ankle biters. You stay strong, Joe.

So kissing a republican president can get you stripped of your superdeligate status in the democratic party? Aint that a biatch.

Asa Phelps: So kissing a republican president can get you stripped of your superdeligate status in the democratic party? Aint that a biatch.

Not to mention he endorsed a Republican candidate for president.

He doesn't support a Democratic candidate for president. Why the fark should he get a vote in determining who the nominee is? Fark that.

that man is the personification of Democrat-In-Name-Only

He's not a Dem anymore so he should not be a Dem Superdelegate. This should have been done as soon as he became an Independant.

SilentStrider: that man is the personification of Democrat-In-Name-Only

Oh sure, but when it comes to adding up the number of Dems in the Senate to determine who has the majority, the Dems have no problem calling him one of their own and inviting him to caucus with them.

I don't know why he puts up with this crap. I would have dropped their ungrateful asses long ago.

What party was he in the 2006 election again?

"Connecticut for Lieberman"

He should feel free to attend that convention.

Majick Thise: He's not a Dem anymore so he should not be a Dem Superdelegate. This should have been done as soon as he became an Independant.

He doesn't caucus as an independent-he's with the Dems. He's listed as an "Independent Democrat." If he actually went true independent and didn't caucus with the Dems, and went GOP, the Dems would lose their majority (and all the privileges that come with that)

LOL DEMORCATS ARE TEH GAYS LOL

HansensDisease: What party was he in the 2006 election again?

"Connecticut for Lieberman"

He should feel free to attend that convention.

Zing!

Well, he IS labeled as an Independent now.

BravadoGT: If he actually went true independent and didn't caucus with the Dems, and went GOP, the Dems would lose their majority

Slow down... A "true independent" would caucus with the GOP?

Sidebar question for those in the know: what would happen if the two independents in the Senate decide to form a 3rd party, instead of siding with the Democrats?

Flab: BravadoGT: If he actually went true independent and didn't caucus with the Dems, and went GOP, the Dems would lose their majority

Slow down... A "true independent" would caucus with the GOP?

Sidebar question for those in the know: what would happen if the two independents in the Senate decide to form a 3rd party, instead of siding with the Democrats?

No, that's not what I meant; the two are not inclusive. I just meant "if he were a true independent AND caucused with the GOP. Two different decisions. Like Jim Jeffords, who is simply called "independent" and not "independent Democrat" yet caucuses with a party (in his case, the Dems).

If the independents formed a third party, I'd imagine they'd be pretty powerful if their participation and inclusion pushed a party into the majority.

He would have bowed to the Hillary whip anyway. Good riddance.

BravadoGT: Two different decisions.

Gotcha.

If the independents formed a third party, I'd imagine they'd be pretty powerful if their participation and inclusion pushed a party into the majority.

My question was more along the lines of: Would they have to side with the Dems or Reps, or could they truly form a third party independent from the other two, and if so, who becomes the leader of the house?

Being from Soviet Kanuckistan, I'm used to having 4 or 5 parties in the House of Commons, so I was wondering if having a third party would make the Capitole's dome crack and rip the flags, or something.

Old news is so exciting!

Outtaphase: He would have bowed to the Hillary whip anyway. Good riddance.

He'll bow to which ever candidate takes the most favorable position towards Israel. If Obama gets the nod, you'll see him campaigning for McCain. If Hillary gets it, well then, it doesn't really matter. That's why he's not a democrat and doesn't deserve to speak for them.

Fark him. He left the party, so he turns in his badge, price gun and superdelegate vote. That's how it goes.

He can always turn to Sean Hannity for comfort.

It's the Zell Miller rule: endorse a Republican and the hell with you.

Flab: BravadoGT: Two different decisions.

Gotcha.

If the independents formed a third party, I'd imagine they'd be pretty powerful if their participation and inclusion pushed a party into the majority.

My question was more along the lines of: Would they have to side with the Dems or Reps, or could they truly form a third party independent from the other two, and if so, who becomes the leader of the house?

Being from Soviet Kanuckistan, I'm used to having 4 or 5 parties in the House of Commons, so I was wondering if having a third party would make the Capitole's dome crack and rip the flags, or something.

