I predict Lieberman will keep his chairmanship.

[BurtWorm]

I bet Reid is going to make a deal with him to keep the spread what it is. He may exact some restitution of some kind, require some acts of humility.

I am agnostic about whether or not this is a good idea. If the Repubs lose Coleman, I would be more hard set against making deals with Lieberman. I'm not sure how I feel if Franken loses. If I were Reid I think I would try to use the chairmanship as a kind of leash on Lieberman's loyalties. The question is, how do you keep your foot on Lieberman's throat until the next election?

[AlCzervik]

1. nice post

Lieberman!









































:o

[BurtWorm]

2. Why I oughta...

:bounce:

[movonne]

5. I have a feeling you are right..

[peacebird]

3. pull his chair right out from under him. He actively campaigned AGAINST the Dem candidate

Sorry - actions have consequences.

Hell - it's not like he votes WITH us on anything important anyhow.

[BurtWorm]

7. I wouldn't want him to be set loose.

I would want him to be kept near on a short leash.

Would it be possible, for example, to demand absolute loyalty during threatened filibusters, for example, in exchange for two more years of chairmanship? Any divigation from the plan and he's out. It's up to Lieberman if he wants to play Mr. "bi-partisan" which gets him nothing (except facetime on Fox) or wield the gavel.

[MrCoffee]

8. You're willing to trust any promise Joe makes?

Really?

[BurtWorm]

17. Clearly, if he uses that position to grandstand and criticize Obama

he should (as I just said to crs) get his ass kicked.

Maybe they could offer him chairmanship of the hospitality committee... Or the bakesale committee...

:think:

[endarkenment]

22. He has already done that. How many more times does he have to

fuck us over?

[BurtWorm]

28. He's going to continue to fuck us over if he's set free to fuck us over.

He's clearly in it for himself. Just as he's always been. He needs to be punished and I don't think setting him free is punishment. (Of course I'm much less convinced that allowing him to chair his pet committee is punishment either.)

[endarkenment]

33. If there is no punishment for what he has already done

then in what sense is he not already set free?

What is this great danger he poses? You act as if Lieberman is anything other than an annoying asshole. Here is a clue: he did everything he could to get McCain elected and the result was an ass-whupping. What the heck are you so scared of?

Those committee chairs are MAJOR PLUMS and should go to LOYAL Democratic Senators.

What message does it send to the rest of our caucus if Lieberman is not punished?

[BurtWorm]

38. You win.

You're absolutely right.

[AlCzervik]

11. even on a short leash how could he be trusted? Once trust is gone you really cannot

get it back.

[BurtWorm]

14. Lieberman is in a weird position now.

He's not quite as powerful as he'd like to be, now that the Repubs are less powerful than they were. But he's not without power. The Dems still have that fillibuster threat to contend with. Lieberman can fuck with them that way, if they let him.

What harm is it to let him keep his precious little homeland security detail?

On the other hand, if he makes clear that he's going to use that position to criticise Obama at every chance, then I agree, he needs to get his ass kicked out of power.

Just thinking out loud here...

[endarkenment]

18. He makes no difference to the fillibuster threat.

If we had 60 votes including Lieberman he would be in a position of power. If we had 61, powerless. Likewise, as we are not close to 60, he holds not power.

[AlCzervik]

20. i don't disagree with you, part of me wants him to just Feck off but that doesn't really

accomplish anything aside from 5 minutes of feeling really good.

I would like him to publicly apologize for all the negative things he's said about our party and Obama, a sincere specific i'm sorry would be something.

[BurtWorm]

24. I would also like to see him disarmed and manacled.

I'd like him shut up. Maybe chairmanship of that particular committee is not the best choice. He loves to mouth off about national security.

[endarkenment]

29. Maybe he can sit on a back bench like every other schmuck.

And if we wants to go caucus with his rightwing friends over on the R side - let him go do that all on his own.

[AlCzervik]

39. it's difficult to figure out what to do with him, i'm angry as hell with him so i can't

have an objective point of view.

[BurtWorm]

43. I hate him too.

I wish he could be locked in a room for the next four years and only let out after he loses his next election.

[endarkenment]

27. And then continue to be rewarded with a leadership position?

:wtf:

[BurtWorm]

35. I think he's a problem that needs to be solved. Now I agree that chairing the HS committee

is not suitable punishment, so doesn't solve the problem.

He is a traitor of historic proportions. He should be made an example of. Just taking his chairmanship away... is that going to hurt him enough? I think it would hurt him more to silence him, to circumscribe his words and his actions. He steps outside the line, he loses his goodies.

If there were a better way to punish him, to publicly humiliate him, I wish I knew.

[endarkenment]

42. Yes taking away his chair is huge.

It is humiliating and it makes him an official nobody. It leaves him with few options. He actually doesn't fit in on the other side either - he's a new england orthodox jew, they are now almost all southern and midwestern fundy nutjobs. So he can sit out the next four years as a nobody with no power, and then get put out of office in 2012. Sounds like a fine punishment to me.

[BurtWorm]

45. Ok.. You convinced me.

I hope my prediction is wrong.

[AlCzervik]

36. i don't want that either and no Lieberman should not be rewarded for his defection.

I don't know what should be done with him, back bencher until the next election would be nice.

