If Franken prevails there will be one less reason to keep Lieberman

[ThomWV]

We're not going to end up with a veto-proof majority in the Senate anyway so while every vote certainly counts at least if Al Franken prevails it will help us afford to toss Lieberman out into his own well deserved wilderness.

Deep in my heart I know Al Franken is going to win his election.

[JI7]

1. i don't think anything will be done with Lieberman

even if Franken wins.

[grannie4peace]

2. please, please , please ---get rid of lieberman!!!!!!!

[KharmaTrain]

3. Lieberman Means Shit...Period

If this dude was really the "important power broker" he claimed to be, he'd be in the GOOP caucus and they'd be kissing his slimy ass. That hasn't happened. Or he'd wait until the dust of the election settled before he pulled his shit, he didn't...he knew he had to play his game now or become totally irrelevant...which, he now is.

Here's the deal...while I've heard Reid and Obama say they'd like him to stay in the caucus, I haven't heard anyone say he should remain as chairman of Homeland Security. Other chairmanships, maybe, but he's lost this one....and Joey's throwing his shitstorm now in hopes that he can use the period of "reconciliation" to hold on.

The dynamic of the Senate changes now that we have a Democrat in the White House. We now have the veto power on our side and the GOOP will be lucky to hold their coalition together. Moderates have to be feeling the heat...two big election wipeouts and they're not going to easily walk off the cliff with the "ideologues"...thus we'll see a Snowe or Voinovich or Specter vote with us more than against us. Traitor Joe's vote shouldn't matter at all as if he's a deciding vote, it means that other Democrats have jumped the fence...not because of Joementum.

The game here is to keep pressure on our Democratic Senators as to making sure LIEbermann doesn't retain his chairmanships...that's where the vote will be. Then if Joey doesn't want to have lunch with us...so be it. The game here is that the Democrats don't want to look like they've kicked Joe out, but that he did it to himself.

[Hubert Flottz]

4. As much as I'd like to see him booted TODAY I think you're right...

The decay has set in and it will be nice to watch the little rat bastard rot a little each day until he can't take anymore. The dems are bound to know what an untrustworthy rat the man is, so they can fill him full of shit and let him run and tell the pubs what he thinks he's found out. I doubt if the democrats in congress are not stupid enough to ever trust this POS again, with any real plans or information.

[KharmaTrain]

6. Make Him Into A Tool...

Somehow that's what I'm thinking Obama is doing here. If he were to come out and say he wanted Traitor Joe out, the corporate media would raise a shitstorm about how he really didn't mean uniting and methinks this is the play Joementum is hoping for. If Obama doesn't play, Joe looks, again, like the fool. Yep, let him hang.

Our thing is to remind our elected Democratic Senators how toxic this asshat is...if they didn't know it already. There will be times we need his vote...and we'll gladly take it. The rest of the time, he can go pound sand.

Cheers...

:hi:

[Gman]

5. Yeah, well, we'll be trying to get card check for the unions passed and we need

one more vote in the Senate to block a filibuster... and it's Lieberman. If we kept him, we'd have the vote. We didn't now we can't get it.

[onenote]

7. why do people keep talking about a veto proof majority?

Do you think that Obama is going to be vetoing a lot of bills passed by this Congress?
Of course not.

And its not about a 'filibuster-proof' majority either, since even 60 votes or 61 or 62 wouldn't guarantee the ability to break a filibuster depending on the issue. Democrats haven't voted lockstep in the past on cloture motions and they probably won't in the future. Johnson, Landrieu, Ben Nelson, Bill Nelson, to name a few, have often split with the party on cloture motions and Collins and Snowe have occasionally broken with the repubs.

The reason why keeping Lieberman in the caucus matters is that, in the arcane science of allotting seats to committees and deciding whether to add Democrats, drop repubs, increase or decrease the size of the committees, the size of the caucus is a key determining factor. Every additional member caucusing with the Democrats increases the overall advantage in committee assignments, even if it might not make a difference on one particular committee or another.

The folks that play this sport for a living know this, which is why Reid et al are trying to maneuver this in a way that keeps lieberman in the caucus, while, hopefully, meting out some sort of punishment for his behavior during the campaign (in the form of a demotion from the HSC chairmanship).

[dysfunctional press]

8. unless...

chambliss also loses his run-off, stevens loses the "fiasco in alasko", and al prevails in MN- then we have 60, counting joe.

:shrug: