I'm with Sirota...let Lieberman switch and let the Republicans get the blame...

[madfloridian]

for stalling on the war exit plans. Let our House majority get our plan through, and let them stall in the Senate. I like some of his points very much. Lieberman is being a horse's ass, anyway, he is so busy threatening us he can't cooperate. Our Senate Dems are bending knee to the little Emperor's demands.

He did not want to discuss Iraq during a lunch meeting. Reid said sure, come on to lunch..we'll discuss it somewhere else. Stuff like that.

It would be nice if we had someone talking like a Democrat now in that seat, but we don't. If he is going to let the Republicans block everything anyway....then let him go and let them take the blame for blocking instead of putting it on us.

http://davidsirota.com/index.php/2007/02/22/i-hope-joe-lieberman-becomes-a-republican/

Democrats control the House, and as we’ve seen on the Iraq debate, a narrow majority in the Senate effectively stops that institution from doing anything. Thus, we have basic gridlock right now. Additionally, most believe that President Bush will veto any good legislation that manages to get out of Congress right now - meaning this gridlock is extra guaranteed by the White House. Throwing the Senate to the Republicans by one vote (which, by the way, a Lieberman switch would not necessarily accomplish, thanks to gray areas in Senate rules) wouldn’t change this gridlocked situation at all. Democrats would still have the House and filibuster-ready Senators to stop anything awful from getting to Bush’s desk. Meanwhile, Democrats would still have investigatory/oversight power from their House chairmen.

What about things like judicial nominations that only the Senate deals with? I share a tiny bit of concern, in that I worry about Senate Democrats intenstinal fortitude in using the filibuster. Then again, Senate Democrats would only have to filibuster for the next year and a half until we have a new president - and that’s not much to ask.

The politics of the situation would be terrific for Democrats (even though you can bet that many Senate Democrats will do whatever they can to keep their majority perks, even if it means selling the entire progressive agenda and the 2006 election mandate down the river - what’s personally awesome for individual Democratic senators and their egos’ desire to be called “chairman” isn’t necessarily good for the long-term prospects of the Democratic Party as a whole). They could pass their entire agenda through the House and then blame the Republican Party in the Senate and White House for stopping it (remember how the GOP used Jeffords’ switch to rev up its steamroller with the viciously effective attacks of “obstructionism” in 2002?) This is especially advantageous because the 2008 Senate races look quite favorable to Democrats, meaning they have a good shot of taking back the upper chamber by way more than the one vote Lieberman represents.

My guess is that Lieberman understands this, that he’s not really going to switch, and that he’s just going to periodically tell people he "might" switch whenever he feels he hasn’t been given enough love by Beltway reporters. The man is, at his core, the biggest narcissist in contemporary congressional history. What motivates him more than anything is seeing himself on television. If that means backing out of his own promises and threatening to overturn a national election in order to send more troops to die in a war, then he’s willing to do that. However, he knows that once he turns the threat into reality and switches, he immediately will be perceived as politically irrelevant and, because he will have switched in defense of the Iraq War, he will also likely remembered as the most hated and infamous U.S. Senator since Joe McCarthy.

I applaud Sirota for this part...how true. Trying to keep Holy Joe happy will mean selling out any hope of a progressive agenda.

many Senate Democrats will do whatever they can to keep their majority perks, even if it means selling the entire progressive agenda and the 2006 election mandate down the river - what’s personally awesome for individual Democratic senators and their egos’ desire to be called “chairman” isn’t necessarily good for the long-term prospects of the Democratic Party as a whole)

Amen, we will all end up looking and acting like Joe Lieberman if we don't consider other options.

[opihimoimoi]

1. They can't do shit w/o the HOUSE

if joe wants to sell his ass, let um

[Warren Stupidity]

28. Well actually the senate can confirm without the house.

On the other hand, the house must originate tax and appropriation bills (actually the senate disputes this power for appropriations, but historically it is the practice.)

Effectively the senate is held hostage to the lack of a 60 vote majority by either party. The Republics worked around this from 2002 until now by threatening to abolish the filibuster rule through a parliamentary maneuver. Obviously our side is not interested in playing dirty pool so we are stuck with the paralysis regardless of which party is in control.

I only partially agree with Sirota. Certainly Lieberman cannot be allowed to dictate terms. Ideally the Democratic leaders ought to be leaning on any possible Republican converts to nullify Lieberman and retain the committee chairs, but we also should not be afraid of letting Joe take a stroll.

[Rainscents]

2. Gosh, I wish he would hurry up and switch.

[Monkeyman]

3. one point here we would lose the Chairmans of the Committees

[Fresh_Start]

6. worth it to transfer the inevitable inability to get things done

back to the GOP

[Monkeyman]

9. I would agree if we didn't have Budget bills coming from the House

The Chairmens could hold in Committee

[madfloridian]

10. Yes, that's a problem for sure.

Guess we would have to consider the trade-offs. There would be downsides for sure.

