Is it really worth having lieberman, just to maintain the majority in the Senate?

[still_one]

We have had control for six months, and when push came shove very little has happened

Setting the agenda in the Senate appears to not accomplish that much when you don't have the votes to do anything with it.

The House is another story, and in 2008 when we take back the Senate in a BIG way lieberman will be history

I am starting to think that having him position himself with the Democrats is actually counter-productive for us...

[mudesi]

1. Let him join the Republicans

By calling himself a "Democrat" (even though he is an Independent), people think that they have a majority when really they do not.

[mondo joe]

3. You want to give up control of every committee?

Just wondering.

[still_one]

29. No, I don't, but then again we don't have the votes to accomplish anything now anyway

2008 will be different where a significant number of republican seats will be up for reelection in the Senate, and I have no doubt that we will not only take the Senate, but take it in a BIG WAY

[bowens43]

8. I disagree.

The numbers are everything. Without Lieberman , we don't control the committees and we don't decide which legislation makes it to the floor for a vote. Nothing is more important then maintaining this majority.

[man4allcats]

16. Agreed! The reality is that the Republicans already

control the Senate. To paraphrase The Bard, a stink weed by any other name would smell as bad. No matter what he calls himself, for all intents and purposes Lieberman is a Republican which means that the Republicans are already effectively in control of the Senate. The only thing Lieberman's changing his party affiliation will do is make that control official. I say "Hurry up and switch, Joe, and good riddance! Your leaving will in fact be no loss to us. It will; however, serve to make the accounting of who's who in government more honest as in Which party is in control of the Senate? The Republicans."

[mondo joe]

22. Really? They control the committee chairs and agendas?

Think.

Please, think.

[still_one]

37. They don't have the house. However, they would get more attention if they controlled the agenda

and that would allow the media to continue to pimp the administration's agenda more easily, so for that alone, it is probably best to leave well enough alone, until 2008

[man4allcats]

54. Hey, Joe!

Don't let the door hit you in the ass on your way out.

[mondo joe]

55. Non-answer. Do you think chairing the committees and agendas is worth throwing

away because Lieberman is an asshole?

[man4allcats]

58. Hey, Joe!

Don't let the door hit you in the ass on your way out.

[bowens43]

2. Yes, it is without a doubt worth it.

[sandnsea]

4. What's been blocked?

Has anybody thought about what Republicans would have passed if we didn't have control of Congress.

[still_one]

34. First of all we would still have the House. Would anything really change in the Senate? /nt

[sandnsea]

41. Wait til Stevens dies

Then answer that question.

[still_one]

44. agreed /nt

[NMDemDist2]

5. yes n/t

[mondo joe]

6. It is worth it, absolutely. NT

[JohnLocke]

7. Yes (nt).

[Nikki Stone1]

9. Unless you want to lose ANY leverage (or have your own plans for disposing of Lieberman in Jersey)

then the best bet is to keep him placated for another year and a half. When we get a lot more seats in the Senate, then he can stay (I), turn (R), or turn in his Senate seat to dance with the touring company of Stomp.

[JerseygirlCT]

18. Oh now, there's a picture! nt

[Nikki Stone1]

23. Seriously, though, no problem with Joe alive, well, and usable as a wedge until 2008

Sadly, we need this little piece of garbage. After 2008, he can sell cosmetics. :)

[JerseygirlCT]

56. LOL. I imagine there's a big-paying lobbying job out there for him

after 2012. No chance CT would elect him again.

[still_one]

30. I hear you, but in the Senate we won't have the votes to get anything through anyway

However, I will reserve judgement, based on what happens with Gonzalez who not only lied to Congress under oath, but also tampered with a witness testimony

If Gonzalez remains on the job, after the no confidence vote on Monday, and is not impeached, then I must ask what good does it do to set the agenda when we don't do anything with it

[Alexander]

10. Let's hope Sen. Domenici will resign or be forced out...

Over the attorney firings flap.

Then Governor Richardson will appoint a Democrat, since New Mexico has no same-party replacement law like Wyoming.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

11. Eh?

Setting the agenda in the Senate appears to not accomplish that much when you don't have the votes to do anything with it.

So I guess all this shit with Gonzo wasn't really to your liking, eh?

[still_one]

45. Tomorrow if Gonzalez gets a vote of no confidence, and doesn't resign

what do you think will happen? Will they impeach him?

Incidently, I have been convinced that control of the judiciary is that important, that we should put up with liberman for a couple of years

[bamacrat]

12. Eh, probably not..

we can barely get anything done as it is.

But that would more than likely mean we would invade Iran so..

[butterfly77]

13. We need to clean out the party..

and get rid of a lot of the republicon lights and the undercover repubs. We need new blood in the party.

[annabanana]

14. Yes of course...

A quick look at the Judiciary Committees should clear that right up. . We have to get all this stuff on the record/

[BlooInBloo]

15. "just". heh.

[rodeodance]

17. yes, Think committee, agenda control for petey's sake.

[JerseygirlCT]

19. Yup. We've just got to suck it up and deal with the jerk

until 2009 and a new Congress, including many more Dem Senators.

Then he's totally inconsequential, and how lovely that will be.

[BlooInBloo]

20. Fucking worthless fuckwipe Connecticut electorate.

[SoCalDem]

21. unfortunately...yes

without the technical majority, we lose subpoena power, and any access to hold hearings. At least some news DOES come out of these hearings, and lots of possibilities to air out the schemes of the republicans..

Without the majority, we would just allow them to continue to shove their dirty dealings under that rug again..

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

24. Speaking From The Brain Instead Of The Heart Or Knee, Undoubtedly Yes.

[mac56]

25. It is NOT worth it.

I honestly don't care if we lose the majority. At what cost will we hang on to it? Our integrity?

