WWTBAM Bored

What's he got to worry about? We're still going to elect him in CT and he's still got seniority. So, some people won't like him, big deal.

The Democrats need Lieberman to get their agenda through. If the Republicans choose to stonewall on filibusters, to get to 60, Reid needs to keep the Democratic caucus intact and peel off a few moderate Republicans like Coleman, Smith and the Maine senators. If they dump Lieberman, it will make things that much tougher.

I will be surprised if he retains committee appointments or garners new appointments.

http://lieberman.senate.gov/about/committees.cfm

silverscreenselect wrote:The Democrats need Lieberman to get their agenda through. If the Republicans choose to stonewall on filibusters, to get to 60, Reid needs to keep the Democratic caucus intact and peel off a few moderate Republicans like Coleman, Smith and the Maine senators. If they dump Lieberman, it will make things that much tougher.

And that's the beauty of it- Liebermann KNOWS the Dems need him...so he can pretty much do WTF he wants.

Meeting #1 was today with Harry Reid and Lieberman.

Nothing decided yet....more meetings to come.

Lieberman gave a short statement throwing his strong support behind Obama......

If I were Lieberman I'd say "hmmmm why did you wait til today to bring this up?"

Pot calling the kettle black, and all that...there wouldn't have been a problem if McCain won, then they'd still try to use Lieberman as a Democrat.

He is a registered independent after all, and as far as I'm concerned (a Democrat in CT who voted for Lieberman), I don't care who he is friends with, as long as he pushes the issues that are important to us here.

They didn't wait until today. There was an agreement with Lieberman made. If he spoke on behalf of McCain at the Republican Convention, the Dems asked him to keep his comments to McCain and not go negative on Obama. He agreed. He did not keep to that promise. Dems are very angry about his breaking the agreement.

5LD wrote:They didn't wait until today. There was an agreement with Lieberman made. If he spoke on behalf of McCain at the Republican Convention, the Dems asked him to keep his comments to McCain and not go negative on Obama. He agreed. He did not keep to that promise. Dems are very angry about his breaking the agreement.

Here is sum total of Senator Lieberman's comments about Obama:


"Senator Obama is a gifted and eloquent young man who can do great things for our country in the years ahead. But eloquence is no substitute for a record -- not in these tough times.

In the Senate he has not reached across party lines to get anything significant done, nor has he been willing to take on powerful interest groups in the Democratic Party.

Contrast that to John McCain's record, or the record of the last Democratic President, Bill Clinton, who stood up to some of those same Democratic interest groups and worked with Republicans to get important things done like welfare reform, free trade agreements, and a balanced budget. "


You can not honestly try to argue that he "went negative" in those comments.

What the Democrats should have done in 2006 was announce during the general election campaign that only the Democratic candidate for Senate, namely Ned Lamont, would be allowed to canvas with the Democrats and get any committee assignments. Voters would have known going in that a vote for Lieberman would mean a non-Democratic vote. Democratic voters would have stayed with Lamont and let Lieberman and the Republican candidate split the rest of the vote.

Bernie Sanders also ran as an independent in Vermont but he made sure to register in the Democratic primary and win the Democratic nomination. The state party asked Sanders to do that to be sure that some kook didn't sign up at the last minute and become the "official" Democratic nominee.

I will laugh if Senator Reid and the Democrats actually are dumb enough to make their first move of controlling everything to be pi$$ing off Senator Lieberman out of sophomoric spite.They really would be trying to get their majority closer and closer to being non-existent.

As I drove home this evening, I was thinking about conservative/centrist Senators like Nebraska's Ben Nelson. Sure, they will caucus with Democrats, but they may not vote party-line when an issue comes up where the parties differ. In past years, Sen. Nelson has voted with Republicans and President Bush anywhere from nearly 70% of the time to more than 50% of the time, when there is a clear difference in opinion. The closer to re-election, the more that Nelson has to appear to be conservative. Senate Democrats and President Obama would be fools to think that Nelson will vote for any liberal agenda. Nelson's only chance for re-election in 2012 is to show that he is not really a Democrat. (Even then, if he has to run against current Governor Heineman, he can not like his chances. Keep in mind that Heineman defeated Tom Osborne for Governor, which is just a bit less amazing than if he had defeated Jesus Christ in an election.)

There is nothing sophomoric about it.
They can't kick him out of the Senate but they can certainly "demote" him. They agreed to let him speak at the RNConvention. They asked that he only talk about McCain and not speak about Obama. He agreed. Then he spoke of Obama. He broke the agreement. He must have known they would potentially give him consequences.

In business if a CFO and COO were both up for the newly open job of CEO and you as a loyal employee were to throw your support behind the CFO and be quite open about it, when the COO gets the job, do you honestly think you would be favored with an important position over others who had been supportive of the COO's ascension?

I wonder if Harry Reid is better off keeping someone who votes with him 95% of the time in his camp, rather than making Joe pay for breaking his agreement.

The numbers will change before we know it and he may need Joe in his camp.

Clearly, the Dem leadership is thinking:

- We're going to get do-overs in Georgia and Alaska;
- We're not to 60 now, and a miss is as good as a mile;
- the 2010 mid-terms will go well for us;
so,
We can afford to drop the piano on Joe, now.

Joe also campaigned for other repulicans.

I would strip him of his leadership positions

I dont think he GOP would welcome him, as he aint reliable.Do you think he will suddenly stop voting his convictions after all these years and toe the GOP line?

ha

He's just doing what he thinks is right for the people of CT. What a horrible guy, to do something for your constituents instead of yourself?!

sunflower wrote:He's just doing what he thinks is right for the people of CT. What a horrible guy, to do something for your constituents instead of yourself?!

i see they got behind McCain for president.

Joe seems to put Israels interest ahead of America's

BigDrawMan wrote:i see they got behind McCain for president.

39% did.