ebrown_p wrote:Here is a question for you Nimh:
When did Lieberman become an "independent".
As soon as he decided to run for Senate on an independent ticket. (I'm sure he isn't the first independent candidate to run who tried to win a party primary first.)
ebrown_p wrote:What if, after Lieberman had won the primary, Lamont had decided to form his own party and run in the general election. Would this have made Lamont an "independent".
Of course it would have! (And I bet that you wouldn't have complained about anyone calling him that either.)
ebrown_p wrote:He is still an establishment guy.
And?
Look, you try to apply some esoteric definition of "independent" that means a candidate has to meet your moral standards of courage and outsiderness first, before he can be called one. You're welcome to your own definition, but it's simply not one thats used elsewhere. Which raises the question how it is a "ridiculous position" of ours to call Lieberman the same thing the journalists, pollsters, mapmakers and whoever call him.
He ran an independent ticket - he's elected as an independent. Whether you like him or not, or what you think of his values, is irrelevant.
Here:
Elweed Dowd at the Daily Kos wrote:For a while every major paper seems to have a dual profile of Bernie Sanders and Joe Lieberman. Both are Independent candidates for Senate
Washington Post wrote:Joe Lieberman of Connecticut appears likely to return to Congress as an independent
Boston Globe wrote:Senator Joseph I. Lieberman of Connecticut , the Democrats' vice presidential nominee in 2000 who lost the Democratic primary in August, will return to the Senate as an independent.
NYTimes wrote:Bernard Sanders, the senator-elect from Vermont, is an independent who caucuses with the Democrats, and Senator Joseph I. Lieberman of Connecticut is a Democrat, although he ran for re-election as an independent
Salon wrote:Joe Lieberman, who lost a primary, now running strongly as an independent against anti-war Democrat Ned Lamont
Sheesh.
