Lieberman, Seniority Sure, Has No Plans to Join G.O.P.

I'm well aware of the bad feelings Joe's behavior in the Connecticut Senate race left behind, but politics is the art of the practical. If he's willing to work to ensure a Democratic Senate majority and all the power and authority that provides us to repair the damage caused by W & Co, I'll swallow my principles and accept him back.

tried to get it set up to do right. I think he could be effective in that role and do a good job for the United States.

And, politics is the "art of the practical".

mind Lieberman and Collins working on that.

Not bitter, not pleased, but smart enough to be realistic ... and planning ahead. ;)

I'm sure he has bad feelings about how he was "abused" by the Democrats, and we have bad feelings about how he's abused us, but he needs us to retain his seniority and we need him to obtain a majority in the Senate. I'd rather the true Democrat had won, but in the absence of that, Lieberman is welcome to his committee chairmanship.

Most of them just stayed away. The Democratic party could have really gone after him, but they almost ignored Lamont and let Leiberman coast to a victory.

DLC is the corporatist, Repub-lite wing of the party.

The Democratic National Committee, headed by Howard Dean, supported Lamont, IIRC (please correct me if I'm wrong here, anyone)

Not even Bernie Sanders. :P

Well, primaries no longer matter, gang.

At least I was right on one thing - those who thought winning a majority would be THE solution were utterly, utterly wrong.

Somehow, I don't feel good about having been right.

It was just a step in the right direction. Lieberman is the least of our problems in the Senate. At least 7 Democrats are considered worse than him. I never understood the obsession with Lieberman, except that the media played up his views more than those of other conservative Democrats.

http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2006/Info/senator-ratings.html

And he's a liar. I don't trust liars, and I don't accommodate them.

Where he's good, he's okay. Where he's bad (say, Iraq), innocent people die.

and Lieberman is on our side

So, that can be summarily dismissed.

Now, as to "lieberman is on our side" - really? Are you sure? The man who took Republican money to run against the candidate picked by the party whose primary he lost? THAT guy is on our side?

Really?

Because I see whose side he's on - Joe's side. Whatever will benefit him and give him the power he seems to believe he deserves.

Mark my words, lieberman is NOT going to be quiet about this. He's in a position of influence, and you'd be mistaken to think he's not smart enough to know that. I know he is; I don't like the guy, but stupid he's not.

but that would be the resulting of alienating Lieberman

Sure it would have better better if Ned won, but sometimes you have to deal with the cards you are dealt with.

It is not a question of trusting him or not. Nothing is going to be done in a vacuum

I would like to speculate that this process has actually changed Lieberman. Even his position on the Iraq war was modifiying during the campaign. Was that politics or real? No one knows, but we do no that the PUBLIC want a change, and that will not be ignored

However, I simply do not trust the guy.

And if he fucks up, we can deal with him after '08 when we have 60 Senators. The math is more to our advantage then than it was this time. I can't really talk about how much ass we kicked in the Senate races without understatement. The Republicans had 12 seats to defend (I think) and we snatched six of them. That's pretty damned awesome.

Believe me, he WILL be watched.

They all will be.

Senate will be very close, he caucuses with Dems, votes repub. That makes it 50-50 at best in the vote count. In '08 when Norm Coleman and John Sinunu get run off we can get rid of Liberman too. He either changes party affiliation or he is not the chair of any committee. Coleman is in only because Wellstone died so close to the election. Sinunu got in because of voter suppression in NH. His margin of victory was very small, I think they are both gone in '08.

There is NO SUCH THING AS AN OVERNIGHT SOLUTION, but if you are so angry at the party leadership you can always join the greens

I don't do party loyalty. If someone ostensibly working toward the same goals as I does something stupid, or wrong, I call them on it. Like this - giving in to bullying just encourages more of the same.

Reid is setting a bad precedent here. lieberman is in a position to extort the party to get his way by threatening to flip to the Republicans.

Considering he has always gotten more votes from Republican voters than other groups for the entire 18 years he's been in the Senate...

...considering that influential conservatives like William F. Buckley funded his first run...

