Concerning Lieberman -- I believe we must temper our actions against him

[LiberalFighter]

Why? Because now is not the time when we have a slim majority in the Senate. Lieberman can switch to the Republican Party and then where does that leave the Democrats?

What to do? Increase our majority in the 2008 election. With a bigger majority Lieberman is no longer a threat to a Democratic controlled Senate. And reduces any stature and power he had as a Senator. According to Knowlegis Lieberman has a rank of 23 out of 100.

When this happens the Democratic Party will have the upper hand and not Lieberman.


To voters in Connecticut... Any idea on Lieberman's support by Republicans? What have the letters in the newspapers been concerning Lieberman?

[Deep13]

1. I reluctantly agree.

Where's that Pepto Bismol?

[LynneSin]

4. If McConnell & Repukes were in charge....

...there wouldn't have been a vote like they had yesterday about Iraq and the Sept 2008 deadline. That would have never made the floor or be put into an amendment that gets rejected.

And I think if we lost the senate it would weaken the stance of the Democratic Majority over in the house. We are starting to succeed because we have control of both parties and know that if the House passes something, the senate will probably agree and work on it (and vice versa).

No one has to be a Lieberman cheerleader but he represents a whole hell of alot when it comes to what we could lose if we let the Repukes have the majority

[Deep13]

9. Yup.

No amount of gall is worth losing our majority. Besides, except for the war, he votes with us most of the time.

[ihelpu2see]

21. I am so disgusted with Joe (I) he is not a dem!! and the republican votes

that he casts prove it!

[LynneSin]

40. So you're saying republicans are pro-choice, pro-environment and pro-labor?

He's an ass but remove the Iraq War the guy has a pretty ok voting record.

I'd still like to see him replaced or at least made irrelevant in 2008

[ihelpu2see]

45. Joe just talks a good game, he is against the "Morning After" emergency

contraceptive. He was for a troop draw down during the campaign and now as voted with MCain at every turn and it is hurting our brave troops.
And every time he is labled an (I) democrat by the MSM, I just scream!

[Greyhound]

48. See reply #43. n/t

[Cosmocat]

23. Yep ...

bite the bullet and live with his grandstanding for the next year and a half while doing EVERYTHING possible in that time to get make a net gain in 2008, and if so, so straight to his office and tell him he either shuts his yap or he gets booted out of the caucus and stripped of his committees ....

[Greyhound]

49. See reply #43. n/t

[LynneSin]

2. Make sure you put on your flame-retardant suit!!

First- I agree with you 110%. I can't stand Lieberman, but I see what the Senate has been doing and NONE of this would happen if we turn the majority over to McConnell and the Republicans.

We use Lieberman for 2 years and hopefully in 2008 will gain additional seats so we can finally get rid of him.

[whistle]

3. so it is better to have the enemy we know on our side, then to risk having

...a known enemy against us, eh? Well Lieberman instills both of those attributes as an enemy of democrats, we know he is our enemy and we know he is on the reThuglican side! I say drop him from the party and make an example of him.

[LynneSin]

5. Don't fuck with my Judiciary Committee!!!!!

You drop him - you're giving control back to the republicans and that means Bush can start appointing any judge he wants and they'll clear through the Judiciary and then we'll have to struggle for a filibuster on the floor.

These judicial positions are lifetime positions (or as long as the AG doesn't have a whim to fire people in key positions that could affect the repuke party). And with choice balancing closely on the edge I'll put up gladly with Lieberman to know that we have a Judiciary Committee that contains absolutely none of the "Gang of 14" democrats or Joe Lieberman

[Deep13]

8. Um, yeah what she said!

:applause:

[LynneSin]

14. I'm very protective of my Judiciary Committee

It's alot easier to convince 11 pro-choice men & women to keep activists judges off of the bench. It's a hell of alot more difficult to convince 49 (or less) senators, some who are anti-choice and democratic, to do a filibuster

[fooj]

25. Lieberman switch WON'T flip Senate.

http://politicalinsider.com/2007/02/liebermans_switch_wouldnt_flip.html

Lieberman Switch Wouldn't Flip Senate
With Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT) publicly stating he'd consider becoming a Republican if Democrats block new funding for the Iraq War, many Democrats worry that control of the Senate hangs in the balance. However, their fears are unfounded. Many think back to 2001 when former Sen. Jim Jeffords (I-VT) began caucusing with Democrats instead of Republicans, taking control of the Senate out of GOP hands. However, the two situations - though outwardly similar - contain one important difference.

