It would be pretty cool if we consistently had at least 2 independents in the Senate for 12 years (and at least one for 18).
I have often wondered why those two independents don't just start their own caucus. Do the Senate rules contain a provision explicitly stating that you must have x number of members before you found a new caucus?
Because one is a centrist and the other is the most far left guy in the Senate.
Well, yeah, but wouldn't it make a statement about "bipartisanship" and "independent thinking" and all that?
Bernie Sanders isn't an independent because he beleives in bipartisanship. He is an indy because he thinks the Dem are GOP lite. Lieberman is an indy because he was GOP lite and the base got tired of that. Plus they would probably disagree on foreign policy, quite a lot.
^^^^^^^^^^^
This. Plus he realizes it would be catastrophic for the Dems if were representing Vermont as an official member of the Progressive Party. It's more a political statement on Sanders's part for him to be an independent, than trying to harm the Democrats' political image like Lieberman has.