Lieberman Says War Vote Could Prompt Party Switch

[DemKR]

Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman of Connecticut told the Politico Thursday that he has no immediate plans to switch parties, but suggested Democratic opposition to funding the war in Iraq might change his mind.

Lieberman, a registered independent who caucuses with Democrats, has been among the strongest supporters of the war and President Bush’s plan to send another 21,500 combat troops into Iraq to help quell the violence there.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0207/2865.html

[MindPilot]

1. And this would would be different how? n/t

[obnoxiousdrunk]

10. We loose

control of the Senate.

[atreides1]

40. In Reality

With Lieberman that control is tenuous at best, without him the Repukes would have control, but we would still control the House. And come next year the Democrats have a good chance of taking enough
Repuke senate seats to make Joe regret his decision.

I don't think he'll do it, because in the long run he loses. He'll be considered a traitor by the Democrats and the Repukes won't trust him either, because if he can change his stripes once he can change them again.

Everyone knows that Joe is only out for what Joe can get, and his loyalty will be questioned by both sides of the aisle.

[The Doctor.]

170. That's assuming we (the world)

Survive 'till the '08 elections.

[ShaneGR]

227. This argument doesnt hold water.... we lose the committees too...

And the power to hold hearings, present subpeonas, etc.

[Born Free]

232. Not only about Iraq

If the republicans take over again it means a lot less consideration for Americans in need. I know it's bad to have our troops in danger but we also have many Americans that are being forgotten and left to die right here in this country and at least with the democrats in control there will be some consideration to help those Americans as well as the troops. For example, I don't know the details but would bet that as many, if not more Americans are dying here in USA from lack of health care insurance as troops in Iraq. Both are equally important, we can't just abandon our people in need (think Katrina) here in USA - which is what will happen if the republicans take control again. Iraq is important; it is in the news but many other Americans need our help as well, we must not sacrifice people in USA just for Iraq. Joe Lieberman is in an unusual position,and he is in control of many American lives, but he won't be in that position forever, as the people are learning more about him every day and his selfishness to put his own career above that of so many Americans in need. If he truly believes in God, then he surely must know that one day he will be expected to answer for his actions.

[MUAD_DIB]

245. And every time Holy Joe wants something he can just trot out his

changing parties threat.


Asshole...

[Tesha]

254. Who have we subpoenaed? What hearings have we held?

Who have we subpoenaed? What hearings have we held?

As it is, we're not doing much with our wonderful
Senate powers.

Tesha

[MindPilot]

82. We already have "loose" control of the Senate.

Sorry, I was channeling my fifth grade English teacher for a moment. :hi:

[TroglodyteScholar]

125. With Lieberman (CfL-Ct), we don't have control of the senate anyway

If we had "control" of the senate, perhaps we'd be getting shit DONE.

[BearSquirrel2]

309. Investigations ...

They have the committees and I would have hoped to see a fair number of investigations started by this point. I've heard barely a whisper. Once again the Dems have been of the WRONG course of action.

Someone told them that they needed to be seen as a party of "action" rather than a party of investigation. The Republicans investigated for 14 years and they got nothing for it. But they DID maintain control of the House of Representatives. And one could argue that if Bush had been a bit more pro-active they would still have it today.

Bottom line is that the Democrats can pass all the legislation they want out of the House. But it's going nowhere once it reaches the Senate. The Republicans will filibuster everything so they don't have to vote against it. On the war, they will sit back and say that Democrats want to starve the troops in the field.

The course of action that will HELP the Democrats is to investigate the Bush crimes and place him under the impeachment hammer. They probably will NOT be able to get the job done in two years. But it will go a long way to showing the intrinsic corruption and malfeasance of the Republican party. Take that into the 2008 presidential election and you will take Bush out of the cheerleader role for the 2008 election. Then you show lots of pictures with the Republican candidate and GW Bush. Show their lockstep voting record. Show the GOP for the top down organization it is and the Ree-pug candidate whoever that may be as a Bush toadie (like McCain).

The government is in a stalemate position right now. And talk about cutting Iraq funding will only cost Democratic votes. Lets let the President take responsibility for his own mess or take away his war powers. Otherwise, table everything and take it into 2008.

[TankLV]

328. Being AFRAID of DOING THE RIGHT THING, no matter the consequences, IS the problem.

It is THE problem with the Democrats in power now.

And it will be their downfall, mark my words...

Yes, with LIEberman presently in the Democratic side, blah, blah, blah.

We all understand that.

We don't have to like it, either.

Sometimes the SAFE thing to do is not the BEST thing to do...

(the above was not directed at YOU, but the quizzlings amongst us who would "play it safe")

[Martin Eden]

161. Did you mean "loose" or "lose"?

I know I'm nit-picking, but this is a pet peeve of mine.

Please do not type "loose" (rhymes with juice) when you mean "lose" (rhymes with shoes).

[Raine]

172. I'm sure it was just a typo. nt

[Martin Eden]

189. I've seen it way too often ...

... to be a typo.

[Divine Discontent]

202. aw get over it.. lol

look, it bugs the crap outta me too, seeing loose, instead of lose. But I realize, many people have neuro problems like my left-handed brother who is a genius, but is challenged when it comes to writing and speaking, and yet, knows about so many things that it made me realize there are people who are socially stunted, or just bad at English, who will always type loose and continue to drive us nuts...

lol

Many people in his forums he frequents make really bad grammar, and I see it more there, and thus, why doctors used to say (and sadly still do) that people with MS and other types of neuro probs are idiots (I've heard a real doc say this to my brother, and say, "you're not dumb like the other MS patients I see).

thanks, though, for pointing out one of my pet peeves, also. now, losen up! haha... that just hurts to look at! you oughta see my brother's handwriting, oh man, your eyes would start hurting.

[Divine Discontent]

203. REID needs to slam dunk his ASS now!

enough of LIEberman acting like he's the shit, he's already a Repub, just not in word, and if he's ANYYYYYYYYYYYYY kind of man that he claims to be, he'll continue to support the issues he supported before this past election, and not change just because he gets his arse handed to him on this ---

seriously, Harry, do it... NOW!

[bonito]

208. Hey, how are you both getting along

I hope your brother is doing well, as with you also, been a bugger of a week here, but still fighting.:yourock:

[Divine Discontent]

224. mmmuah bonito!

:hi: :hi:

from bro and me. he is not well at all this past month, he used to have decent days and the nights weren't so good, but lately, his pulse has been through the roof despite a moderate dosage of "cartia" for his heart, and he aches with zapping pains into his hands and legs as he always did when he was really hurting at night, but I will certainly tell him you said "you rock" and that you asked about him.

I'm torn, I am planning on moving, but I feel bad for leaving him. I've been with him for almost two years. It's real hard on both of us being brothers, and it stresses us out more I think, but he knows how much I've done for him and the even sorrier state he'd be in w/o my tireless help over two years (the time flies), and I'm considering moving far away... was wondering what you thought. He says he wants me to go do what I feel and that he knows I've helped him, and my Mom and her husband will go see him when I'm gone. I just hate this state so much, lots of bad memories I won't get into and I want to go back into a cooler climate. I know he'd like me to stay, but I really think I should go, is there any advice you have, or anything I should say to him. He knows very much that I care for him.

I wish I could split in half.

thank you for asking again, it's nice to see you wrote!
:hug:

[JAbuchan08]

213. I can see that you are not very good with grammar either

:) it's a punctuation thing. I use far too much punctuation and I sometimes misspell grammar when correcting others.

[Divine Discontent]

223. lol... n/t

[colorado_ufo]

218. Sometimes you have to look past the details

and just appreciate the support. Anyway, it's no worse than "definately."

[Divine Discontent]

222. ooh,, definately.. that one hurts too.. lol, but ya, you're right, the support is what matters! n/t

[redqueen]

252. Thanks for posting this!

:hi:

[TankLV]

329. wish I had that little piece of purposefully wrong spelling of every single word.

the point being that even when horribly mispelled, we comprehend EVERYTHING, instantly and easily, because we learn to look at the WHOLE and not the individual parts.

Someday, I predict that such "mis"spellings will become accepted as "correct".

That's the beauty of the English Language - it's ever evolving, and no other language will ever come close to acceptance as English has become and will become - even more so - in the future...

[Joe Bacon]

204. I told you so

I warned DU that this would happen because LIEberman sold out.

[Ned_Devine]

286. "lose", not "loose"

This little spelling error has always driven me nuts

[Dr.Phool]

29. Me to Lieberman......

You always have been a Republican. Fuck you!!!

[harun]

251. Exactly, don't let the door hit yah where the Lord split yah Lieberman (n/t)

[curiousdemo]

327. If Lie-berman pull that stunt...

then i hope there're is a mass push for a recall. I know the citizen of conneticutt will be mad enough to do it.

[Freddie Stubbs]

166. Republicans would control the committees

It would be a 50-50 tie with Cheney breaking tie. Just like 2001 before Jeffords switched parties.

[WhaTHellsgoingonhere]

267. I agree...no big whoop. Let him fall on his own sword.

There are enough Republicans ready to join the Dems to offset the loss of this arse-clown. He's a petty, bitter man.

[BearSquirrel2]

310. No ...

No there are a couple of Repubs willing to go independent if needed as they hate their leadership.

[Star]

2. Blackmail

We knew it would happen. So did the shrub. I expect they're courting him big time.

[hlthe2b]

14. We need to flip Collins (or Snowe)... asap

[MaineDem]

38. Not gonna happen

And I wouldn't even try.

[ShortnFiery]

104. Why not? They see the People's Will is turning against this occupation.

There are some Republicans who have a brain.

[w4rma]

121. Because those GOP "moderates" only *pretend* to be moderate to

get elected in a Democratic-leaning state.

[mitchum]

128. Thank you!

It drives me nuts hearing for years that "Any day now Snowe is gonna switch!"
Yeah, sure...
You are absolutely correct about her only pretending to be a "moderate" (and the reason why)

[w4rma]

132. No kidding! Those GOP "moderates" are in it for the big money golden parachute they'll

get from their very very wealthy right-wing nut benefactors when they retire. They know that they have to put aside their ethics and be as loyal as they possibly can for they, and their families, to get that easy money at their retirement (or when they are beaten in an election).

[MaineDem]

143. Exactly. n/t

[disndat]

268. Flip Sanders or Jefford?

Would there be a problem with that, if it were possible to do?

[LeftishBrit]

288. Jeffords did flip; and was later replaced by Sanders

and Sanders already caucuses with Dems, and would probably still do so if all 50 of the other Dems joined the Republicans! He's the safest member of the Dem caucus around probably.

If you do get fed up with Sanders, can the UK have him!

[daveskilt]

315. Sanders is a socialist - least likely to go repub

most likely to go as the holdout in a 99-1 vote

[ronnykmarshall]

45. Yup!

Make Joe irrelevant.

