Sore Loserman.

I think they should let him return to the dem party under the condition get get neutered. That may help to keep him from spraying.

It's hard not to look at him as a traitor. Is my bias showing? I mean, had I seen someone high in the ranks of the GOP come out in support of Obama, campaign with him, whatever, I guess I would have seen him as a hero, right? A kind of weird hero, but one nonetheless...?

I don't know. I suppose, though, if he were so intent on fellating the other side, he should have switched party affiliation by now.

SECRET Ballot? What are they afraid of? Let it be on the record, that way if there's a major incident or attack in the next year or so and it was because of a new Senators inexperience in running that committee we will know who to blame across the board for putting him/her there.

This is politics at its worst. Lieberman is good as chairman of those committees because he can help get bipartisan support. The last thing we need is some kinda anti war hippy overseeing homeland security. If Lieberman is a traitor to the Democrats, then Colin Powell is a traitor to the Republicans too.

Harry Reid declared the war in Iraq lost, we don't need people like that in charge of keeping us safe.

awfulperson: It's hard not to look at him as a traitor. Is my bias showing? I mean, had I seen someone high in the ranks of the GOP come out in support of Obama, campaign with him, whatever, I guess I would have seen him as a hero, right? A kind of weird hero, but one nonetheless...?

I don't know. I suppose, though, if he were so intent on fellating the other side, he should have switched party affiliation by now.

Traitor is too strong a word. Let's not make the same mistakes that were made in the last 8 years.

JimmyCarter'sSecondTerm: This is politics at its worst. Lieberman is good as chairman of those committees because he can help get bipartisan support. The last thing we need is some kinda anti war hippy overseeing homeland security. If Lieberman is a traitor to the Democrats, then Colin Powell is a traitor to the Republicans too.

Harry Reid declared the war in Iraq lost, we don't need people like that in charge of keeping us safe.

Lieberman abdicated his responsibility to provide oversight after Katrina though. Emergency response also keeps us safe, after all. I don't agree with his decision to back McCain, but that's forgivable if he comes crawling back because there are plenty of issues Lieberman and the Dems agree on. I'm NOT forgiving of his failure to do his job. He should lose his homeland security gig because he screwed up. Give him something else.

awfulperson: I don't know. I suppose, though, if he were so intent on fellating the other side, he should have switched party affiliation by now.

Or maybe there shouldn't be two opposing "sides". Running the country shouldn't be a farking football game.

I mean Lieberman is a douchebag but still.

Politics is all about deal-making. Lieberman promised he wouldn't try to screw Obama during the election and he did. If he wants to be forgiven and get back in the game, he needs to STFU and play nice.

Any way to offer him a swap with Levin's on AS?

fark him.

he's a traitorous israeli firster.

-it's disgusting that he is an 'elected' member of congress.

no quarter, biatch.

I hope the Dems do the right thing and kick him out on his ass. He's a disgrace to his party and his name.

Since I don't really give a shiat about the Democratic party (or other parties) as a whole, I just groan and this kind of stuff.

That said, the Democrats can do whatever they like, and so can Lieberman. So, whatever.

Lieberman isn't the kind of guy who'd get my vote, but he can support whoever he wants.

awfulperson: It's hard not to look at him as a traitor. Is my bias showing? I mean, had I seen someone high in the ranks of the GOP come out in support of Obama, campaign with him, whatever, I guess I would have seen him as a hero, right? A kind of weird hero, but one nonetheless...?

You might, but you'd probably also acknowledge that the Republicans would understandably want nothing more to do with that hypothetical guy, or at least want to punish him somewhat.

Loe Loserman (I) Conn*

/* the "I" stands for Israel.

Quatchi sez blackball Mr No-mentum.

If he's gonna lobby fer AIPAC full time he should quit the Senate and go to work for them officially.

JimmyCarter'sSecondTerm: This is politics at its worst. Lieberman is good as chairman of those committees because he can help get bipartisan support. The last thing we need is some kinda anti war hippy overseeing homeland security. If Lieberman is a traitor to the Democrats, then Colin Powell is a traitor to the Republicans too.

Harry Reid declared the war in Iraq lost, we don't need people like that in charge of keeping us safe.

He has done absolutely nothing with his committee in the past year or so. Look at Waxman who has the House of Rep's version of the committee, who has been kicking major ass. If Lieberman isn't going to use it, give it to somebody else.