If Lieberman were to caucus with the Republicans, they would still not take full control of the Senate, despite Vice President Dick Cheney's ability to break 50-50 ties. This is because of a little-known Senate organizing resolution, passed in January, which gives Democrats control of the Senate and committee chairmanships until the beginning of the 111th Congress.
<snip>

There's also more info on this at DKO's and various other progressive sites.

[whistle]

34. Is that so....well dump Lieberman then

<snip>
This is because of a little-known Senate organizing resolution, passed in January, which gives Democrats control of the Senate and committee chairmanships until the beginning of the 111th Congress.<end>

[Zhade]

43. Funny how, every time that fact is brought up, people ignore it.

So, to emphasize what you pointed out:

If Lieberman were to caucus with the Republicans, they would still not take full control of the Senate, despite Vice President Dick Cheney's ability to break 50-50 ties. This is because of a little-known Senate organizing resolution, passed in January, which gives Democrats control of the Senate and committee chairmanships until the beginning of the 111th Congress.

Can we now STOP seeing threads based on the utterly dishonest and WRONG assertion that control would flip, people?

[Deep13]

55. Not willing to assume that.

Senate rules can be changed. Besides, suppose we end up with 50-50 after '08?

[mac56]

52. This deserves its own thread!!!

:thumbsup:

[Greyhound]

50. See reply #43. n/t

[Deep13]

6. And lose our majority, subpeona power and all the committees.

I didn't donate buckets of cash to Sherrod Brown's campaign to give our majority back to the Rs.

Anyway, this isn't the church. We don't have the power to "drop" someone from the party. He has dropped himself, but voted with us on organizational issues. Whatever else he does, his support on that one issue is worth putting up with his warmongering rants.

[n2doc]

10. Keep your friends close and your enemies closer

Guess how many subpoenas Spector would be issuing if he were Judiciary head instead of Lehey. Keeping Dem leadership in the committees alone is worth the crap Liebersquirm brings.

[LiberalFighter]

16. And he would be all three monkeys. Monkey not hear, not see, not talk

[LiberalFighter]

15. As LBJ use to say

"It’s probably better to have him inside the tent pissing out, than outside the tent pissing in."

[11 Bravo]

7. OK, let's wear soft shoes when we kick his fucking ass out of our party.

All right, actually I agree with you, but I have such a visceral loathing of Lieberman that I had to get it out.

[LiberalFighter]

17. I despise the man too. He did not display honor when he didn't

stand with Gore in 2000 election. He practically pushed Gore to accept defeat.

Friends don't do that. Running mates don't do that. He is neither.

[bluedog]

11. at least .get some protesters to shout at him!

and dog his offices in DC and at home.......

[Deep13]

12. And that will accomplish what?

2008 puts a lot more R seats in jeopardy than D seats. We should concentrate on that. Also a chief executive who doesn't appoint assholes to the courts in the first place might be nice too.

[bluedog]

13. they are protesting other reps who won't pull

out of Iraq ....is Lieberman off limits or what? Just a question?

[Deep13]

20. "If the enemy is a fool and an ass and a prating knave...

...is it mete, look you, that we should be a fool and an ass and a prating knave?" Shakespeare's Henry V.

Let them rip apart their own party. If they are so pissed off that they will sink their chances of recapturing a majority, far be it from me to stop them.

[LiberalFighter]

18. I would suggest it would be better that his own constituents...

write letters to the newspapers. Preferably, by republicans. If not republicans, then it should be those that have not registered as a Democrat or voted in Democratic primaries.

[CTyankee]

42. Home? Hah! Not in CT for sure. He lives in D.C. now

The guy is MIA here in New Haven where he used to live.

[Forkboy]

19. Curse you and your logic!

:)

[Greyhound]

51. See reply #43. n/t

[Larkspur]

22. I'm not hiding my disgust of Lieberman from Lieberman

For his birthday on Feb. 24, I sent him a military enlistment form and told him to sacrifice his kids to the US Military and make sure they get sent to Iraq.

[LynneSin]

26. No one should hide their disgust

But for now just let him side with us

[Larkspur]

27. That's Lieberman's decision on whether to side with Dems or not

And Lieberman has said that the Iraq war is his litmus test.

[Greyhound]

46. See reply #43. n/t

[LynneSin]

24. Another reason to tolerate Liberman: Our Environmental Works Committee

Global Warming is finally getting the attention we should have given about 10-12 years ago. But under Republican majority ESPECIALLY with Inhofe as the chair - global warming was treated like environmental fiction that should be ignored.

