I fear the worst.

And what reprisals could Holy Joe bring? Campaigning against them? Oh, wait...

Wasn't Lieberman one of the first to imply (or outright declare) that Obama is not patriotic, doesn't put 'Country First', doesn't reach acroos the isle--all character assassinations which then of course spiraled downward into a whirlpool of doubt and fear about Obama's very character?

If the Democrats cannot strip Lieberman of his chairmanship then they are dead before they even get started. Why? Because they will have proven that all it takes to push the Democratic party around is one dumbass independent politician. And if that's the case, you can bet that every single Republican -- as part of a much larger minority -- will dig in their heels and refuse to play ball unless they get what they want.

Joe Lieberman is a test. If the Democrats toss him out of his chairmanship they'll be serving notice that they intend to play hardball is a business that respects nothing less. You don't get props on the football field for tapping a guy on the shoulder, you get props for lowering your own shoulder and wiping him out. And yes, it's barbaric as hell. But that's the game.

Obama did fine when he was the underdog. That's over. He's the dog now, and he needs to start making that clear to everyone. If he can't make it clear to Joe Lieberman, then he's finished, and the Democratic brand is going to be equated with mush. Again.

Leaving aside all the crap that Lieberman pulled during the campaign season, the bottom line is that for the past two years as Chairman of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, Lieberman did not initiate ONE investigation. He did manage to protect the Bush administration by doing NOTHING.

Not surprising about the Republican endorsement--but very telling--why wouldn't Republicans welcome Lieberman with open arms? He's certainly shown where his loyalty is. That a Republican would say they'd welcome Lieberman should be red flag enough for anyone with a conscience.

As the chair of Governmental Affairs, Lieberman would be better positioned to hamstring the Dems' aganda than all the remaining repubs combined. Obviously, he's shown a willingness to do just that.

Form a committee on Offshore Professional Tiddly-Winks, and hand the gavel to Joe. If he doesn't like it, point out the recent election left the repubs short a few assholes and could use his help.

I relish the idea of Joe running for reelection in 2010 as a Republican in Conn.

Could have been stronger statement but its something at least. My concern at this stage is that the Senators will allow him to keep his chairmanship and come up with some kind of lame "probation" type penalty that will allow them to "move on" for the good of the country and pretend, for the benefit of casual observers, that Joey L doesn't basically own them.

Leahy and Sanders are commies from commie Vermont, so they don't count. Dorgan is a sensible centrist from a Real America state, North Dakota. So that's one meaningful vote against Joe Lieberman.

Do incoming Senators get to vote on this? Or Senators that are still in recount mode?

Seems that at least one of those Senators won't like J.L. very much, as J.L. campaigned for his opponent.

an alternative is to make an offer to Kyl or McConnell that they are welcome to come caucus with the Democrats, just like Lieberman....

Ya know how McCain kept getting linked with Bush? Well, the only image that comes to my mind when I think of McCain is attached to the hip to G.I. Joe Lieberman throughout the entire campaign--I'll never forget that speech he gave at the RNC.

You may all be wondering why a Democrat like me is here...Well I'll tell you...And he sure did tell everyone...

Oh, and how about that time he rushed to greet McCain upon his arrival in D.C.--when he flew in with theatrics to "save" the economic crisis?

And that time he whispered into McCain's ear about a political issue--when G.I. Joe Lieberman corrected him?

He was as loyal an endorser as one could be--everywhere John goes, I go...and he did it all in a very passive aggressive sheepish way that he does--that droopy dog appearance didn't fool me--the guy was vicious when it came to tearing down Obama's credibility and instilling true fear.

These nightmarish images are indelibly imprinted on my brain, try as I hard to rid them.

One of the downsides of the secret ballot, is that we the constituents will not know how our Senators voted. I wouldn't take that as a good sign.

Joe's reelection is in 2012, not 2010.

Joe should go, but in a very Sicilian, cold-dish sort of fashion. Nothing personal, Joe; it's just business.

I hadn't realized before that Lieberman -- who is not a Democrat, having run under the "Connecticut for Lieberman" banner against a Democrat, actually claimed in his speech at the Republican convention to be a Democrat.