Plus, there is a difference between saying I prefer the Republican candidate, even though I am a Democrat, and saying "my party's nominee might be a marxist and is a danger to this country."

You know, I'm inclined to think they don't lose that much if they kick him out.

A lot has been made about reaching the magic 60 and filibuster break, but seriously, it might not even be that big of a problem. If Stevens loses, I mean, damn... they need, what, three republicans to derail the filibuster?

And you know what? Let the Republican's filibuster on this. Seriously. They've gotten supremely biatch-slapped in the last two elections, and if Obama remains popular, a filibuster will not engender them to the voting public.

Radioactive Ass: SECRET Ballot? What are they afraid of? Let it be on the record, that way if there's a major incident or attack in the next year or so and it was because of a new Senators inexperience in running that committee we will know who to blame across the board for putting him/her there.

Secret ballots and public ballots have a way of producing very different results sometimes.

Basically, you know the people most likely to vote one way or the other. Assume that, then deduce the rest.

look, the guy is a power hungry imbecile. He thought McCain would win, and he would have had a solid political future in the White House, and were he to just keep his mouth shut, he would have been one of the most powerful Senators now with the Democratic majority, but the guy fell prey to his own ambition and disloyalty. The guy probably won't even win another bid to congress after his disgusting rhetoric of Obama, even AFTER Obama singlehandedly helped Lieberman win as an independent.

Aeonic_Blue: You know, I'm inclined to think they don't lose that much if they kick him out.

A lot has been made about reaching the magic 60 and filibuster break, but seriously, it might not even be that big of a problem. If Stevens loses, I mean, damn... they need, what, three republicans to derail the filibuster?

And you know what? Let the Republican's filibuster on this. Seriously. They've gotten supremely biatch-slapped in the last two elections, and if Obama remains popular, a filibuster will not engender them to the voting public.

Yeah, if nothing else, let the Dems stay at 59 or 58 and allow the filibusters. But make the GOP actually filibuster, for the cameras. Don't just fold as soon as one is threatened. They get shown as 'obstructionist' or anything of the sort, and the stuff that DOES get through is shown to work pretty well, the 2010 season is likely to see the Dems cruise past 60.

You know. If.

Diebold is "Premier Election Solutions" now.

Gosling: Aeonic_Blue: You know, I'm inclined to think they don't lose that much if they kick him out.

A lot has been made about reaching the magic 60 and filibuster break, but seriously, it might not even be that big of a problem. If Stevens loses, I mean, damn... they need, what, three republicans to derail the filibuster?

And you know what? Let the Republican's filibuster on this. Seriously. They've gotten supremely biatch-slapped in the last two elections, and if Obama remains popular, a filibuster will not engender them to the voting public.

Yeah, if nothing else, let the Dems stay at 59 or 58 and allow the filibusters. But make the GOP actually filibuster, for the cameras. Don't just fold as soon as one is threatened. They get shown as 'obstructionist' or anything of the sort, and the stuff that DOES get through is shown to work pretty well, the 2010 season is likely to see the Dems cruise past 60.

You know. If.

Don't count on it. The president's party loses an average of 23 House seats and 2 Senate seats in a first term mid-term election. 2010 will probably be a good year for Republicans. How good of a year depends on how motivated Democrats stay. The Democratic goal for 2010 should be "don't lose either house of Congress." That's very doable. Then, in 2012, they have a realistic chance of making some gains again.

depmode98: The guy probably won't even win another bid to congress after his disgusting rhetoric of Obama, even AFTER Obama singlehandedly helped Lieberman win as an independent.

Depends on who they put up against him. If they put up another Lamont and another whoever-the-other-guy-was, Republicans will vote for him.

JimmyCarter'sSecondTerm: This is politics at its worst. Lieberman is good as chairman of those committees because he can help get bipartisan support. The last thing we need is some kinda anti war hippy overseeing homeland security. If Lieberman is a traitor to the Democrats, then Colin Powell is a traitor to the Republicans too.

Powell never questioned whether McCain was a Marxist. Powell never said he'd fear for this country if the Republicans won.
Oh and by the way, Lieberman failed to investigate the piss poor response to Katrina. He never subpoenaed or investigated diddly squat. He left the country inherently unsafer due to his blatant GOP fellation. I definitely would rather have some hippy in the Homeland Security committee over a guy who didn't do shiat to make America safer.

HAHA!

Where's your bi-partisan NOW!~

Outtaphase: depmode98: The guy probably won't even win another bid to congress after his disgusting rhetoric of Obama, even AFTER Obama singlehandedly helped Lieberman win as an independent.

