The democrats are circling the wagons into an ever-smaller circle, but Liebermann would always be welcome in the big tent of the GOP.

prediction: dems get 59 sens.
joe keeps his chairmanship

If I were Joe Lie, I would be praying for 59. That would make him very valuable. It might be the only way to keep the gavel.

Kick him out of the party, force him to become a Republican, and run Lamont against him again in 2012...

Lots of commentators here want Lieberman kicked out of the caucus one way or the other.

I think the Democratic leadership should cut the best deal they can for themselves.

Given that Connecticut is trending towards the Democrats, caucusing with the Republicans may not be such a hot idea. And if the Dems have a 56+ seat majority, I'm not sure how much bargaining power Lieberman actually has.

thanks for the afternoon laugh, al.

my vote is to kick his sorry ass out of the caucus. he made his bed, now let him lie in it.

orange

The democrats are circling the wagons into an ever-smaller circle, but Liebermann would always be welcome in the big tent of the GOP. -Al

Sure, if by smaller circle you mean ever expanding majority in both the House and the Senate, numbers of state Governors, and American citizens who identify as Democrats, plus we seem to be welcoming a lot of defecting intellectual Republicans to our way of thinking these days.

Lieberman's welcome in the GOP hinges on his usefulness for them. On November 5th, he ceases to be useful.

You fools may have a big tent, but it's awfully empty these days. Fitting, though; matches your heads and your souls, since they're also empty.

My guess is, if Lieberman loses his committee, he'll feel compelled to spite the party and caucus with the Republicans.

At which point he'll decide oversight is a good thing?

I actually think the best thing for the Dems is to have a 55-58 majority rather than a full 60. Right now you need 60 votes to prevent a filibuster (as opposed to 40 to have one). This gives Republicans wide leeway to allow endangered Senators to break with the party on issues that are obviously popular, such as increasing minimum wage. In other words you can have 9 vote with the Dems and still kill a bill.

But with a Dem in the White House (read: bully pulpit) and little to no room for descent, the Reps will be forced to seek small compromises or be unanimously labled as obstructionists. That would kill Rep's ability to get a Senator elected in any blue state.

My prediction is that with 60 Sens you will have a lot of 60-40 votes. With 55-58, you will have a lot more 75-25 votes.

Lieberman isn't going to become a Republican. Who would want to be a Republican if the Democrats get 58-60 votes? If that happens, you might see as many as half a dozen retirements before 2010. Life sucks in the minority.

Oh yeah. Cloture. Heh.

I've read that getting to 60 is less magical than people believe. But I'm not quite convinced.

But there's certainly an advantage to acquiring a reputation for punishing those who endorse the opposition during Presidential elections. I mean, jeez.

I say kick him out. Then, we he runs for re-election in a liberal state, he won't be able to claim that he is associated with the Democrats. He will have to win in a liberal state based on his relationship with Bush, McCain, and the Republicans.

When it comes to the super-majority, even if we pull it off, we will still have to deal with the moderate to conservative members of the Democratic caucus, so I am not sure if having a super-majority will have a practical effect if 1-5 conservatives Dems peel off every substantive vote.

If I could get away with a "breaking" (heh, of course he is blaring it now) report of yet another suspicious October meddling by "Al Qaeda" in our elections. Again, it seems interestingly calculated to entice voters against Democrats:

Qaeda wants Republicans, Bush "humiliated": Web video
Thu Oct 30, 2008 1:52pm EDT

Email | Print |
Share
| Reprints | Single Page | Recommend (29)
[-] Text [+]

DUBAI (Reuters) - An al Qaeda leader has called for President George W. Bush and the Republicans to be "humiliated," without endorsing any party in the upcoming U.S. presidential election, according to a video posted on the Internet.

"O God, humiliate Bush and his party, O Lord of the Worlds, degrade and defy him," Abu Yahya al-Libi said at the end of sermon marking the Muslim feast of Eid al-Fitr, in a video posted on the Internet.

Libi, one of the top al Qaeda commanders believed to be living in Afghanistan or Pakistan, called for God's wrath to be brought against Bush equating him with past tyrants in history.

The remarks were the first comments from a leading al Qaeda figure referring, albeit indirectly, to the U.S. elections. Muslim clerics often end sermons by calling on God to guide and support Muslims and help defeat their enemies.

In 2004 al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden issued his first video in more than a year just days before the elections to deride President Bush and warn of possible new September 11-style attacks.

Bin Laden made little mention of Bush's Democratic challenger John Kerry, telling Americans: "Your security is not in the hands of Kerry or Bush or al Qaeda. Your security is in your own hands and each state which does not harm our security will remain safe."

