Joe also walks the money line with the dems. He knows the game well enough to stay on the field in the Mutual Protection Racket. Back stabs and frowns in public. Back slaps and big shit eating grins in private. Real political animals are survivors and not spectators.

Frack. They'll keep him, telling everyone there are no consequences for treason towards the party. Ah, the Dems -- committed to snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.

If the caucus doesn't include the newly elected Senators; the either up or down vote on Lieberman will be a farce.

For crissakes, Hagel wouldn't even endorse Obama, let alone campaign for the man, and he's (Hagel) retired from the senate. The same with Lugar.

What Joltin' Joe did was dead wrong. He ran against a democrat in the general CT Senate election, he campaigned against a democrat for president going as far as to say Obama could spell the end for the republic.

Joe needs a new job in the senate, preferably as a moderate republican. It's one thing to be supportive of an opposing party's policy, it's another to actively campaign for the other team and use their wingnut talking points.

You can measure the evil from the way asshole Reid is framing it: Yes, Joe did wrong, but we are tolerant and I am going to forgive him because I am so wonderfully tolerant.

Tolerance of past sins is not the point. The point is the future. Joe Lieberman is out to screw things up for Obama in the future. He hasn't changed one bit. Not one bit. He will continue the Republican campaign against Obama as Chairman of Homeland Security, a position where he can inflict real damage. Does Reid think that is OK?

Reid says, "I think a lot of this is very private stuff." What a dickhead! The business of the United States Senate is private! I don't think so. I think the issue is public and about the future. Lieberman can't be trusted. Sorry, Harry, but you're one dumb prick.

why can't we have a better senate majority leader? reid is a failure.

. . . Reid saying, "Lieberman votes with me a lot more than a lot of my senators."

There is only one vote that Reid, and Pelosi, care about, and that's the vote to keep them in their positions of power. As long as Lieberman agrees to that, and he keeps donating to Reid's personal PAC, Reid will give him a pass.

All of you griping about sin and punishment are on the wrong message.

The issue is that Lieberman doesn't get to have oversight over the Obama White House, nor does he get to have oversight over Homeland Security.

Other than that, I don't care what caucus he's in. Neither should you.

Treason.

Sin.

Evil.

What are you, Republicans?

Let's focus on policy and governance.

David said:
The issue is that Lieberman doesn't get to have oversight over the Obama White House . . . .

Leiberman may not want the chairmanship so he can go after Obama. He may want it to protect Bush & Co. when news of missing harddrives, shredded files and purged emails come out on Jan. 20.

Reid has it half right; Lieberman is not a RIGHT WING nutcase. He's just a nutcase. An opportunistic, sociopathic nutcase. If the Dems give Joe a pass (fingers crossed this doesn't haapen), the one silver lining for Dems is that Joe's also a craven pussified lickspittle aching for power no matter who's at the helm, and it's possible that with a strong Dem in the Oval Office, old Joe might stop his saber-rattling & witch-hunting and remember how to expose the left side of his belly when he rolls over to his masters.

Reid has his priorities - As long as Joe supports him in blocking the overturning of the 1872 Mining Act, Joe stays.

Obamas and in my opinion the Democrats biggest liabilities are Reed and Pelosi. These two need to go. Their positions need to be filled with "new guard" not the "old guard".

I agree with the poster above who said the most important issue is to keep Lieberman away from oversight of the Obama White House. That's the one issue that needs to be dealt with. Dems can't afford to have someone on their own side providing and parroting talking points for the GOP in a position of authority when they can control it. By the same token, I can understand not making Lieberman a pariah (any more than he already is). He backed the wrong horse and lost. He should have his committee chairmanship stripped. But he doesn't need to be tarred and feathered either. Aside from the gratification many of us would feel, there's nothing to be gained from it.

While I find the little toad to be contemptible, I am more interested in quickly implementing progressive legislation than nailing Lieberman.

So, demote him to the chair of some nondescript subcommittee and let him spend the next 2-4 years proving his worth by voting the party line. I want his votes (balls), not his heart and soul.

If that doesn't suit him, send him to the Republicans.

You all are fighting the last war.

We're going to need the votes of GOP Senators for cloture votes. I hope not many. Whether you count Lieberman as right-wing Democrat, or as a Moderate Republican, we will still need his vote.

Any time there is a few vote difference at some significant level -- 41, 51, 60 -- in the Senate, the situation is ripe for an individual Senator to withhold his/her vote and invite the offers. Party discipline is just too weak for it not to work. Lieberman is in a great position right now -- and will remain so, as long the GOP plans to use filibusters as their primary tool. In all other situations, he is insignificant.

Can we talk about the elephant in the room here? Joe Lieberman is an Orthodox Jew. That's fine by me -- as are all religions as expressions of personal faith -- but it means that Joe has one interest that overrides all others: Israel. And I'm willing to even go so far as to say that Joe, as an Orthodox Jew, may have more emotion invested in Jerusalem than he does in America.

How else can anyone reconcile Lieberman's progressive attitudes on so many issues with his naive and ignorant hawkishness on Iraq? I mean, where's the connection except for Lieberman's faith, and the location of the center of that faith on planet Earth? I see none.

Simply put, Joe Lieberman sucked up to the Republicans with a mighty pucker as soon as 9/11 happened, because -- and I agree -- it demonstrated how dangerious Islamic fundamentalists are. Given Israel's proximity to Islamic states that had to be a really frightening moment for anyone concerned about Israel's future. The problem is, I think Joe's morally committed to defending Jerusalem in a way that goes beyond his responsibilities as a United States Senator -- although of course he would spit himself silly if anyone said that to his face.

I believe in religion and faith and spirituality, up to a point. The point I'm not willing to go past -- which Sarah Palin clearly is, for example -- is the point where I have to deny reality in order to keep my imaginary life in order. I don't know where Joe is on that point, and I'd like to know. I'd also like Joe to quit avoiding the elephant in the room and talk openly about his concerns about Israel. Avoiding the subject while openly supporting people like Dick Cheney and Don Rumsfeld and George W. Bush because you think they're the only thing between you and the relgious homeland you fantasize about is not okay.

Those people are fascist killers, and they have destroyed America's standing in the world. That Joe Lieberman has sided with them out of love for Israel is understandable, but not helpful. And I personally cannot condone rewarding him with political power or legitimacy after the Bush administration willingly betrayed so much of what America stands for.

Ahh JFC... Harry Reid needs to be taken out of that position. This is all so wrong! Reid, Blinkie and Deputy Dawg must go but no; why fix what's really broken, right Demnocrats? Really, this is just fucking pathetic!

I loathe Lieberman, and I'm not a huge fan of Reid's either, although Harry has not gotten as far as he has by being all warm, fuzzy and forgiving in response to serial political betrayals. Much of this smacks of keep-your-friends-close-and-your-enemies-closer on Reid's part, and/or doing the politcal calculus to determine if the caucus is better with nominal control over Lieberman rather than pushing him to the other side of the aisle.

Put another way, Lieberman is going to vote however he wants to on issues that are near and dear to him, regardless of who he's caucusing with. But what's the best way to get his votes on other issues?

If keeping Lieberman in the caucus gets us closer to 60 votes, then by all means keep him but marginalize him. We will NEED these votes to stop GOP filibusters. Implementing the Obama agenda is just a tad more important than getting revenge on one doofus.

Demote him. To keep an important position WITHIN THE PARTY while working actively against the party is not acceptable.

This will be the first big test of the strength of the Democratic party. If Democratic Senators reward Lieberman, then they announce they are a bankrupt, self serving club and every damned one of them should face fierce opposition within their own party.

That this is even a discussion drives me nuts. This guy was more loyal to McCain than some republicans. A host of moderate republicans abandoned ship and endorsed Obama - those are the people we should be reaching out to.

There should be no way he keeps his chair, no way he stays in the caucus. "We need his vote" - no, we need the vote of real moderates and we need them to respect us to get those votes. Keeping L in the caucus may seem good in the short run but it costs us in the long run.

I agree he shouldn't keep his chair, because there's a practical reason for that. What practical reason is there for booting Lieberman from the caucus other than people want to see some blood spilled?

Lieberman is certainly a problem and needs to be exiled, but the bigger problem is Reid's approach to being Majority Leader. Basically he needs to go too. We need a fresh start not only in the White House, but in Congress. That means Pelosi too.

I can't stand Joe Lie, but we do need his vote. Taking away that chairmanship is the way to go. He desparately wants to keep it, but he hasn't earned the right to keep it. Throwing him out of the caucus is a stupid idea that will only satisfy small minded revenge. He votes with Dems 90% of the time. Tough shit if he disagrees with us the rest of the time. Creating a new republican is akin to shooting yourself in the foot. And I agree 100% with the poster above who said:
Treason.
Evil, etc. What are we? Republicans??? We can tolerate a little disent. We are the party of tolerance and can afford to be magnanimus in victory this year.

The netroots are not feeling very charitable where Reid and Pelosi are concerned. We have witnessed an earthswell of change this past week with huge undercurrents from the new Democratic base. I wonder if they ever worry about their fate. They may not realize it yet, but they are on standing on very loose ground.

It's simple. He ran against Democrats. Not once, but twice. He abused the power given to him by ignoring his duty.

Someone else deserves that chair, and if Reid doesn't have the leadership to see that and make that happen, then he needs to give up the power he is ignoring.

I'm all for a big tent, but let's be reasonable. We have a lot of work to do and arguing over the future of Lieberman is nothing more than a distraction that feeds his giant ego.

why can't we have a better senate majority leader?

Because Lyndon Johnson is dead.

Reid told 60 Minutes shortly after becoming Democratic leader that he didn't consider LBJ a good role model for the job because of his questionable morals.

Here's the thing, Harry. LBJ got things done. He'd have given Lieberman "the Treatment" and stripped him of his chairmanship a long time ago.

Reid is going to kiss Holy Joe's ass. Just like I knew he would. I'd take Hillary as leader right about now. She hasn't the senority for the position, but neither did Johnson - he muscled his way into the job.

I can't see the clip... is it possible that Reid is trying to explain to the public why there's even a conversation about Joe, instead of a swift kick to the curb? I'm as anti-Joe as anyone, but if Reid sticks to his original deal (no committee chair) I can live with that - especially because I think it will put the burden on Lieberman to choose whether he leaves the caucus, thwarting his "the party left me" whining.

But, I think the deal he put on the table is already more generous that Lieberman deserves, so if the party gives him more than that, I'll pick up my anti-Reid pitchfork and join some of the rest of you.

While I have as negative an opinion of Lieberman as most of you here, I want to say one positive thing about him:

Lieberman seems to actually vote his conscience.

Maybe I'm not looking deep enough, maybe many of you will disagree, but I think if he was looking for the easy political choices, a Democrat from CT back in the early-to-mid 00s would have gone a different direction from Lieberman.

I strongly disagree with Lieberman about his foreign policy positions, but it seems that he truly believes in them. I dont think Reid can do anything to get him to change them.

In regards to the other issues where Reid claims that Lieberman's record is "pretty good", I would be inclined to believe that Lieberman isnt going to make an about-face on those issues if he caucuses with the GOP. Oh, he might be spiteful on a few votes here or there, but if he flip-flops on issues just to hurt the Dems, he's going to look worse than he already does.

Speaking of which, right now the left wing of the Democratic party is calling for Lieberman to be booted. Does Reid realize that if he doesnt deliver, the left wing's next target for expulsion (from his leadership position) will be Reid himself?

There is one thing that nobody here has mentioned...Joe Lie did do the dems a big favor after he got elected as an independent...he caucused with them. If he hadn't done that and he had caucused with the republicans, the republicans would have been the majority party and we would have been the minority. For that reason alone, we do owe him something. We don't have to reward him with a chairmanship, but to just kick him out is plain stupidity.

Feh. You're all being too hard on Reid (as has the Netroots in general). He's playing for time until he knows whether he's got 59+Lieberman.

Measure Reid by what he gets done in the first six months of '09, not by the past few years when the GOP pulled out all the stops to obstruct him.

Sock Puppet, I hope you're right. that's the only acceptable excuse for dragging this out.

But regardless of the headcount Lieberman CANNOT keep his chairmanship. He will use it to continue to cover for Bush/Cheney, and make problems for Obama.

Just think for a moment that there might be a deeper game here. Let's say for the sake of argument that Harry Reid would really like to demote Liberman, but doesn't want him bolting to the GOP. What better way than to make him absolutely TOXIC to the GOP rank and file by praising his liberalisnm?

If it works (and they'll hear in the cloakrooms if it does), they can demote Joe and still have him vote with the Dem Caucus, because the Republicans won't trust him.

I'm with Daddy Love. Reid might be sending a message to the Republicans by saying that Lieberman is actually "progressive" when it comes to things outside of the war. And he is also sending a message to Connecticut.

That said, this whole thing is a power play, as most things in Congress tend to be. I'd like to see Lieberman demoted because he should face the consequences of his actions. If he bolts to the Republican Party, they'll be in for a shock. And if he starts to become more Republican, *he* will be in for a shock when he comes up for reelection. He is toxic for everyone, it seems.

The filibuster shouldn't be the sole reason for keeping Lieberman. This is the old partisan politics that Obama campaigned against. I think that voters sent a message to Washington that we are sick of "politics as usual," and the current Lieberman drama is in fact politics as usual. Republicans aren't going to want to use the filibuster right and left because if they do, they will jeopardize their own future--they will look like they are barriers of progress--and by and large, the American people want progress right now.

Oh, and Reid should leave their leadership positions as well. And Pelosi, too. I'm so tired of their brand of politics.

Why don't we take a look back at some of the things Joe Lieberman has said in the past year.

Lieberman: "In the Senate, during the 3½ years that Sen. Obama has been a member, he has not reached across party lines to accomplish anything significant, nor has he been willing to take on powerful interest groups in the Democratic Party to get something done."

Lieberman: "...colleagues like Barack Obama were voting to cut off funding for our American troops on the battlefield"

Lieberman: "I've learned some things about him, about the kind of environment from which he came ideologically. And I wouldn't…I'd hesitate to say he's a Marxist, but he's got some positions that are far to the left of me and I think mainstream America."

Lieberman: "Far too many Democratic leaders have kowtowed to these opinions rather than challenging them. That unfortunately includes Barack Obama, who, contrary to his rhetorical invocations of bipartisan change, has not been willing to stand up to his party's left wing on a single significant national security or international economic issue in this campaign"

Lieberman: "[Obama]'s already decided his position. He's not going to listen to Petraeus. He's not going to listen to our troops. He's not going to listen to his own eyes with what he sees there. I think that's not the kind of leadership we need in the Oval Office."

Lieberman: "The fact that the spokesperson for Hamas says they would welcome the election of Senator Obama really does raise the question why..."

If you find this as reprehensible as many Americans, write to Reid, and write to your own Senators, and tell them Joe has to go.

He comes from one of the most liberal states in the country. He is -- Joe Lieberman is not some rightwing nutcase. Joe Lieberman is one of the most progressive people ever to come from the state of Connecticut.

Hmmmm. Before we blast Reid for having a wet noodle for a spine here, consider for a moment that he's gently, with a big grin on his face, screwing the shit out of Joe Lieberman with this remark. Lieberman's options are dwindling: he's going to loose his chairmanship. At most he gets to remain in the Democratic caucus with some seniority, but the caucus will have to vote on that and he might not even get that at the end of the day. His only other option is leaving the caucus and going over to the Republicans who now have to deal with "one of the most progressive people ever to come from the state of Connecticut." We'll see how a new, even more wackjobby Republican caucus in the Senate feels about adding a New England liberal to their ranks.

Keep talkin', Harry!

harry reid's been getting a lot of phone calls -- his voicemail is full.

i called friday and again today. friday i also left a message with john kerry's office.

oh yeah, and i was so annoyed, i called lieberman's office as well, to let him know how embarrassed and ashamed he should feel.

it would be one thing if lieberman had campaigned for mccain, palin and other republicans out of some honorable difference between the parties, but that is not the case. any whining, therefore, about "loyalty tests" should stop at the door.

Harry Reid is such a phony. Doesn't speak too highly of Connecticut if Lieberman is it's most progressive senator ever. What do you have to do to be a right wing nut case according to Reid. Cheer leading the Iraq war each step of the way...Making Islamofacism a house hold word...trying to promote a war with Iran...Siding with and guest speaking at the conventions of Hagee and the right wing fanatics calling for the rapture. Lieberman called Hagee the " The New Moses". I mean Reid needs to ask himself if he wants Lieberman to follow through...I mean...if Lieberman got him to be majority leader it's just as likely keeping Liberman as chairman will end his majority leadership too. Jerusalem Joe has got to go but now I'm wondering about Reid as well...that he can't see that Lieberman is a right wing nut job who has voted with dems...sometimes...and would now be in a position if left as chairman to do Obama great harm for republicans. I don't want to see Reid a year from now sying..."I guess everybody was right about Lieberman. I never thought he would sink so low.". Now why would he NOT think that. Joe is blackmailing the dems..."Give me what I want or I'll vote with the Repubs" which should indicate to Reid that the man lacks integrity. His voting "conscious" should not depend on the highest bidder. I also doubt this liar gets reelected. Jerusalem Joe has got to go (even tried to scare the Jewish vote to McCain's side like he represented American Jews...just pathetic)

btw...It's Lieberman's chairmanship we are discussing not his staying with the dem caucus.

Liberman's spokesman has made clear that if he loses his chairmanship he will caucus with Republicans.

JOE'S CONSCIENCE IS UP FOR SALE. NO CHAIRMANSHIP...NO DEMOCRATIC VOTE.

Votes his conscious my ass. He threatens to vote with republicans unless he keeps his chairmanship??? Some voting my conscience that represents.

60 votes or not, dems never vote in lockstep, we will always need republicans to flip on votes but there will be less obstructionism from filibustering everything. It's like saying don't make anyone accountable...they might get mad and be against us.

An agent of Israel tolerated because of political correctness--that's Gentleman Joe.