DU: We need to consider this, what to do if Lieberman wins?

[wndycty]

I'm hoping that Ned Lamont pulls this out, however as a pragmatist I have to consider that Joe Lieberman, who has been a Democrat (albiet a conservative one), may win.

I'm NOT AT ALL bothered by the revelations that there may be some behind the scenes deal making by Democratic leaders to take care of Lieberman if he wins. If he wins we NEED him to caucus with us, I would love to punish him for his support of Bush and his running as an independent, HOWEVER I love this country and the Democratic party much more than I hate Lieberman, and if reaching out to him helps Harry Reid become the Senate majority leader then so be it. I'm not happy with many of Lieberman's positions and votes, however if his caucusing with the Democrats helps the Dems set the agenda for the next two years then I have absolutely no problem with the overtures.

Lets fight like hell for a Lamont for victory, but it would be irresponsible not to be prepared or a Lieberman victory and have a "plan B" in place.

LET'S NOT BITE OUR NOSE OFF TO SPITE OUR FACE

Go ahead call me names, DLC shill, et al. if it makes you feel better, but come January 1, 2007 we need as many Senator as possible in our caucus.

[Oleladylib]

1. Totally agree with you!!! and yes we will be called all of those

4,5 and 6 letter names..the reality of the situation is as you said it!

[Jim Sagle]

2. Depends on the math. If his vote makes the difference, accommodate him.

If it doesn't, fuck'm.

[wndycty]

7. Well the Senate is a 6 year term. . .

. . .we might not need him in 2007, but we might need him 2009. Let's not forget there are other conservative Dems and they might jump ship (like Jeffords did to the GOP), so lets not rely on the math, it can come back to hunt us.

[Stinky The Clown]

3. I've been saying this for a while .......

.... and I don't think we have much choice if he's the one who becomes number 51.

That's why we really need 52 ...... so we can tell him to kiss our collective asses.

[bullimiami]

4. if he wins he wins. its up to his conscience what he does with the office

when he has it.
i dont like what he has done with it. if he caucuses with the dems and it helps their majority so be it.

[fooj]

5. Joe is a liar.

If he wins we NEED him to caucus with us

I'm still waiting for him to get on the Senate floor and denounce the Repukes like he did Clinton. Remember that?

This isn't about name calling. This is about PRESERVING who we are as DEMOCRATS. Joe is NOT a Dem. He's also not a conservative. He's a lying, treasonous crook.

I think Reid is playing with him. I can't see how anyone would trust the man at this point. I certainly don't.

[Cosmocat]

6. I repeat ...

I think it is his own self interests that will keep him caucausing with the Ds ... He has seniority, and is line for top chairs on committees ... It has been Bushco more than the senate republicans who have been playing him along ... ALL of these senators have HUGE egos, and there is NO WAY enough Rs will step aside to let Lieberman ahead of them in the pecking order ... And, NO WAY Lieberman will go back to the back of the line ...

Also, he WILL look to the future, and if he flips to caucus with the republicans, he WILL get run out of Connecticut in 2012 ... No ifs, ands or buts ...

[calico1]

8. In theory that sounds good. Unfortunately

Joe is not loyal to the Democratic Party and he has proven it many times. Why do some of us continue to think he is valuable to the Democrats? I think the Democrats, especially local CT Democrats have made a huge mistake in not openly and aggressively supporting Lamont. I think they are probably afraid of pissing off Joe. They think if they keep him happy he will not turn against them. But it's a mistake. Whenever he finds the opportunity to further his own ambitions he will throw the whole party under the bus. It's unfortunate that there are those who think he should be appeased.

[wndycty]

9. Forget particular votes, think about leadership Minority v. Majority

If he wins he literally can be the difference between Minority Leader Reid and Majority Leader Reid. We need him to help us make it Majority Leader Reid!

[calico1]

13. Well for that purpose yes.

This of course is assuming he keeps his promise to caucus with Democrats. I still don't feel too sure about that and as I said I think it's been a big mistake for Democrats not supporting Lamont more forcefully. I hope the gamble pays off if Lieberman wins.

[hijinx87]

16. slightly different subject, but I'm not sure . . .

that reid is the right guy for majority leader. I suppose he is
a serviceable enough minority leader, but I just don't see a lot
of vision out of him.

I think dick durbin (who is currently asst minority leader) would
do a better job. but that's just my opinion.

[hijinx87]

10. Lieberman's "liberal quotient" as rated by the ADA is 80 . . .

for heavens sake.

just to put that in context, that's the same rating as bill nelson (fl), and
greater than john corzine (nj).

I don't see anyone calling for their heads.