We've had members of third parties serve in America's congress before (e.g., Progressive, Free Soil, Conservative). I imagine that if a third party (or fourth, etc.) were to gain a toe-hold, we'd have a coalition in control of our Senate and/or House, similar to the Israelis or even America's Hat. ;)

Majick Thise: He's not a Dem anymore so he should not be a Dem Superdelegate. This should have been done as soon as he became an Independent.

Yep.

I cheered his campaign - he really stuck it to the 'angry left' libs when he showed them that he was what the community as a whole wanted. However, that doesn't mean that the Dems have to have anything to do with him, nor do they have to recognize him as a part of their party. I'm actually kind of shocked he had a super-delegate vote at all, being that he's an independent.

BravadoGT: I don't know why he puts up with this crap. I would have dropped their ungrateful asses long ago.

To tell you the truth, Dean could pretty much ask the same thing of Lieberman. Lieberman ignored the will of his party's voters in a naked, desperate attempt to stay in office, and that is the only reason he is not currently a private citizen. By all rights, Ned Lamont should have his seat right now.

Gosling: By all rights, Ned Lamont should have his seat right now.

It also helped that the GOP threw their own candidate under the bus to support Lieberman.

BravadoGT: If the independents formed a third party, I'd imagine they'd be pretty powerful if their participation and inclusion pushed a party into the majority.

In Connecticut, they did. You have to be very careful in this state when you use the term "Independent". It does not mean "unaffiliated". The registrar in my town is pretty good at making sure people know the difference - if you say you are Independent, it means you belong to that party and the primary rules apply the same as though you were a registered rep. or dem.

I think Deleware and Oregon have similar situations.

Recall all Repuglikkkans: Amazing how the man went from the party's vice presidential candidate to a pariah, deservedly so, in only a matter of years. How many guys like him could be out there, willing to sell out in a second? The Democrats need to clean house and start really grilling candidates. We cannot have people like that in our party.



Dissent is treason, comrade?

Gosling: By all rights, Ned Lamont should have his seat right now.

Bull. That kind of party-centric attitude is a major failing of American politics. He ran for office, and was duly elected. It's not his fault Lamont didn't appeal to the general population of the state.

. . . besides, we need just the right combination of superdelegates in order for Hillary to be selected by the party higher-ups as the Democrat nominee!

Shaggy_C: Gosling: By all rights, Ned Lamont should have his seat right now.

Bull. That kind of party-centric attitude is a major failing of American politics. He ran for office, and was duly elected. It's not his fault Lamont didn't appeal to the general population of the state.

No, the major failing is that he LOST THE PRIMARY, YET WAS ALLOWED TO CONTINUE TO THE GENERAL ANYWAY.

Gosling: No, the major failing is that he LOST THE PRIMARY, YET WAS ALLOWED TO CONTINUE TO THE GENERAL ANYWAY.

Would you really be upset if Ron Paul ran as a Libertarian this year? Same farking thing. Losing the primary meant that he could not run as the Democrat for the seat. End of story. It says nothing about his ability to run as an independent. He won the seat fair and square.

CHAZZZ: I'm sorry Shaggy but that is complete BS. The Republicans in Joe's state are the only reason he won.

He won because of his name recognition, support from his voters in previous elections, and some changeover votes from the GOP. If you don't think a single democrat voted for him, I've got some ocean front property to sell you in Arizona...

HAHAHHAHAHAHAHA fark you asshole neocon wannabe

VIDEOGAMES ARE SOMEHOW RESPONSIBLE!!

Jim Jeffords finished his term in Congress with the end of the 109th. The other independent senator is Bernie Sanders of Vermont, who got bumped up from long years of service in the House. He's a member of the Socialist party.

/the more you know

Holy Joe. Senator for Tel Aviv South

CHAZZZ: Bullshiat, without the scandal and GOP support Joe would not be a Senator. You are obviously don't know what you are talking about. The Republican running received no support from the GOP. And I'm sure there was some Dems that voted for him but the GOP is reason he won.

