Lieberman will not become a repuke or caucus with the repukes

[cali]

He's just being an asshole and trying to squeeze out more power for himself. He knows perfectly well that the odds are stacked against repukes in the Senate in '08. If he switches, and the dems win a few more seats in the upcoming election, he's screwed. Almost makes me wish that scenario would play out, just to see Lieberman utterly miserable. But it won't.

[The_Casual_Observer]

1. Why do it when he already is a voting republican?

If he actually switches names, he stands a big chance of losing the seat next time.

[Inuca]

4. Not a Lieberman fan, BUT

he is NOT voting republican, EXCEPT on Iraq issues. I agree, it's a mountain of an exception, but still... Otherwise, as far as I know at least, his votes are middle of the road democratic, not always with the angels, but most of the times. Keep this in mind when talking about how much better off we would be without him. Not to mention of course that minor issue of who is officially in control of the Senate and decides what legislations are brought up, who chairs committees and can organize hearings, etc.

[CTyankee]

9. I know what you are saying but it is very hard, esp. for those of us who

worked for Ned.

I feel a personal betrayal from Joe. He deserted his roots in New Haven in my neighborhood. He got on his high horse and took off, with Hadassah in tow. He didn't have the courage or the decency to stay with the party and he let his personal vanity take over. That so disgusts me.

[Inuca]

12. I understand

You have a more personal perspective on this, and I understand it. All I am saying is that others that get on THEIR high horses and blast him, should think a bit more before saying that everybody would be better off if he switches his affiliation.

[The_Casual_Observer]

19. I'll keep in mind that the bastard is all for dismantling social security

and killing arabs. Middle of the road my ass.

[hlthe2b]

2. I agree...

unfortunately, his little blackmail schemes are working for him..

[AX10]

3. 100% Correct!

[hfojvt]

5. If we win in 2008, won't we kick him out anyway?

I say we do it now, and avoid the rush.

Yes, we would lose control of the Senate. However, so far our control of the Senate does not seem to be worth much. Losing the Senate would mean pundits would have to shut up about "Democrats control the Congress" and Democrats could still blame Republicans for the fact that "nothing is getting done!"

What has gotten done so far? The minimum wage bill is still in House-Senate conference. The Senate has refused even to pass a non-binding resolution about the surge. The Senate can do just as little if we have 50 as it does with 51.

For anything to pass a veto, or threatened veto, requires a compromise with the devil. It's better just to give the devil more rope so he gets hanged higher in 2008.

[cali]

13. Kick him out? I presume you mean pull his chairmanship

and things like that. I can't imagine a worse idea. As for your spurious claim that the Senate has done nothing, they've been in power for less than 6 weeks.

[Inuca]

16. Control of the Senate MATTERS

a LOT. Even if it hangs on Joe being an "ID" (independent dem, whatever he means by that). Even if it is so frustrating that the paper thin margin makes things so difficult, and the repubs have such a "robust minority" as a..hole McConnell calls it, it's still better than a 50-50 + Cheney. Remember, Iraq is enormously important, but it is not everything.

[atreides1]

6. What you say has merit

But I believe that even if he doesn't switch, he's screwed! Mainly because of the fact that he's acting like an asshole.

If the Dems get enough seats next year, and right now it's looking like they will, Joe won't be needed anymore, and they can pull his ass off of every committee he currently sits on, or better yet
remove him from any chairman positions.

That'll be a lesson.

[Beetwasher]

7. Dems Need To Call His Bluff

The truth of the matter is if he DID switch now, it wouldn't be good for us, but it wouldn't be the end of the world either. The truth is Bush would veto any legislation that the Dems would send him anyway, and while investigations are nice, the House could carry that load for a couple of years. Any court appointments would have to be fillibustered though.

[cali]

15. No. It's a really good thing to have both Houses

That said, I hope Reid is privately telling him to cut the shit.

[Beetwasher]

17. Yes, It Is, But

It's not worth being blackmailed, IMO. They need to call his bluff. I doubt he'd switch anyway, it would be stupid on his part considering he'd only be in the majority for 2 years, and it would be a lame duck majority.

[KingFlorez]

8. I agree

He's just trying to be manipulative and get attention.

[PA Democrat]

10. There are 22 Republican vs. only 12 Democratic senators up for reelection in 2008

The Republicans have the potential to lose big time. Go ahead Joe, switch parties and you'll be sitting on the sidelines, out-of-power with the rest of your war-mongering buddies for a long time to come.

Jeez, why doesn't he just threaten to hold his breath until he gets his way? He uses as much logic as a toddler.

[MODemocrat]

11. The arrogance of Joe Lieberman is beyond belief

I truly wonder what his real reason is for being so gung-ho for the escalation of the Iraq war! He is
probably going to be in on all the oil profits, if he isn't already. To Hell with Joe, he's no better
than any other extortionist. :evilfrown: :evilfrown: :evilfrown: :evilfrown: :thumbsdown: :thumbsdown:

[Nutmegger]

14. He will be kicked to the curb when we get more Senate seats in 2008.

No doubt about it, LIEberMe is nothing more than a reupke and he will switch when the time is right. He wouldn't switch now, no way, but he will eventually when he's done sucking the blood of the Dems.

The reupkes can have him. Besides maintaining control of the Senate for the time being, I have no use for him.

[davidwparker]

18. Agree with every point

If Reid were an effective leader, having the senate switch might be a loss.

Reid keeps his powder dry while Repigs filibuster non-binding resolutions.