Will Likud Joe be booted from the caucus in 2009?

[MarkWarner08]

Most Democrats are to the right of Jeffords.

Proof? He's to the left of the AR Democrats, Landreiu, the Nelsons, and maybe one of the Dakota boys. I doubt he's to the left of "most Democrats."

[MarkWarner08]

If the point was that Lieberman was to the right of Jeffords, the point ought to include that at least their contemporaries Breaux, Bryan, Bumpers, Byrd, Casey, Conrad, Dorgan, Ford, Hollings, Landrieu, Lincoln, Miller, Moynihan, the Nelsons, and Pryor also were to the right of Jeffords.

When Jeffords swapped uniforms in 2001, Bryan, Bumpers, Casey, Ford, Miller, and Moynihan were out of the Senate. I disagree that he's to the left of Dorgan and Byrd, but even if we accept that analysis-- Jeffords was more liberal than only ten Democrats, or 1/5 of the Democratic caucus in 2001.

[MarkWarner08]

Jeffords fit well with the liberal wing of the GOP; Lieberman fits well with the conservative, DLC wing of the Democratic Party.

When the debate is centered on protecting  an endangered species in Georgia, Joe Lieberman votes to the left of Bill Nelson. But if there's a bill on increasing military aid to the nation of Georgia, Lieberman stands with John McCain. Since most of the Senate's business is focused on domestic affairs, kicking out Joe Lieberman is tantamount to expelling a moderate Democrat like Evan Bayh, which would normally be opposed by rational Democrats.

[MarkWarner08]

Jeffords fit well with the liberal wing of the GOP;

Jim Leach and Lincoln Chafee were ad probably the last "liberal" Republicans in Congress.  Castle and Gilchrest are decidedly moderate, but the former may soon retire and the latter was defeated in this year's GOP primary.

Some Senate Republicans have "liberal" takes on important issues. Voinovich bravely stood against John Bolton's UN Ambassadorship nominations, Specter supports the AFL-CIO on the EFCA, Snowe  has long been an advocate for raising the minimum wage, Gordon Smith has led the fight to increase mental health funding (I can't believe I just praised Smith!), and the list goes on. If the Democrats win 57 or 58 seats, the importance of these Republicans will be greatly magnified.

[MarkWarner08]

Voinovich bravely stood against John Bolton's UN Ambassadorship nomination,

What, pray tell, was brave about it?

He stood against his party, his Senate leader, and his President to cast that vote. You may disagree with his view of Bolton, but you can't dispute the difficulty of his fight.

[MarkWarner08]

I don't dispute the difficulty of it, but I sure dispute the bravery of it.  Bravery connotes courage.  Plus, how many times did he change his mind?

Voinovich defied the wishes of his party's President, was denounced on talk radio, received angry letters from constituents and cold shoulders from colleagues. He suffered these slights because he believed Bolton's prickly persona would harm America's already weakened standing abroad. Enduring the scorn of his friend to stand up for his beliefs required a tremendous amount of courage

[MarkWarner08]

Jeffords fit well with the liberal wing of the GOP; Lieberman fits well with the conservative, DLC wing of the Democratic Party.

When the debate is centered on protecting  an endangered species in Georgia, Joe Lieberman votes to the left of Bill Nelson. But if there's a bill on increasing military aid to the nation of Georgia, Lieberman stands with John McCain. Since most of the Senate's business is focused on domestic affairs, kicking out Joe Lieberman is tantamount to expelling a moderate Democrat like Evan Bayh, which would normally be opposed by rational Democrats.

I can only assume you're being disingenuous. You must know that Lieberman would not be kicked out because he's a hawk, he'd be kicked out because he is actively campaigning against the Democratic Party.

This is it, please read this post again. The animosity for Lieberman has nothing to do with his views, it has to do with his constant trashing of and now active campaigning against Democrats.

My post didn't address the reasons behind the growing movement to expel Lieberman from the Senate Democratic Caucus. I was instead seeking to explain why such a move would be foolhardy.  While Lieberman may have engendered ill will in his party by campaigning for McCain, his political views remain with the Democratic mainstream and to the left of every Senate Republican.

Unless Lieberman actively campaigns against one of his Senate Democratic colleagues or donates to the NRSC, I see no reason for the Democrats to kick him out of their caucus. In fact, Lieberman has given over $250k to the DSCC and has generously aided several vulnerable Democratic Senators. His support for McCain, a long-time personal friend and somebody who he worked with to pass a carbon tax, should not be held against him.

[MarkWarner08]

I would argue that he has done so by actively campaigning against Sen. Obama for President, and he is campaigning at cross-purposes to the DSC by hosting a fundraiser for Sen. Collins in a race where the DSC is pledged to raise money for her competitor. Isn't it very unusual for a senator to not just campaign but raise money for a member of the other caucus in good standing, particularly when they aren't friends from the same state like Wyden and Smith?

In fact, it his attacks on Obama and campaigning against him this summer that seem to have tipped the leadership against him. He's taking on one of their own. That hurts.

Susan Collins is another exception. As chair of the Homeland Security Committee, she has worked closely with Senator Lieberman. They seem to have developed a comfortable working relationship. While the same can be said of Orrin Hatch and Teddy Kennedy, those two have very little in common on most major issues. Collins, who is  a center/left GOPer, is ideologically close to Lieberman, a center/right Democrat. True, his support for her is detrimental to Tom Allen's campaign and Democratic efforts to reach 60 in the Senate. But holding a fundraiser for a long-time friend isn't akin to flying out to, say, Oregon to back Smith because he wants to help the GOP. His involvement in the ME Senate race is most likely motivated by their friendship, not a partisan desire to spite Democrats.

He's gone further than simply supporting McCain. His support for a good friend need not extend to him attacking Barack Obama as deficient in the areas where he thinks McCain is awesome.

Right now he's an attack dog for McCain. As such, he'll seize any opportunity to attack Obama, with whom he has no personal relationship. Obama is still an enigmatic figure to most of his colleagues. As David Brooks noted in a recent column, Obama has always been on the periphery of social, academic, and political circles. If Lieberman knew him better, maybe he wouldn't  launch such personal and vituperative attacks.