(dubai.newsroom@reuters.com)

© Thomson Reuters 2008 All rights reserved

Whether he decides to caucus with the Republicans is uninteresting. The Dems will control the chamber, and he adds nothing by caucusing with the Dems.

More interesting to me is the idea that Dems need his vote on domestic issues like health care. Think about that -- there is widespread agreement that Joe Lieberman will switch his votes on important domestic issues for no other reason than personal pique. He can vote with the Dems even if he joins the GOP, but he won't because he is pissed off at his colleagues.

Joe Liberman is truly a d-bag. Everyone knows it, everyone talks about it freely, but nobody calls the situation what it is. God, I hate that guy.

I'm looking forward to the conversation about taking REID's gavel away.

If I were Joe Lie, I would be praying for 59. That would make him very valuable. It might be the only way to keep the gavel. -Patrick

I disagree. In the spirit of the post-partisanship that Obama seeks to usher in, I imagine he'll urge kicking Joe out of the caucus if he's not needed for the majority, which he won't be.

Perhaps a moderate Republican who isn't fond of McCaingry and the direction his/her party is headed could be persuaded with a chairmanship. A lot of moderate Republicans will be looking to bridge the divide after the landslide on Tuesday. They can smell which way the winds are cooking.

It looks good for Democrats because it makes them bipartisan leaders, and as a we rid ourselves of the Straight Talk Express's best fluffer for good.

Hand over the gavel, Joe.

In Texas we would just shoot the bastard. Fuck him and feed him fish heads.

Here's an interesting prediction (The Agonist) of how the Dems might get to 60.

I thought Al died.

Strip him of his chairmanship, kick him out of the caucus and assign him an office in the basement of the Dirksen Building. Maybe he'll get the message.

"My guess is, if Lieberman loses his committee, he'll feel compelled to spite the party and caucus with the Republicans."

I'd agree, but the issue isn't nearly as important as it once was. The tradeoff in 2006 was all about giving the Dems a majority so they could take control of the Senate and all the power that comes with it. It didn't, however, seem to do anything to change Lieberman's voting choices. Regardless of what you think if his views, he seems be fairly principled in his voting.

In the 111th, this all becomes moot. Dems will have control of the Senate with or without Lieberman. And even if we were at the magical 59 +Lieberman supermajority, it seems unlikely he'll vote any differently as a nominal Democratic Chairman or a nominal Republican. It just doesn't matter in any practical analysis of power in the Senate.

How about (1) Kick him out of the caucus and pull his chairmanship, and then (2) Subpoena-ing Lieberman - the new Dem chairperson should hold a hearing on "Impact of fearmongering on real Homeland Security" and put Joe on the witness bench.

In a senate that's 59-40, why would anyone, even Lieberman, decide to be vote 41 rather than vote 60? The Republicans will not be offering even the ranking slot on a full committee to him -- Susan Collins has that slot and I can't imagine her stepping aside. A subcommittee chair is way more power than he'd have as a member of the republican caucus. Lieberman will do what's best for him. He knew what was on the line when he endorsed McCain.

I see that Al's off on another one of his crack-induced jihads again---and that "big tent" of his was made by the same guys that stitched together the Emperor's new clothes. Repeat after me, allie---There Is No Tent. There Is No Tent. There. Is. No. Tent.

Lieberman chose a path to war in defense of the policies of a foreign government and its lobbyists. the best way to deal with a guy who trades American blood for foreign favors is to strip him of absolutely all power, and then let him decide who to caucus with. He's officially an Independent; Dems are under no requirement to give him any position at all on any committee, or even a subcommittee assignment. They certainly don't have to give him a gavel on any of them.

Let Lieberman be America's version of a Minister Without Portfolio---an "AWP"---which is about the most insulting thing you can do to a legislator. Let him go across the aisle, where he can be interviewed daily (thrice on the weekends) by the Limbaugh Faction. Let FOX buy him his dinner and hand him his daily "30 pieces."

Hell---I wouldn't even give him a committee assignment. He's not in "my" cuacus; he's an Indie that became an Indie for conveniences only. Let the Indie caucus give him his assignments.

Oh, wait---there's no Indie caucus, now is there?

Yesterday's NYTimes had an article about Reid etc contemplating taking away the chairmanship of the Appropriations from W. VA's Byrd (90yrs old and fuller of pork than any barrel). If Byrd gets it in the neck (which I think might be an altogether "good thing"), without being an out-and-out Benedict Arnold of the Dem party, then, depriving Joe the Lie of his chairmanship, is the *very least* the leadership should do. Me, I'd re-circumcise the bastard, in public.

