Democratic Senators to vote on Lieberman's fate

[Meeker]

Lieberman himself never actually joined CfL though. He's still a registered Democrat.

[Lunar]

I don't think CT has any laws that dictate who the governor has to appoint, so a moot issue.

[Nutmeg]

Sadly, they will take this away from Joe.

Poor Joe.  What did he do to deserve this?  Why do appropriate things happen to disloyal people?

Disloyal? How?

Surely you jest.

[Iosif]

Would this even be an issue if the situation was reversed and a sitting Republican senator not only endorsed but campaigned for Obama? Somehow I don't think Mitch McConnell would be very forgiven, especially if he had a healthy majority.

[Lief 🗽]

I support taking away Lieberman's current committee chair and giving him another one that has to do with domestic issues. The thing is, he's basically a liberal Democrat on every issue but the one that he's currently in charge of in the Senate. And that just doesn't make any sense.

[Brittain33]

I support taking away Lieberman's current committee chair and giving him another one that has to do with domestic issues. The thing is, he's basically a liberal Democrat on every issue but the one that he's currently in charge of in the Senate. And that just doesn't make any sense.

That makes the most sense to me. Lieberman's shown on a few occasions he'll change his positions to curry favor with those in power so a magnanimous White House would probably get and keep his support on domestic issues. The problem is, and always has been, with putting him in charge of a Government Oversight committee. It meant he refused to look into the Bush Administration's policies for two years and could easily decide to make trouble for Obama moving forward for defeating his good friend and against whom he campaigned.

[Aizen]

Lieberman should be sentenced to jail

[AndrewTX]

Sadly, they will take this away from Joe.

Poor Joe.  What did he do to deserve this?  Why do appropriate things happen to disloyal people?

Disloyal? How?

Surely you jest.

Nope. He's still doing the job we elected him to do. Unless your talking about him backing McCain, in which I respond that the dems ditched him waaaaaaaaaay before this happened.

[Brittain33]

Nope. He's still doing the job we elected him to do. Unless your talking about him backing McCain, in which I respond that the dems ditched him waaaaaaaaaay before this happened.

Lieberman started his spite trip against the party in early 2004 when he got no traction in the primaries and felt he should have gotten more respect, and support, as the former VP candidate. That's when he became Fox News' favorite go-to guy to bash Democrats and Democratic policy. In 2006, he campaigned in the general election on joining the Democratic caucus, supporting the Dem nominee in 2008, and ending the war, long enough to get enough Indy and Democratic votes to give him a sizable win over Lamont. Then within a couple of months he was back to speculating about his place in the Senate, why Democrats suck, etc. It's been a long process and his support for McCain was merely Act III of the five-act tragedy of Lieberman. Act IV is about to begin, and Act V will begin in 2012.

[The Ex-Factor]

I support taking away Lieberman's current committee chair and giving him another one that has to do with domestic issues. The thing is, he's basically a liberal Democrat on every issue but the one that he's currently in charge of in the Senate. And that just doesn't make any sense.

Yeah, but he's already said that he'll resign from the caucus if they take away his chairmanship. So it's a rock and a hard place situation here.

[Lief 🗽]

I support taking away Lieberman's current committee chair and giving him another one that has to do with domestic issues. The thing is, he's basically a liberal Democrat on every issue but the one that he's currently in charge of in the Senate. And that just doesn't make any sense.

Yeah, but he's already said that he'll resign from the caucus if they take away his chairmanship. So it's a rock and a hard place situation here.

Oh noes! Then we'll only have 56 seats. Let him. What's he going to do? Suddenly turn into a right-winger on domestic policy?

[Keystone Phil]

Oh noes! Then we'll only have 56 seats.

I remember when my party had that attitude after our "unbeatable" majority after the 2004 election.

[Kaine for Senate '18]

Lieberman's still a Democrat.

One of the truest things you've ever said.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Lieberman's still a Democrat.

One of the truest things you've ever said.

He's a Connecticut for Liebermanian. Hopefully he loses his committee chairmanship and becomes irrelevant.

[Lief 🗽]

Oh noes! Then we'll only have 56 seats.

I remember when my party had that attitude after our "unbeatable" majority after the 2004 election.