[TahitiNut]

33. Sacrificing principle in service to power is the very heart of corruption, imho.

I don't buy into the specious rationalizations that claim it's more important to stay in power than to do the Right Thing - arguing a "lesser evil" perspective. Evil, whether greater or lesser, is still evil. Indeed, it's my opinion that's at the very core of the abominable corruption of the GOP over the last four decades - a "Deal With The Devil" is selling out one's soul for the sake of some illusory Greater Good: Power.

[madfloridian]

37. I saw something at Poitical Insider...not until the next congress.

Not sure about it. I read there that chairs would stay the same until the 111th congress. I don't know what difference, if any, that would make.

[bigtree]

47. bingo

there is much more at stake: investigations, appointments, judgeships, impeachment

[Fresh_Start]

4. I'm inclined to agree

if fact I'd go so far as to say it would be better. Senate is effectively gridlocked right now. Let the GOP take the fall for do-nothing.

Joe can only hurt dems right now. If you transfer him to the GOP, he'll be a cancer on the GOP instead.

[Horse with no Name]

5. Kind of my thought processes all along

The Republican's are going to make sure NOTHING happens in the Senate...let them take the blame for it.
Strip Joe of any Democratic leadership positions and let the games begin...

[Dr.Phool]

16. I agree

Strip him very publicly and humiliate him. Force him to become a repuke.

The republics are trying to block anything we do now. Bush will veto any progressive legislation that comes down the pike.

Fuck Lieberman! Put him in charge of getting the urinals cleaned. He's gonna be McCain's running mate in '08 anyway. Those 2 are spending a lot of time in bed together lately.

[napi21]

7. NO! I'M not willing to give up control of the Senate Committees

because of Joe! My suggestion is to cajole, bribe, entice, or whatever it takes, to get either Collins or Snow to switch to Dems and take all the wind out of Joe's sails! Both of them have sided with the Dems most of the time anyway. Collins is on the same Committee as Joe and she can take the Chair away from him!

DON'T be so willing to give the control to Mitch!!!

[mzmolly]

30. Very good suggestion.

:hi:

[cascadiance]

36. Actually it's being reported Dems won't lose chairmanships if Joe leaves...

I guess some rule was introduced according to World Net Daily. This link was just handed to me, so I'm sure we can also corroborate it with a more "trusted" source hopefully! :)

So even if Joe were to jump ship, he wouldn't get a chairmanship handed to him, since the Republicans wouldn't have any to give! That would be the perfect time to give one to Susan Collins if she comes over, or the next in line for the Dems. What's not clear of the language here, is whether this rule would still keep the chairmanship with the Dems if Lieberman actually becomes a Republican, or if he simply starts caucusing with them. Might be worth checking on.

From:

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=54392

War vote could make Lieberman Republican
Senator says he might switch sides if Democrats oppose funding troops in Iraq
Posted: February 22, 2007
5:00 p.m. Eastern

© 2007 WorldNetDaily.com

Sen. Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut said today while he has no immediate plans to become a Republican, he might change his mind if Democrats oppose funding the war in Iraq.
...

The Political Insider reports if Lieberman were to caucus with the Republicans, the GOP would still not take full control of the Senate because of a little-known organizing resolution passed in January.

Vice President Dick Cheney would be able to break 50-50 ties, but the resolution gives Democrats control of the Senate and committee chairmanships until the beginning of the 111th Congress.

...

[Union Thug]

8. I agree. Let the republic party have him. Good riddance to mealy-mouthed little man. n/t

[Monkeyman]

11. One thing I like to know can his State have a recall

[JanusAscending]

13. NO DAMN IT !!!!

Ct. doesn't have a recall option for the Senate!! DC

[peace13]

12. He will never go. He has the best of both worlds.

He can whine about leaving and try to threaten but he will never go because if he does the pugs will have to take ownership of the mess they have created. He is the head cheerleader for a bunch of babies! We should just ignore his childish ways. We can't worry, in the end it will be what it is.

[greendog]

14. After 2008 we need to make Lieberman chairman of a new committee

Once we pick up a few more Senators Holy Joe needs to be stripped of his current assignments and be put in charge of the "Shut The Fuck Up, Joe" Committee.

[madfloridian]

15. Maybe a Republican would go Independent.

We could always hope.

[cascadiance]

23. Try to get Susan Collins to switch...

Promise her chairmanship of the Homeland Security committee (that Lieberman wants to have with the Republicans). She's likely to get pushed out in 2008 anyway, like many other "moderates" did in 2006.

