Something about Joe I just picked up from Wikipedia...Maybe we could use this:

[Ken Burch]

"Following the election, Lieberman struck a deal with Democratic leadership allowing him to keep his seniority and chairmanship of the Governmental Affairs Committee. In return, he agreed to vote with the Democrats on all procedural matters unless he asked permission of Majority Whip Richard Durbin."

(from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Lieberman)

1)Aren't cloture motions "procedural matters"?

2)Did he ask permission from Durbin to refuse to back the party on THIS procedural matter?

3)Would Durbin actually have been clueless enough to give Joe permission?

[MiniMe]

1. Well,

1. Yes

2. No

3. No

[baldguy]

2. Then why does he still have his chairmanship?

[Ken Burch]

4. Reid could've forgotten.

That's why we need to remind him.

[MiniMe]

6. Good question, many of us have been asking that same question

[Jamastiene]

3. I wonder if that was a contractual agreement.

There must be something we can do other than being held hostage by one person.

[valerief]

5. As other folks have pointed out, this nonsense in the Senate is all Kabuki theater. nt

[grantcart]

7. Given the silent reaction from many of the most dedicated public option folks

I now have a far fetched theory of what is happening.


by quiet I mean the Progressive and Black Caucus have said that with no public option they would not support the bill.

The Senate takes it out and not a peep from people in the know.


Here is the Scenario:


1) First Act Lieberman is given permission to cause a stink and the public option is taken out.

2) Second Act Its put back in conference and Lieberman makes a dramatic concession that he will not vote for cloture.

3) Third Act in the final vote Lieberman votes for cloture and against the bill.

No member of either party has voted against his caucus on a procedural vote in history, or so I heard.

[Ken Burch]

8. Actually, the Southern Dems used to always vote against cloture

on Civil Rights bills, on abolishing the poll tax, and even on the proposed anti-lynching laws.

[beyurslf]

9. Yep. That's what took so long. We had to get the West Coast and Northeat Republicans

to support those things. Now, of course, those people are all Dems and the Southern Dems who tried to stop Civil Rights are all Repubs.

[roguevalley]

10. dickipedia.org, has some great stuff on Joe

Demo-whats?

After publicly stating that George W. Bush’s Iraq invasion was valid (it wasn’t) because Iraq was involved in the 9/11 attacks (they weren’t), Lieberman lost the Connecticut Democratic Party's 2006 renomination to somebody who actually stood for things Democrats stand for. Lieberman then ran as an "independent Democrat" on the ticket of the dickishly named Connecticut for Lieberman party. After actually winning the election, he made a deal with the Democratic leadership, saying his independent status was a technicality and that he would continue to caucus in the Senate as a Democrat.

What the Democratic leadership failed to take into account is that Joe Lieberman is a dick, and in 2008 he turned on them yet again by endorsing Republican candidate John McCain for President and saying that he would be willing to speak at the 2008 Republican National Convention on McCain’s behalf. If that isn’t dickish enough, Lieberman has even been mentioned as a possible Vice Presidential nominee on McCain’s ticket. He has denied interest in the position, but a “no” from a dick is about as reliable as having Joe Lieberman as your running mate, party member and/or first husband.