Yes he would go that far...

Joe's future is to be Sarah's running mate.
Or at the very least, to sing her praises in 2012.

Let's not triangulate the weasel's past and future behavior. He has attacked Barack's character in a completely dishonest way. Let him make his living from now on as a republican.

Marginalize him.
Ruthlessly.

Back in 1976 Mo Udall of Arizona was running for Majority Leader in the House. After a contentious meeting of the Democratic caucus, where he lost (even though a majority of members had pledged their support to him), Udall left the room to meet with reporters. Asked what had happened inside, he responded "You know the difference between a cactus and a caucus? A cactus has the pricks on the outside."

The time has come to remove this particular prick.

Lieberman. Must. Go. I don't care how close to 60 we are. There's no way you can allow him to remain in the caucus after he actively campaigned for the other party's candidate. He must suffer the consequences of his actions.

Lieberman is irrelevant. But we do need effective oversight of the bloated and useless Dept of Homeland Security, and for that alone we need to get rid of Lieberman.

Clearly we won't need his vote to get majority status. So then it's just a question of breaking filibusters. And while the Republican caucus has filibustered like crazy this session, I don't think many of them will be keen to repeat that strategy when they see where it's got them. Anyhow, with Bush gone, the Republicans won't have any leader with the clout to tell them when to filibuster. It's going to be every senator for him or herself, and on any particular issue it shouldn't be hard to pick up a couple of cloture votes. Lugar and Hagel on foreign policy; Snowe, Collins, or Specter on social issues; and with the economy in crisis it shouldn't be hard to get votes for the stimulative tax changes and effective regulation of financial markets.

At some point Obama will need to wrangle the Pentagon budget down from the current $600B/year back to the $300B/year that bought us unrivalled global military dominance under Clinton in 97-99. Personally I'd like to scale it back even further, to $150B or so (still 2x bigger than anyone else), but that's going to be a long haul.

My guess is that they'll take away his chairmanship, but he'll stay in the caucus rather then go with the party that's out of power. Lieberman is all about power, and even without his chairmanship, unless the repubs have something to offer, he'll stay with the majority. That's were the power, and the money, will be.

Yesterday's NYTimes had an article about Reid etc contemplating taking away the chairmanship of the Appropriations from W. VA's Byrd - exlibra

That would be a good thing, and I suspect that he could be coaxed gently into accepting it. Frankly I wish someone could coax him into retiring completely, but I doubt that could happen.

off topic from Lieberman but if McCain is accussing Obama of massive voter fraud the kind that threatens our democracy wouldn't be wise to assume that McCain is accusing Obama of what McCain himself is guilty of? The Florida early voting numbers seem more than suspicious to me as well as the idea that millions of Walmart moms are pouring out of the woodwork. Add to that McCain's guarantee and it sounds like the fix is being attempted.

Feed him to the wolverines!

Forget just kicking him out of his chairmanship. I cannot see how any self respecting Democratic Senator would be seen in the same room with this slob. Joe Lieberman should be treated as if he were invisible. The man deserves nothing but complete and utter contempt.

"My guess is, if Lieberman loses his committee, he'll feel compelled to spite the party and caucus with the Republicans."
--

Just like his main man!

COUNTRY FIRST!

This isn't complicated.

Before Sarah Palin got shoved down McCain's gullet by his handlers, McCain wanted Lieberman to be his running mate -- his Republican-party running mate. And there's no evidence to suggest that Lieberman would have done anything but happily accept. Strike one.

Lieberman also appeared on stage during the Republican party convention, giving a mealy-mouthed speech that called into question Obama's ability to lead the country. Strike two.

Plus he's an asshole. Strike three.

If the Dems put up with his shit for another minute because they want some pretense at a veto-proof majority, then they're just allowing the veto to exist within their own party. Kick him out, tell him a la Dick Cheney to go fuck himself, and see if he comes begging whent he deals are being made.

If Joe Lieberman has shown anything it's that he's got a glass jaw. We don't need any glass jaws in the next Congress. We need Democrats.

Tar and Feathers for Joe baby, hot tar to be certain. That's right I forgot, one swift kick in the ass too! Over a cliff. With spikes at the bottom of the fall.. Did I mention alligators?

Sometime before January, the Senate Democratic caucus will have to decide what to do with Joe Lieberman.

Stripping him naked and dragging him through the streets of DC would be a good start . . .