...considering that he literally took Republican money for his independent run from the likes of such rightwing creeps as Mel "fraud and corruption and abusive kids' camps, oh my" Sembler - one wonders where lieberman's royalties lie. It's no secret that he's enjoying more love from conservatives than liberals these days.

And Reid wants to placate this guy, who stabbed the party in the back? Is he just plain dumb? Can he not see that this act shows lieberman he's in a position to wield a rather large "you're a minority party without me!" stick?

I mean, is this obvious ONLY to me? I'm not brilliant, so that can't be the case.

If Republicans have controll of the Senate it means a few different things.

It means no commitees and no voice in what goes up for a vote.

It also means not being able to tell the President No when he tries to appoint dangerous people like Bolton to very important positions.

Also I will remind you that we have a very ill Supreme Court Justice. Would your preference be to let Bush add yet another extremist onto the court?

Your Anger at Ried is understandable. What is not understandable is your inability to see the broader picture and everything that comes with it.

You do realize it is a 51-49 Senate and if it became 50-50 that would put the ball right back in the Republican hands right?

So then, please explain to me how we keep lieberman from bullying the party leadership with threats of making us a minority party again.

I'm very, very open to suggestions.

This is bullshit with these "We shouldn't be extorted by Joe Lieberman". Well guess what, Joe can just as easily take his ball and go play with the republicans. Then all that hard work that all of us have done especially in states like Missouri, Montana and Virginia where we eeked out squeakers would have been for waste because we have to satisfy a few uber-liberals at DU.

lieberman is not going to flip because *I* called him on his bullshit.

He'll go if he feels he'll get more out of it than staying an independent (as he is no longer a Dem).

Considering how much more support he's currently getting from Republicans than Dems, I think it's naive to think he won't notice who his friends are.

So - if he DOES get a seat on the Judiciary, what would you say then?

it already.

Let's move on and concentrate on repairing the damage done by the war criminal that heads the US Govt!

Bush is still the pResident, until he has been tried, convicted and sentenced we will not be whole.

I'm not holding my breath, reference my first line of this post. and yes I'm working on getting over it but the crimes are so big it will take a long time......maybe never.

I refuse to, and you won't force me to.

I don't "get over" injustice. Maybe you do. It's your conscience to deal with, not mine.

I will not do what you ask of me. I cannot.

I could have sworn he was a VP candidate with Gore a few years ago. Doesn't seem to me like you get to that position by stabbing the Party in the back. I could swear he is this day and for many years the DEMOCRATIC Senator of CT. Just because he doesn't agree with you, doesn't mean he is stabbing the Party in the back. Maybe he thinks the Party stabbed him in the back?

Reid better make nice with Lieberman if he wants to keep a majority. And Reid will do that because he's smart.

he ran against the duly nominated democratic candidate and drove repuiblican voters to the polls who likely also voted against the Dem governor and house candidates. My State Rep almost lost because of his shit.

with "back-stabbing" re the Democrats? Yours: "I don't do party loyalty." So why are you so concerned about others' party loyalty, especially when he has been a loyal Democrat for decades.

We could have all 3 branches of government and people would still be fighting for specific aspects of their personal agendas. You get somebody like Murtha who is against abortion, a free enterprise Dem like Gregory Meeks, and you're going to have disagreements. It isn't possible to have an entire country agree 100% on anything. It's always a fight for progress. A Dem majority gives us the ability to begin to have a voice and shape the policy. It doesn't mean they can ram anything through that they want, and ignore even 40% of the country. It's a clear referendum againt the radical right extremism of that 40%, but it's a mistake to ignore them outright. That's how we got in this mess.

Equal rights.

Constitutional law.

Holding criminals accountable.

These aren't up for debate. You either work for them, or let us do that work.

Or I guess you could try to stop us from doing so - but you will fail.

And he was happy to have them.

And he passed Civil Rights legislation and when you read all the deals that were made to keep those segregationists from filibustering, it will probably make you puke. But guess what, some great laws were passed.

And remember Lincoln? His Emancipation Proclamation only freed slaves in Confederate States. Guess you would have thrown him overboard.

