Independent?

[Overlay]

I see where everyone is saying that the Democrats now have a 51-49 majority in the Senate. To arrive at that number, they are effectively counting Joe Lieberman of Connecticut and Bernie Sanders of Vermont as Democrats, even though they ran as Independents. I understand the situation with Lieberman going back into the party now that he's won, but Bernie Sanders has run as an Independent for both the House and the Senate. If he will caucus with the Democrats and is effectively counted as one of their number, what makes him an Independent? Why not just call himself a Democrat? At least, then, constituents would have a more accurate/honest indication of the positions he planned to take, and not be under the possible impression that they were voting for someone who would look at issues from a truly independent perspective. It reminds me of the same situation with James Jeffords (also from Vermont). Why not just switch parties outright?

[kenwoodallpromos]

I see where everyone is saying that the Democrats now have a 51-49 majority in the Senate. To arrive at that number, they are effectively counting Joe Lieberman of Connecticut and Bernie Sanders of Vermont as Democrats, even though they ran as Independents. I understand the situation with Lieberman going back into the party now that he's won, but Bernie Sanders has run as an Independent for both the House and the Senate. If he will caucus with the Democrats and is effectively counted as one of their number, what makes him an Independent? Why not just call himself a Democrat? At least, then, constituents would have a more accurate/honest indication of the positions he planned to take, and not be under the possible impression that they were voting for someone who would look at issues from a truly independent perspective. It reminds me of the same situation with James Jeffords (also from Vermont). Why not just switch parties outright?
Congress is only set up to favor a take-all for 1 party who has a simple majority to get anything done (Senate 60 to get everything done), so you have to go with then party closest to youmon the most issues. SInce generally foeereign affairs is party-less, social issues is the divider. Lieberman is basically a blue-dog Democrat and Sanders has always ID'ed himself as a socialist, both closer to the Dems on social issues.
Forget thinking the Dems will do much radically different in Iraq- They know we are staying in the Green Zone as a foothold in the Middle East. One big problem with Baby Bush in Iraq is he tried to do it this time like Papa did last time- set a record getting to Bahgdad and no planning for the long haul- even though he everybody knew we were staying ("regime change").