If we have 60 Senate seats counting Lieberman, do we have to put

[Doctor_J]

up with his shit for two more years? :puke:

[Gman]

1. Yes

[MadBadger]

2. Why keep him? He'll vote with us for most things except for Foreign policy, even if we cut em loose

So lets do it.

[Marsala]

14. But he might help the Repukes filibuster us out of sheer spite

There's no sense in taking personal revenge with the future of the country at stake. But if we get 61 seats, toss him!

[Eric J in MN]

3. Yes. NT

NT

[grantcart]

4. no and we kick Lieberman out

If we get close there will always be 1 or 2 R Senators that will not want to stand in the way of important legislation.

If a President wins a landslide election they are going to give him his way for a while - they may stand out for small reforms but a President with 350 Electoral Votes has a lot of power.

[theothersnippywshrub]

18. Exactly right. And those 1 or 2 republicans can make a great deal.

Lieberman's vote as the 60th vote is no more significant than Snowe's or Lugar's or any other republican's as the 60th vote. Lieberman already has expressed his concept of party loyalty and will want a deal on every vote. I would rather make a deal with any republican than with Lieberman.

[ShortnFiery]

5. Can't we take Committee Chairmanships away? He is an Independent.

I don't know what positions he holds due to seniority, but Lieberman ran as an Independent and is not IMO, entitled to any Democratic Power.

[elocs]

9. No, we can go after some of the more liberal Republicans to find one to switch.

Also, it is reasonable to believe that all Republican senators will march in lockstep with the majority of senators from their party. There is no reason we need to kowtow to Lieberman.

[theothersnippywshrub]

20. He definitely should lose his committee positions even if he continues

to caucus with the democrats. I expect the democrats to expel him from the caucus if he doesn't leave voluntarily.

[frogcycle]

6. no

the simple majority determines which party is the majority, the committee chairs, who chooses Speaker

The 60 is the votes needed to cut off debate and to override a veto. Whether liebershit is treated like a pariah or a saint, he'll still vote however he wants. Kowtowing to him won't help; better to woo a real pug rather than the pug in assholes clothing

[Motown_Johnny]

7. once McCain loses Lieberman better kiss every democratic ass he can find, and he knows it

[progressiveforever]

8. lieberman will run for president as GOP in 2012

that's my prediction

[Mojambo]

10. We'd only need him to break filibusters though, right?

As fucked up as things are and as bad as the Republicans are about to be spanked electorally I'm not sure how eager they'll be to filibuster.

They'd probably go after judicial nominees, particularly with a couple of big Supreme Court vacancies coming. But then I'd think Lieberman would be with us on that anyway.

The problem is that he's been SUCH a prick that I don't think there's anyway we can trust him.

[aasleka]

11. We don't need him, let him vote however he wants and let Connecticut decide again

Cut Joe loose, don't give him shit and ignore his pleas for help in the next election.

He's going GOP anyway for funding next election.

[quakerboy]

12. are you asking should we, or will we?

because I suspect the two have different answers.

Maybe Obama can make everyone's dreams come true. We heard yesterday that Obama was going to offer McCain a Job. Make it double for nothing, and appoint them both co-chairs of the "Presidential Commission on unrequited and VERY disturbing manlove between former senators". Then we get 61.

[BlueIdaho]

13. I bet they will kiss his miserable ass just for his vote

I can't even stand to think about it to be honest with you. He deserves to be frog marched out of his office and into a broom closet until he loses his next election.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

15. No, the 60 vote thing is case-by-case, not organizational

There is no benefit to having a Dem caucus of 60 vs. 59.

It's a matter of 60 votes on individual issues.

[Hippo_Tron]

22. It does help to have 60 Democrats, though

Yes they don't all fall in line and there's no formal organizational reason for it but politically Democrats have a vested interest in seeing a Democratic President's agenda succeed because a popular President means that they have an easier time getting re-elected. Likewise, the Republicans have a vested interest in taking down a Democratic President's agenda because they do better when he is unpopular.

So if you have 60 Democrats, the number required for cloture, it's a good place to start even if some of them are fickle. 65 Democrats would be even better so that those in close races could vote against the party if necessary and we still wouldn't need Republican votes.

[sharp_stick]

16. 60 nope

There are better repukes to deal with than him, at least some that aren't as repugnant. If the pukes don't hold the majority if he's gone, I think he's gone.

[rhett o rick]

17. Depends on if you have principles or not. I say kick his ass to the curb. nm

[StreetKnowledge]

19. No way, Joe-say

Lieberman is a backstabber. Period. Don't listen to him at all. He can kiss the backsides of the GOP, end of story.

[rufus dog]

21. KICK HIS ASS OUT

He made promises to the people of Conn. and the Democrats, he has not honored his word and should be kicked out. If he starts playing games with his votes the people of Conn. get to deal with him. Someone has to be the sacrificial lamb and I can think of no person more deserving than Joe.

[dansolo]

23. No, because he will still vote with Repubs on cloture votes

The whole point of 60 seats is being able to block filibusters. Lieberman has shown that he will side with Republicans on cloture votes, and no amount of appeasing will change that. Kick him to the curb. Let him caucus with the Republicans. He isn't doing us any good, and this way we can give the committee chairmanship to someone more deserving.