Take Liberman's chairmanship.

[GarbagemanLB]

Why the FUCK does one person get this much power over an entire bill? Why don't the Democrats simply threaten to take his chairmanship? It looks like the Democrats simply want to pass anything, regardless of what's in it. How pathetic. Politics over principle.

[styersc]

1. Your suggestion would require a spine.

Obviously you are not familiar with our "leadership" in the House, Senate or Whitehouse.

[DrDan]

3. funny how we admire it when it surfaces (eg Grayson) but we never make it an election issue

[lamp_shade]

2. He clearly doesn't care.

[Lasher]

4. I had that idea back in January.

My Senator on the caucus committee replied with a raspberry. It's not gonna happen.

[Ganja Ninja]

5. But he'll fuck us over if we do that.

Leaving him in his chairmanships insures his loyalty 99.99% of the time .... so I'm told. :hangover: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead:

[MannyGoldstein]

6. That Would Be Biting Our Nose To Spite Our Face

We need Lieberman to vote our way on the important votes: if we take away his chairmanship he might... he did what?... well, never mind then.

[cascadiance]

17. He already is screwing us about as badly as he can. Time he gets SCREWN himself!

When you have someone who's trying to blackmail you, you can never win as long as they have the cards. At some point, you need to see the reality of the situation and call them on it. You need to recognize that we have 59 votes instead of 60 and kick him out of the caucus, PERIOD!

And if the Republicans and Liebersham continue to obstruct the Democrats at the record pace they've been doing with the filibustering they are engaged in, then:

END THE FILIBUSTER

Tell the Republicans they had their chance to use the filibuster constructively, but they chose not to, and as children who often abuse privileges, those privileges need to get taken away for them to learn how to participate in society again. America can't afford to have such criminals standing in its way of America's and the world's survival to reward their fellow criminals with stolen money and resources.

[LiberalFighter]

7. The only alternative is for everyone else to make Joe and his wife's life miserable.

[bigwillq]

8. That should've happened from the beginning.

But the DEMS caved. They cut a "deal" when all they had to do was strip him. Blame the DEMS for allowing this horror show to continue.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

9. And precisely how would that have gotten Lieberman to vote with us?

Or another vote to replace him?

[bigwillq]

10. It most likely wouldn't.

But Strip him, kick him out and move on. Take a stand against him. No more cutting deals. I want the leadership to put him in his place. They're allowing this circus to continue.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

11. AFAIK - They can't until the next Congress.

AFAIK - Changes to rules of organization must be put to a vote subject to filibuster if done in mid-session, and unless you expect Lieberman to vote in favor of his own ouster, it's not going to happen.

[bigwillq]

12. That's why they should've done it when they had the chance.

But when you cut a deal with the devil, you have no one to blame but yourself.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

13. Again, how would we be better off?

We'd still be exactly where we are today. Just feel slightly less frustrated, which if you want to call a deal with the devil, that's fine, but it was worth a shot at possibly getting something done.

[bigwillq]

14. Better off

that we didn't allow Joe to get everything he wanted. Taking a stand would've meant sacrificing possibly something good but sometimes that needs to be done. The DEMS just caved. And Joe "wins" again. Sad. At least for now, Joe is looking as powerful as he thinks he is.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

15. What's the difference between sacrificing up front and sacrificing now?

You seem to make a rather large distinction, but the net result would have been exactly the same. Joe still would've gotten what he wanted (status quo), we still wouldn't have gotten what we wanted, but instead of actually trying to get what we wanted, we would've had never had any chance at all.

I'm sorry, but I just don't see your logic at all. You seem to want political points, not legislative victory.

[bigwillq]

16. That's ok.

We can disagree.