[mzmolly]

31. That is an excellent idea!

:toast:

[Greeby]

17. What's that saying?

If you got em by the balls, their hearts and minds will follow :eyes:

[MonkeyFunk]

18. No thanks

I'd rather keep the Senate than have the faint satisfaction that comes from telling Lieberman to fuck off.

[babylonsister]

20. Agreed. But if somehow he wants to leave, and it works out for both

parties, I would not complain. At all!

[cascadiance]

34. Let's just make sure we frame it right though. He's JOINING the Republicans. He's already left!

... the Dems some time ago!

Right now he's not "switching parties" at all. He's looking to become a Republican. The only party membership he has now, and has had for some time is with the party of corporatists, which he won't leave if he becomes a Republican.

[Straight Shooter]

19. If Joe switches parties, he loses all his bargaining chips.

The Dems will shun him for the weasel he is, and the GOP will despise him for whatever liberal attitudes he has. Joe will be in no-man's land.

Maybe we do need to get rid of him. As long as Joe is calling the shots and throwing his weight around, the Dems will look weak. And that's the last thing we need.

I wonder what Jim Webb's position is on what to do about Joe ..... ??

[demgrrrll]

21. Lieberman is a petty little bully. I bet Harry Reid knows who he is and

how to deal with him. I have never met a bully in my life that was not a coward. The citizens of Connecticut need to make some sort of "bipartisan" effort to let Joe know that he does not have their support and that they regret voting for him. I bet there are more than a few people who deeply regret falling for his last minute bs. He might respond to that kind of pressure. Then again, maybe not.

[cascadiance]

22. I would say it depends on the health of SCOTUS judges!

The last thing I want is to have a supreme court justice nomination and not have us have the ability to stop a nomination in committee without a fillibuster (and the ole nuclear thing again...).

[mmonk]

24. If he switched, people in CT could finally catch a clue.

[JanusAscending]

41. Please don't paint with such a wide brush!

A better way of saying this would have been "some people in Ct." and not include those of us who worked our hearts out to get Ned Lamont the Dem. spot on the slate. We've known that LIEberman was a snake for a long time now!

[mmonk]

44. Don't worry. I know there were plenty that supported Lamont.

I was an out of state contributor to the campaign. I'm just saying that would lift the veil for democratic supporters of Lieberman (which he could not have won without along with independent voters) to see who he is now and finally forget his democratic past (because it is no longer relevant).

[The Backlash Cometh]

25. I agree. Time to out Lieberman for the phony he is.

Let the people of Connecticut see him for the warmonger he is. Maybe they'll circulate a petition to recall him.

[cali]

26. I read the entire thread over at kos

I've never been much of a Sirota fan. I've now revised my opinion- downward. He's a complete idiot. Hard to believe he ever worked on the Hill.

[Zodiak]

27. I feel the opposite

Sirota has the true spirit of fighting the Republicans, and I applaud him for it.

"Hard to believe he ever worked on the Hill" <---nowadays, this is a compliment

[cali]

29. Sirota worked for bernie

Surely you're not suggesting that that's dishonorable? And his argument was beyond bad, suggesting that Lieberman switching would help dems in '08. Dems already have a huge advantage in '08 in the Senate.

[Zodiak]

38. Surely I'm suggesting nothing...

other than the fact that inside the beltway Democratic strategists are as bereft of valid strategy as they are of caring about their constituents. Hence, being "not of the Hill" is complimentary.

As far as Sirota's argument, allowing Leiberman to stab us in the back and doing nothing about it confirms suspicions that the Democrats are spineless and care more about their power than their constituents. Getting rid of Leiberman signals that the Dems are serious about getting back to the business of the American poeple....so much so that they would jettison one of their own to that end.

No one has an advantage in the 2008 Senate race. It is still too early and anything can happen. If things stay the same, then yes, the Dems will have the advantage, but that is no garuntee. Leiberman can "happen" and spread his foul taint all over the rest of us...especially if he enables the Republicans to stagnate the Senate as he is doing now.

But I am glad that your commentary switched from simply insulting Sirota to actually addressing why you disagree with him. Substance is more effective in encouraging free echange of ideas.

[cali]

43. Actually, virtually everyone agrees that dems have a substantial

advantage over repukes when it comes to the '98 Senate races: repukes have 22 seats up, and dems have 12. That gives the dems a pretty obvious advantage. They have many more vulnerable seats than dems.

As far as Lieberman goes, I'm putting my money on Harry Reid to control him. And Lieberman leaving the party because it's too "extreme" would be the meme that the American people got.

I stand by my characterization of Sirota.