[mainegreen]

97. What we need to do is focus on replacing Collins with Tom Allen.

I hope the party focuses on that one. It'll be tight but we can win it.

[hlthe2b]

103. If "Mainers" could start putting the heat on now...

(lots of newspaper editorials, letters, etc. and get Tom Allen's campaign kicked into high gear now)

Perhaps she'd swap as a hail mary act? Then you can vote her out, of course...

[dansolo]

158. While I agree that Collins probably won't switch

Someone should remind her that if Lieberman goes over to the dark side, the Repubs are probably going to give him the commitee chairmanship for Homeland Security. I suspect that would be one of his stipulations. Isn't she currently their ranking member? She will probably be pushed aside in favor of Joe.

[rodeodance]

23. you bet it is. pure and simple.

[JerseygirlCT]

177. Dems answer: we don't negotiate with terrorists. nt

[classysassy]

324. Let him go

Joe you are just another warmonger.

[keopeli]

3. A challenge! Let's do it! He'd lose all of his seniority! And he's NOT a Democrat. n/t

[Ignacio Upton]

11. No, but he still caucuses with us

We can't afford to lose the Senate to the GOP thanks to LieberDouche.

[enough already]

193. Fuck Holy Joe

Are we supposed to let more kids die in that hellhole because LIE-berman is threatening to throw a hissy fit? Somebody grow a set of balls and tell the prick to fuck off.

[SteppingRazor]

15. Sure, he'd lose seniority — and we'd lose the Senate!

You nuts?!

[The Stranger]

26. We would lose nothing -- what we all know would just be made official.

Fuck the traitor and let him go.

[SteppingRazor]

35. That's crazy talk. You want a GOP majority in the Senate?

You want the GOP to control the legislative agenda? You want the GOP to chair all the committees?

[Tempest]

46. It wouldn't be that bad

The House still controls the budget process and has the power to start investigations.

Also, if the Repugs defied the will of the people while in power, which they would considering the polls, it would be the doom of many Repugs in 2008.

[hlthe2b]

53. That is ridiculous... Have we learned nothing from the past?

THe Dems in the Senate would be unable to hold hearings, to investigate, to introduce legislation (unless by chance the REPUGS deemed it in their interest to allow them to do so), and don't forget, the REPUGS could totally flip the SUpreme Court with the next vacancy, unhindered...

[Tempest]

67. You're going to the extreme

January 2009 will be here soon and I have a feeling (which I was right about for the 2006 election) that it will be something we won't forget and the Repugs will drink themselves into a stupor to try to forget.

Something else you're forgetting, there is a sizable group of Repugs in the Senate who are supportive of the Democrat agenda.

[hlthe2b]

84. gentle reminder: that is DemoCRATIC agenda....

and I agree things look good for 09, but there is still a lot of damage to be done the next two years with a REPUG majority-- especially if they get a Supreme Court Appointment.

And, no, I'm not forgetting the REPUGS who have started to come out a bit on the democratic agenda... They are doing so precisely because the DEMS are in power and CAN introduce these bills. Otherwsie they wouldn't get introduced and the REpugs would shut right back down into the rubber stamp that they have been. Even those who we see today be a bit more moderate.

[brentspeak]

114. "January 2009 will be here soon..."

22 months away is "soon"?????????????

I have a "feeling" your advice is advice that people best avoid -- avoid like the plague.

[Tempest]

126. The Chicken Little attitude

Is also something that people best avoid.


And 22 months is nothing compared to the last 6 years this country has endured.

[hlthe2b]

133. Another bad appointment to the Supreme Court will haunt

us for generations....And, yes, that COULD happen in the next 22 months. Not to mention another series of bad appointments to the District Courts and Courts of Appeals.

[lyonn]

93. Oh lordy, the Supreme Court! That could be disastrous, Again

Can we even expect the Dems in the Senate to filibuster another Alito with Lieber.... jumping ship?

What burns me is when Lieb... was running against Lamont he claimed to be a Democrat only with some ideas of his own. Obviously those "ideas" appealed to a bunch of repubs. So, we got us a flip-flopper that is using blackmail. Jeffords I feel was sincere about his leaving the
party due to some of repubs ruling and he did not play both sides of the fence.

[pokercat999]

160. We can't and NEVER COULD count on any Dem in the

Senate to use the filibuster against any of King Georges supreme picks. For the most part the Senate is filled with cowards.

[The Stranger]

117. The Dems in the Senate cannot even pass a non-binding resolution on the only issue constituents

voted them in for.

[hlthe2b]

124. All DEMS voted FOR it.... It is a matter of numbers, not will

i.e., for cloture

What would you have them do?

[Tesha]

255. Remember when Republicans were going to *END* The Filibuster? (NT)

[lakercub]

183. I'm sick of hearing this

What are they supposed to do? Hold the Repugs at gunpoint? Bottom Line, we need a whole lot more seats in the senate if we want stuff like the resolution to go through. Getting the slim majority is what allowed the resolution to get press in the first place. A bigger majority is needed to give the dems in the senate teeth.

I think a lot of the senators on our side are spineless cowards, but this is one they just can't win. It's not about dem resolve...it is about simple math. We don't have the numbers...the end.

[The Stranger]

246. Then get sicker. The GOP didn't have a 60 vote majority, yet the Dem leadership let Alito sail on

to the Supreme Court.

It isn't about numbers.

It is about conviction.

It is about unity.

It is about determination.

[lakercub]

280. And I agree with that

But if you don't have numbers, you don't have numbers. You can't wave your hand and turn another ten republicans into dems. It won't happen. As for what you cited...I believe I addressed that when I pointed out the spinelessness of our current senators.

But while you are right about convictions...you are wrong about numbers. It most certainly is about numbers...just as much as convictions. And Unity? Are you paying any attention? Every Dem voted for this...how much more unity are you expecting?

[The Stranger]

283. Convictions, resolution, determination -- these things make numbers.

"One man with courage makes a majority." --Andrew Jackson

[lakercub]

285. Let's go about this differently

What would you have had them do differently? They got the resolution drafted that we wanted (mostly). Every dem voted for it. They pushed it hard so that we are all talking about turning Hagel, Collins, and/or Snowe. What more are you asking? There may be five republicans you can get on our side here. But you also lose a vote with Lieberman that you will NEVER get...no matter how unified you are.

The rest of the republicans are not moving. If positive press for our side on this issue (for a change), 30% approval ratings for the war, and a recent massive overhaul in the House and Senate haven't budged these idiot republicans, I don't know what you are expecting will move them. I'm not trying to be a dick, and I'd really like to hear what they could have done differently. Thanks.

[depakid]

49. It might actually not matter all that much

The Senate is eviscerating most of the things that the House brings up anyway- and Bush won't sign much if any of it into law.

If Lieberman jumps because the Dems cut off funding- then it will appear to the public that we're really trying to put a stop to this massively unpopular war and wouldn't allow cowardly little enablers to hijack the party. Come 2008, that might make a HUGE difference.

I say, call that smarmy whiner's bluff.

[AnneD]

83. ITA

Call his bluff. It will be know that the GOP controls the Senate and they are holding up the works. Watch the GOP up for reelection squirm or go along with the DEMS'. Either way they will be screwed in '08.

[me b zola]

154. I agree, call his bluff!

Reed should have a backroom meeting with unholy Joe and lay it out to him. Joe seeks power and his career would be over if he defected. Joe could not be elected as dog catcher in CT if he flips, even the uninformed voters who stupidly voted for Joe against Lamont would understand that the accusations that Joe is a big fat liar are all true!

Sit down and shut up, Joe!

[salin]

206. Committee control - investigative agenda control

the stakes are higher than a bluff. I can't say I have anything but great disdain for Lieberman. But, he really does have a huge leverage card. There is a much better chance to stymie bushco on a myriad of issues if the democrats control the agenda of the Senate. This awful man does have the power (at least in the short term) to hold senate dems hostage. However, if public opinon continues to turn against repubs - the dynamics in the senate may shift. No where close to that yet - would need one senator like Jeffords, to call "enough!" and then Joe loses ALL of his power.

I doubt that he will have this power in 20 months (as the arrogance of bushco and the sheep-like GOP in congress suggests more arrogant moves that further turn more public sentiment against them) - as I am confident (for now) that the Democratic majority will grow - and then Lieberman will be fully emasculated. When he can no longer has 'power' to flip the senate to repub majority (50-50 senate gives the repubs the majority as Cheney become the deciding vote on everything.)

I look forward to his day of irrelevance. And it is coming... I do believe - it is coming. Wish it was already here - but it isn't. But it is close.

[The Stranger]

116. We virtually have that already as the prisoner to him. He wasn't elected as a Democrat,

and he doesn't serve as a Democrat.

[krispos42]

238. Then we just filibuster our asses off

Same result as what's happening now, except now it's the Republicans being embarrassed by not investigaing all the dirt the Hosue is digging up. And having no plan for Iraq. Etc.

God, can the people of Connecticut recall Joe?

[hfojvt]

54. we are not getting a heck of alot done with our control of the Senate

This way we would also dodge the blame. Pundits couldn't say "but the Democrats control Congress". In reality, we don't anyway. Our new Democratic Congress has yet to pass a single piece of legislation - because we do not control enough of the Senate to force cloture and the Republicans, unlike SOME party I could name, are not afraid to filibuster.

[SteppingRazor]

"Our new Democratic Congress has yet to pass a single piece of legislation" — complete lie!

We successfully changed the name of the White Rocks National Recreation Area in Vermont to the "Robert T. Stafford White Rocks National Recreation Area."

SO THERE!!! :P

[hfojvt]

108. well fooey on that

he's the son of Jay H Stafford and Maude Arnold, grandson of Christopher Stafford and Emma, great-grandson of Boardman Stafford and Frances Bruce (and so on, back to Joseph Stafford 21 mar 1648 of Warwick, Rhode Island), but apparently not a relative of mine. Plus, he's a Republican.

[Ken Burch]

181. VIVA LA REVOLUTION! EL PUEBLO UNIDO WILL NEVER BE DEFEATO!

:sarcasm:

[brentspeak]

109. Well, gosh, the only logical thing then would be to stupidly hand power back over to the Republicans

:sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm:

[Ken Burch]

274. Keeping the majority is worth funding more death in Iraq?

Christ, could anything matter more than stopping this insane war?

We won't have any principles anymore if we appease Lieberman just to hold the Senate.

[tavalon]

323. If the "we" you speak of is the Senators

"We" never had principles so there are none to lose.