Eh, it'd be pretty near impossible for you guys to pick up 6 seats in 2010. The map just doesn't work like that. And by 2012 Lieberman will be gone. Kicking him out is worth the risk anyway.

Lieberman's still a Democrat.

One of the truest things you've ever said.

Gross.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Oh noes! Then we'll only have 56 seats.

I remember when my party had that attitude after our "unbeatable" majority after the 2004 election.

Eh, it'd be pretty near impossible for you guys to pick up 6 seats in 2010. The map just doesn't work like that. And by 2012 Lieberman will be gone. Kicking him out is worth the risk anyway.

Yup, they already netted 4 in 2004. I don't think 2010 will be as bad a year for the Democrats. I'm thinking that there will be no more Senators Martinez and Bunning, just for starters.

[Keystone Phil]

Oh noes! Then we'll only have 56 seats.

I remember when my party had that attitude after our "unbeatable" majority after the 2004 election.

Eh, it'd be pretty near impossible for you guys to pick up 6 seats in 2010. The map just doesn't work like that. And by 2012 Lieberman will be gone. Kicking him out is worth the risk anyway.

Yup, they already netted 4 in 2004. I don't think 2010 will be as bad a year for the Democrats. I'm thinking that there will be no more Senators Martinez and Bunning, just for starters.

This means about as much as our nonsense about 60 Republican Senators after the 2006 election.

[Ogre Mage]

I don't understand what leverage Lieberman has or thinks he has.  He is no longer needed for the majority and the Republicans cannot offer him a chairmanship in exchange for defecting.  If the Democrats strip him of the Homeland Security and Government Oversight chairmanship and give him a lesser one, how is he going to get a better deal if he walks?  It looks like a bluff and a pretty poor one at that.

At this point, Lieberman appears completely untrustworthy.  The Government Reform committee is to some degree the Internal Affairs of the Federal Government, it is an important chairmanship for one who has proven so untrustworthy.  Lieberman abused the power position he enjoyed when he controlled the balance of power in the 51-49 Congress.  But now things have changed.

For some of the right-wingers here defending Lieberman, I wonder what you would have done if Chuck Hagel had not retired.  He was quite critical of McCain during the campaign, although at least he did not speak at the DNC.  Would you have welcomed him back into the caucus with all his committee chairmanships intact had he won reelection?

[Keystone Phil]

For some of the right-wingers here defending Lieberman, I wonder what you would have done if Chuck Hagel had not retired.  He was quite critical of McCain during the campaign, although at least he did not speak at the DNC.  Would you have welcomed him back into the caucus with all his committee chairmanships intact had he won reelection?

I really don't care about what Hagel did. A better example would be people like former Senator Chafee or Specter. That being said, I'm not saying that the Dems shouldn't be able to do this. I simply disagree with it as a Lieberman fan. It's one of those issues when having a double standard of sorts isn't a problem for me.

[Хahar 🤔]

Lieberman's still a Democrat.

One of the truest things you've ever said.

And Zell Miller is too. What's the point?

[Kaine for Senate '18]

Lieberman's still a Democrat.

One of the truest things you've ever said.

And Zell Miller is too. What's the point?

Except Zell Miller doesn't agree with Democrats on 90% of the issues.

[Хahar 🤔]

Lieberman's still a Democrat.

One of the truest things you've ever said.

And Zell Miller is too. What's the point?

Except Zell Miller doesn't agree with Democrats on 90% of the issues.

We understand that.

That's fine. I don't get worked up over Ben Nelson not voting straight Democratic. He represents his state.

But Joe Lieberman has decided he wants to support the Republicans because of that ten percent.

[bgwah]

If I were a Democratic Senator I would probably vote to keep him. Nothing good can come from kicking him out or taking his chairmanship away.

[Brittain33]

Nothing good can come from kicking him out or taking his chairmanship away.

Kicking him out is pointless, sure, but taking his chairmanship away prevents him from opening Dan Burton-style investigations into every aspect of the Obama administration simply out of spite or on behalf of the Republicans. Give him any other committee aside from Foreign Relations.

[Lunar]

They can remove him from his chairmanship at any time, any day they want to.  Why not give him a chance?