And I think I like him.
He was just on the Mrs. Alan Greenspan show. He was using language guaranteed to get him on the talk shows--"middle of the road", "call it as I see it", and all of that stuff.
Then he was asked about the filibuster. First he said that the writers of the Constitution did not have situations in mind where everything required 60 votes. And he said that there should be limits on what should be subject to a filibuster. He mentioned that motions to proceed and going to conference should not be subject. He also mentioned that a filibuster should also mean something--a "talking filibuster" for instance.
And then he went on to say that filibuster reform should also have guarantees to protect the rights of the minority--such as amendments and what not.
So, as an aside, I'm guessing that this is what a lot of the negotiations with regards to the Harkin-Udall-Merkley bill are all about. If they can get some sweeteners for "minority rights" they should be able to get for sure King's vote for filibuster reform.
Then King was asked about why he decided to caucus. He said that at first he wanted to not caucus and just sit on the fence and be a guy in the middle, but that the Senate procedures did not make that a feasible possibility. So he said that the Democrats were the obvious choice.
Why?
Because Democrats were in the majority and had the votes. Therefore there were more committee assignment openings.
Also, he talked to Lieberman and Sanders, and they both assured him that yes, while he could caucus with Democrats, he could still remain independent. He also talked to Former Senator Mitchell. I think he's more impressed with Democrats than Republicans because Democrats won't make him take any oaths of loyalty.
All in all, King sounds like a centrist who may infuriate me at times, but who has actual governing the country as his first interest rather than political ideology.