I hate this with a passion and I hope they find a third way to bitch slap that whiney little bitcher but he's playing this stupid ass game because he knows he's got the chicken littles in the Senate by the shorthairs and he is in fact right. I would love to call his bluff but it's too high stakes right now. I hate that. Have I mentioned that I hate that? zi want that because Lieberman is a slimey worm who needs desperately to climb back under his rock, preferable just before a big schoolbus roles over it. I dispise the man. I want him gone but I don't want the Democrats destroyed just to make him gone. I want to try to wait this out and make him irrelevent as soon as possible.

Edited to add: As best we can with the corp of presstitutes that we are saddled with these days, I think we need to take this to the public. Let's do some slime throwing (see the Republic SOP for how it's done). Make them hate Lie berman as much as we do. If we can do that, he might just have to shut the fuck up. That's really the best we can hope for that nasty piece of work right now. So, marginalize, marginalize, marginalize and marginalize some more. You know, I knew he was a piece of work (I didn't know he was this bad) when Gore's handlers picked him for VP in 2000. I voted for Gore but had two very big reservations, his VP and his wife. I would vote for Gore again in a heartbeat - I can take the wife and I'm sure he'll pick a much better VP)

[sabbat hunter]

105. they can promise him

that he will keep his senority as part of the deal to switch parties.

[liberal N proud]

4. There would be a difference?

He is only a DINO right now, so what would the difference be?

[NoSheep]

258. The majority would be lost

[DAMANgoldberg]

5. an old Bama saying...

"Don't let the door hit you where the Good Lord split you"

[maddezmom]

6. LOL

Stop Joe, you're threats are killing me. You've already proven yourself to be more aligned with the repubs then the Dems as of late. See ya, wouldn't wanna a be ya. :hi:

[BOSSHOG]

7. lieberman's blowing smoke up someone's ass

I'll huff and I'll puff and I'll quit your party as soon as I can figure out whether the dem majority will grow in 08. Switch parties asshole. It would be the similar to removing a cancerous tumor.

[Ignacio Upton]

8. This is why we MUST gain seats in 2008

We can't afford to be held hostage to Joementum anymore.

[SteppingRazor]

32. I agree. And right now, I think we gain a net total of 2 seats...

by gaining three (New Hampshire, Colorado and Minnesota) and losing one (Louisiana). So, come 2008, we won't have to wory so much about this. Assuming I'm right, of course. And I always am. :silly:

[Ignacio Upton]

36. Don't forget about South Dakota

Johnson's health, plus the possibility of Rounds running, will make that seat just as vulnerable as Louisiana.

[SteppingRazor]

43. Johnson's said he's running for re-election, and Rounds won't run if Johnson does...

if Johnson were to step down, this one would still be a tossup, with a race between Rounds and Stephanie Herseth. So I wouldn't sweat it too much :)

[Ignacio Upton]

98. Are you sure Rounds won't run?

If I were him I'd jump at the chance. And with Johnson's hemorrhage, he could easily turn the election into one about health.

[SleeplessinSoCal]

188. FYI - latest news on Johnson

http://www.abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=2893958

[long_green]

322. Sure you're going to lose Louisiana?

Who's running against Landrieu? Jindal will be governor and can hold that office while preparing to run against ML in 2014. Who else? Richard Baker? Someone more conservative than him?
Of course, while we're talking about DINO's, it's tough to top Mary.

[SteppingRazor]

332. It's not a matter of who runs against her, it's demographics

Democrats in Louisiana running for statewide office rely on heavily Democratic New Orleans to get elected. That voting base is no longer existant, at least not in the same way it was pre-Katrina.

[The_Casual_Observer]

9. That would be a fortuitous side benefit of cutting off funding then.

[Ignacio Upton]

13. No it wouldn't

If Lieberman switches, then the Senate goes back to the Republicans.

[The_Casual_Observer]

28. The senate is a 60% deal anyway. Who cares what that nitwit does.

He votes republican every time anyway. This way he would get his ass voted out next time.

[jaysunb]

137. not so...

it would be tied 50/49/1....Dems would still be committee chairs but the VP would have the deciding vote.

[Lasher]

230. No, that's not right.

It would be 50 Democratic and 50 Publican with Lord Vader casting the tiebreaking vote. That would give committee chairs and legislative agenda to Publicans.

[chang0]

12. What a DICK !!!!! neocon bastard!what were they thinking ...

in Connecticut.?

[connecticut yankee]

87. Hey, we tried

it was the Repukes that elected him.

[ClintonTyree]

236. Is there a grass roots campaign in CT to get LIEberman recalled?

If not, there should be. He's sold out the people of CT and the rest of the country. I can't believe that a majority of the people are happy with LIEberman's actions as their Senator. Throw the bum out! :mad:

[connecticut yankee]

242. It's not possible

Our Constitution doesn't allow recalls or impeachments of Senators or Congressmen.

I don't know the exact details, but it's been discussed on My Left Nutmeg several times.

[Name removed]

320. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[rodeodance]

16. says if happens this will give CONTROL of the SENATE to the REPUGS

committe chairs, ect?



....Republicans have long targeted Lieberman to switch – a move that would give them control of the Senate.

[SteppingRazor]

19. Yes. A Lieberman switch would make the Senate go from 51-49 to 50-50...

giving control to the Republicans.

[jumpoffdaplanet]

66. It won't

I read somewhere the rules say the control of the senate is set until the next election.

of course, the rethugs will probably try to challege that.

[renate]

89. I think when Jeffords left the Rs, control switched immediately

That was a GOOD day.

[Lasher]

233. You're wrong. Control of the Senate would change.

Democrats had majority control when the 107th Congress (2001-2003) began. But that changed three times before the end of 2003.

From January 3 to January 20, 2001, with the Senate divided evenly between the two parties, the Democrats held the majority due to the deciding vote of outgoing Democratic Vice President Al Gore. Senator Thomas A. Daschle served as majority leader at that time. Beginning on January 20, 2001, Republican Vice President Richard Cheney held the deciding vote, giving the majority to the Republicans. Senator Trent Lott resumed his position as majority leader on that date. On May 24, 2001, Senator James Jeffords of Vermont announced his switch from Republican to Independent status, effective June 6, 2001. Jeffords announced that he would caucus with the Democrats, giving the Democrats a one-seat advantage, changing control of the Senate from the Republicans back to the Democrats. Senator Thomas A. Daschle again became majority leader on June 6, 2001. Senator Paul D. Wellstone (D-MN) died on October 25, 2002, and Independent Dean Barkley was appointed to fill the vacancy. The November 5, 2002 election brought to office elected Senator James Talent (R-MO), replacing appointed Senator Jean Carnahan (D-MO), shifting balance once again to the Republicans -- but no reorganization was completed at that time since the Senate was out of session.

http://www.senate.gov/pagelayout/history/one_item_and_teasers/partydiv.htm

[no_hypocrisy]

17. So, the other shoe finally dropped . . .

Hey Connecticut, thanks a whole fucking lot!

[louis-t]

18. Go ahead asshole

see if anyone cares.

[LynneSin]

248. Don't fuck with my Senate majority - I fucking care!

And you would care too because Bush has been on the run because we control both house & senate. You give the senate back to the Republicans and you totally fuck this country even more than what it is so far.

Don't you DARE give the control of the Supreme Court to the republicans - don't you dare fuck with my body like that.

What we need is to gain a few more seats in 2008 so we can tell Lieberman to go fuck himself. Until then, we use him the way he's using us

[louis-t]

262. Our one senator majority isn't doing much good

these days. Stupidface will veto anything that comes across his desk. Lieberdink doesn't vote with Dems anyway most of the time. So, let's let an asshole preznit keep pouring money and human lives into a quagmire, and let ourselves be held hostage by a man with the mentality of a 4-year-old who threatens to take his ball and go home.

[LynneSin]

264. Yes but at least they aren't gonna be a rubber stamp either

I realize that we'll have plenty of roadblocks but at least we won't be rubberstamping either. Plus the Judiciary won't let any of these activist judicial nominations get out of committee - which is worth it's weight in gold!

[BearSquirrel2]

311. Though it is true ...

It is true though that the Senate Majority will put a kabosh on any more court stacking with right wing ideologues. Bush will have to negotiate to get any further appointments through and that means moderation as well as appointing Senate picks.

[daveskilt]

314. what majority? we have 49 votes

with Tim Johnson in the hospital we have 48 dem votes plus Bernie Sanders. The repubs have 49 plus Lieberman. They have 50-49. Exactly how many times has Joe voted with the democrats this year?
All that Lieberman's party identification does is give the control of committees to Democrats - a big deal but not enough to actually pass any meaningful vote.

If he were to go repub the committees would go repub. that would suck BUT at present to your average person there is a senate majority for the dems and they are getting nothing done. makes the dems look bad as they are nominally in control but functionally cannot acheive much with a 50-49 vote count going against them on all major issues. Repub control would not change the vote counts but would change the agenda - a trade off for changing the perception of a do nothing dem senate that people can be apathetic about maintaining in 08.

[SemperEadem]

20. he already is one

if he does that, then he should be recalled.

[hlthe2b]

37. Once and for all, Senators can NOT be recalled.

If he dies or resigns, it varies by state as to whether the governor appoints a replacement, or a special election is held, but there is NO means to recall. THe election cycle is meant to take care of that, but there is no means in between elections. CT is stuck and so are WE.

[jollyreaper2112]

74. If he dies....

Hmm. Anyone want to encourage him to start flying in small aircraft?

[hlthe2b]

86. He should be a bit worried about the stressed out families

of servicemen he is sending to a rapid (and wasted) death. I hope no one is flipped over the edge... That would only compound the tragedy.

[Spiffarino]

119. Not even impeachment?

I'm not saying it would happen, but surely there has to be some constitutional means to unseat a Senator.

[hlthe2b]

127. You are talking Congressional action.. Yes, he could be impeached

The OP was asking about state recall (by the voters), which can't happen.

Of course a Senator indicted for criminal activity and convicted--just as an example--who refused to resign, would be impeached by Congress and removed if found guilty by the Senate in an impeachment trial. But, that is a Federal action--not at the state level. Absent that scenario, the voters of CT have no recourse unless he dies or resigns, until he is up for reelection in 2012

[Spiffarino]

247. That's a shame

The Constitution originally gave the power of appointment to state legislators. I thought that might translate into some kind of state authority to recall. Oh well...:(

[NI4NI]

21. He'd lose the chairmainship of Homeland Security Committee

and then we could have investigative hearings on Katrina

[SteppingRazor]

24. Um ... no. He'd KEEP his chair under the new GOP majority. n/t

[NI4NI]

42. I thought the count was 51-49

Doesn't Johnson still count?