(but what was also really interesting is that arlen specter's rating is 45, and
lincoln chafee's is at 75)

http://www.adaction.org/ADATodayVR2005.pdf

[still_one]

11. If Lieberman wins, you work with him

it is as simple as that

[wndycty]

14. Hey I don't like the man, but I want to see Reid as Senate Majority Leader

It is as simple as that!

[SaveElmer]

12. We take him back...and rejoice...

That Pat Leahy is chairman of the Judiciary committee instead of Orin Hatch!

(assuming we get control)

[Tom Rinaldo]

15. Fight to defeat Lieberman now and accept him back if he wins.

It's no different than what we are doing in Rhode Island, trying to defeat Chaffee there. If somehow Chaffee wins the election, but later decides to leave the Republican Party and caucus with Democrats as an Independent (exactly what happened when Vermont Senator James Jeffords switched from being a Republican) we would accept Chaffee into our caucus to gain control of the Senate.

If we want Lieberman out of the Senate, put energy into defeating him now in CT. Having him return to the Senate to caucus with Republicans to elect a Frist replacement does none of us any good.

[wndycty]

17. Exactly Tom!

And I have no problem some proactive behind closed doors action on behalf of Democratic leadership.

[madfloridian]

18. Next time an incumbent is voted out...show those grassroots who's boss.

I guess they can do the same thing...they can say we should have thought about that before the primary.

Lieberman said they should have thought about that before the primary.

Hey, there's even a video of his saying it.

Then they can gather all their buddy conservative Dems to support them, and they will sure show those grassroots. I mean, really.

It is one thing if the CT voters just LOVE Lieberman so much. It is another thing if his fellow conservative Democrats still support him, as do the Republicans.

This is a power play on the part of Lieberman and the power elite. Pure and simple.

And the next Democrat who says its a win win, will hear from me. The Democratic party lost when Joe did not accept the vote of the CT Democrats.

This is not funny, it is deadly serious.

[ToeBot]

19. Fine, but if Lieberman wins, the notion that the party can be changed...

from the inside effectively dies. I'm sure that doesn't bother the Lieberman supporters and other supporters of the status quo. (How come I haven't seen Bill Clinton and Barbara Boxer stumping for Ned Lamont?) But there are quite a few Democrats that are completely fed up with the direction the party has taken. It should be obvious that Democrats are in a situation to regain control of both legislatures, not because of some grand and well articulated political platform, but simply because the Republicans are so unimaginably terrible. Eventually the Dem's will have to lead and if it's more of the same, there isn't much reason to stick around.

[wndycty]

20. I hope you understand, I'm not supporting Lieberman. . .

. . .just being pragmatic.

[Tom Rinaldo]

21. It's a reason to redouble our efforts to elect Lamont.

That solves the problem.

[wndycty]

22. Exactly, but someone has to worry about 11/8/06

. . .if things don't go our way. And I hope NOBODY takes my pragmatism as anything but planning and preparation for the long term.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

24. No, it just means that it's the voters you have to convince.

If you want to change the Democratic party, from inside or outside, the people whose views you have to influence are not the party leadership, they're the voters. The reason Lamont is likely not to win is not because of magic on the part of Joe Lieberman or his supporters, it's because it seems probably that not enough people are willing to vote for him.

If you want to effect political change in a democracy, from inside or outside the Democratic party, there are no shortcuts - the only way to do it is to convince enough people to agree with you.

[ChiciB1]

23. We Need To Mount Some Sort Of Strategy To Help Lamont With

his campaign. I sent a money to him, but also to other candidates and am pretty tapped out. There must be some way we can help besides just giving money. I see Mr. Lie and his face morphs into The Idiot!! I can't STAND him and I can't stand how he seems to be gazing at his belly button and making himself into THE DECIDER!!

It will be very hard for me to EVER support him in any way again. And yes I want to win, but if he does win I plan to give him a piece of my mind! And it won't be pretty! I think he's just as "smarmy" as The Idiot!

[salin]

25. recognize that if we don't govern more for the people than

the corporate wing of the party pushes... that more progressives will move on and out - and no longer be able to be convinced that working within the party and primary system is the way to go rather than to run third party candidates... because Lieberman will have proven that even when progressives work through the party system - they are screwed by others in the party. Look for more third party vote splitting contests. Sadly the whole Lieberman "independent - but only after I lost in the election" legacy will be more big elections like 2000 where enough folks voted for Nader to make the election stealable.

[chaska]

26. Do what you want, but I'm egging his car.

[SteppingRazor]

27. "If he wins we NEED him to caucus with us"....

Maybe so, but he needs us just as much as we need him.

Liberman HAS to caucus with us -- at least if he wants to be re-elected in 2012.

[beyurslf]

28. I am most worried that the Senate could come down to his vote, where

the Repubs want him to caucus with them for a majority and we need him for our majority. He could get whatever he wanted then---and I would go all the way and give him whatever he asked for too. We must have the majority in 2007