Shouldn't Lieberman be stripped of his committee positions?

I don't understand... I have gone from being an independent voter to a registered Democrat in 2000. The "Party" stresses loyalty and so I stayed away from 3rd party candidates in order to be strategic for the benefit of the "Party". People in Connecticut made it clear their choice for "Party" representation was NOT Joe. Did the "Partay" dissuade Joe from running and then give him consequences? No they breathed a sigh of relief and let him caucus with them and let him keep his committee positions.

His thanks? Walks like a Republican, Talks like a Republican, and now SUPPORTS the republican candidate in the primaries. Uh am I missing some grand strategy or are we as screwed as we appear to be??

I am pissed.

If they stripped Lieberman and kicked him out of the caucus, it would make not one bit of difference...would it? Am I missing something??

one's is crazy to me... I suppose they were trying to bribe him with leadership roles so he wouldn't vote against dems making the Senate a tie.. Seems it doesn't matter.. the pres vetos or the repugs filibuster.. so, its stupid. He's in charge of Homeland Security Committee... he promised investigations into Katrina.. and then re-negged immediately. He is a traitor to this country. I think we still hang traitors in this country, don't we? I'm not normally for the death penalty ever.. I'm almost willing to make an exception to the rampant corruption that has transpired.

are not really anti-DP.

I don't think the Senate leadership has the option of removing him. Until the new Congress convenes in 2009, that is. It is likely that we shall have picked up at least a cople of Senators by then, so let's hope that he will then end up distinctly on the outside looking in.

This isn't all bad, IMO. Some of Lieberman's status quo pals in the Senate might have tried to protect him from being exiled in 2009. I'm not saying there won't be any of that but this latest betrayal will make it even more difficult to defend him.

But even more importantly, this will probably hurt McCain more than it helps him. My guess is, Republican primary voters won't be enthusiastic when reminded what great pals he and Lieberman are.

This is a desperation move on McCain's part. And I'm very glad he's doing so badly because he is the most electable of all the Republican primary candidates.

If he did not, McConnell would be majority leader.

Pshew! At least there is a reason. I guess it really could get worse. Hard to believe...

Lieberman will end up being one of the most hated men in the history of the Dem Party.

Connecticut, what were you thinking?

But we will retain the leadership until 2009, even if at some point we no longer have a majority. And I believe the same thing gives Joe a lock on his committee assignments.

until I read the rest where you point out mcconnell, and so yup you're right, leave holie joe alone

before, but do you think Lieberman backing McCain is an opening for him to be McCain's VP should he win the nomination?

That could be it. At least no one can defend him any longer. His true colors are out...

He promises to caucus with the Dems...yet never votes with the Dems and now openly supports republicans.
Who else wonders why reid allows this?

Here's the problem with Joementum. Other than Iraq, he votes a fairly moderate/liberal line. With such a slim "majority", getting his vote 6 our of 10 times is better than 0 our of 10. Or at least that's the explanation I've been given by party "elders". But that could change with a larger Democratic majority in the Senate in '09.

I suspect that Joe's time is coming...if not in the Senate, by the voters of Connecticut. Right now he's being protected by the "organizational rules" that allow Reid to play Majority Leader and got Joe to vote for him...but in the next Senate all bets are off. He's pissed off plenty in the Democratic caucus and it'll be interesting to see how he is handled when his vote is no longer needed. Hopefully he'll be backbenched into retirement.