So? He still won. Are you saying that any GOP vote should be automatically disqualified or something? Christ, you're acting like you've completely forgotten what 'representative democracy' means...

Shaggy_C: CHAZZZ: I'm sorry Shaggy but that is complete BS. The Republicans in Joe's state are the only reason he won.

He won because of his name recognition, support from his voters in previous elections, and some changeover votes from the GOP. If you don't think a single democrat voted for him, I've got some ocean front property to sell you in Arizona...

As I understand it, he shouldn't have been on the ballot. Some sort of failure to do some paperwork or something, but the State AG just decided to ignore it.

In any case, the following things are true:

1) Lieberman is not a member of the Democratic Party and therefore shouldn't get a super-delegate vote. Even if he did, it would theoretically go to McCain, so it would be irrelevant.

2) If Lieberman changes caucuses, nothing happens except Lieberman will lose essentially all his power because the current organizing rules do not permit a majority party switch after the fact.

3) If he switches, he will probably have no chance of ever winning again: His main campaign pledge was to caucus with the Dems.

CHAZZZ: No, just pointing out that you are wrong. He was voted in with the help of the Republicans because they hate Lamont's view on the war. And the scandal was the best thing that ever happened for Joe.

How am I wrong? I said that the community as a whole voted for him instead of Lamont. You said that he 'stole the seat' from Lamont. Which he obviously didn't do, seeing how he had more votes. I don't care where they came from.

I wish you were this sympathetic when you were calling him "Loserman" after the 2000 election.

joe (the gop/israel arse kissing turn-coat)lieberman.

He deserves all the respect of a cockroach caught in the cupboard

Over on RedState.com they're considering staying home on election day because John McCain co-sponsored legislation with Russ Feingold and Ted Kennedy. But Democrats are the intolerant ones. Got it.

Shaggy_C: So? He still won. Are you saying that any GOP vote should be automatically disqualified or something? Christ, you're acting like you've completely forgotten what 'representative democracy' means...

Keep in mind the original context of the thread here. He has every right to win, but that doesn't mean he gets to keep his super delegate status.

Shaggy_C: Gosling: No, the major failing is that he LOST THE PRIMARY, YET WAS ALLOWED TO CONTINUE TO THE GENERAL ANYWAY.

Would you really be upset if Ron Paul ran as a Libertarian this year? Same farking thing. Losing the primary meant that he could not run as the Democrat for the seat. End of story. It says nothing about his ability to run as an independent. He won the seat fair and square.

Yes, actually, I would. As far as I'm concerned, pick whatever party you want, but stick with whatever you pick for the duration of a campaign. If Paul loses as a Republican this time, he loses. Done. Gone. Out. If he wants to run NEXT time as a Libertarian, that's fine. But THIS election, he's out.

Gosling: By all rights, Ned Lamont should have his seat right now.

Ole Ned. Just another example of the Democratic base selecting someone who is unelectable to spite themselves.

Gosling: Yes, actually, I would. As far as I'm concerned, pick whatever party you want, but stick with whatever you pick for the duration of a campaign. If Paul loses as a Republican this time, he loses. Done. Gone. Out. If he wants to run NEXT time as a Libertarian, that's fine. But THIS election, he's out.

Well, that's more of a personal matter than anything else. Call the guy an asshole, but forcing people to pick a party and stay with it is downright vile. Freedom of association, my dear Gosling.

Rethorn: Keep in mind the original context of the thread here. He has every right to win, but that doesn't mean he gets to keep his super delegate status.

Without a doubt, I agree. But the statement "Ned Lamont should have his seat right now" needed to be rebuked.

The party of inclusion. Unless you disagree with whatever their current mainstream thinks.

Huh. Kinda like the Republicans, too.

It's their party. They can do what they want to.

Flab: Sidebar question for those in the know: what would happen if the two independents in the Senate decide to form a 3rd party, instead of siding with the Democrats?

The tiebreaker for the Senate is the Vice President, who is ex officio President of the Senate. That's usually just a formal position nowadays, but it means that the Republicans would have the majority as long as there's a Republican VP if there's a tie. Same thing happened after the 2000 elections.