Politics is not pretty, even when it is accomplishing good things. I would not call the above examples "dirty", I use that term for criminal behavior. This kind of deal making is not that, it is trading something less important for something more important.

A good and smart leader like Reid knows what is less important that can be traded for the greater good. A committee chairmanship is a smaller thing in this game.

Zhade, this is how politics is played, heck this kind of stuff even happens in the best churches. Let Reid do his job of keeping Democrats together and we might yet get the minimum wage increased, protect the environment and avoid putting another wacko on the Supreme Court. If I had to personally kiss Lieberman's hand for those things to happen, put me on a plane and call it extortion --I would still do it.

It's the root cause of all the lies, death, and corruption.

Acceptance of the unacceptable.

I won't join that party, thanks.

lose every committee and subcommittee chair in the Senate?

Yeah, that's real smart.

...when he ran AGAINST the party telling him to fuck off?

He's not a Democrat anymore. Why does he get to keep seniority? To bribe him not to work against us?

When does it stop?

Geek's point is that we have more to lose by dumping lieberman than by having him hang with us. Only by having him with us do we have the majority and therefore control of committees. Allowing him to maintain his seniority, while highly unpleasant in principle, is a far better result than sacrificing control of the House. So which is more important to Dems: nursing a justified vendetta or holding the reins on all legislation for the next 2 years? No contest, ya know.

What then? More excuses? More hand-wringing plactating?

That's politics.

:shrug:

any of our senators can, and do.

They vote with each other more often than not (and Lieberman probably will, too), but big tent, herding cats, represent their own constituents, blah, blah, blah.

And none of this "you're working against a Dem majority by criticizing him" bullshit, as at least one DUer told me recently (no, I can't name the DUer, that's against the rules - but the person is a mod).

(I'm not saying you whine or say this. Just putting that out there.)

As long as he doesn't hand crucial victories to the Republicans, or block any investigations/accountability, I'll be unhappy but willing to just watch him.

The second he screws us over, though, I WILL call him on it. Heck, I'm sure most people here will.

Are you saying that, on principal, Lieberman should be driven to side with the Rebuplicans in caucus and thereby leaving the Senate in the hands of the Republicans?

That would give them 50. Cheney would break the tie and Republicans would get to run the show.

Is that what you want?

Dems need Lieberman voting with them on Senate organization or it is Dick Cheney casting the deciding vote. Who would you rather have casting the deciding vote, Lieberman or Cheney? Sometimes you have to pick your battles.

Will they continue to vote with the rethugs no that we are the majority? The committee chairmanships are a huge benefit to us now, but Lieberman is not the only DINO we need to worry about sabotaging things. What does everyone think Nelson and Landrieu will do now in terms of voting on the important stuff which the last 2 years at least they have sided with the rethugs on?

THE solution were correct. You get nothing by being the minority party as proven by the last six years. Reid is one smart politician. Compromise is not the same as caving to extortion

Don't be surprised he won and remember Joe when you are paying your premiums and bank fees.

Still, I have to remind DUers that his record is a liberal one and to not be too disheartened.

Joe aside, Tuesday was a big day.

Basically, Holy Joe's now in the solid gold seat, able to hold over the heads of both parties the promise/threat of tipping the balance by switching sides if he feels like it. Given the self-serving contempt he showed for the Democratic Party and democracy in general during this election, I wouldn't count too much on any professions of loyalty he might make to them now.

It's not like we need him that much. It's not like he can vote against the dems and get re elected.

Make an example of his ass.

election... I wonder if John McCain will still be his friend after Joe disregarded part of the McCain/Fiengold bill??

The man must be watched, like a hawk.

not the Democratic party.

I wouldn't tell Lieberman anything that I wouldn't want the Executive Branch to know. :scared:

Further, EVERY Democratic Representative and Senator need intelligence specialists to check for bugs DAILY in their cars, offices, phones, homes, etc. I hope over the past six years of being irrelevant, that our National Democratic Representatives KNOW that the republicans will stoop to any tactic (WH with the help of the FBI, NSA and CIA :scared:) to glean ANY INTELLIGENCE (blackmail - reveal any personal weakness or skeleton) to later exploit.

