If Harry Reid told Lieberman leave the Democratic caucus and

[WI_DEM]

join his pals over at the GOP caucus--how would you feel?

[David__77]

1. Never tell him to leave.

Just insult him as much as possible once Democrats pad their majority.

[BlooInBloo]

2. We'd lose the committee chairs, and not be any better off otherwise...

... Fucking shit for brains Connecticut electorate.

[brentspeak]

3. A 100% better to be the majority and have to contend with Lieberman

Than to be the minority and still have to contend with Lieberman, don't you think? Lieberman is still going to be in the Senate, regardless.

[VP505]

4. What good

is having a majority in name only, LIEberman votes with the RePukes, making the majority meaningless?

[brentspeak]

8. A Democratic majority in the Senate has been able to conduct investigations

And, at the very least, can minimize the damage the Republicans have done. So how is having the majority "meaningless"?

[endarkenment]

18. Not really.

They have not yet been able to enforce one subpoena being ignored by the administration. In fact they haven't even tried to enforce one. In addition they are avoiding issuing anymore subpoenas. The investigations are coming to a grinding halt.

The Iraq War bill is an example of how lame this senate, the entire congress, is. Minimize what? They refunded the war, in fact the funded an escalation of the war. Minimize that.

[brentspeak]

26. How are the investigations "coming to a grinding halt"?

And what subpoenas have they even needed to enforce? They've already had Gonzalez himself testify. They've had his underlings testify. All on threat of subpoena. That they didn't even need to file a subpoena shows that the Senate Democrats aren't the 99 lb weaklings some are accusing them of being.

[BootinUp]

33. I don't think that is correct.

The investigations are resulting in further erosion of support for Bush as evidenced by the 7 Repuke Senators that joined with us to smack Gonzo and Bush yesterday.

[wndycty]

35. You really don't know much about the process do you?

The majority is not meaningless. We lose all our committee chairmanships.

[VP505]

36. I know

enough about the process to realize that they haven't accomplishing SHIT with their so called majority.

[TwilightGardener]

5. Maybe he can cut a deal with a rational moderate Repub to join us?

It's happened before, right? Then we can keep our majority.
Edit--I voted to boot Joe's ass across the aisle. Hard.

[endarkenment]

12. Who? Snowe? not likely.

There aren't any left.

[endarkenment]

6. Oh no we would lose control of the senate!

Then we could not pass any legislation or use our power of the subpoena! Oh wait we can't pass any legislation and we won't use our subpoena power.

If they ran the senate they would ram all of their foul legislation through both houses! Well perhaps that is true, as our party leadership routinely bends over at the slightest suggestion that this is what they should do.

[Downtown Hound]

7. I say let him go

It would suck losing the majority, but with him around it's really a majority in name only. And if he joins the repukes, me thinks he's going to have a hard time deceiving the voters of Connecticut as to where his loyalties truly lie the next time around.

[brentspeak]

9. Lieberman isn't up for re-election for another SIX years, remember?

He just won another term this past November.

We do NOT have a "majority in name only"; the Senate Democrats have already been able to hold investigations on the White House's activities that they couldn't dream of conducting if they were still in the minority.

It would be the dumbest thing on the planet for the Democrats to kick Lieberman out of the caucus.

[Downtown Hound]

13. And what exactly have those investigations amounted to?

You have a president that has committed more crimes than probably any other president in our history, and yet impeachment is off the table.

And impeachment is really only the smallest measure of justice that Bush deserves. Imprisonment is really more like it.

Sorry, but what we need is a party that's going to stand up for justice and the constitution. War mongers and corporate crooks are not welcome as far as I'm concerned. Lieberman can go fuck himself.

[LSK]

19. ummm foiling the Arkansas vote fixing scheme for 2008?????

Timothy Griffin??? Ring any bells?

[Downtown Hound]

27. Yeah, but the truth is that nothing is going to fix

our voting system until we get rid of the machines. That scheme is only one of many that have been taking place and are going to continue to take place until there is a massive effort made to secure our voting system.

People like Lieberman are the obstacles for true reform in the Democratic Party. Is their attitude of pandering to the right and the corporations that will always prevent any real progressive reform from occurring.

