Real independent

After winning his reelection race last November as an independent, Sen. Joe Lieberman (Conn.) asked the upper chamber to refer to him officially as an “Independent Democrat (ID).”

This newspaper and other media outlets grappled with what to call the senator who nearly became vice president on the Democratic ticket in 2000.

For the first part of this year, we referred to him as a Democrat for a variety of reasons. First off, the “Independent” in Independent Democrat is an adjective and referring to Lieberman as an ID could be a slippery slope. Others in Congress could follow suit and ask to expand their party affiliation label to terms such as Conservative Democrat (CD) or Centrist Republican (CR).

Another factor in initially calling Lieberman a Democrat was because he had always been a Democrat before last year’s unusual election race against Ned Lamont. When Lieberman realized that he could lose the primary race against Lamont last summer, he took steps to ensure he could get on the general election ticket in November.

Riding the wave of mounting frustration with the Iraq war, Lamont beat Lieberman in the primary, triggering calls from Democrats that Lieberman should not run in November. But in an impressive political comeback, Lieberman withstood the punch and sailed to victory last fall.

If Lamont had not defeated Lieberman in the primary or if he had not become a serious contender, would Lieberman have altered his party affiliation this year? That is impossible to answer, but an argument can be made that Lieberman would have been quite content to remain a plain old D, just like Sen. Ben Nelson (Neb.) and other conservative/centrist Democrats in the upper chamber.

Yet we are now changing our policy. Starting with this issue, we will call Lieberman an Independent because he has consistently shown in the 110th Congress that he is indeed that.

His break with his party on Iraq has been well documented and has not wavered one iota. There have been many debates in Congress about Iraq, but there is little dispute that it is the most important matter facing policymakers today, so Lieberman’s differences with Democratic leaders should not be understated.

But his differences with the Democratic Party go beyond foreign policy. In June, 38 senators, including Lieberman, voted against proceeding on the no-confidence motion on Attorney General Alberto Gonzales. The other 37 “no” votes came from Republicans.

And unlike other conservative/centrist Democrats, Lieberman is coy about whom he will endorse for president in 2008 — leaving open the possibility it will not be a Democrat.

We’re responding to the facts as they now seem to be; so, whereas we used to ID Lieberman as a D, we now think it’s time to ID him as an I.

Got that?