National Democratic Leaders: It's very important for you to be cautious and intelligence (bugs and spies every DAMN where) savvy with regard to ALL your *sensitive* communications. :thumbsup:

He's already been rewarded for defeating the party's candidate.

Oooooh, bet he's running scared now!

down now and come to the party. We'll see!

I think he sees himself as a nice guy and a smart guy and a fair guy and a patriotic guy. I don't think he sees himself as an ego guy or a power driven guy or a politically motivated guy or a controlling guy. But I think a little bit of all-of-the-above things make up Joe. I think as long as his dem friends in the senate encourage and nurture the first four qualities of the man, we will be fine: Did I mention, I think Joe is also an insecure guy.

the kiss. neocons like joe need to be removed.

Asked if there were anything Republicans could do to persuade him to switch parties, Mr. Lieberman responded with a sly smile.

"There’s a little playfulness in me that wants me to make a joke about that, but it’s too serious," he said. "The answer is no."



I don't know about the rest of you, but I'm a bit more relaxed about this issue now. I'm glad he addressed it and put our fears to rest. :-)



On edit: Like it or not ... we need him to keep control of the Senate. So let's just hope for the best. :-)

How he votes will be quite another matter.

I think we are safe. I want control over Bush and his purse strings and his cruel agenda much more vehemently than I want to deplore Joe. Joe is for Joe, so with the Chairmanship, he'll stay as in line as he ever was.

I disagree with him for backing the war and wish Lamont had won but Joe makes a good Independent senator from CT. Being Indie suits him much better than being a pro-war Democrat. Whenever anyone bitches him out for not toeing the Dem party line, he can respond that he's not a Dem. Same thing for Bernie Sanders.

Why aren't more people psyched that we have a socialist senator from Vermont!?!? And a very liberal new senator from Ohio! Whenever we need 2 liberal senators to stand up for what's "left" Sanders and Brown are our guys. Be happy. This is a happy time. This is good for America.

If Joe hadn't of stated he was caucusing with the Democrats then it would be 50/50, right?

So if that was the cause, who would get the committee chairs and what would happen to majority/minority titles?

when the Senate was split. There was some sort of power sharing arrangement drawn up as a compromise. In fact that compromise pissed off a lot of republicans and is likely one of the reasons Lott eventually lost his position as majority leader. It wasn't until that summer that Jeffords switched, giving the Senate to the Dems.

Ultimately though, the republicans would have more power in a tied senate situation and would have the upper hand in determining chairmanships, seniority, etc. Plus, with the House being in Dem hands now, it would be very unlikely anything would be really worked out.

Either way, I don't think anyone would want Cheney having the tie breaking vote.

We just have to suck it up and realize that Lieberman has to be dealt with. Those that don't understand that are willing to give up the senate due to spite and vindictiveness. This would not only be foolish practically (we'd lose the senate), but we'd look like idiots to millions of people. People would look at Dems as being petty and foolish and they'd be right. They didn't elect Dems to simply get even. They elected Dems to get something done hopefully.

stay with the Democrats even though some kept saying he wouldn't. Lieberman is 90% Liberal no way he would fit with he repukes.

Democrats. There was never any question.

If the Democrats had NOT won the Senate or House, I think he'd be "entertaining other options".

with the Democrats. He never wavered from that position.

if the Republicans still controlled the Senate, they would be offering more powerful chairmanships than Lieberman has now. But I believe three things have stopped him from becoming a Republican this year..a Democratic majority in the Senate, watching Lincoln Chaffee being slaughtered in RI, and the belief that he would only do worse in the Republican primary than in the Democratic primary.

You'll realize this was all worth it!

We'll plainly see who the bad guys are if they vote with the fascists.

If it's lieberman, any threat of punishment and BAM!, hello minority status!

way, he won't, like most people in Congress. He doesn't have to lockstep vote like the Repuublicans do ...no one does.

And it's something like, oh, legalizing the illegal wiretaps?