what will it take to make Lieberman switch sides?

[ulysses]

And can it happen tomorrow? Enough of this shit.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

1. He switched sides a long time ago.

[ulysses]

2. I mean officially.

Let the fucker caucus with the GOP so the sword isn't hanging over our collective heads.

[Joe Bacon]

21. He'll switch sides when Vitter goes bye-bye

When Vitter is flushed down the john, and Blanco replaces him with a Democrat, LIEberman loses his balance of power.

That's why it's so important to elect as many Democrats as we can in 2008. Every additional Democrat makes LIEberman that much irrelevant!

[valerief]

3. You mean become a Democrat? nt

[ulysses]

4. no - I know what that'd take,

and we've gone far enough down that road already...

[davidwparker]

5. He's not. There's going to be a Dem landslide in '08 so he won't

officially become an (R) with that about to happen. Then, I hope the CT voters see through his act now and turn him out ... for good.

[Colobo]

6. He is hanging with Sean Hannity tonight in the "Freedom Concert".

[daninthemoon]

7. It was really something to hear him talk about partisan rancor at

today's "hearing". How about a little party loyalty? He won't be happy until the entire middle east is in flames, and he'll hook up with anyone he thinks will do it.

[NI4NI]

13. He asked Petreaus 3 questions, ALL about IRAN!

The Howdy Doody lookin' prick actually had the nerve to ask if it would be beneficial to attack Iran.
Is he a card carrying member of the PNAC?

[Cameron27]

8. If he gets tossed off committees, he might officially become one

with the GOP. He delights in being a thorn in the side of a slim majority, but he might change his tune when the Democrats have more control. Too bad, too late, too wrong Joe.

[ulysses]

9. I'd like to see the party provoke his ass.

If he wants so badly to go, then goddamn, go!

[goclark]

10. He switched sides in 2000, we just were to dumb to know it ~

He was a snitch in the Election that GORE WON!

Rove payed that B off ~ I can't take him for a second

[MasonJar]

11. He is one of the main reasons to sweep all dems into office in '08. He will

then be brushed into the dustbin. Meanwhile we need him to prevent a 50/50 split and lose the majority rule.

[ulysses]

12. the senate majority isn't doing us squat right now,

for fear that a misstep will send Joementum to the puggies. Let him go.

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

14. 3 year 2 for the price of one at Outback? nt.

[Greyhound]

15. A memo from AIPAC. n/t

[GeorgeGist]

16. Joe may switch labels ...

but he'll never switch sides.

[Nutmegger]

17. In 2008 when the leadership gives him the boot

after we obtain a LIARman-proof majority.

[Mz Pip]

18. A BJ from

Ann Coulter? They'll be spending the evening tonight at the Freedom Concert. Maybe a few foot taps and hand signals will do the trick.

Mz Pip
:dem:

[BenDavid]

19. The way I see it: Let Chuck Shumer, the

head of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee go out and find some great candidates to go up against those 20 plus republicans in 08 and oh say win about 12 ( I know that is maybe dreaming ) but oh say at least 6 and come January 2009 let whomever is the Senate Majority Leader walk up to Crazy Joe and tell him, "Joe we appreciated all the work you did for us as a Democrat, but when you kissed Bush we tolerated you and now that we have 56 Democratic Senators, Joe, it is time for you to go and now you can walk over to the other side and vote with them. We thank you...

Ben David

[sampsonblk]

20. The Rapture

[paulk]

22. he's not going to switch sides

with the Dems poised to expand their majority in 2008, why would he switch caucuses?

Besides, outside of foreign policy, he's not very conservative - he really doesn't fit in with the Republicans very well.


-----------------


I realize you're not actually after any serious answers here, but why do you want him to switch now? That would cost us (you are a Democrat, right?) the majority in the Senate, the loss of all our committee chairs, end all investigations into the Bush admin, and completely squash any hopes of countering Bush's Iraq policy.

[ulysses]

23. it was a serious question.

And I am a Democrat, but I don't see much benefit to the Senate majority if we can't actually *do* anything with it lest Joe jump ship.

[paulk]

24. the other things I mentioned are still worth having

even with Lieberman being on the Repuke side vis a vis Iraq. The Republicans would still be actively covering up everything the Bush administration has done these last 6.5 years. There would be no debate over Iraq at all. At least now it's out in the open - and the Republican Party is going to pay at the ballot box next year. That doesn't help much now, I know.

It's going to interesting - what the public reaction to Bush's post Petreaus "in your face" Iraq policy will be. He's just promised the country another year of war with no end in sight. Maybe there will be a groundswell of support for impeachment, since that's starting to look like the only way to stop this insanity.

Our system just isn't set up to work quickly. That has both it's good points and bad.

[PATRICK]

25. For a Few Dollars More

n/t.

He would switch when the GOP becomes ascendant once more or possibly when the Dems have absolutely no need of him.

99 Dem Senators and 1 GOP Jurassic DNA experiment.