I was watching Lieberman go off on ABC's THIS WEEK about how successful the surge in Iraq has been, and I remembered a roundtable discussion 2 weeks ago on the same show in which ABC's Martha Raddatz obliterated the very arguments - the very Bush administration talking points - that Lieberman is now "coincidentally" using. Here's the side by the side of the two interviews (the entire video is under a minute).
It's clear to me, from Lieberman's interview, that in the long term he's not remaining in the Democratic party. (Yes, I know, he's an Independent and not a Democrat. But he caucuses with the Dems.) He was clearly briefed by Bush White House officials for today's ABC appearance, and he has no problem using their talking points - on the same show today he even accused the Democratic candidates of being bad on "national security," a classic Bush talking point: "I would say that Democratic candidates, in the larger questions of American security, have been disappointing." What Lieberman means, I think, is that the Democratic candidates aren't willing to give Israeli national security a higher priority than American national security.
This man has no intention of continuing to help the Dems. He's going to become a Republican, and we need to get more seats in the Senate so that we can afford to tell Lieberman to take a hike. (The only reason Lieberman doesn't walk now is because he's a committee chair on the Democratic side. On the Republican side, he'd be in the minority, and thus wouldn't chair anything.)
Main & gay blog