Lieberman is NOT worth it.

[still_one]

I am starting to come around to that way of thinking. Just look how much attention the MSM

is giving him.

[KharmaTrain]

26. It's 60 Votes That Matter

To blow through the roadblocks McConnell has been putting up, a simple majority isn't gonna do...and Liebermann's vote hasn't really made a big difference.

Liebermann's vote on Iraq has been neutralized by Hagel. It's the "moderates" like Specter, Snow, Smith and Collins that are more an impediment than Liebermann...since if they voted with Democrats, there'd be a lot more pressure on the other Repugnicans that could push the total over 60 on a future vote on funding or putting in timetables.

Liebermann's most important vote this year was his first one...for Harry Reid. Since then he's been irrelevant.

[still_one]

32. Interesting analysis, and definitely argues in favor of putting up with him for 2 years more /nt

[Enrique]

27. that's for the dems to prove

they haven't done it yet, imo.

[dsc]

28. Two words Alito and Roberts

A Democraticly controlled judiciary committee wouldn't have approved them.

[still_one]

33. I don't know, enough Democrats voted for their confirmation

hopefully, Stevenson can hold out for 2 more years

[Hippo_Tron]

38. The red state "moderates" voted for Alito

Every single Democrat on the judiciary committee voted against him. Roberts would have probably faced similar results had he not been replacing another right winger on the court.

[still_one]

39. Appreciate the information. Your point is well taken, and you have convienced me /nt

[dsc]

42. Not a single, solitary, Judicial Commitee Democrat did

not a one.

[Hamlette]

31. duh, of course

[Hippo_Tron]

35. The only good reason is if John Paul Stevens' health fails in the next year and a half

[still_one]

40. I didn't think of that. You are right, it is important

[Fredda Weinberg]

36. I guess you haven't been watching hearings, or paying attention to

bills that have been submitted. More important are the bills that weren't passed by a GOP majority.

[still_one]

43. Someone else convienced me based on the judiciary comittee control

however, assume tomorrow the majority give a vote of no confidence to Gonzalez, do you think he will step down, and if he doesn't, what do you think Congress will do?

I know what they should do, impeach him for perjury and witness tampering

Good point about the bills that weren't passed by a GOP majority

[Fredda Weinberg]

47. It's political theatre, which is good enough for now

Congress should impeach Gonzalez - and maybe they will - but simply passing the resolution is enough for the history books.

[still_one]

57. I hope they have the votes.................. /nt

[TreasonousBastard]

46. What's the alternative? And what's this "we" stuff...

since Holy Joe is elected by Connecticut, and Connecticut only.

There's been a lot worse in the Senate calling themselves Democrats and we've nmanaged to survive, so we put up with Joe until Connecticut decides to dump him. But, then we'll most likely get a Republican Senator if he won't step down, so just what is accomplished besides some smug remarks?

[MasonJar]

48. I do NOT want to give control back to the trolls. In September Senator Johnson will return and

be another vote. On edit: I shiver to think what would happen if something happened to one of the sensible members on the Supreme Court if we lost control.

[rec_report]

49. No, and where were the 'insurgents' when LieberBush was...

on his propaganda tour in Iraq?
Polar Bear

[never_get_over_it]

50. He can go won't make a difference to committee chairs

http://politicalinsider.com/2007/02/liebermans_switch_wouldnt_flip.html

"If Lieberman were to caucus with the Republicans, they would still not take full control of the Senate, despite Vice President Dick Cheney's ability to break 50-50 ties. This is because of a little-known Senate organizing resolution, passed in January, which gives Democrats control of the Senate and committee chairmanships until the beginning of the 111th Congress."

Although back in February I tried to get someone from Harry Reid's office to confirm this but they wouldn't or couldn't or something - but you know I think if Lieberman's change would impact the committee assignments he would have done it by now....

[KoKo]

51. NO! Let him go where his TRUE CALLING IS...and Be Happy!

Over to the Repugs you go..."Holy Joe"....I hope you will find Peace & Happiness there.

:shrug: What else is there to say about "Attention Grabber, Sychophantic...Holy Joe?" He gravitates to the "buttered side of the bread" ...as my GRANDMA USED TO SAY!

She was correct...there are TOO MANY who "go to the 'buttered side of the bread," these days...but it's happened before and that's why my 90 year old Grandma said this in the 1970's.

She was "Ahead of her Time...or she had GREAT WISDOM." :shrug: who knows...

[Gidney N Cloyd]

52. It's worth it but I sure wish Dem leadership could convince the MSM to>

> stop going to Lieberman for comment, that he's not generally representative of the party position, that he's just one of the current crazies every party has to put up with from time to time.

[Selatius]

53. Put up with him until the 2008 elections. Then tell him to get lost when Dems have more than 51. n/t

[KharmaTrain]

59. Liebermann's Irrelevant

The only vote he cast this year that meant anything was his first one...to select Harry Reid as the Majority Leader. Since rules say the power can't change to Repugnicans if he switches, since then he can go pound sand. This is especially the case now that Hagel is voting with the Democrats on Iraq.

The problem, as I keep saying, is not with Liebermann or Democrats as it is with moderate Repugnicans. You need 60 votes to move the Gonzo impeachment in the Senate forward. You need 67 votes to get him convicted. That's not Democrats, that's Repugnicans with spines...and sadly there's not 9 right now.

Liebermann's political poison...and will be even moreso next year...as anyone related to this ugly invasion or is seen as a booooshbot will pay heavily at the polls. Inadvertantly, Joe might just help us win Senate seats in Maine and New Hampshire. Now we get 7 more Senate seats and things can get very, very interesting...and that's not up to Joe Liebermann to do, but us Democrats!