With Barbara Boxer in charge - Planet Earth is going to get some of the help she so desparately needs right now

[fooj]

28. I posted this upthread...

http://politicalinsider.com/2007/02/liebermans_switch_wouldnt_flip.html


Lieberman Switch Wouldn't Flip Senate
With Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT) publicly stating he'd consider becoming a Republican if Democrats block new funding for the Iraq War, many Democrats worry that control of the Senate hangs in the balance. However, their fears are unfounded. Many think back to 2001 when former Sen. Jim Jeffords (I-VT) began caucusing with Democrats instead of Republicans, taking control of the Senate out of GOP hands. However, the two situations - though outwardly similar - contain one important difference.

If Lieberman were to caucus with the Republicans, they would still not take full control of the Senate, despite Vice President Dick Cheney's ability to break 50-50 ties. This is because of a little-known Senate organizing resolution, passed in January, which gives Democrats control of the Senate and committee chairmanships until the beginning of the 111th Congress.
<snip>

More info at DKO's and Booman Tribune.

[LynneSin]

29. Unfortunately with this administration - I'd rather take my chances with Lieberman

:shrug:

[fooj]

30. Good point.

However, we have to stop behaving as though Lieberman makes a difference. He doesn't. What angers me is that if WE KNOW THIS...so does the Dem leadership. WTF?

[LynneSin]

31. He makes a major difference

Between a Dem and Repuke majority.

It's only 2 years and hopefully we'll get some more dems in 2008

[fooj]

33. Didn't you read my post?

His being a Dem or a Repub is irrelevant at this point, isn't it? We have the MAJORITY locked in until the 111th Congress.

[LynneSin]

36. D'uh - I just had a major brain fart

I hope I didn't stink up the place?

[fooj]

37. No worries...

I get them all of the time...BWAHAHAHA!

[Hippo_Tron]

35. If we didn't let the GOP re-organize the Senate they would probably block everything

At that point I'd say that the House should just impeach Bush and Cheney so that the Senate will have something to do.

[Greyhound]

47. See reply #43. n/t

[Hippo_Tron]

32. Lieberman isn't going to switch because of stuff that we write about him on the internet

His fellow senators are being plenty kind to him and that will keep him on the Democratic side. And if you ask me, I'd almost rather let the GOP have the Senate 50/50 than control it 51/49 and appease Lieberman. Mitch McConnell basically gets a veto on everything because the GOP is a lot more unified than we were in the minority. We control both houses of congress and we couldn't even get a fucking resolution passed to allow Al Gore to have a concert at the capitol.

The reason I say almost is that Justice Stevens isn't in good health and I'll be very glad that we have control over the judiciary committee should something happen to him.

[Deep13]

38. "McConnell basically gets a veto on everything"

Not this time. We got out war time limit passed despite him. Bush can veto it, but if he doesn't take this funding bill, where else is he going to get funds?

[Hippo_Tron]

39. Yea, I just realized that McConnell didn't filibuster this one

I suppose that the GOP Senators aren't going to do the dirty work for the lame duck administration this time because they don't want to take responsibility for it. It's going to be a direct confrontation between Pelosi and Reid vs Bush.

[LynneSin]

41. That Judiciary is the gold mine right there

Politicians may come and go but Supreme Court Justices are until death.

[Zhade]

44. This post is predicated upon, at best, an erroneous belief.

As pointed out above, lieberman switching

WILL

NOT

cost the Dems control.

Please don't reinforce the lie that it will.

[Deep13]

53. Yah will to be the farm on that?

I'm not.

[ToeBot]

54. Who is this 'we' of which you speak?

If you think Lieberman consults DU before (re)setting his political clock, then your opinion of this place is truly overinflated. If you think he even reads the voluminous hate mail he must receive, again, make a reality check. About all this post amounts to is a plea to quite posting bad things about the most egregious traitor to the Democratic Party in recent memory. Sorry, but NO, it's not my responsibility to coddle the man, especially from this distance.

[Elidor]

56. What actions against him?

Has Harry Reid taken away his key to the executive washroom?

Lieberman isn't going anywhere. He can see the Democratic majority is going to grow in the next election, and he's not about to consign himself to oblivion and permanent minority status. The power he's currently wielding is only of use if he never actually makes good on his threat. And by repeatedly refusing to rule out becoming a republican he's mainly serving to aggravate and annoy his colleagues. That's probably going to come back and bite him in the ass at some point.