A 60-vote super majority that includes Joe Lieberman is a joke. Why depend on him for votes he won't even deliver? Joe started acting crazy when he was losing his relevance in '06. It's time to make him permanently irrelevant and let the Republicans decide what to do with him.

On another note, I think a filibuster-proof majority could be bad for the Dems. If they get a lot of legislation easily passed, the Republicans will complain (and manipulate the media) of the tyranny of the Democrats, and it could result in a strong swing back to Republicans in the next Congressional elections.

If I were Joe Lie, I would be praying for 59. That would make him very valuable.

No, it wouldn't. (I'm presuming you mean 58 Dem's + Sanders, with Lieberman representing the 60th portential caucus member.)

60 votes in the caucus doesn't mean anything; leadership elections take a bare majority, and that's all the caucus number matters for. 60 votes to invoke cloture on a particular issue are valuable, but that's an issue-by-issue thing.

I think the democrats should offer Lieberman the chairmanship of, and assignments to other committees, which are not remotely related to foreign, military, intelligence, or security affairs. His politics, after all, aren't bad on domestic issues and the democrats will likely need is vote for cloture and such.

If Lieberman caucuses with the Republicans and votes against the Democratic majority in the Senate, he can kiss his seat goodbye.

The only reason he won against Lamont is because he ran all over the place promising to still be a Democrat. If he starts voting Republican all the time he's toast.

Assuming Lieberman wants to run again in 2012 (he'll be 70), one of the main arguments he has left against someone like Ned Lamont is that he can bring home the federal bacon to Connecticut. If he's forced to give up his chairmanship, that's one thing, but if he has to caucus with Republicans, who will be a really minority party come next week, that really limits the amount of pork he can request in the budget process. Plus then he's going to be running basically as a Republican in a very blue state. He's really screwed the pooch here: the Democrats won't have him, but his political career is over if he moves to the Republican caucus.

Couldn't have happened to a better guy.

Kick Lieberman out and invoke the nuclear option on the cloture rule. Sure, the loss of the fillibuster will hurt the next time the Democrats are in the minority, but in such circumstances the fillibuster may as well be dead for Democrats in any case, since Democrats have shown manifest unwillingness to use it when they have been in the minority -- and a right you are too terrified to use is a right that doesn't exist. The fillibuster has already been bypassed in the budget reconciliation process, and I can think of no sound reason for retaining it in general. It's nothing more than an institutionalized loophole, and for the next few years it looks likely to achieve nothing other than let the minority Republicans tyrannize the majority through what will undoubtably be an unprecedentedly fillibuster-riddled hell of obstructionism that makes a mockery of the whole process.

Kissing McCain's self appointed but was one thing. You could make the argument that Lieberman was just standing by an old friend who prioritized what Lieberman thinks is the most important issue of the day (i.e., the war). When he went to bat for Coleman, that's when he crossed the line. If he keeps his chairmanship, I want Pelosi to explain to the party why keeping that viper in the caucus is more valuable that electing a new democratic senator. He wasn't being principled. He was stabbing someone who supported him (Frankin) in the back in order to suck up to McCain.

It doesn't even matter if they get 60 if Joe stays. 60 doesn't matter. Yeah, the GOP can filibuster and that sucks. Eventually, they'll get tired and shut up. What's more, Joe won't vote against that filibuster unless you sweeten the pot for him. I, for one, am sick of always having to buy Lieberman's support. All of that's irrelevant anyway. After the drubbing that they're about to get, any GOP senator who's up for reelection in 2010 will be eager to distinguish themselves from the rest of the caucus. They'll go along to get along. The most dems would have to offer is some token gesture that lets the say that they're bi-partisan, they stood up to their party, and that some ralatively conservative dem running in a red state (maybe Udall, assuming he wins in Colorado, for example) supports them. Hey, it's even a win-win! Udall brushes up his "I help solve problems" cred, and the GOPer gets bipartisan support!

On war and homeland security, The L man is bad, but there are many other issues--ie global warming--where he might play a constructive role. The question is whether he'd play it if he was completely bounced.

Steve, the point is, this also looks ahead to Lieberman's next Senate election.

If he is "just" stripped of his chairmanship, but not booted from the caucus (but perhaps kicked a rung or two down subcommittee seniority rankings, too) -- it forces HIM to make the move to the GOP side, if he's had all he can take from Dems.