[SteppingRazor]

48. It is 51-49. Lieberman switching makes it 50-50, with Cheney breaking the tie n/t

[NYC Liberal]

85. No, it's 49-49-2.

49 Democrats
49 Republicans
2 Independents, Bernie Sanders and Joe Lieberman.

The reason we have a 51-seat majority is because both independents caucus with the Dems. If Lieberman because a Repug, the actual balance would be:

50 Republicans
49 Democrats
1 Independent,

and it would be tied 50-50 because Bernie Sanders caususes with us. Then the Repugs would have a 51-50 majority, with Cheney.

[Crabby Appleton]

326. You are correct nt

[hlthe2b]

44. Exactly.. the only thing keeping him from doing it, is that he knows

all the cards are falling for the dems to gain Senate seats in '08. Thus, he might be able to keep his chair during the interim with REPUG control, only to rapidly lose it, to a majority DEM Senate, who no longer need him in the 09 Congress.

[SteppingRazor]

50. There's his own re-election to consider too. If he goes GOP, will CT go Joe in 2012? n/t

[hlthe2b]

55. six years is a long time... Holy Joe will be convinced

he can pull it out, given the short memory spans of the average voter. Hell, he lied his way through in 06, didn't he? So, I doubt that would impact his decision making...

[SteppingRazor]

69. Yeah, but come election day, he'll still have that "R" next to his name...

to serve as a constant reminder. I'm not saying it's the be-all, end-all of his decisions, but I'm sure re-election does fit into his calculus. After all, if I were Joe, it would certainly fit into mine.

[harun]

253. Thankfully that (R) right now means (R)EMOVE FROM OFFICE !

[Art_from_Ark]

171. Nighthorse Campbell, Dick Shelby, Strom Thurmond, and Jesse Helms

all changed parties (from D to R), and they were all reelected to the Senate after the switch. The only politician at the national level I can think of who was kicked to the curb in the next election after switching parties was Tommy Robinson, former Democratic turned Republican representative from Arkansas's 2nd District.

[SteppingRazor]

250. Huge difference between them and Lieberman is...

all of them changed parties to match the times. Campbell switched to Rep. while Colorado was turning red, the rest of them are southern senators (Alabama, S.C. and N.C., respectively) who jumped ship after the Democrats became the civil rights party — racists, in other words.

Lieberman, though, would be switching parties against the wind, becoming a Republican in a solidly blue state that has one of the highest disapproval ratings of the war and Bush of any state in the country.

So, I don't know if your comparison is apropos.

[JerseygirlCT]

180. If I had to guess today, I'd say he would not be re-elected

whether he ran as a Dem, Ind. or Rep.

[jollyreaper2112]

78. his power is limited

He's like a guy with a one-shot pistol fending off a mob. So long as he never takes that shot, the mob stands back since no one wants to be the one to take the shot. But once it happens, they can tear him apart.

In this case, Leiberman's power is switching. Once he does that, he's just another puke.

[hlthe2b]

94. His power is in the threat, not the action...

and yes, it is time-limited... fortunately.

[TankLV]

330. That has got to be the easiest, most understandable description of the current situation

that I have read yet.

I will try to use us often, if you don't mind.

Thank you.

[jumpoffdaplanet]

62. I thought I read somewhere it wouldn't change control

The 110th congress is set now. It can't change until the next election.

[SteppingRazor]

64. So it didn't change when Jeffords switched parties a few years ago?

:shrug:

[Hekate]

88. Yes, it did shift when Jeffords changed parties. Keeping Lieberman is CRUCIAL to Dem control

[SteppingRazor]

91. I'm aware that it did....

I just didn't see the need to tack on the :sarcasm: tag there. Sorry!

[CTLawGuy]

184. the governing resolution allowed for the possibility of a party switch

in 2000. This was supposedly in exchange for no senator signing the challenge to the FL electors. This governing resolution has no such thing.

The weird thing about 2000 was that the Sentate was elected 50-50. However, Al Gore was still in office when the new senate took over Jan 3rd, 2001. He didn't leave until Jan 20th, 2001. Thus, the Dems had control 51-50 of the Senate, and the governing resolution, for 17 days until Cheney flipped it 51-50 in favor of the repugs. Therefore, the Dems could put this party switch provision in.

Here, in 2007, the Dems wrote the governing resolution and of course did not put such a provision in.

[redqueen]

272. What? Senators agreed NOT to challenge the stolen election

in return for what now?

:grr: :nuke:

[CTLawGuy]

306. remember in F-911

the scene where house members got up to complain that no senators would sign their challenge. This was in return for support of the Senate "power sharing" governing resolution.

[NobleCynic]

229. I believe that to be incorrect.

The membership of the Congress is set. Committee and chair assignments can be changed, which is what a Lieberman switch would do.

[Marie26]

22. Lieberman drives me nuts

:grr: He's so enjoying all his temporary power.

[mazzarro]

25. Now he is about to come out and do what he will eventually do anyway

This will happen either because of Iraq, or it will happen because of judicial appointment, or it will happen because of holding *Co and Cheney accountable, or for some other issues LIEberman may become intoxicated about. So what are we going to do about it? My hope is that someone in the senate has been whispering in the ears of one or more fence-sitting repukes in the hope of switching them over so that we can get rid of LIEberman and his threats.

[JAYJDF]

27. The Dem control of the Senate isn't amounting to much anyway.

Don't cave in to this assh***.
I believe in 2008 the Dems will pick up more than enough seats to secure complete control.
Sure hope we can last that long.

[Straight Shooter]

30. I've been calling Lieberman an albatross around the neck of the Dem party for years.

Who the F*CK does he think he is?

[Bob Loblaw]

31. WWAD?

What would ALF do? Who didn't know this pantload was going to do this?

Take your ball and go home you loser.

[leftwingnut]

33. AIPAC Whore...

...that's all he is.

oh...and he's a tool.

[Fridays Child]

34. Connecticut needs to recall Lieberman.

[hlthe2b]

39. It can NOT happen...

No constitutional means for that to happen, no matter how much we'd like it to be so. See my earlier post.

[endarkenment]

81. Actually I think it it is up to each state.

If I recall (pun intended) correctly from the last time this came up, the constitution says nothing for or against this. Connecticut however does not have a recall provision for their senators, so the point is moot.

[hlthe2b]

90. No.. the constitution lays out how House and Senate are

established, the qualifications, and the means for Federal election of its members... States have latitude in deciding how to fill temporary vacancies only.


edited for typo

[endarkenment]

101. Hmmm.. you seem to be right.

So how about we just expel the m-fer right now while we still can?

[hlthe2b]

113. I"m all for anything that's legal and works....

STAT

[DemKR]

41. Susan Collins has a huge choice

If they try to tell Lieberman he can be chairman if he switches over, we should do the same thing for susan Collins.

what im hoping is that if they have to entice him by saying he'd still chair HSC...Collins might be pissed off enough to simply not caucus with anyone (and give it back to us) or just come right to us.

Not getting my hopes up...

[MaineDem]

52. Sorry but I don't want her re-elected

She won't change parties. And I don't think I'd want her to. And she deosn't belong in the Senate for another 6 years.

[AX10]

58. Good idea.

Though, the Democrats are poised to gain more Senate seats next year. In that case, Joe loses his seniority and he will be a three-term junior Senator. At that point, he should just resign.

[silvermachine]

47. While Holy Joe is truly vile...

...this headline is quite misleading.

[rodeodance]

59. it is Sensationalist.

[hfojvt]

51. but, he's a loyal Democrat. He said so himself

before the election, that is

After his primary defeat, Lieberman launched a bid for the seat as an independent third-party candidate for the November general election. He formed a party called "Connecticut for Lieberman." He continues to call himself a loyal Democrat; he repeated that claim on "Face the Nation" Sunday. Meanwhile, top national Republicans, like Newt Gingrich, have openly endorsed him, while top White House Republicans like Vice-President Dick Cheney and adviser Karl Rove have offered encouragement and support.

http://www.newhavenindependent.org/archives/2006/08/city_asked_to_u.php


He also disapproves of 3rd parties,

"I ask those who are thinking about voting for Ralph Nader to decide how they feel - how George Bush feels - about protecting the environment, protecting consumers, protecting a woman's right to choose - because all of those may well be in jeopardy if George Bush is elected president," Lieberman said.

All of those may well be in jeopardy if Republicans get more power. Didn't you used to pretend to care about those issues Joe? Admit it Joe, you were only pretending to care, to lure liberals into voting for you. You really don't care as much about those issues as you do about the war.

[Dawgs]

56. I say, do it Joe.

We lose the Senate, but it takes away one thing that the Republicans need for 2008 - THE ABILITY TO BLAME THE DEMOCRATIC CONGRESS.

We barely have it now, and losing him will only help our chances next year; at least I think so.

Oh, and thanks a lot Connecticut!!

[The Wizard]

57. The Democrats

should change the rules so that the party elected to power keeps committee chairs until a future election dictates otherwise. That way they could tell holy Joe they don't care if he wants to give republicans blow jobs.

[0rganism]

60. Would chairmanships change party affiliation mid-session if he did?

I seem to recall reading or hearing somewhere that senate committee composition was set at the beginning of the session and couldn't be altered by a majority change midway, without some kind of special rules vote. :shrug:

[DemKR]

65. Here's how the change would work

If Lieberman decided to caucus with the Republicans (against the will of millions of Americans and the people of Connecticut and non-torturers everywhere)....A motion would be made to make Ted Stevens President Pro Tempore. 50 (including Lieberman) would have to vote AYE, and then the 50 Dems vote no. Cheney would be presiding at the time and break the tie, 51-50. Stevens would then be declared President Pro Tempore, and he would recognize Mitch McConnell as the majority leader. They would then elect the new committee chairs.

That's what happened with Jeffords, as far as I knew in this Senate they made sure they had a chance to make these motions in case Tim Johnson died.

[jaysunb]

138. I don't think so...

they already agreed to the order of this congress. Most people were surprised the republicans went along , but they did.

[armodem08]

231. I read something different..

I read that this "organizing resolution" that was passed in Jan. did not include a party shift clause that would transfer chairmanships and leader status. The reason Jeffords threw control immediately was that the 2001 organizing resolution had such a clause. Plus, it seems like the organizing resolution can be filibustered, as it is not a simple rules vote. I looked back to 1953, when the Democrats had a majority for half of the Congressional term, but held minority status for the entire term.

The reason that this happened:

HNN

"The Republicans would have filibustered any new organizing resolution introduced by the Democrats, but the picture of a minority party using an undemocratic device to hold onto power would probably have been a public relations disaster for the Republicans."

The Dems face a very different political situation here. if Lieberman defects, he would be going against the American people's will. The Republicans would be the ones that would be negatively affected by the attempt to seize power in the Senate.

[Drifter]

61. See ya Joe ...

You are a republican, and you give Democrats a bad name.

I'll gladly give up the Senate, to see this fucker jump onto the sinking ship.


Cheers
Drifter

[Placebo]

63. Let him do it.

Call his bluff!

The Democrats can't afford to not try and cut off funds for both the surge and the war. The American people support such an action, that's why they elected democratic majorities in 2006!

If Lieberman switched, he'd be a hero to the Republicans but also become one of the most hated men in America. And then when Democrats inevitably gained more seats in 2008, his year or so little honeymoon would come to a screeching halt and he'd become the lowest of the low in the new Republican minority.

Is there anyway to recall/impeach a senator?

[halobeam]

68. What a blackmailing piece of sh**

He is TRULY the lowest form of scuzz... UGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH:grr:

[Downtown Hound]

70. Buh Bye! n/t

[goforit]

211. And hip hip hoorah!!!

[C_U_L8R]

71. Lets trade Lieberman for 6 republicans

at least some people have a conscience

[jollyreaper2112]

72. In other news...

"Crazy glue my lips to Bush's crinkled wrinkle," Lieberman said, "and you would find yourself hard-pressed to distinguish this from my previous position."

[ryanmuegge]

73. Bring it on, bitch. Wear your true colors.

[endarkenment]

75. Luckily for the planet the House doesn't need Joe:party of me.

The House can end the war by defeating the next war appropriations bill and it can do that all by itself without any help from the horrid awful self absorbed Mr. Lieberman.

Peace is here if we want it.

[lebkuchen]

76. Once Liebie officially turns repub, Empowering Veterans should add him to the list

of incumbent senators who don't support the troops. Sure, we're stuck with Liebie for another six years, but the kind of bad press this vet group can bring to Liebie will cut off a good portion of his funding.

http://www.empoweringveterans.org/

[AnneD]

77. DEMS to Liberman

we already know you are a GOP.

[truebrit71]

79. FUCK YOU JOE! YOU ALREADY ARE A REPUBLICAN YOU FUCKING TOOL!

:grr:

What a self-important, sanctimonious ASSHOLE this guy is....

[scavenger]

165. Joe knows that, he's just not being honest with everyone else.

[TexasLawyer]

80. to Joe and his Connecticut voters--

You've got a lot of blood on your hands.

[connecticut yankee]

95. Please see my previous post

Many of us worked very hard for Ned Lamont. Joe won because all the Repukes voted for him. Their candidate, Schlessinger, got about 8% of the total votes. The GOP completely abandoned him so Joe could win.

[TexasLawyer]

182. I am sure that's true

The address to Joe and the people who voted for him was purely rhetorical-- Joe's supporters, mostly GOP, are about as likely to be on this board as Joe himself is.

Ned Lamont was such a good candidate. It kills me that the election was so close.

[Hekate]

92. DUers: Don't cut off your nose to spite your face

I have to stop reading this thread now.

There's an old saying: "Don't cut off your nose to spite your face," and all this talk about how Senator Lieberman (D-CT) can go Cheney himself and we'll just be fine is making me ill.

We WON'T be fine. We'll lose every damn chairmanship. We'll lose any possibility of slowing down the BushCheney machine over the next two years. We'll go back to having NO leverage.

All you people who think we can do without Lieberman and how it won't make any difference anyhow -- did you also agree with Nader that there was no difference between a Gore presidency and a Bush presidency?

Hekate

[endarkenment]

102. Nose? He is a zit on our nose and we need to pop it.

Sure it will be ugly, but in time it will heal.

[ClintonTyree]

237. Excuse me, Lieberman (D-CT)?

Since when? Oh, Joe SAYS he'll act as a Democrat and caucus with the Dems but his actions speak a hell of a lot louder than his words. Joe's allegiance is to Israel, the United States' interests come second.

[MasonJar]

96. Two more years and he can go to ___l.

[LiberalEsto]

99. What a bleeping weasel!

I'm not surprised.

Please dear Goddess, let a couple of male repug senators be caught with young pages or something equally sleazy and let them resign and be replaced with Democrats! Amen.

[ShortnFiery]

100. Cut off funding anyway! Don't let the horror of the unholy occupation continue.

On Edit: Call his bluff! Then Lieberman is sure to lose BIG in 2008.

[sandrakae]

106. YOU ALREADY FUCKING ARE ONE.!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[northofdenali]

107. Somebody's got to have something on LIEberman

to blackmail him right back. He is no squeaky-clean Congressional newby; guaranteed there is something in his past, either in public or private life, that can be used as leverage.

If I sound like a Repuke, it's because that is the same way LIEberman and the Repukes think - and it's about damn time we start fighting back and, if necessary, fighting dirty.

As for Holy Joe

[fooj]

219. I'm with you. There's no way that rat bastard is free from scandal.

He isn't where he is because he plays by the rules.

My fervent hope is that Little Lord Pissypants and The Dick throw him under the bus. If their asses are on the line...it's pretty clear that they'd give the little prick up. These bastards always look out for #1 first. Always. He won't be safe for long. LIEberman will be another statistic...another casualty of the BFEE. IMO, it's only a matter of time.

[NJCher]

234. ah, finally!

Someone's come up with a practical solution to this scum who would hold a nation hostage. There were indeed some things that went on with his last campaign. Hearings need to be opened on how he spent that "petty cash" fund of what I think was 80k.



Cher

[maxsolomon]

110. well, that settles it then, joe. 2000 more troops will have to die

before president clark ends this clusterfuck of imperial incompetence.

[EV_Ares]

111. Regardless, you cannot let Lieberman hold you hostage. There

won't be any changed of votes, he votes with therepublicans anyway but yes, you would lose control of the senate.

However, how do you think the people in his state would feel if he flipped. They would be plenty pissed off and he knows that.

Don't know if you can recall a senator? Could something like that be initiated if he jumps?

The dems and independents in the state could possibly do something like that.

[brentspeak]

112. The answer is No, he cannot be recalled

[volstork]

115. Go ahead, asshole

you're already a pug in evrything but name

[appleannie1]

118. How can you become

what you already are?

[rateyes]

120. Reality Check:

There is NO DAMNED WAY the funding for this war gets cut off. I wish it would, but it won't. There are too many Dems Senators running for POTUS, and cutting off funding would sink the party, and (sad to say) the Dems don't have the political balls to do it. Survival is the strongest instinct.

Joe Lieberman is a War Whore, AIPAC schill, and ALREADY A FUCKING REPUBLICAN.

I would rather be in the minority and HAVE MY DAMNED INTEGRITY, than be in the majority and always sucking Republican teats to try to get cloture.

Oh, and BTW, "cloture" is a motion to "cut off debate." Why don't the Dems just start debating the non-binding resolution until the Senate comes up with 60 votes to bring the bill to a vote? If I were Harry Reid, NOTHING would be debated except this war until the fucking idiots who call themselves Republicans quit this damned bullshit!! Are we in the majority now or not? And, if Lieberman jumps...use minority power to SHUT DOWN THE SENATE!!

It's time to grow a spine!!

[Q3JR4]

135. I completely agree with you.

The American public is behind us.

There's no reason to pussy foot around.

[EndElectoral]

122. Screw him. Let Conn. voters see what they got. A blackmailer. He's not worth it.

He'd be showing Conn. voters his true colors.

Damn, I wish Lamont had won that seat.

[autorank]

131. But Lieberman is a moral man, isn't that the PR pitch.

You nailed it...they elected a blackmailer who uses his office to perpetuate war. What a moral to this story.

Excellent point.

[tlsmith1963]

123. Well...

If he wants to go Republican, then go right ahead. He seems like one, anyway. But when it comes to funding the war, as long as the troops are still there I say keep the funding going but only as much as they need, no more. The troops would be even less safe if we cut them off. However there should be oversight (to make certain the money isn't wasted), & there needs to be a plan to eventually leave. Those should be the conditions.

[autorank]

129. Harry Reid has been doing his Horse Whisperer thing, you can be sure.

I'm thinking Jeffords, I'm thinking Maine, I'm thinking that Reid has a deal in place with at least one Maine Senator. And Lieberman is just the very worst type of person. Everything with him is fear-based from his pious condemning morality to his fear mongering about Iraq and Iran. The man is a disgrace. I say it's time to pull an end run. If Reid does in fact have someone in the ranks, then he can tell off down Lieberman in a huge way, call his bluff and trump him, establishing some party discipline.

Lets face it, we have a Republican lite Senate. Webb and Tester are solid new additions, impressive in many ways, and politicians there to serve the people. They're not going to vote for stupid wars or bankruptcy bills that screw working people or Bush tax cuts. But we've got a bunch of them that do including Landrieu, Pryor, and Feinstein (nor sure of her on bankrupts) to mention just a few. These are people who routinely vote AGAINST their colleagues. A realistic number of Democrats that would stick with the party is tops 40. So it's a tough situation with Lieberman but only in the particular instance of who controls the Senate, which is huge of course. The broader issue is an ideological paucity due to Democrats who think that they have to vote like Republicans.

I think that Lieberman is overplaying his hand and that Reid can do an end run. I also think that stripping that turn coat of all his committees and letting Connecticut get the message wouldn't hurt at all.

[NJCher]

235. yes, Reid is not to be underestimated in terms of quiet deals

Cher

p.s. and oh, on edit, the one time I almost got thrown out of DU was for calling this rat bastard "Holy Joe."

[Arugula Latte]

130. Sack.Of.Shit. nt

[Q3JR4]

134. lieberman switches parties....

So what?

We loose control of the senate and the ability to assign chairmanships of committees. That means nothing. Right now we barely have the votes to push through even a non-binding resolution on Iraq. We may loose the ability to investigate the executive branch, but as someone pointed out here investigations can also start in the House.

We would still have enough votes to mount a filibuster and gridlock the senate (which is basically what the rep.s are doing right now).

The senate has oversight over the executive branch on appointments on the judiciary and such. Right now we have a rep. president that will nominate whomever he sees fit with or without Dem. input. The only thing the Dems. can do is block the nomination on a party line vote. If they loose lieberman's vote, they still have the ability to block those nominations. Sure the reps. may try to pull that "nuclear option" bullshit, but the Dems. gained seats in the last election. Some of rep. people in the senate who were going to vote against the move are still on the senate, and the Dems gained seats in the last election. The votes aren't there. This changes nothing.

As far as I'm concerned, the Dems. were elected in the last election to get us out of Iraq. If they don't at least make the attempt, then the American public will be less inclined to vote for them in the next election.

Simply put, I don't think we should be worried about keeping power at the expense of what the American public want. I hope the Dems. call lieberman's bluff and give him and the rest of the reps. enough rope to hang themselves.

[stevedeshazer]

136. Paging Tim Johnson Paging Tim Johnson Paging Tim Johnson

Accelerate your rehabilitation. Your country needs you stat.

Code Blue.

That is all.