[alfredo]

32. You don't want McConnell over the Senate. He is the most hateful

man in the halls of congress. He is willing to send our troops to their death to protect King George from having to withdraw from Iraq.

[Zodiak]

39. funny thing is....so is Leiberman n/t

[Cha]

50. That sounds just

like lieman.

[LeftishBrit]

35. Well, it's not up to me; but I'd rather put up with one dodgy coalition-partner than risk putting

Satan - er, I mean Cheney - in control of the Senate again.

This sort of situation wouldn't be so unusual in a Europaean country (generally not the UK). Proportional representation and a multi-party system means narrowly-balanced power, and at times an excessive role for small parties in a coalition. Frustrating, but usually better than the elected-dictarships that can result from landslide victories.

I still tend to doubt that the Connecticut-for-Lieberman party, despite all its attention-seeking huffing and puffing, really will cross the floor. For one thing, the obvious time for it to do so has passed - usually, if a party abandons its candidate for someone else, they require the other person to join the party. The fact that the Republicans didn't, may mean that they prefer Lieberman as a war-supporting Democrat to prove the bipartisanship of the policy, and also that Lieberman doesn't really want to switch - after all, the Republicans haven't exactly been doing brilliantly in New England recently.

Lieberman has been supporting right-wing foreign policies since he got elected; that's nothing new. If he rules out the possibility of switching parties, he loses leverage, so he won't rule it out; but I am still ready to bet quite a lot of money that he won't actually switch.

[LSK]

40. no thanks, I like Boxer as the Environmental Chair

[madfloridian]

42. I was right, I thought I read this....chairs would not change right away.

Not until the next congress.

http://www2.boomantribune.com/story/2007/2/23/103929/414

"If Lieberman were to caucus with the Republicans, they would still not take full control of the Senate, despite Vice President Dick Cheney's ability to break 50-50 ties. This is because of a little-known Senate organizing resolution, passed in January, which gives Democrats control of the Senate and committee chairmanships until the beginning of the 111th Congress.

What's the difference between now and 2001? A small but important distinction. When the 107th Congress was convened on January 3, 2001, Al Gore was still the Vice President and would be for another two-and-a-half weeks. Therefore, because of the Senate's 50-50 tie, Democrats had nominal control of the chamber when the organizing resolution came to a vote. With Dick Cheney soon to come in, however, Democrats allowed Republicans to control the Senate in return for a provision on the organizing resolution that allowed for a reorganization of the chamber if any member should switch parties, which Jeffords did five months later. There was no such clause in the current Senate's organizing resolution."

He goes into great detail there, that we would need a new chair for the Homeland Security department...and next in line is Levin.

[JanusAscending]

45. There ya go !!!!

If this is indeed true, I say CALL THE SNAKES BLUFF RIGHT NOW !! Sorry for yelling, but before the election I, as a constituant,had sent him many letters warning him what would happen to him in the election if he kept ignoring the voters wishes. His response was always like shrubs. He pooh-poohed my requests and more or less said he would do what HE thought was right for us!! Let's give him to the repukes,once and for all!!!!:grr: :nuke: P.S. PLEASE, would you post this at GD for all to see? as well as the threads to back it up??????

[Robbien]

46. Well how about that!

So nice to know.

thanks

[cali]

48. No, that's worng, and it's been debunked. repeatedly. n/t

[madfloridian]

49. Source...I will send it to the Political Insider. Direct link to the site.

I always give sources. Please give one on this.

Here is the direct link to the site with this info. If he is wrong, and it has been debunked....he will update and change it.

http://politicalinsider.com/2007/02/liebermans_switch_wouldnt_flip.html

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

51. Yeah, Let's Just Give Up The Majority And Committees. What A Brilliant Strategy. (No It Isn't)

Forgive me if I find the notion to be ridiculously short-sighted.

[depakid]

52. As usual, I completely agree with Sirota

DINO's like Lieberman are a cancer on the party.

[flaminbats]

53. will Lieberman run for a fifth term in 2012?

if Lieberman switches parties and Democrats win back the Senate in 2008 or 2010, there is no way out for Lieberman. He could always run for President, but even then...how many Republicans will vote to nominate a Jew?

If Lieberman switches parties, and Republicans still control the Senate in 2012..I think Lieberman will run for re-election. But if he does, what are his chances of winning in November?

If Lieberman doesn't switch, and Democrats still control the Senate in 2012..he will run for re-election as an independent..again giving him the power to blackmail either party that wins a majority!

my point is simple..Lieberman doesn't help our party in the short run..but he will only hurt our party in the long run! Democrats need to let this creep know that he will never stop us from holding Bush accountable.

[nadinbrzezinski]

54. Yep time to let Joe go

and don't let the door hit him where the good lord split him