Let me reword an earlier post: We can't insist Lieberman be booted AND brag about get 60 senators

[LynneSin]

60 senators requires an asterisk next to it because it fails to show us the fine print - that 60 senators ASSUMES that we are friendly with Lieberman and he is siding with us.

Let's call it what it is - 59 senators, which btw - IS SOMETHING DAMN AMAZING TO BRAG ABOUT!!! :woohoo:

It's just not 60, 60 means we accept Lieberman too and although I appreciate President Obama taking the high road, I for one am not ready to go there myself.

[derby378]

"A Senate, if they can keep it"

So we don't have 60 Senators yet. I think we'll have enough to do what must be done. :hi:

[gratuitous]

1. Lieberman can make his own decision

As to whether he caucuses with the Democrats or not, that should be up to Lieberman. If the news stories were about Majority Leader gratuitous, there would be breathless reporting about how I had persuaded the caucus to punish Lieberman by taking away his committee chairmanship and all seniority, and placed him on the seniority list behind soon-to-be Senator Mark Begich of Alaska.

If Lieberman wants to remain a Democrat under my leadership, he'd have to start from the very bottom and work his way back up. He'd be carrying everyone else's briefcase to the Senate chamber, get the crappiest desk and the smallest office. It would then be up to Lieberman if he wanted to serve under those strictures, or jump across the aisle.

[elocs]

2. I wouldn't count on Lieberman toward having 60 any more than any other specific

Republican Senator. If Lieberman truly is a Democratic leaning Senator then he would vote for cloture no matter if he is a committee chairman or not. If he would be unwilling to vote for cloture, then he would simply be indicating that he has no principles anyways. Getting rid of Lieberman is kind of like cutting off a little finger--you may miss it, but you will learn to effectively work around it.

[DrDan]

3. 60 means absolutely nothing if lieberman is one of the 60

[lame54]

4. Kick him to the curb...

if he is allowed to be the swing vote - that will give him more power than he deserves

we will just have to work a little harder to find the 60th vote

let him fade into obscurity

[lurky]

5. It's not like Joe will be there when we actually need the 60 votes.

He'll find a way to defect when it really counts.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

8. That's Foolish Fear. Look At His Votes On Almost Every Piece Of Filibustered Legislation.

He was with us almost every time.

[LynneSin]

11. yes, when he was still on friendly terms with the democrats

The man went out there and actively campaigned for John McCain PLUS rumor has it Lieberman was on a short list to be his VP. He made it a point to speak at the RNC convention.

This isn't 2006, this is 2008 - best we not consider his vote then to expect it and be disappointed.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

15. Joe Always Has, And Always Will, Vote The Way He Truly Believes In.

That will occur no matter what in my opinion, regardless of what happens between him and the dems.

It is unfortunate that sometimes his strong beliefs are in stark contrast to what we'd expect them to be from a dem, but he is a man of conviction and will not vote no out of sheer spite. I'm completely confident in that.

[LynneSin]

23. Joe always does what he thinks is best for Joe

When the DEMOCRATS of Connecticut decided they wanted someone else as their senator back in 2006, Joe decided that Joe knew what was best for Connecticut and ran against the party.

We played ball with him because it gave us the majority. But we don't need to play ball with him anymore. This magical number isn't a reality and I like to work with what I know is there. If a year from now we see that Lieberman is remorseful and plays ball with us then perhaps I'll change my mind. But now he is what he is.

[lurky]

12. Are you sure about that?

Here's how it went down with Alito:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jane-hamsher/naral-and-planned-parenth_b_16277.html

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

13. Please Don't Make Me Have To Define The Word 'Almost' To You.

Please tell me you know what it means on your own.

[LynneSin]

17. I think he's like mid-80s for his democratic voting record

But why are you so blind to what Joe has done the last 6 months? If Joe really cared about the 80-some% stuff that he has supported these last years why would he happily campaign for a man who supported the OTHER side 90% of the time.