[confludemocrat]

269. That's not gonna help if Lieberman switches

Face it. The war will go on, thanks to Connecticut voters. To any Democrats who voted for this guy, I spit on you and I hope you burn in hell.

[ArbustoBuster]

139. It's official, Lieberman is a {string of obscenities deleted}

How much of other people's blood are you willing to spend, Joe, to keep your cushy spot in power?

[Castleman]

140. Hey, they CAN recall his ass...

There was no provision for recalling a governor in California, and they managed to do it. Especially after ENRON fucked him like a fifty cent whore. What's the Conneticut state legislature look like? If they get their asses in gear, they can get rid of this scumbag.

[EV_Ares]

144. I asked the same question, you can look up on the thread and

someone answered and said you cannot recall him. I don't know but I thought any state had provisions for recalling an elected official.

[Zynx]

146. Democrats have supermajorities in CT. They could pass a law allowing

it.

[EV_Ares]

149. This is what I found on the recall of US senators & congressmen

The term of office established in the United States Constitution for a United

States Senator is six years, and for a Representative in Congress, two years.1 Under

the Constitution and congressional practice, Members of Congress may have their

services ended prior to the normal expiration of their constitutional terms of office

by their resignation, death, or by action of the House of Congress in which they sit

by way of an “expulsion,”2 or by a finding that a subsequent public office accepted

by a Member is “incompatible” with congressional office (and that the Member has

thus vacated his seat in Congress).3 Although considered in the Federal Convention

of 1787, there was never a provision adopted in the Constitution for the “recall” of

Members of Congress, and thus no Member has ever been recalled in the history of

the United States. Individual States have never had the authority, and thus could not

have “reserved” such power, to unilaterally change the terms and conditions of

service of federal officials agreed upon and created in the federal Constitution.4 This

report discusses briefly the manner in which a Member of Congress may be removed

from office by “expulsion,” and then examines the issue of recall of legislators.

[Stand and Fight]

300. Post a link... It is not that difficult. n/t

[hlthe2b]

305. Recall, Expulsion, Impeachment of Congress: Definitive Answers

Given that this keeps coming up, (indicative of our deep, abiding love for Joe Lieberman), I wanted to post a link to probably the ultimate resource for these FAQs. Please consider bookmarking for others when this question comes up. Cross posted at the following thread: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x275984

**************************************************************************************
From Report for Congress: Order Code RL 30016: Recall of Legislators and the Removal of Members of Congress from Office
http://lugar.senate.gov/CRS%20reports/Recall_of_Legisla...

(requested by Senator Lugar, 3/20/03 and prepared by Legislative Attorney, Jack Maskell
Note, the document is in adobe acrobat pdf format)
****************************************************************************************

Note: there are 1. no means for state voter recall; states do have the ability to decide the means by which a vacancy is filled, either by governor designation or special election. 2. Members of Congress are not susceptible to State action to expel them (other than criminal matters, of course), 3. or to executive branch efforts to expel; 4. they are only susceptible to possible expulsion by fellow members of Congress.


Summary
Under the United States Constitution and congressional practice, Members of
Congress may have their services ended prior to the normal expiration of their
constitutionally established terms of office by their resignation or death, or by action
of the House of Congress in which they are a Member by way of an “expulsion,” or
by a finding that in accepting a subsequent public office deemed to be “incompatible”
with congressional office, the Member has vacated his congressional seat.
Under Article I, Section 5, clause 2, of the Constitution, a Member of Congress
may be removed from office before the normal expiration of his or her constitutional
term by an “expulsion” from the Senate (if a Senator) or from the House of
Representatives (if a Representative) upon a formal vote on a resolution agreed to by
two-thirds of the Members of the respective body present and voting. While there
are no specific grounds for an expulsion expressed in the Constitution, expulsion
actions in both the House and the Senate have generally concerned cases of perceived
disloyalty to the United States, or the conviction of a criminal statutory offense which
involved abuse of one’s official position. Each House has broad authority as to the
grounds, nature, timing, and procedure for an expulsion of a Member. However,
policy considerations, as opposed to questions of authority, have appeared to restrain
the Senate and House in the exercise of expulsion when it might be considered as
infringing on the electoral process, such as when the electorate knew of the past
misconduct under consideration and still elected or re-elected the Member.
As to removal by recall, the United States Constitution does not provide for nor
authorize the recall of United States officers such as Senators, Representatives, or the
President or Vice President, and thus no Member of Congress has ever been recalled
in the history of the United States. The recall of Members was considered during the
time of the drafting of the federal Constitution in 1787, but no such provisions were
included in the final version sent to the States for ratification, and the specific
drafting and ratifying debates indicate an express understanding of the Framers and
ratifiers that no right or power to recall a Senator or Representative from the United
States Congress exists under the Constitution. Although the Supreme Court has not
needed to directly address the subject of recall of Members of Congress, other
Supreme Court decisions, as well as the weight of other judicial and administrative
decisions, rulings and opinions, indicate that: (1) the right to remove a Member of
Congress before the expiration of his or her constitutionally established term of office
is one which resides exclusively in each House of Congress as established in the
expulsion clause of the United States Constitution, and (2) the length and number of
the terms of office for federal officials, established and agreed upon by the States in
the Constitution creating that Federal Government, may not be unilaterally changed
by an individual State, such as through the enactment of a recall provision or a term
limitation for a United States Senator or Representative. Under Supreme Court
constitutional interpretation, since individual States never had the original sovereign
authority to unilaterally change the terms and conditions of service of federal
officials agreed to and established in the Constitution, such a power could not be
“reserved” under the 10th Amendment.



The full report is available at the link above. I hope we can finally put to rest the constant barrage of repeated "let's just recall" Lieberman posts with this. :shrug:

[Stand and Fight]

307. Thank you VERY much for the link.

I am of the same feeling as you, and nothing combats ignorance as well as being able to point out the source of true knowledge. :yourock:

[hlthe2b]

312. thanks, S&F

:toast:

[hlthe2b]

244. No means to recall members of Congress

The US Constitution lays out the election, qualifications and terms of Congress. States can determine ONLY how to fill a vacancy created by death or resignation (or Congressional impeachment, should that happen).

No offense to any poster, but, from the number of times this question has been asked (and similarly answered on DU), I have to assume that teaching of civics has been removed from school curriculum, entirely? :shrug:

[Crunchy Frog]

141. Why the hell did so many Democrats fight so hard for this guy

to get the nomination, and then didn't stand up for the guy who actually got the nomination. He's been on the edge of being a Repuke for a long time now, or he wouldn't even have had a primary challenger. Sometimes I get so furious at my own party that I could spit nails.:grr:

[kitkat65]

142. Gee, Joe

Don't let the door slam your ass on the way out. Fucker.

[olddad56]

145. Benedict Lieberman. frigging turncoat.

He switched parties a long time ago.

[Lone_Star_Dem]

147. He has much to lose if he were to pull a stunt such as this

It's nice to see he's not beyond blackmail in an attempt to sway our party--of which he's not a member--but he also has much to lose if he were to formally switch to a repug.

[don954]

148. and your not already?

He is a big rat, we can never count on him for support. We shouldn't allow him to hold us hostage, if we allow it now, he will pull this again and again...

[Danger Mouse]

150. Hm...it's not as bad as all that.

I don't think he will switch, but I don't think it's a good idea to cut off funding altogether...what would happen to our troops?
As for Lieberman, fuck him. He's a toad.

[eridani]

197. You don't have to cut if off--just restrict it heavily, like Murtha is proposing

Same practical effect, IMO.

[Danger Mouse]

198. I'm all for ending the war, but I do NOT want the troops to suffer to

accomplish that end...and I don't know that cutting the funding would be a succesful move.
In any case, as much as he sickens me, we need Lieberman...for now.

[eridani]

220. Under Murtha's plan, they won't

Check it out.

[deadparrot]

151. You know, I hope we pick up a helluva lot of Senate seats in 2008

so Lieberman loses any shred of importance.

What an asshole.

[qazplm]

152. there are several previous incidents

of the number of republicans outnumbering the number of democrats, and vice versa but control not changing hands.

2000 and 2002 were special circumstances as we had a 50-50 senate and so a special provision was put in that if that changed, then so would the rules of the senate, thus why jeffords defection led to democrats controlling for two years.

That same provision is not present this time.

It is irrelevant if Lieberman switches because the Senate would still be set up as it is now, with Dems in charge...and it will stay that way until January 2009.

[Botany]

153. Do not let the door hit you in the ass on your way out you son of a bitch

Joe,

The war is a lost cause .... we will win every battle but we are going to lose the war.

It is a done deal

[longship]

155. CT Voters are gonna *LOVE* him for that.

Too bad there's no such thing as a senatorial recall election.

I guess he can't call himself an "independent Democrat" any longer.

[primavera]

156. That certainly didn't take long

We knew it was only a matter of time before he used his unique position to blackmail Dems. I confess, I thought it would take longer than a month before he began doing it, but I guess I shouldn't be surprised by anything that maggot does.

[snappyturtle]

157. If someone has already said this...I'm sorry..haven't read all

replies yet: If Lieberman thinks he can hold Democrats hostage in our opinion about de-funding, then, go ahead! When all the repukes go down the drain with this madness, he'll go with them. Good riddance! He's as slimy as the rest of THEM!

[muntrv]

159. Go ahead Joe! Do it and make it official!

[JuniperLea]

162. He reminds me of the floppy goldfish in the old Faith No More video n/t

[d_b]

163. Stop teasing, Joe.

Gettin' my hopes up.

[LynnTheDem]

164. SWITCH! SWITCH! SWITCH!

Good riddance to a MFing piece of garbage war criminal.

[acmavm]

167. Joe is a lying spineless braying jackass. He changes opinions like

McCain. He blatantly lies, and he has no frigging loyalty except to himself and, if the truth be told, Israel. He needs us fighting this frigging war. Not for money and control, not the same reasons as most of these assholes. His motivation is Israel and the neocon wetdream of the US and Israel finally, and forever, gaining control over the Middle East. He is blind to every other consideration, he will stop at nothing to bring his nutso wetdream to fruition. So turning on the Democratic Party won't mean a thing to that bastard. This is a done deal already. The minute that the republicans put his rotten old hide back in the Senate, this was inevitable. Let him go. Let him go. If we gotta take an beating, then let us chose the time and make sure that it's only for the shortest period of time possible. He's cutting his own throat anyhow. He's self-destructing, just like that other old hairball, McCain.

