, he attended daily tactical sessions to help them plan their strategy for combatting anti-war amendments and their rhetorical points for use against the Democrats. And in a fitting symbolic twist, some of those meetings convened just down the hall from the office of Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada, who essentially owes his 51-seat majority to Lieberman’s continued caucusing with the Democrats.
Before the Democrats realized they could not break a GOP filibuster and set aside their anti-war crusade last week, the meetings were the main forum for developing the GOP counterpunching strategy. For example, the group — which typically included GOP leaders such as Minority Whip Trent Lott of Mississippi and prominent supporters of the war such as John McCain of Arizona — decided to highlight a Lieberman amendment that would have required the administration to report on Iranian support for attacks against coalition forces in Iraq.
Lieberman presented it as a consensus proposal. “Whether you are for or against the war,” he said on the floor, “I hope we can all find common ground in making this statement.” They almost could: It was adopted, 97-0. But Republicans immediately sought to put Democrats on the defensive. At a news conference with Lieberman and GOP leaders, South Carolina’s Lindsey Graham said, “If you believe that everything in Sen. Lieberman’s amendment is true, how could you engage in a strategy that would at the end of the day allow Iran to be successful?”
Basically, what we are hearing from the left is that if Joe Lieberman continues to stand by what HE believes is right, on the issue of Iraq, they don't need him.
Once again proving that would rather have a robotic lapdog than anyone that holds his principles above his party.
No surprise there either.
.