Depends on who they put up against him. If they put up another Lamont and another whoever-the-other-guy-was, Republicans will vote for him.

The only reason why lieberman won as an independent is because Democrats and Republicans came together to vote for him. There is no way that will happen again. Democrats will not vote for him again, and since then, New England has turned bluer. I think Lamont, if he runs again, would win easily.

If they don't take his chair, they are nothing but a bunch of punk assed biatches.

Maybe it should be this kind of lottery:


/with stonings
//new and improved stonings
///this is bad...for liebermann

JimmyCarter'sSecondTerm: If Lieberman is a traitor to the Democrats, then Colin Powell is a traitor to the Republicans too.

Aye. But, Colin Powell is not looking for any favors or positions of power from the GOP any more. I certainly wouldn't expect them to give him a job (if they had any to give).

Plus, I don't recall Powell talking smack on McCain, just endorsing Obama. I certainly recall Lieberman trashing Obama.

JimmyCarter'sSecondTerm: This is politics at its worst. Lieberman is good as chairman of those committees because he can help get bipartisan support. The last thing we need is some kinda anti war hippy overseeing homeland security.

Pray tell, who in the Senate counts as an "anti war hippy"?

captain_heroic44: Gosling: Aeonic_Blue: You know, I'm inclined to think they don't lose that much if they kick him out.

A lot has been made about reaching the magic 60 and filibuster break, but seriously, it might not even be that big of a problem. If Stevens loses, I mean, damn... they need, what, three republicans to derail the filibuster?

And you know what? Let the Republican's filibuster on this. Seriously. They've gotten supremely biatch-slapped in the last two elections, and if Obama remains popular, a filibuster will not engender them to the voting public.

Yeah, if nothing else, let the Dems stay at 59 or 58 and allow the filibusters. But make the GOP actually filibuster, for the cameras. Don't just fold as soon as one is threatened. They get shown as 'obstructionist' or anything of the sort, and the stuff that DOES get through is shown to work pretty well, the 2010 season is likely to see the Dems cruise past 60.

You know. If.

Don't count on it. The president's party loses an average of 23 House seats and 2 Senate seats in a first term mid-term election. 2010 will probably be a good year for Republicans. How good of a year depends on how motivated Democrats stay. The Democratic goal for 2010 should be "don't lose either house of Congress." That's very doable. Then, in 2012, they have a realistic chance of making some gains again.

Parties aren't supposed to be victimized by two wave elections in a row either, but look what happened.

JimmyCarter'sSecondTerm: This is politics at its worst. Lieberman is good as chairman of those committees because he can help get bipartisan support.

BULL farkING shiat

Lieberman has been an absolute disgrace as the head of that chairmanship. His job is to investigate and supeona the administration over scandals and shiat, and he hasn't done that once. Not even Katrina could bother him to actually do his job.

His counterpart in the house found plenty of shiat to do, but Lieberman the toad was just an enabler for abuse in the White House.

Even if he hadn't backed McCain, he deserves to be kicked off that chairmanship.

The democrats should be forced to have an open, non-secret ballot, just like they plan to use for the unions.

Bunch of farking losers.

NYZooMan: HAHA!

Where's your bi-partisan NOW!~

favoring Lieberman would be tri-partisan. No one made any promises to be tri-partisan.

And anyway, I'm not up on the general rules of procedure for committees. Do committees normally do things by secret ballot? Because if they do, there's really not an issue. (If they don't, well, then never mind me.)

Gosling: captain_heroic44: Gosling: Aeonic_Blue: You know, I'm inclined to think they don't lose that much if they kick him out.

A lot has been made about reaching the magic 60 and filibuster break, but seriously, it might not even be that big of a problem. If Stevens loses, I mean, damn... they need, what, three republicans to derail the filibuster?

And you know what? Let the Republican's filibuster on this. Seriously. They've gotten supremely biatch-slapped in the last two elections, and if Obama remains popular, a filibuster will not engender them to the voting public.

Yeah, if nothing else, let the Dems stay at 59 or 58 and allow the filibusters. But make the GOP actually filibuster, for the cameras. Don't just fold as soon as one is threatened. They get shown as 'obstructionist' or anything of the sort, and the stuff that DOES get through is shown to work pretty well, the 2010 season is likely to see the Dems cruise past 60.

You know. If.