Cheney, Rumsfeld, bush**, they've all got their whackjob reasons for supporting this mess. And they all feel it's worth buckets and buckets of blood, billions and billions of dollars, every bit of the good will the rest of the world had for our poor country, and the rights and liberties of the American people. Cheney loves money and power. I can't tell which he loves more. Rumsfeld was a nutjob who I really think believed that this administration was destined for 'greatness', a cheap analogy is comparing out to what the Nazis thought back in the 30s and early 40s. Wolfowitz is just a fanatical bumbling moron and that picture of his stupid ass in holey socks just nailed the essence of the man like nothing else could. And bush**, he the worst of the lot. Because he was and is willing to delude himself that he's deciding anything. He never did. And he's willing to pimp for these bastards to the bitter end. He's not even a high-class whoremonger. He's a thug without the moral courage to take the risks of getting an ass-whuppin' himself, he'll send others to do it for him.

F**k Leiberman and the horse that he rode in on.

[HuffleClaw]

168. BWAHHAHAHHAHHAAAHAAA

he's NOT fooling anyone. he's been de facto republican for ages now.

[Montauk6]

169. So how's that "Draft Joe for '08" movement going?

[Bluzmann57]

173. Don't let the door hit ya

where the good lord split ya lieberman. Don't even wait for a vote on funding. But wait, isn't he officially an independent anyway? The Democrats should just exclude him and take their chances. I think the chances will be ok without him.

[BootinUp]

174. Lieberman playing his last card.

What an Asshole.

[superconnected]

175. Don't let the door hit ya in the ass, Joe.

[MissMarple]

176. Go on a head. We have a ship of state to save.

Abandon ship...leave your buddies in the lurch. We are much better off with out your excess baggage.

[Sparkle]

178. To Joe Lieberman:

[David Zephyr]

179. Good God, Just do it and get it over with. It's obvious that you intend to switch.

And that means that you lied to the voters in your state.

[rambler_american]

185. Lieberman switch parties?

Who coulda seen that coming?

[Grandrose]

186. Isn't he gone yet????

I have not trusted Lieberman since the 2000 Vice Presidential
debate with Cheney!! What makes it even worse, he smirks just like Bush.

Lieberman has NO right to hold Democrats hostage. Just make him go away.
Good riddance to bad rubbish.
:grr:

[Name removed]

187. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Rainscents]

190. God, please forgive me for saying this...

I FUCKING HATE THIS MAN!!!!

[usregimechange]

191. I would almost rather loose the senate than keep him.

[mile18blister]

192. Lieberman's only loyality is to himself.

This should have been obvious to anyone paying attention.

With the extremely slim Dem margin, I considered every day we held the majority as a gift. What I've been hoping for is to get as many investigations done as possible, especially the Intelligence committee report on how the * cabal lied the country into war. Pat Roberts refused to release the final chapters, and Rockefeller has been working on it since he became chairman.

Lieberman can go f**k himself. Or go quail hunting with Cheney.

[Bonobo]

194. Goddamn that bastard Nader! If not for him Lieberman would by VP!

And then we wouldn't have to worry about this!!

I hate that &%'%$&'% bastard! He is in the GOP's pocket! He is owned by the corporations!

His ego is the size of a cadillac! He only cares about himself! He just wants to stop Democrats from winning!

[lakeguy]

195. see ya! nt

[Hawaii Hiker]

196. Good riddance Liberman you asshole:

Despite the Nov. 2006 elections being very successful, the only letdown was that Ned Lamont lost to Joe "do as I say & I'll stay a Democrat" Liberman...

I never cared for Liberman, he was always too socially conservative for me...

I wish there was someway to trade him for Lincoln Chaffee (and a player to be named later, LOL)....

[daveskilt]

256. it is funny lieberman waited till after 3pm eastern (NBA trade deadline yesterday)

I would have traded him for shawn bradley and a bag of chips

[onehandle]

199. A Lieberman Proof Senate in 2008.

Say it with me.

[thethinker]

200. OK, we have a problem

but there are many ways to solve it. We all need to think this through.

We got rid of quite a few republicans last year with scandals. Remember when Delay was so powerful? 90% of the people in congress have taken money from the wrong people, or like little boys, or whatever. We all need to do a lot of research. We need to figure out which states have republican congressmen and democratic governors. Maybe you think this is fighting dirty - but we have to fight. We have too much at stake here to be blackmailed by the likes of LIEberman.

[LibertyorDeath]

201. What a vile POS

He is such a Fucking Judas.....

[Jawja]

205. Well, he really IS a

Zionist, isn't he? It appears that the interests of Israel takes priority over the interests of the U.S. for Holy Joe.

I mean, really, if the Democratic stance on the war is enough to turn him into a Repug above all of the other issues, then it is clear to me that Joe Lieberman is Zionist before he is an American.

Simple as that.

[LeftishBrit]

287. I detest Lieberman, but I also detest people who question other's loyalty on the grounds of their

ethnic or religious background. That is what the right-wing do, not liberals.

Lieberman is more loyal to the Republicans and Bush and himself than to the 'good guys'. Granted. But need you turn this into an ethnic slur? This sounds just like Virgil Goode questioning Ellison's loyalty because he is a Moslem.

If I am misreading you, and you are really referring just to his *political* support for the Israeli right trumping other causes, then I assume that you also think and say that the Reagan Republicans were more loyal to Chile and South Africa and the forerunners of the Taliban than to America because of their support for these groups. I assume that you also think and say that Santorum and Brownback are more loyal to the Vatican than to America. I assume that you also say that Bush places the interests of the Blair government and of Saudi Arabia over America. I assume for that matter that you also say that anti-Arab American hawks with NO Jewish connections place the interests of Israel over America. If you don't do any of these things, then please don't accuse Jewish politicians of dual loyalty.

[wellst0nev0ter]

207. Go Ahead, Quid Pro Joe, Make My Day

Do it, prove your true allegiance to the lizard brains, we already have a Lieberman-proof Senate.

from Daily Kos:

There has been some confusion and uncertainty as to whether Joe Lieberman has the power to flip control of the Senate to the Republicans. I come bearing good news!! As of this past Friday (January 12), it appears that Lieberman is powerless to effect party control of the 110th Congress.

This is due to the fact that the Senate passed a resolution on January 12 (S.Res. 27) that designates various Democrats by name as committee chairs and specifies the Democratic members of each committee. The Senate also passed a similar resolution (S. Res. 28) the same day that names various Republicans as the ranking minority members of each committee and specifies the Republican members of each committee. Based on these two resolutions, the membership of each standing committee in the Senate appears to be fixed for the duration of this Congress. Further, it includes one more Democratic member than it does Republican members in each case, thereby providing Democrats with control of the committee system and the flow of legislation in the Senate.

What is sigificant about these resolutions is that neither contains any provisions for implementation of a change in the party affiliation of committee chairs or the party make up of each committee even if there is a change in the identity of the party with the numerical majority in the Senate. Taken together, these resolutions appear to lock in Democratic control of the Senate for the entire 110th Congress (2007 and 2008). The reason that they lock in control is that they cannot be changed without further action by the Senate, which would require a filibuster-proof majority of 60 senators who were willing to support a change in party control of the Senate. It is possible that such a filibuster-proof majority could emerge in the event of a shift of a seat from Democratic to Republican hands and a 50-50 deadlock in the Senate (with Cheney the tie-breaker) but it is not likely that the 10 Democratic senators required to produce that 60-vote majority would agree to vote with the Republicans on organizational matters.

A review of history shows that in 1953 (the 83rd Congress) the Republicans controlled the Senate at the beginning of the session by 48-47 (with one independent) and never lost control of the Senate during that Congress despite repeated switches back and forth between a Republican majority and a Democratic majority. Nine senators died during the 83rd Congress, causing the balance of power to shift back and forth on several occasions between the Democrats and Republicans as new senators were named or elected. However, control of the Senate remained in Republican hands throughout the 83rd Congress regardless of which party actually held the majority of the seats. This was due in part to the fact that the organizing resolutions for that Congress designated Republicans to chair and control the committees and in part to the fact that LBJ (then the minority leader) preferred to leave control in Republican hands so that they would have to take responsibility for dealing with the McCarthy problem.

Thank God for Republican fuckwits.

[ElsewheresDaughter]

209. you already were one....don't let the fucking door hit you in the ass!

[DrZeeLit]

210. Oh, I hope so. I truly hope so. Good riddance to bad rubish.

Plus... I'd love to see the funds cut, too.

[mb7588a]

212. Become a Republican and we'll cut off his balls. nt.

[Hailtothechimp]

214. Joe-das Isconnecticut

Not to get biblical or anything, but this would be a betrayal of the highest order.

I'm amazed that Connecticut wasn't smart enough to see this coming.

Obama, Hillary, and the rest of the '08 candidates in the Senate better not try to toe the Joe line if he even goes close to doing this.

[young_at_heart]

215. I wonder how those who voted for him are feeling these days?

I know the Pubs are happy but surely the Dems who voted for him are wishing they hadn't.

[Lena inRI]

216. GO GO GO GO GO GO GO GO GO GO GO GO GO GO GO GO GO GO GO GO GO

. . . YA YELLOW-BELLY-SAP-SUCKING-LYING-SLIME-BALL!

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[War Pigs]

217. Sen. Joseph I.Lieberman (I-Israel): "When the shit hits the fan,

send more Christians". Despicable piece if crap...:puke:

[LeftishBrit]

257. Please take your Christian Right, anti-semitic filth, off a liberal board

Do you also think that Bush has dual loyalty to Britain- after all, he's of British origin and is using the British government to promote his war?

And you are insulting all the Jewish, Moslem and atheist, as well as Christian, troops who are fighting in Iraq.

Yes, Lieberman is a despicable piece of crap; but so are those who seek to foment anti-semitism.

[DirtyDawg]

221. I've got a better idea...

...Have the Congress cut off funding to Connecticut until they recall the SOB.

[lutefisk]

225. Force his hand... call his bluff... whatever. Just get it over with. .n/t

[grizmaster]

226. Once again Traitor Joe shows his true republican colors

Go already Joe.

It's clear that he hates democracy and our troops. Any appeasing of the traitor just makes us Dems appear to be supporting his traitorous ways.

[Eurobabe]

228. Fuck you LIE-berman, you left a long time ago

stop with the hystrionics already and just get thee to the dark side.

[eringer]

239. McBush/TraitorJoe 08

They are both pathetic and deserve each other.

[donheld]

240. I hope Connecticut voters are proud n/t

[Vinca]

241. I am so sick of this little man and his Napoleon complex.

We've got to get a super majority in 2008 so we can throw this guy over the side.

[TornadoTN]

243. Boggles my mind to think who we had as a VP candidate in 2000

For all of the great things that Al Gore has done, the one thing I can't fathom is how and why he chose Lieberman as his VP on the 2000 ticket. Sure, I know all of the history associated with it, but it still boggles my mind to think that Al Gore chose this twerp as his VP (which coincidentally I feel cost him the election to some extent).

[redqueen]

273. It gives us some insight into the power structure.

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

[LynneSin]

249. Let him switch, I really want Republicans controlling the Judiciary Committee

I know that they'll have thoughtful consideration with putting fair & balanced judges on our Federal Benches and Supreme Court. And I'm sure they are very anxious to investigate why the Bush Regime expelled all those judges

And hell - let's just put Sen. Inofe in charge of the Environment Committee - we know how excited he is about combating the affects of pollution on Global Warming :eyes:

Hell, I think I'd rather give Bush the upper hand again by ceding the senate back to the republicans because hell, Mitch McConnell would work well with Nancy Pelosi in helping to pass bi-partisan legislation to change this country around and get our troops out of Iraq.

:sarcasm:

Lieberman is an asshole and I can't stand him as much as the rest of you. But right here, right now, we need that little fucker because if we give the senate back to the republicans then we're fucked for the next 2 years until hopefully we try again and get the senate

[HappyWeasel]

259. Uhhhh...two words. Susan. Collins.

If LIEberman leaves, we'll get dirty Harry to woo Collins. She knows what happened to Chafee and what happened to Jeffords. The question is whether she wants to keep her seat next year.

[LynneSin]

261. Sorry, too risky

You're saying we should give up control in hopes that maybe Susan Collins might switch. Too great of a risk. There has been plenty of times that Collins or Snowe, both pretty moderate republicans, could have switched parties but did not. I'd rather not pin my hopes on something that is an extreme longshot

[MaineDem]

308. She will not change parties!!!

And we don't want her. She is NOT moderate. The GOP allows her to stray a bit but she votes with them when it counts. (Think Alito and Roberts, for example.)

Best bet is to defeat her next year and, trust me, we're working on it.

[Mendocino]

260. Joe Liebercon...

...political whore. Is he going to be Mcains running mate? Birds of a feather...

[Cass]

263. So he wants to punish Congresspeople for expressing their opinion

through a vote? Last time I checked they were entitled and obligated to do just that. This threat, coming from a Congressional representative, is a damned disgrace. Who does this guy think he is to bully his colleagues like this?

[TankLV]

331. For LIEberman's supporters it's OK to "vote your conscience" only when that vote is likely to go

to a repuke.

It's automatically null and void for any Democrat or true Patriot...

[Hosnon]

265. Thank you Connecticut voters!

A Democrat who voted for Lieberman over Lamont is going to be like a Democrat who voted for Nader over Gore if he switches.

Edit: "just" removed...

[confludemocrat]

271. Nope

no comparison
Gore won in 2000, a corrupt partisan Supreme Court gave the election to the party most of them once or still did belong to, not Nader.
Connecticut voters knew Joe was pro-war, plus he blended in nicely many other Dems who just didn't like the way the war was being run (Al Franken, Kerry in 2004, Biden, Bayh) and/or like him have not apologized for their supprt of it (Hillary).
Dems got themselves into this fix and they can blame no one else but themselves and the party they too often resemble for the continued death and destruction

[Hosnon]

275. Well...

The vote wouldn't have been close enough for a recount had Nader not been in the race. The Supreme Court would have never been involved.

Edit: I voted for Nader.

Edit 2: And analogies are never identities. But there is a comparison here.

Edit 3: I had "just" in my OP...misleading and incorrect.

[confludemocrat]

278. We don't know what would have happened had Nader not been in the race,

do we? We think we know, or you think you know. But you really don't, do you?

But we do know what did happen.

[Hosnon]

281. So are you saying that the election of Joe was worse?

Because we can be a bit more sure of that outcome had he not been in the race...at least more sure than the outcome in 2000 had Nader not been there.

[confludemocrat]

290. Blaming Nader doesn't work is what I'm saying

had Nader not run we don't know what would have happened; you think you know, I don't agree

WE DO KNOW: Gore legally beat Bush

Nader's presence didn't change that fact

Connecticut (and national) Dems helped vote Lieberman in.

Instead of blaming your fellow Democrats, you blame a guy who didn't figure in what really took place in 2000 or 2004

That's Bullshit.

look within your own party for the problem, since Lieberman's position blended in nicely with other Dems positions on Iraq, Israel and the "war on terror"

Face it.

[Hosnon]

292. I certainly do not think I know how the two elections

would have turned out had the circumstances been different. I can guess based on the election data. But I certainly do not claim to know.

It is interesting that you think you know something else: That Gore legally beat Bush. I'm not certain of that for two reasons. First, the Supreme Court handed down a ruling which had legal effect. Strictly speaking, their decision was legal and therefore the election of Bush was legal. Second, Gore conceded (for whatever reason). Bush was the declared winner and once Gore bowed out, Bush won by necessity.

My "guess", based on what I have seen, is that Gore would have won Florida by a large enough margin to guard against a recount had Nader not been in the race. I do not necessarily blame Nader for that. The failure of Gore to effectively distinguish himself from Bush (prior to everything that has happened post-9/11) contributed greatly to voter disillusionment.

Again, I do not necessarily blame Nader. The Democrats, Democratic voters and a myriad of other factors probably contributed to Gore's loss.

You say look within the Democratic Party for blame. Is that not exactly what I did in my original post?

[not_a_robot]

302. lol

narcissists are so easily diffused aren't they?

[gratebrw]

266. Joe

You mean he might show some spine. He certainly showed little when he ran as an independent.

Good riddance!!!!!
Perhaps, you Conn folks could recall the flipper?

[DrDan]

270. let the bastard switch

he cannot keep the party hostage

let's see how the public reacts to being back in GOP rule

[varun]

276. Joe Lieberman looks like the Sith Lord

and Chancellor Palpatine...

He acts like one too

[ElsewheresDaughter]

289. lol...he always reminded me of yoshi(?)the turtle on mario brothers game..

[confludemocrat]

277. Isn't politics disgusting?

look at Hagel, who professes to be against the war. He is spoken of well here sometimes. Fuck that. If the war really mattered to him and he wasn't just bullshit posturing, he would threaten to switch if Lieberman switched and the same goes for the other 7-8 Repubs who are against the "surge". They are all the worst scum. It's not just the killing, it's what the war is doing to everything in this country (the corruption, the legitimization of a fascist state, it's use as a flagship of the "war on terror" and to stifle dissent) and the key to reversing that is to end this war. Nothing else matters nearly as much right now, so great is the reach of it's corrosive, rotting, diseased side effects.

[IWantAChange]

279. somebody needs to bitch slap this little weasel - what a poor excuse 4 a man

[ananda]

282. How about: just do it and..

.. GOOD RIDDANCE!

[Occulus]

284. Lieberman, you SCHMUCK.

I've truly disliked this man for a long, long time. Now I know why.

I never will be able to figure out how he managed to boondoggle people here, though. We all should have seen right through his false bill of goods.

[2bfree]

291. What an asshole.

Can't believe he was on the same ticket as Gore. :(

[yurbud]

293. problem with this is once he switches, his political career will be over at end of term

Dems hopefully let him switch back right before election, and he won't win as a Republican.

He won't be a star among republicans because he will be just another corporate suck up.

[Norquist Nemesis]

294. It will be over a week after he does it; But he won't do it

Once all of the celebrations from Cons dancing in front of the cameras is done, Joe will be feeling all "uncomfortable" again and start threating to swith once again. He'll once again start proclaiming how he's so "Independent" and the base will be threating outright riots at the Con leadership not being able to keep him in lock step on their pet issues. As to the war, he stands with the minority anyway.

Call his bluff! He has more to lose than anyone and he's putting on a poker face.

[yurbud]

296. he looks like he's been hit with the poker a couple of times

[Phoonzang]

295. I'm afraid the bastard has us by the sex organs....

Is it worth losing the Senate to stop the surge?

[bvar22]

297. To Democrats:

Just DO the right thing:
Represent the PEOPLE who elected YOU!

FORGET about Holy Joe. He's going to do whatever he decides to do.
Don't let that pathetic little man DICTATE YOUR CHOICES!
FOCUS on YOUR job, not Joe's.

[Bitwit1234]

298. ANSWER ANSWER....right now is the senate 49 - 49 and 2 Independents

So the 2 Independents say they will cacus with the democrats (including turncoat Liberman). How will the fact that Liberman deceides to cacus with the republicans give them the majority in the senate. If they need a vote to break a tie the vp would vote. But he is not a member of the senate so it is 50 -50. Mitch McConnell says if Liberman says he will vote with the republicans than that will give THEM the majority and they can take over all the committees. HOW....answer me that.

[anotherdrew]

318. well...

yes the VP as prez of the senate isn't a member but he only votes to break ties, and with a tie he breaks the vote for 'organizing' which means the repubs would be able to organize the greater number by one and so 'control' the senate. based on extra-constitutional rules of long standing. It might be a fine idea to reform the senate rules in some way, but screw it, let them have the senate and show once and for all that the party will not give into to blackmail.

[anotherdrew]

319. Lieberman Switch Wouldn't Flip Senate

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.

What's the difference between now and 2001? A small but important distinction. When the 107th Congress was convened on January 3, 2001, Al Gore was still the Vice President and would be for another two-and-a-half weeks. Therefore, because of the Senate's 50-50 tie, Democrats had nominal control of the chamber when the organizing resolution came to a vote. With Dick Cheney soon to come in, however, Democrats allowed Republicans to control the Senate in return for a provision on the organizing resolution that allowed for a reorganization of the chamber if any member should switch parties, which Jeffords did five months later. There was no such clause in the current Senate's organizing resolution.

[bamacrat]

299. Why isnt there a law that keeps your from switching parties after being elected?

I hate Lieberman, has no right in congress, and is a sorry excuse for a human.:mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :puke: :puke: :puke: :mad: :puke: :mad: :mad:

[Stand and Fight]

301. Something needs to be done about Lieberman. Quickly and ruthlessly. n/t

[not_a_robot]

303. get him there

I would like to see him follow up on such a thing so the media can make a big show of ti. That way it will be a lesson for one group if voters who vote on loyalty rather than the suitability of the politician.

[antonialee839]

304. I'm about sick of this little toad

and his BS. If it's true that we do retain committee chairs, Reid should kick this sniveling little
weasel to the curb. Call his bluff Harry!

[burythehatchet]

313. do it fuckwad, do it!

it will the last thing you'll ever be remembered for.

[Liberty Belle]

316. CT voters should start a recall of this traitor. What's the procedure?

[anotherdrew]

317. stop this. take the matter away from him. toss him out of the party on his ass

accept it and move on, we DON'T really have control of the senate anyway, all we have is dibs on office space.

[MaineDem]

321. Out of WHAT party?

He is not a Democrat; he's that Independent Democrat or whatever he called himself.

He caucuses with the Democrats.

[Name removed]

325. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[focusfan]

333. i wish we could tell Liberman to go F-ck himself

:puke: people shouldn't have voted for him