[endarkenment]

15. Set loose?

In what sense is he now or has he ever been on any sort of leash?

Your post makes no sense. He has already deviated as far as one can go:
1) rejected the results of the Democratic primary in his state and used a loophole to mount a third party campaign to get re-elected;
2) defrauded the voters in Connecticut by claiming he would be a Democratic loyalist, and then proceeded to vote and act against party interests on numerous occasions;
3) actively and brazenly and egregiously backed the Republican candidate for president;
4) just today announced that further Democratic Party gains in the Senate would be a bad thing.

His vote makes no difference to us right now. We are not close to a 60 vote filibuster proof majority, nor are we close to losing control of the Senate. He has no power at all to hurt us by leaving.

Why is it again you want to keep him around?

[BurtWorm]

23. I'm losing my agnosticism.

I'm leaning away from thinking this is a good idea. I would like to see him punished. I would not like to see him free to throw bombs at Obama and the Democrats from Fox News for the next two years. The only way you can control someone with ambition like Lieberman's is to put him in a corner with a deal of some kind.

[endarkenment]

26. I couldn't care less how many bombs he throws from wherever

what I care about is that he gets to pose as a Democrat and gets rewarded with leadership positions in our party while doing so. When he was the tie-breaking vote that gave us control of the Senate, we had no choice. He no longer has that power. Time for Joe to go.

[BurtWorm]

30. Go where?

He'll still be in the Senate. The Repubs are going to use him to attack Obama and he'll be happy to be used that way. I want to see less of him if possible. I want him neutered and shut up. That's the only punishment worthy of him.

[endarkenment]

34. He can go caucus with Republicans.

And then the charade of his being a Democrat will be over. He is not going to shut up, you are delusional about this. He will continue to push the neocon party line. You, for some reason you simply haven't explained, think that his doing so from a Democratic Party leadership position is preferable to his doing so as a nobody who belongs to no party.

[BurtWorm]

40. Good points.

I'm just thinking out loud.

[endarkenment]

44. I hate him with a passion. Lamont would have been a great Senator.

[BurtWorm]

46. He's the only Democrat I've ever voted against in a general election.

1988. I voted for Lowell Weicker. Even then, it was obvious what a self-serving schmuck Lieberman was.

[MrCoffee]

4. Reid doesn't have the spine to take LIEberman out to the woodshed.

I'm sure they'll have a very frank chat about Benedict Joe's campaigning, and then it'll be business as usual in Harry Reid's Senate.

[BurtWorm]

12. Something is up or they wouldn't be having this one on one, would they?

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

6. I'm torn. I can't stand that traitor, but we may need him.

[BadDog40]

Fuck him, he did nothing but stand behind McPain

He is the last person we need.

[endarkenment]

19. Again, his vote is not important now.

At 51 it was important. At 60 it would have been important. At 52-59 his vote does not matter.

[Youphemism]

9. Lieberman needs to be a singular exception to the inclusive theme of Barack's administration...

Not because he disagreed with Obama, but because he has proven himself to be a political opportunist who will do what is in his own best interests above all else. His thinking and modus operandi is a cancer to both parties -- the school of thought that rides the winds of self-interest rather than the common good.

Lieberman didn't just abandon principles to achieve a political objective. He tried to assail and indict the moral core of a man Lieberman knows shares more of his core values than the man he chose to support, while shirking his own duty to represent the people who got him elected.

We can better get where we need to go by embracing those who hold different beliefs. We can't get anywhere by embracing those who shun their beliefs to get where they want to go.

[Larkspur]

10. Lieberman will not go over to the Republicans if his chairmanships are stripped

He'll side with the Republicans on some issues, but he knows that the Repubs are in the minority.

I too expect Reid to allow Lieberman to keep his chairmanships. I'm hoping that some other ambitious Democrat will demand that Reid give him Lieberman's chairmanship. That's the only way I see Lieberman losing his chairmanship.

[demo dutch]

13. It will show unity not to kick him out

[endarkenment]

21. It will show that there is no penalty for being a traitor.

[matchstick]

16. After all he heard his mccain crowd/friends disgusting attacks and said nothing?

I hope he gets the axe.

[GoesTo11]

25. My God! How can he even consider leaving Lieberman in place?

Lieberman has been consciously angling to screw the Democrats each step of the way since 2004 at least. His Iraq views are dangerous. The benefit of one more vote is minimal compared to the gain of having that chairmanship in the hands of someone good, and the benefit of taking away Lieberman's platform to say he's a Democrat and disagrees with the party. Plus, as other posters note, you can't trust him as far as you can throw him. He's like Gollum.

[against all enemies]

31. It's the good old boys club, if Joe stays screw Reid.

[BklnDem75]

32. Lieberman's both powerless and useless.

He was only needed to keep the majority. Even if he made it 60 seats, it would mean nothing since he's been voting against us on the major issues anyway. He needs to go.

[JoePhilly]

37. Give it to some one else ... make HIM quit!!!!

[onenote]

41. I hope he doesn't, keep it. There are more deserving Democratic senators

And there should be some consequences attached to his disloyalty.

[Bucky]

47. You... you... you...

[Jersey Devil]

48. He has to pledge to vote YES for every single cloture vote

and if he votes with the Repubs on any filibuster moves they make he is out immediately. That's the deal I'd make with him.