Joe is the world's strangest Independent. He lobbies hard for the GOP, is Cheney's best tool, worked his ass off for McCain and holds DEM committee chairmanships galore.

What an effing joke this is. The Dem's need to show the world that they can't be screwed around with - I'm not holding my breath.

Please Get rid of deputy dawg and take that limp dick Reid with him. We need someone with balls as a majority leader (Hello Hillary)

We need to kick him out of the caucus. He can do whatever he like's, but as a republican!

The Dems should have thrown him out on his ass the second he started trashing Obama.

The nonsense Lieberman was spewing is unforgivable. The Dems probably could have captured 60 seats if they kicked him out in August, they would have shown some backbone.

I live in CT, and if it helps any, I know a bunch of moderate Democrats who "stuck with Joe" in 2006, and they are all sick to death of him. Next time around, he's not going to get so many votes from Democrats.

seems that pres. candidates that make vp picks for largely political reasons do not do very well. (and by political i mean in the win-the-campaign kind of way.) lieberman was probably a political decision for kerry. palin certainly was for mccain. biden certainly wasn't for obama (or at least less so than other cases). don't remember who the short listers were for bush in '00 but, other than experience, doesn't seem that cheney brought much excitement or many states that he couldn't have gotten w/ another person. in other words, he wasn't a very political quick.

SteinL,

Per the argument you posit, one could conclude that Joe is a very effective independent. :)

But we all know he is only allowed to be by virtue of the good will of the Democratic leadership. I honestly think it's time to wash our hands of him, but I'm not surprised Reid took this route.

Joe aligned himself with those who sought to leverage racism and fear and elevate ignorance to leadership and he abused his committee assignment by ignoring his duties.

Reid ought to know, friendships aside, Lieberman isn't worth his effort. A good Democrat ought to fill whatever position they want to give to Joe.

He made his bed, let him lie in it, Harry!

and, see you on rachel's tonight!

None too bright, that Joe the War Monger.

Strip him of his beloved head of the war committee. Giving him another chair is a stoke of genius, though. It keeps him voting with Dems but takes away his love child.

I like it.

With apologies to the great Hank Williams Sr.:

Goodbye Joe. You gotta go. Me-o my-o.

Obama should dispatch a secret service agent to look up JoJo, with instructions to leave a loaded pistol on his desk and the simple message, "You know what to do".

his chances of winning in Connecticut as a Republican in 2012 are about 'zero.'"

It's nice to think so, but are we sure? He won it as an independent, after all. He'd still be the incumbent.

My advice to Reid: look for the nearest bus and decide on impulse whether to put him on it or throw him under it.

WTF? Holy Joe said the country couldn't SURVIVE Obama!

Jeebus. Toss, toss, toss!!

My feel is that the Democrats want to maintain Lieberman as a member of their caucus, but with reduced power and a nice Damocles Sword hanging over his head: you get too frisky with the Republicans, we'll yank the rest of the carpet out from under you.

I would be surprised if the GOP gives him much of anything, except maybe seniority. who are they going to bump from a minority leadership spot on a committee to give to him? it can't be anything economic or social, since he's not one of them on those issues, and they are hardly going to let him on Judiciary. so where? a minority seat on Foreign Relations or Homeland Security followed by an ignominious defeat in a couple years?

FLDem,

Steve is going to be on The Rachel Maddow Show again tonight? How did I miss that!

Hillary Clinton for Senate Majority leader! Get Reid out of that slot and afford two women high sway and majority power weilding in both houses! Joe Leiberman should be expelled and removed from any committee chair by the Democratic majority. He is a snake and has proven it more times than anyone need recount.

Where's all the fawning media coverage for the "Maverick" of the Dems, Joe Lieberman, who bucks his party in order to appear "bipartisan"?

Just another example of the blatant media bias in favor of liberals. Instead, of being a "maverick" and protected by the press, Lieberman is an enemy of the State who must be crushed at all costs. lol

Again I say, feed him to the wolverines!

The Democrats are offering Joe a much better deal than he deserves. If he's too stupid to take it, then he needs to become a Republican.

Let's be real clear about this: Lieberman not only endorsed McCain (no bad thing in itself; Joe is technically an independent), but stumped for him at the Republican Convention and never, not once, passed up a chance to denigrate Obama on national teevee.

Get rid of him. AIPAC will need more lobbyists.

" "Reid told him he can stay in the caucus if he steps down from his committee chairmanship.... "

What leverage does Lieberman have over Reid and/or the Democratic Party that would possess the latter to offer any kind of deal to the former that would allow him to remain in the caucus?

It seems to me like Lieberman shouldn't really have any negotiating room at all in the situation.
It's not like the Democratic Party would not have enough Senate seats to complete a vote - they are 50+1 now, even without Sanders and such conservative Democrats like Landrieu.

That Lieberman retains either his committee chairmanship or remains in the Senate caucus should be seen as nothing more than a betrayal of anyone who fought so hard for the Democratic Party to win in this election cycle.

He should be expelled from the caucus. His state's democratic party rebuked him in the last election. Obama's support and his vow to caucus with democrats made him palatable, but he is no democrat. He has engaged in the vile partisan efforts of the republican party over the course of the election. He needn't support Obama in the manner in which Obama had reached out to him, but get serious. How much less democrat could he be?

Away with him!

Harry should have given him two options: Let the door hit you on the way out, or leave a little faster.

Why is Reid offering this shmuck anything?

Just one more in the long list of reasons Harry Reid needs to be replaced as head of the Senate.

^Mathew

I agree, Democratic leaders, your constituents demand to see this particular head roll! How fucking hard is it to get rid of a this career-oriented fink? I mean, do you need a fucking manual or what Harry Reid?! Jesus that guy's a pussy!

Joe's a tough call. On social issues he votes with the Dems, but he's off the scope on defense issues--remember when he called for war with Iran this past year, on the floor of the Senate? He'll go wherever his pride is most likely to be stroked, and he'll utter any lies he needs to in order to get this done.

Lieberman said he didn't think the country could survive having Obama as president and a cloture-proof Democratic-controlled Congress. He wouldn't be a very reliable member of the Democratic caucus.

The Emanuel appointment should help Lieberman decide to stay with the Democratic caucus. Perhaps Obama will offer Lieberman the SOD or NSA job.

Lieberman seems to have learned from the failed MBA Bush to negotiate as if he's holding all the cards when all he has is a busted flush.

Obama's a better poker player. If Lieberman was hoping for conditions or concessions as a reward for his campaigning for the Republican nominee, he's sadly mistaken. Here's hoping the Dems show Traitor Joe the door.

He's gone. Reid offered him a shit committee just to insult him -- Joe, even before he was a shill for the GOP's presidential candidate, was a fucking disgrace at Homeland Security and should be gone just for that.

Reid's still being too generous here, of course. But there's this idiotic notion of institutional congeniality in the Senate that most of us can't really understand. I'm sure Reid also offered him the shit deal if he promises to shut the fuck up, which, to a blowhard like Lieberman will salt the earth and make it impossible to accept.

He'll whine to his friends on the steering committee, but there's no way they let him skate.

Reid, in the meantime, has to figure out exactly who is in his next caucus. In addition to the new freshmen and the still too close-to-call races in MN and AK, he's going to have new Democrats from Illinois and Delaware to slot somewhere.

^The Galloping Trollop and others

I wholeheartedly agree with the sentiments here. But to me the part of the story that's missing here is how Lieberman is able to continue to act as he does.

Unless it's all a really good act, I don't believe he's smart enough to just bluff his way through.

"Joe's a tough call."

No, this is pretty easy. The bottom line is, he simply cannot be trusted.

He showed up at the RNC. It's one thing to endorse a candidate. It's quite another to show up at their convention, then expect to be let back into said candidate's opponent party caucus after said candidate lost.

Does anyone know of any Democrats who have publicly advocated Lieberman's ouster post-election?

The Emanuel appointment should help Lieberman decide to stay with the Democratic caucus. Perhaps Obama will offer Lieberman the SOD or NSA job.

You're out of your mind. If nothing else Emmanuel is an enforcer of party discipline. And he'll have nothing at all to do with internal business in the Senate. Second, why the hell would Obama go out of his way to placate Lieberman of all people, never mind at Defense of the NSA.

Total nonsense. Getting rid of Lieberman in some bullshit ambassadorial role doesn't help the math either, as Rell will appoint another Republican anyway.

This is definitely a Godfather Part II moment, with Lieberman playing Fredo. If McCain won, Lieberman had an exit into the executive branch; if McCain lost, Lieberman was screwed before he even opened his mouth to support McCain, since he'd no longer be the 51st vote.

That said, why would Reid, as majority leader, want to reduce his flexibility? From now on, it's Reid calling the tune. He'll use Lieberman as much as possible, as long as it's not too much trouble, before throwing him away.

As a person, Lieberman's off the christmas card list and won't be getting many dinner invitations, but this is business (or politics) and personal preference is a luxury that few can afford.

I think the only choice he should be offered is whether he wants his right or left kneecap shattered.

If there's no price for that level of disloyalty (I could stomach voting against Obama, but not all the public false statements and claiming America won't survive Obama), it will be be incentive for a 57-headed caucus that agrees on nothing. I realize senators are a loyal and clubby bunch, but.... come on!!

Chicounsel wrote: Where's all the fawning media coverage for the "Maverick" of the Dems, Joe Lieberman, who bucks his party in order to appear "bipartisan"?

Um, everywhere?

Just another example of the blatant media bias in favor of liberals. Instead, of being a "maverick" and protected by the press, Lieberman is an enemy of the State who must be crushed at all costs.

Who in the press says that? Are you really too dim to distinguish between the Democrats punsishing a member of their causus for campaigning for the opposing Party's candidate -- something McCain certainly didn't do for Kerry, "maverick" and all -- and the press reporting on same?

Do yourself a favor, jackass -- before you embarrass yourself yet again, do some research on confirmation bias.

Or just do what you always do: Remind us of the intellectual dishonesty of movement conservatives.

Lieberman reminds me of a story you all might like. I am taking it out of context and applying to a women though, but Joe is so funny when he talks in front of a camera, this guy has lost all credibility in both side of the spectrum Democratic or Republican. Lieberman is such sad sack of political shit I can’t believe anyone is going to believe him. It’s only my opinion but his Senate votes are now up for sale to the highest bidder. For Joe Lieberman this is got to be the last dance.

The Story;

This young good looking Neo-Con Republican woman walks into the local bank and tells the clerk she would like to deposit one hundred twenty five thousand dollars into a new account. The bank clerk says “Excellent, I’ll fill out forms for you.� The young Neo-Con Republican person (very Palin looking) said “I need to do this deposit with the President of the bank. So, the Clerk says “Very good, I’ll go get the President right now.� The President comes over and talks to the young Neo-Con Republican women asking how he might assist her into making the deposit, assuring the young lady that the bank was very safe and sound.

The young lady said “I risked a lot to earn this money but that’s the way I am, I like to take a risk. Now looking you over I will bet twenty five thousand dollars that your balls are square!� The banker smiled at the young lady and said you have got to be kidding, no one has square balls, and please madams leave my bank!� The young lady said, in front of the Clerk as witness that she would bet the President twenty five thousand dollars that his balls are square and she would bring her lawyer in to witness next Friday at ten am for her inspection!� The President thought this is easy money, so, O.K. Lady it’s your money see at ten o’clock Friday.

So, at ten o’clock Friday The Neo-Con Republican came in with her lawyer promptly. The President asked them into his office and the young lady asked to inspect his balls. So, the president dropped his drawers and the young lady started to fondle his balls. The President asked why her lawyer is banging his head against the wall. The young lady said “I bet my lawyer one hundred thousand dollars I could walk in to your office at ten o’clock and feel your balls.�

Thats the bail out …

I say bend Joe's bare ass over a pool table and roll the video camera while the Democratic Caucus has their way with him, then toss him to the curb...

If the Dems somehow manage to get 59 seats in the Senate then Reid is probably going to keep the little troll nearby to use him whenever he's needed (said on another forum, by somebody else).

I'd be happy to let Joe caucus with the Dems AND chair a subcommittee, if and only if: a)he gives Russ Feingold an irrevocable proxy so that Russ decides which way Joe votes on everything, and b) the subcommittee in question is the Senate Tourist Bathroom Cleanliness and Sanitation committee, a position I foresee coming with a bucket and mop.

That might just begin to make up for his appearance at the Republican convention.

"Perhaps Obama will offer Lieberman the SOD or [DIR]NSA job."

Posted by: Brojo

Give Joe LIEberman the job of listening in to our telephone sex? Please, no thank you.

I'm so glad we are not going to have 58 Democrats, so we can say goodbye to Senator LIEberman. Give him nothing but our dearest hopes he plays well with the Republican'ts.

I will admit I have not read all of the posts. But based on the samples I have read I would guess that everybody believes that we should not kick Lieberman out of the caucus.

I am a big tent democrat that believes that Lieberman does bring something to the table. I like to point out that we liberals love Collins and Snowe in Maine yet we demonize Lieberman. I also get pi**ed at him especially his attacks on Obama, but he votes with the dems 75+% of the time. Snowe and Collins vote with the Dems less than 50% of the time. I would rather have a guy we can count on 7 out of 10 times than someone like Snowe that we can only count on 4 out of 10 times.

Buy and large he only disagrees with us on the war, and though I am and always have been opposed to the war. I have much greater respect for people that voted for the war and actually believed that it is a good idea, than people that made the decision to vote either for or against the war for political reasons. I point to Kerry and Hillary on that, and the irony is that “political vote� cost both of them the Presidency. I forgive their vote but it still “sticks in my craw�. You do not vote to send people to their deaths for political reasons you vote on issues of war and peace based on consious. I disagree with Lieberman but at least he voted his conscious.

I supported Joe, in the primary against Ned Lemont and voted for Ned in the general election. If Joe wants my vote again he will have to win the democratic primary, and he is not getting my vote in the primary.

He should be punished for his actions in the last twelve months, I am not sure what that punishment should be but we need to send a message to democrats that if you campaign against our candidates you will not get the plum assignments. But as long as he continues to vote with us more than against us I want him caucusing with us.

Mark B. -

I think it's more important to understand why Reid is so reluctant to expel Lieberman from the caucus, rather than suggest violence.

One scenario entails sitting the Senators around a large table and Harry Reid walks around that table with a baseball bat and does his best Al Capone impersonation on the back of Lieberman's skull circa "The Untouchables".

Just a suggestion.

Rusty -

I don't see how Collins or Snowe or their voting records aren’t really relevant to Lieberman. But since you bring them up -

I think there’s a reason why they are in the Republican Party – because on some level they identify best with them. I don’t believe either of them endorsed Obama. They aren't betraying their own party for their own ambitions. I frankly don’t care what their reasons were for voting for war – the bottom line is their vote help the Bush Administration launch a war in Iraq. They gave away the Congressional Authority to declare war on other nations to Bush, and based on lies.

People like me have an issue with Lieberman because he claims to have (once) been a Democrat heck he was their VP candidate only 8 years ago –but not only supported the wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, and resolutions on Iran, but attended the RNC nominating McCain. And NOW, he wants to retain his committee chair.

He cannot be trusted.

I don't think there's anything wrong with Reid offering Lieberman a subcommittee, so long as that subcommittee covers an area where Lieberman's views, votes, words and deeds reflect mainstream Democratic positions, and it's not one with political power. It should also be on the precondition of good behavior.

Mind you, I don't think Lieberman will bite.

I think he goes to the Republicans, because even this generous offer is one he won't be able to take, because he'll see the insult that's part of it.

It puts us in a good position in 2012 in CT - I don't think Holy Joe has a prayer. If he gets kicked out, he might, but if he lives, he's sunk.

There's no value in having him in the caucus, really. It does nothing for filibusters - he'll sustain 'em anyway, because they'll stroke him till he does. He's not a terribly skilled committee chair even when he actually seems to be in line on the issues. He'll go on Fox News, say bad things about Dems, and have the "Independent Democrat" label on him as he insults "Actual Democrats".

Better to offer him something he won't take.

But based on the samples I have read I would guess that everybody believes that we should not kick Lieberman out of the caucus.

I'm sorry you came away with that impression.

I like to point out that we liberals love Collins and Snowe in Maine yet we demonize Lieberman.

I'd like to point out I gave money to Tom Allen and wanted Collins out of the Senate. They are useful "republicans" I guess, which makes them more useful than a fake Democrat who sells out his party whenever he gets in front of a TV camera.

I have much greater respect for people that voted for the war and actually believed that it is a good idea, than people that made the decision to vote either for or against the war for political reasons.

So being in favor of a war consistently even when it's a disaster by every conceivable measure makes you respect him more? What asinine logic. John Keynes once said, "When facts change, I change my mind. What do you do?"

Moreover, Lieberman said Obama would put our lives at risk. He was a shameless demagogue regarding Obama, he did NOTHING as the chair of the Homeland Security committee, providing 0 oversight to a terribly-run Department. Finally, he said in 2006 he would fight to end the war -- he lied his ass off.

You do not vote to send people to their deaths for political reasons you vote on issues of war and peace based on consious. I disagree with Lieberman but at least he voted his conscious.

Whether it is "political" or "conscience-based", the decision to go to war against Iraq was immoral and wrong.

Pragmatically, I understand if they offered him some scraps to keep him in the caucus (with mega-strings attached). Politically, they gain nothing by letting him stay a chairman.

"I like to point out that we liberals love Collins and Snowe in Maine yet we demonize Lieberman."

This is just wrong. Where are the liberals that love Collins and Snowe? I'm not aware of any. While these are not the worst of the Republican caucus (which ain't saying much) and may make some moderate sounds from time to time, name one issue on which they abandoned Bush and the caucus when their vote was meaningful? And in any event, there is a huge difference between the Maine senators and Lieberman--unlike Holy Joe, they do not make a cottage industry of appearing on liberal radio and TV shows (to the extent they exist, LOL) attacking the Republicans through the frame of Democratic talking points.

Remember, it's not Lieberman's votes that are the issue that has made him persona non grata over the years, but his mouth. There are, unfortunately, plenty of Democratic senators whose voting record leaves something to be desired (such as Nelson, Landrieu, Pryor, Lincoln, Salazar). But they do not appear nightly on Fox explicitly attacking Democrats (and on Republican terms) and no one ia seeking their ouster from the caucus.

BTW, there probably is little harm in allowing Mr. Sanctimonious to nominally remain in the caucus if he so desires, but stripping him of his committee chairmanship is a political necessity, not (merely) punishment. Athough he explicitly pledged during the 2006 election to agressively use the chairmanship to investigate such Bush failures as Katrina, Lieberman has pretty much swallowed his gavel (his one major achievement was instituting bipartisan seating arrangements, I kid you not). But Holy Joe's appetite for oversight just may rise in an Obama administration. Democrats simply cannot allow him to keep subpoena power.

Throw the hypocrite under the bus. I still can't believe what he said with a straight face that invariably helped (along with many others) contribute to the divisiveness that ensued.

Anybody else remember the incident back in June where Obama literally backed Lieberman against the wall for a discussion? I have a feeling Obama is not a "live and let live" kind of guy when it comes to people stabbing him in the back.

Joe's got nowhere to go and he knows it. He can hold onto a few crumbs of power by caucusing the with the Democrats, or he can jump ship to the Republicans and be stuck in the minority party with even less power.

"I like to point out that we liberals love Collins and Snowe in Maine yet we demonize Lieberman."

Uhm, I can tolerate them more than some other Republicans, perhaps, but I still wouldn't advocate Reid give them a committee chair...

They don't say anything about the Government Affairs committee, which would give Joe subpoena power over the Administration. That's more crucial than getting him off Homeland Security.

It seems to be raining pure hate out here tonight. I've been puzzling over the meaning of "Yes, we can" since I first heard it, but now I think I finally got the drift.

Kota

Reid would be doing Lieberman and all of us a favor if he gave him the boot. Never mind his wild contortions...the guy's a Republican. The Democrats cannot and should not count on him, and his actions against the Democratic party, while he was ostensiby a member of that party, merit his removal. If he still caucuses with the Dems, he retains some leverage. If cast out, he loses it. The Dems don't lose as much with Lieberman gone from the party as Lieberman loses with Lieberman gone from the party. That's reason enough to banish him.

The problem with Lieberman is that he has divided loyalties, and I don't mean Dem/Rep. When the question is domestic policy, he's a no-big-deal left-centerist. But as soon as the interests of Israel intrude, he slides so far to the right that it seems that his heart belongs in Tel Aviv.
SEO

SEO,

I think you over-rate Lieberman. He has no divided loyalties; he's a firm believer in platform of the Connecticut for Lieberman party, which has as it's main plank that Lieberman is a great guy.

His loyalty is firmly to himself.

It seems to be raining pure hate out here tonight.

Yeah, Democrats on a liberal site want Democrats running things! It's unbelievable!

Operation Leper is over there, on the other side.

I've been puzzling over the meaning of "Yes, we can" since I first heard it, but now I think I finally got the drift.

For me, it's about Democrats doing what they were elected twice to do.

a dramatic recreation of the reid-lieberman we long to see:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ssX3l7LTFU8&feature=related

He doesn't need a weather vane to know which way the wind blows, and now it blows from Chicago.

Dump him.

I just read that Reid has declared there will be no changes to Lieberman's committee assignment, though he's been "warned." In other words, the Paper Tiger has come through once again, growling as usual, and rolling over on his back as soon as he finished.

Does anybody know: has Reid ever stood up to anybody on a single issue in his political career? Just curious. I realize he's from a swing state and all, but does being spineless make him especially fit for the post of Majority Leader? Wouldn't something else, say, I dunno, but maybe, actually getting the job done, actually qualify him a little better?

Balakirev,

That's not what AP is reporting.

They go so far as to say that:

"But an aide to the Nevada Democrat said Reid was leaning toward removing Lieberman as chairman of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee. The aide spoke on condition of anonymity because the discussions were confidential."

Where did you find your article?

Who can doubt that HoJo's smugness and insufferability wouldn't have gone through the roof if he and Lindsay Graham would have been able to stand by McBush's side after a RepubCo victory.

He would have blown himself a wet, self righteous kiss and flipped off the Dems who had tolerated his B.S. for too long so he could take a place in McBushworld.

He's even a prick. He's got the charisma of a toad. He's obnoxious as hell. What the f**k is there to defend or even like?

HoJo just needs to be told to F**k off. Why not?

Addition by subtraction. Kick Lieberman to the curb. It's already years too late.

He's a butt buddy with Linsey Grahm and McCain. What's to like about a snitch and an ignoramus?

Gone, gone, and gone.

PS: Reid needs to give his job to somebody with balls. Hello HIllary?

It's funny how the Republicans and their mutant offspring wax pious about "uniting for the good of the country" and "putting partisanship aside" only when they lose and they have to resort to strategic begging. Imagine, if you will, the way Jerusalem Joe would have puffed up like a toad in the event of a McCain/Palin victory.

Then it would be all about how the Dems must "come to terms with reality" and "learn how to cut deals". I won't be sorry to see Lieberman appointed Secretary of Counting Quilting Squares on Toilet Paper. It's what he deserves; a job that is more humuliating than being unemployed altogether.

Is there a politician out there with worse political instincts than Lieberman? How smart was it hitching his ambitions to McCain anyway? It should have been obvious the Democrats were going to expand their control of the Senate and any Democrat was probably going to win the White House. Perhaps if he'd moderated his position over the past 2 years, all or at least enough would have been forgiven. But even if Senate Democrats are willing to forgive and forget, their base certainly isn't.

Joe's situation is not that he is "bipartisan", having simply campaigned for McCain. Joe's problem is that he, after knowing Obama as well as he does (it has been said that he acted as a mentor when Obama entered the Senate), said disparaging and deceitful things about Obama while on the campaign trail. Joe wasn't merely telling the world about his friend McCain, he was doing his best to mortally wound Obama's efforts.

Bipartisan is one thing. Being a conniving turncoat is another. Joe is the latter. After spending months (even after Obama confronted him that day in the Senate) trying to destroy the only chance this country has to get back on its feet, Lieberman cannot be trusted.

He might have been exercising his right as a citizen to campaign for McCain, but he has no right to any chairmanship position. That is a privilege, not a right. Lieberman has truly demonstrated that he is not worthy of the privilege. Period.

You would be a foolish Majority Leader to casually toss a Senator over to the other side. The Democrats do not have a filibuster-proof majority.

Joe looks on himself like the Kapo's who cooperated with the Nazis to get their fellow Jews in the ghetto a "better deal." How'd that work in the end again???

Bye bye Joey! Fire his butt from all committee chairman seats he holds - it is a new era and we need STRONG, bold and supportive people in those positions. If Joey wants to stay in with the Dems fine but demote him big time.

Vanity has done Joe in.

"casually throw over the side"

Heck, I would prefer, not an "Untouchables", but an Idi Amin Cabinet meeting moment. If any bill comes up affecting the military, the war or Isreal adversely to Joe's belief, he will conduct the filibuster himself. Sack him and Reid, as well.

Must pick up the Book of Mormon - What is in that book that turns so many Mormon politicians into wishy washy wimps? The former Gordon Smith of Oregon and Harry Reid have no depth in any conviction - Oh wait, when it comes to the overturning of the archaeic 1872 Mining Act, Reid stands like Stonewall Jackson. Yeah, Harry, keep giving the wealth of this nation away for pennies.

"Is there a politician out there with worse political instincts than Lieberman?"

Exactly - this is my thinking. Someone who is so calculating and careful would've seen the signs that the Republicans were going to lose badly, even as recently as this summer.

This is why I wonder what leverage Lieberman has to act so arrogantly that he expects to retain his chair, let alone stay in the caucus.

Reid and the Democratic Party need to stop acting like Cuckolds taking back a cheating spouse. They need to remove him.

Ed Whitson,

Having Lieberman in the caucus does not give any additional filibuster protection. Lieberman can vote any way he wants on cloture, he just gets more news buzz when he votes with Republicans when he's in the Democratic caucus.