Don't count on it. The president's party loses an average of 23 House seats and 2 Senate seats in a first term mid-term election. 2010 will probably be a good year for Republicans. How good of a year depends on how motivated Democrats stay. The Democratic goal for 2010 should be "don't lose either house of Congress." That's very doable. Then, in 2012, they have a realistic chance of making some gains again.

Parties aren't supposed to be victimized by two wave elections in a row either, but look what happened.

Obviously, I'd love for the Democrats to make gains in 2010. I'm just saying, Democrats should brace themselves for some moderate losses two years from now. Right now, their majorities are large enough that they can realistically hold onto both houses of Congress though. That should be their goal. If in 2 years we still hold both houses of Congress, I won't be disappointed.

Gosling:

I second that. With Coleman remaining slightly in the lead in Minnesota, it's not looking like the Dems will get to 60, and the runoff against Chambliss is probably going to be a long shot. In that case, the Dems aren't getting to sixty and Lieberman holds zero cards.

But frankly, even if he is magic number 60, they have to do something about Lieberman. Although I can't imagine why, the Democrats are widely perceived as being spineless. If they let someone who promised not to harm Obama and is only still a senator thanks to Obama's endorsement then turn around and play World Tour with McCain and endorse him at the RNC not only stay in his caucus but keep a powerful chairmanship despite holding precisely zero cards? That proves it - they are totally spineless and worthless.

I bet they've got insider knowledge that Coleman v Franklin is going to break for Coleman... They've waited to be sure they can cockpunch Lieberman and he can't hit back.

/Lieberman reminds me of this Futurama quote:
//"A turtle isn't yourself; Why do you care about it?"

Secret ballot?

Oh, so it's okay for the Democrat douchebags to vote with a secret ballot, but it isn't okay for Union members to vote by a secret ballot. Given that organized crime is heavily involved in Union politics, that seems fair.


Typical cowardly assholes(D).

JimmyCarter'sSecondTerm: This is politics at its worst. Lieberman is good as chairman of those committees because he can help get bipartisan support. The last thing we need is some kinda anti war hippy overseeing homeland security. If Lieberman is a traitor to the Democrats, then Colin Powell is a traitor to the Republicans too.

Harry Reid declared the war in Iraq lost, we don't need people like that in charge of keeping us safe.

Powell never badmouthed McCain...

If Lieberman had just supported McCain, that would be acceptable. But he went quite a bit further. Same with Hillary. If Hillary had just expounded her attributes, instead of repeatedly stating that Obama is less qualified than McCain, she'd have a lot more political clout today.

Cage match with Rahm Emmanuel?

/Pleeeease?!

Liberman needs to be shipped to Israel. That is where his loyalty lies.

JimmyCarter'sSecondTerm: This is politics at its worst.

I agree. It's a free country, and you're welcome to your own opinions, but when you try to butter both sides of your bread -- running on the Democractic ticket, and then endorsing the Republican ticket eight years later -- expect to lose your credibility in the Senate. He comes off looking like a total opportunist, a.k.a. "politician."

Lieberman should have known better. He's revealed himself to be a self-serving tool.

Why should Lieberman be booted from his post for doing what was in the best interest of the country? If only more politicians were as unbiased and patriotic as Lieberman the US wouldn't be in such a mess. Lieberman should be commended for being able to reach across party lines.

Sen. Patrick Leahy, judiciary committee chairman, said in a Vermont Public Radio interview Friday, "I'm one who does not feel that somebody should be rewarded with a major chairmanship after doing what he did."

The security of the homeland is a reward?

Why is an agent of Israel chairmanship of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee anyway?

JimmyCarter'sSecondTerm: Lieberman is good as chairman of those committees

He has been a disgrace to the Homeland chairmanship. Just stop.

farkingnotworking

I voted for Obama in the primaries and in the nationals. Leave Lieberman alone, seriously. He agrees with the Democrats a clear majority of the time.

Anyhow, it would be a mistake to assume that Lieberman will retire before Democrats lose their majority in congress. You need as many allies as possible at all times. Period.

awfulperson: It's hard not to look at him as a traitor. Is my bias showing? I mean, had I seen someone high in the ranks of the GOP come out in support of Obama, campaign with him, whatever, I guess I would have seen him as a hero, right? A kind of weird hero, but one nonetheless...?

I don't know. I suppose, though, if he were so intent on fellating the other side, he should have switched party affiliation by now.

You must LOVE Chuck Hagel.