So once in awhile they throw out a bone. Something for the people to chew on and make them believe that something real is happening. But in reality, nothing is being done. Our voting system is not secure because of that one case. And Bush is not going to go down for his crimes because of these so-called investigations. It's smoke and mirrors. Yes, I'm cynical. But I think it's going to take something like corporate America outsourcing tens of millions of our jobs to make us stand up and really demand change. Because our elected leaders aren't going to do it for us. And Lieberman will do everything he can to make sure that the war machine and the corporate machine marches on.

[brentspeak]

What are you talking about?

The Senate doesn't initiate impeachment proceedings; only the House can. And the issue here is the Senate, correct? So why are you complaining about "impeachment being off the table" in regards to the Senate Democrats?

In case you haven't noticed, the only reason Alberto Gonzalez and his cronies have been forced to testify in front of the Senate is because the Senate Democrats are the Senate majority. What is it exactly that you're complaining about, here?

[Downtown Hound]

29. I'm saying that no real change is going to come from any of these things

that you are lauding. Contact me when you have any real evidence that Bush has actually been hurt by any of the things you talk about.

[NavyDavy]

34. damn straight

[Hawkeye-X]

10. We have the majority, even if LieberSuck leaves.

There's a binding agreement that was signed at the beginning of Congress, giving Democrats the power of a majority until the end of 2008.

Personally, I'd boot his ass and claim him persona non grata.

Hawkeye-X

[Tom Joad]

11. Why would he want Joe to leave? They are ideological campanions.

[LSK]

15. in what way?

[19jet54]

21. Maybe?

I agree that Harry Reid (my senator) is a somewhat conservative democrat compared to others, but Harry actually represents his state's constituents where I don't think Joe does? Then again, he was re-elected as an independent without either parties support in his state.

[LSK]

14. As I understand it, the Committees are set for this Congress

As long as the Committees do not change, I saw Reid should tell Lieberman to go fuck himself.

As far as the votes, it doesnt matter right now because we dont have 60 and they dont have 60.

[jpgray]

16. Are people insane? Give up a majority to lose one asshole?

[Spazito]

17. Well, if one wants an end to ANY Senate investigations into the crimes of the bush

administration as well as losing control of the timing of what bills come up when until, presumably, the Democrats can win more seats in the Senate in 2008 then there is no loss in turfing the creep otherwise losing the Senate is worse than anything lieberman can say and do, imo.

[librechik]

20. All I can say is, when is Tim Johnson coming back?

[wuushew]

22. Probably the same day Senator Lynn Cheney is sworn in

net change = zero

[BlueStater]

24. I'm praying and hoping that bitch stays as far away from the senate as possible

It's the decision of the Wyoming governor who gets that seat and I doubt he would put that cow there.

[librechik]

28. d-oh.

:banghead:

[BlueStater]

23. He should stay

I despise the little fucker and want him gone just as much as anyone else. His vote for Gonzales yesterday really drove me over the edge and I started a thread calling for his outster from the Democratic party.

I've calmed down since then and I now realize that as bad as things are right now they would only get worse with him gone. Sure the pissant isn't helping us accomplish anything voting wise but with him out of the picture we would lose our ability to conduct investigations on to this administration and that would make things a hell of a lot worse.

We'll just have to tolerate the asshole until 2008. Afterwards, we can tell him to go fuck himself.

[Beelzebud]

25. They should have never have given him a chairmanship.

If they want to give Independants chairmanships they should start with Bernie Sanders. He's one of the few honest people left in Washington.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

30. Someone Tell Me The Benefit Of His Being Kicked Out. Where's The Upside?

One would think there'd have to be one in order to make this even worthy of discussion...

[Jacobin]

31. An enemy within your own camp is more dangerous than one outside

Lieberman is scum and should be disavowed.

[tiptoe]

32. "Keep your friends close and your enemies even closer." Sun Tzu nt

[Jacobin]

38. Wanna a quote-off, eh?

O God, that men should put an enemy in their mouths to steal away their brains!

William Shakespeare

[fujiyama]

37. Harry Reid

is first and foremost a politician, and understands that the Dems still need a majority in the senate.

But I'd be thrilled if he did that once the Dems gained a Lieber-proof majority.