I would rather go into this congressional cycle with a clear mind that here are the number of democrats, the number of independents who haven't dicked over the democrats in the last 6 months (1) and then everyone else.

Then anyone we can pick up during legislation, including Joe Lieberman, is just a nice bonus of getting the job done.

Joe promised that he was only speaking at the RNC and then he went out there on the daily grind to support a man whose policies mirrored those of George W. Bush. Let's just wash our hands of him and move forward.

[lurky]

20. You mean he only sells us out when it really matters.

Like when B* is stacking the Supreme Court with extremists. When it's some minor appropriations bill, he is 100% On Our Side.

[AndrewP]

6. I'd rather have 59 and have Lieberman on the other side

which he already seems to be anyway.

Maybe he can get a job on McCain's staff.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

7. Regardless Of What Happens, Lieberman Would Still Vote Yes With Us On Many Things.

Again, you are being shortsighted with this. Look at the facts. Look at all the legislation that has been blocked with filibuster and see how many more yes votes were needed. In almost every example, regardless of how lieberman voted or how many dems voted against, an additional 9 yes votes would be enough for cloture. Do the research.

Furthermore, if we get the 59 then it is likely far more reasonable and advantageous to keep lieberman in the caucus, and many demanding his ouster would change their minds.

If we win these 3 seats, it is highly likely we will have 60 senators in the dem caucus. Yes, 60. As far as how they'll vote when it comes time, that remains to be seen. But what's important is that from a historical perspective and looking at the ACTUAL number of yes votes acquired already for past failed legislation due to filibuster, we would now have enough votes for almost every single one to pass, in spite of who in the dem caucus did or didn't vote yes. You keep wanting to ignore the FACTS, and instead seem content and stubborn in pushing your cynical negativity to the masses in order to downplay the significance of reaching 60. For actual factual reasons based on past numbers of yes votes, as well as a huge psychological victory, reaching 60 is a tremendous victory. Being aware to the highly likely probability that lieberman would continue to caucus with us, then we would have 60, not the 59 you are claiming.

It serves no purpose to keep posting the negative naysayer posts on this issue other than to diminish a huge prize that is worthy of celebration, and to infect the community with negativity for no reason other than to claim technicality. But fuck technicality. In the real world and as it relates to real historical vote numbers, the 60 does matter and would give us enough votes; along with those who cross the aisle; to pass just about every single piece of important and reasonable legislation.

[LynneSin]

14. So would Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe - shall we count them in our majority

I know Lieberman's voting record very very well.

By insisting that Lieberman can be trusted we might as well bury our heads in the sand and ignore what he has done the last 6 months. His voting record shows that he is liberal on many accounts but his actions was supporting a man who would take away many of those issues that Lieberman has supported - like choice, civil rights and a host of other social issues.

I would rather say we have 59, which btw is a damn impressive number, and feel solid with that number than say 60 and be disappointed. If Lieberman wants to vote with us on a vote then great job - but I'd rather not count all those eggs in my basket just yet.

[RoyGBiv]

9. To be really technical, it's 58 ...

... I think. With all the back and forth and up and down and not knowing who won what yet, the numbers are getting confusing. I need a list and don't have one.

But, my understanding (which could be flawed, and I welcome correction) is that 60 also included Sanders from Vermont. There's no chance, of course, that he'd caucus with Republicans or side with them on many issues ... but as long as we're being technical.

As for Lieberman, I appreciate Brad DeLong's take on the matter:

Barack Obama Seems to Be Being Clever...

President-Elect Barack Obama says that he welcomes Joe Lieberman's continued presence in the caucus of the Democrats in the Senate:

The Washington Monthly: President-elect Barack Obama has endorsed keeping Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman (I-Conn.) in the Democratic caucus, suggesting to the leadership that the two sides reach a compromise in the conflict over the former Democratic vice presidential nominee's future, sources said yesterday. In a phone conversation last week with Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.), Obama said that expelling Lieberman for his support of the Republican presidential ticket would send the wrong signal after Obama's promises to set partisanship aside, according to a Senate Democratic aide familiar with the conversation...