Snaveca gets this exactly right. It would force Lieberman to either be impotent and ignored while caucusing with Dems, or even more impotent in a shrunken GOP caucus.

i like the sound of what danp was saying above about the 58-42 number being perhaps more effective at getting somewhat more republican "support," so the "loss" of lieberman is not critical.

but regardless, lieberman's sorry butt needs to be kicked to the curb. keep the rat out of policy discussions so that confidentiality can be better maintained.

he bet his wad on mccain early on in hopes of getting a cabinet position. he will lose that bet (enshallah) and, imho, he should be stripped of any and all ability to do anything but vote.

yeah, i'm vindictive when it comes to people tarnishing the reputation of the state of connecticut.

I can't believe that this is even a topic for dicussion; of course you have to strip him of his chairmanship, that's a no-brainer. He broke his word to his constituents, and further let down New Orleans residents with his promise to make BushCo account for their pre and post Katrina actions. As chairman of the committee he has done absolutely nothing, for fear of embarrassing Bush. He has enthusiastically engaged in the republican smear campaign against Obama. You don't know what deal he made with Rove and Bush to get their help and support during his 2006 campaign. How do you trust someone like that? How do you know he won't he use his chairmanship to thwart democratic efforts to get this country back on track? Lieberman has proven time and time again that his word means nothing.

So definitely, strip him of all his committee and sub-committee chairs, and seniority. If he wants to then caucus with the republicans let him. He'll eventually have to answer to his constituents, and from the polls I've seen my dog could beat him in 2012. Sixty was never a magical number to begin with. The democrats have never shown the discipline to vote 100% as a block when they're in the majority, I wouldn't expect it now with the number of blue dogs. Even if they end up with 57 to 59 senators, they'll be able to pick up 3 to 4 republicans they'll need. I doubt many of the republicans left will want to emulate the obstructiveness of the 110th Congress, they'll see the benefit of governing from the middle. Finally, I think too many 60/40 votes would soon lead to abuses of power by the leadership. We don't need any more Rostenkowskis.

Arrrgghhhh -- I appreciate he was a Majority Leader without a majority, but after this election there will be no excuse to suffer an asshole like Lieberman for another minute.

#1. Reid should, right now, run against this batshit idea that the Senate is run as a super-majoritarian outfit. Yes, 60 is needed for cloture, but when on God's name did that become the primary means of how and when bills pass? WHEN THE DEMOCRATS TOOK OVER TWO YEARS AGO. Reid should call the GOP's bluff and have them read from the fucking Chicago phone book when they want to filibuster kids getting health care or whatever idiotic thing they have stuck in their craw. When filibustering becomes as easy as "well, you don't have 60 votes", it's no longer an actual filibuster. It's a lazy response to opposition.

#2. Since he also ignores holds from his own caucus, Reid also has to make good on his partisan bonnies this session. If not, John Kerry should take him out come 2010. The last thing we need right now is a timid leader who worries about coming from a purple state. If not Kerry, then Durbin. Someone who was an Obama ally from the start.

#3. If Reid decides to run that place like a Democrat, then he should lay out the agenda and threaten the hell out of doormats like Dick Lugar, Olympia Snowe and the particularly vulnerable Republicans in '10 that he will make it a point to squash their earmarks, table their issues and help focus the DSCC on their defeat. The GOP is reeling and they have an unfavorable draw in the next midterms.

Reid is a very powerful man. It's about time he understands how to use and wield that power.

While I would personally be inclined to blackball him to the extent that he could not get a bill to name a post office passed, there's probably no benefit to expelling him from the caucus. Stripping his committee chair and seniority will probably make him leave anyway, but then he loses some of the "the party left me" baloney that he's been peddling. And maybe he'd vote with the Dems on some social issues. Or maybe not, and in '12 he'll be retired.

Can CT senators be recalled?

US Jews don't like him. He used Independents. He tossed the Democrats to the curb. He, of anyone is Washington, has sold out the most for self-preservation.

The only place he has is with the other sells outs on the right, but they can see what he is just like the rest of us. He won't get as warm a welcome over there as he may think.

Obscurity is Joe Lieberman's next seat.

Can't we all just get along? Why make him a martyr complaining to all that the Democratic party is so radical he has to leave. Let him keep his chairmanship but limit its jurisdiction. Homeland Security could easily be five committees. People shouldn't have to be in the Senate fifty years before they get to chair a committee and reward Bernie Sanders while you are at it.

Why make him a martyr

It's not about making him a martyr. It's about sending a signal to others that if you cross your own party, you face severe consequences. If a party cannot enact retribution against a public traitor, then it has no business being a party. This Democrats need to make a show of strength. Making an example of a well known anti-Democrat antagonist looks like a good place to start.