Joe's in the senate. Time to get over it. We need him.

[fujiyama]

Look, I'm unhappy he won. But realistically, that race was a longshot.

Was what he did a scummy thing to do? Of course it was. I recall Rahm Emanuall calling Joe Bush's love child after his decision to run as an independent. He was nasty, ungracious in accepting defeat, and an all around ass hole in the campaign. Having Lamont running against him may have diverted money from other races, but sometimes a fight like that is worth fighting for.

But we lost that fight. Joe won the seat. But fortunately for us, he's willing to caucus with us.

Sure it means giving him a fuckin committee chair. Fine. Over Homeland security, which he basically created. He'll take home some pork to CT. Sure, he's a grandstanding, opportunistic, self righteous, santimonious dick, but...guess what would happen if Joe caucused with them?

I for one welcome Joe caucusing with us. Because I know if he doesn't, we get the following committee chairs:
http://www.senate.gov/pagelayout/reference/e_one_section_no_teasers/org_chart.htm

Chambliss - Agriculture

Chocran - Appropriations

Warner - Armed Forces

Shelby - Banking

Gregg - Budget

Stevens - Commerce

The Senate majority leader would be Mitch McConnell.

If you're not convinced yet by the names of the real fanatics I've already listed above, click on the link and simply scroll over the committee and find out who chairs them now. These are simply the worst of the worst.

I'll take Boxer, Biden, Leahy (God over Hatch for God's sakes!), etc presiding over committees., thank you very much.

And of course, I'm not even discussing judiciary appointments. Bush will have the chance to appoint a considerable number more. He's already appointed two SC justices. Several are old and they are the liberal ones.

We can block with power. Without, we can do little.

This fight is over. The discussion is silly. Being petty and vindictive may give short term gratification, but is near suicidal in the long term.

[JI7]

1. but if he didn't get the committee Chair does that mean he would switch

to caucus with Republicans ?

[fujiyama]

2. Why shouldn't he?

What other reasons would Joe have to stick with us? As he already showed, he's willing to do anything to stay in power. And you know, republicans would be willing to give him those in a second.

In his deluded mind, he's truly a bipartisan maverick, willing to work with both sides for the best of the country.

He'd spin caucusing with republicans as a "forces decision" as he was "left aside by the party".

[fooj]

3. Wouldn't it be nice if he would "stick with us" because it is what

he truly believes in and it's the right thing to do? I know. Fantasyland.

[JI7]

5. i wonder what he would have done if we had a larger majority

and he wasn't in the position to have such powerin the first place.

but i do agree this is better than Republicans having control.

hopefully we win a larger majority in 2008 and he wont be able to pull this shit again.

[Journeyman]

There'll be 21 Republican seats up for grabs in two years. . .

and only 12 Democratic. We have a good chance of picking up enough seats to make Joe Lieberman superfluous in 24 months. For now, we'll caucus with him, and who knows -- it may all work out for the best of all. But someone once said, "The future is not far for those who long for it," and just desserts and righteous comeuppance can be served in their own good time.

Senate seats up for election in 2008:

<<<Republicans>>>
Alexander, Lamar
Allard, Wayne
Chambliss, Saxby
Cochran, Thad
Coleman, Norm
Collins, Susan
Cornyn, John
Craig, Larry
Dole, Elizabeth
Domenici, Pete
Enzi, Michael
Graham, Lindsey
Hagel, Chuck
Inhofe, James
McConnell, Mitch
Roberts, Pat
Sessions, Jeff
Smith, Gordon
Stevens, Ted
Sununu, John
Warner, John

____________________________


<<<Democrats>>>

Baucus, Max
Biden, Joseph
Durbin, Richard
Harkin, Tom
Johnson, Tim
Kerry, John
Landrieu, Mary
Lautenberg, Frank
Levin, Carl
Pryor, Mark
Reed, Jack
Rockefeller, John



h/t to upi402 for the list

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=2958049

[TwentyFive]

7. Wow! That looks good. Maybe Clark or Hillary will have long coattails. n/t

[elocs]

10. Maybe Hillary might want to become Senate Majority Leader someday

and be a powerful U.S. Senator for many years, not just 8 years as president if she were elected and reelected.

[TwentyFive]

4. Joe needs us more

For Joe to go republican would be too risky for him. Repugs are now politically unpopular, and he wouldn't get to chair anything with them in control. Plus, I'm sure he figures the Democrats will build on their majority in 2008, and then he'd been a turncoat junior senator in a minority party from a blue state (how bad is that?).

But your point is well made...the country would be fucked without him on our side.

[immerlinks]

6. no No NO

He can't be rewarded like that. And there is no way he should be given anything that involves investigative or security powers. He's not safe on the war and his first loyalty is, obviously, to himself, I suspect his second is to Israel. The United States has to stop this unhealthy relationship with Israel, it's time we start treating the Palestinians as human beings and show some fairness. That will do a lot more for peace in the Middle East that slaughtering innocents in Iraq. Sorry, got on my soapbox.

If we have to give Lieberman something, give him banking or commerce, something safe. Something that won't have him conspiring with the White House to destroy the Democracy and crush civil rights.

[applegrove]

8. And any changes in the war will have to come from some deal with

the WH anyways. Not as if Dems can legislate an end. Perhaps the threat of subpoena will be enough to turn Bush and his new circle of 'realists' into pussycats who want an out. They may want out. There is a presidential election in two years. They may want out now. So Joe's vote may not be germaine here. Dems have already said they wouldn't cut funding from the soldiers. It will have to be a deal. Lieberman will be a part of that. And perhaps then his only important votes will be for policies he is a traditional Liberal on.

I can dream can't I?

[upi402]

9. over it, n/p n/t