This makes it very clear to everybody that if Joe Lieberman joins the Republican caucus it is his own doing: that if Lieberman leaves the Democrats it is Lieberman who will be breaking his promises to the voters of Connecticut, rather than the Democrats who are throwing Lieberman out.

It seems to me Barack Obama has just eliminated any bargaining power Lieberman had vis-a-vis Harry Reid with respect to his committee assignments...

Brad DeLong's blog ...

This, of course, is about 2010. If Lieberman is forced out of the Democratic caucus, he has a campaign issue that may (or may not) resonate with the same Connecticut voters that voted for him in the first place. If he's not forced out but goes on his own because he doesn't get the committee assignments he wants, he doesn't have the same issue.

Truly, I'm ambivalent at this point. He's still a member of the Senate no matter what we do, at least until 2010, and he'll likely vote with us on most issues. On those he won't, he wouldn't no matter what.

I will be disappointed if he maintains his chairmanship of Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.

[wildflower]

10. Sadly, this is correct

If we want universal health care, among many other things, it's better to have his vote on our side, as much as I'd rather see him go.

[LynneSin]

16. I'd rather just count all the democrats and any independants that are a safe bet (Sanders)

and if Lieberman sides with us - then great. That's just an added bonus.

[wildflower]

21. I'm sorry, I misread your OP

as saying it's better to keep Lieberman with us. I desperately want universal health care, plus lots of other very important things, so I figured as much as we hate it, we could really use his vote.

I would like to see him stripped of all his committee assignments, permanently, but still vote with us. But I'm probably dreaming.

[TahitiNut]

18. It's not necessary to either "boot him" OR grant him a chairmanship. Do NEITHER.

That's not rocket science. He's not due ANY 'leadership' role of any kind. No chairmanship. Period.

If he threatens to bolt, say "bye-bye" and DON'T attempt to appease an extortionist.

[Ichingcarpenter]

19. Lieberman supported Coleman which might have influence voters against Franken

Think about that....... He might have influenced the race for Coleman because
of writing editorials in Minnesota papers.



Last month, Joe Lieberman was aggressively undermining the Democrat's campaign against Norm Coleman. That race is set for a recount and Joe's pals in the GOP are doing everything they can to create controversy.

But, this piece in The Hill
http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/lieberman-going-to-... about Lieberman's political treachery was written just one month ago. It seemed to capture the prevailing wisdom back then. Yet, somehow, McCain surrogate Joe Lieberman has wormed his way back into the good graces of some of his Senate colleagues.One month ago, Lieberman was undermining one of the top Democratic prospects:

In his latest break from the Democratic Party, Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) is defending Republican Sen. Norm Coleman (Minn.) from Democratic attacks in one of the nation's closest Senate races.

Lieberman, the 2000 Democratic vice presidential nominee who caucuses with Democrats and gives them their two-seat Senate majority, disputes partisan attacks that Coleman conducted inadequate oversight of the Iraq war as the top Republican on the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations (PSI).

"Any suggestion Sen. Coleman stymied Democrats' investigations into Iraq-related matters is unfair and unfounded," Lieberman wrote this weekend in an op-ed in the St. Paul Pioneer Press.


The truth is that Lieberman never conducted investigations into Iraq-related matters in the first place. See, Lieberman is not only a political dirt-bag, he's an ineffective Senator and terrible chair of an important committee. For the past two years, it was Lieberman who stymied investigations.

more at:
http://www.americablog.com/2008/11/mccain-surrogate-lie...

[goforit]

22. Yes, Lieberman will always vote with the Repugs. And its is scarey that he

will also head Homeland Security Comittee especially if Massad had anything to do with 911.