Baghdad Bob has nothing on this guy. The Joe Isuzu of the Senate ... why would anyone but the Republicans want him as chairman of anything?

I've grown old, but I can still remember when the Democratic Party was made up of Democrats.

With kind regards,
Dog, etc.
searching for home

Secret Ballot: I predict that the curtain will fall, there will sounds of struggle from behind the curtain, muffled screams and moans cut short, the curtain will rise, Joe will not be chairman anymore, blood all over the floor, but blood on no one's hands.

There will be an interesting vote in the Republican caucus Tuesday as well. They will decide whether to keep Ted Stevens. Imagine they vote to keep him in, and then he loses the election. They needlessly look like the pro-corruption party. On the other hand, if they vote him out, and he gets elected, it will be a kick in the ass to Republicans in Alaska who went out of their way to support him, while increasing the possibility that Mt. Palin becomes the new senator. I betcha she'll insist on being the official filibusterer.

Why must this be one of those times when the D's shoot themselves in the foot? Again!
I can't count how many ways the party could be better represented.

"If the Democrats cannot strip Lieberman of his chairmanship then they are dead before they even get started." - ThePhantom

Far as I can tell they are already dead, having failed to impeach Dick Cheney over the last two years.

Joe should Go! That's the chant. Go picket the building where the Dems caucus and raise that noise.

Joe's opposition to Obama is simple to understand. He too gave in to his fears for Isreal rather than to his hopes for America.

Republicans would welcome Lieberman into their caucus "with open arms."

"Open Arms" but no significant Senate assignments. They don't even have the least significant committee chairmanship to offer, less staff, and No Republican Senator is going to want to see his seniority diluted by sharing with Lieberman.

Lieberman can't be trusted. Who the Hell cares where he goes? He should just go.

Joe is a Republican, let him go be a Republican, especially now!

I think the best comment on why it's just insane to keep Lieberman was found on Maddow's show this past week--Thursday (November 14). I actually saved that one and listened to it a few times (as I do with several of her shows, as she can say quite a lot there to let in).

It was a fantastic argument--Yes, we've lost him already, and besides, he even recently admitted the importance of fillabustering!

Just hope it got the exposure it warranted.

Correction: The Maddow episode detailing why Lieberman needs to go was aired Thursday Nov. 13.

Do incoming Senators get to vote on this? Or Senators that are still in recount mode?-- MobiusKlein @11:55

My understanding is that it's "yes" to the first set (Warner, Hagan and Merkel), even though they're not yet sworn in and "no" to the unresolved (Franken, Begich and Martin).

On that assumption, I've written to both Webb and Warner, to ask their help in wresting the gavel from Joe's pudgy hand. Haven't heard back from either of them, not even "go Cheney yourself", which is the same answer they'll get from me when they come again, hat in hand...

Joe has a vested interest in trying to keep his chairmanship. If there are any investigations into possible (I use the word laughingly) criminal activity of the Bush Administration, some of it would no doubt come into focus on spying on Americans for political reasons, and the use of torture. Joe would no doubt, claim that these subjects fall under the auspices of his Homeland Security committee. He could then, at that point, thwart, or misdirect the process anyway he could spin it. Keeping the chairmanship would also allow him to protect his own ass in any investigations, since he likely was personally banging the drum in support of what was going on.

Joe’s vested interest in all of that, is clearly a conflict of interest with regard to ensuring transparency of any reviews of Bush Administration activity. Conflict of interest, or even the appearance of a conflict of interest is good enough reason to take the chair of Homeland Security away from him.

next up: stop this damn tail from wagging the dog, both at home and abroad.

So finally we'll find out on Tuesday whether the Senate Dems (including the former Senator Obama who now has the power if not the inclination to help himself) as a whole are as pathetically neutered, nutless, craven, spineless, incompetent, cowardly, pusillanimous, quivering, jelly-kneed, milquetoast, lily-livered, feckless, and flaccid as their heroic "leader" Harry Reid. My money's on a resounding "yes" in favor of Holy Joe. A vote to strip him of the chair would be the first indication of backbone in many, many years.