Why we should call Lieberman's bluff.

[donco6]

So Joe will join the Republicans if we move toward "tampering" with war funding, huh? I say we call his bluff.

First, if Joe does join the Repugs, we will lose Senate majority, true. But we still have the House, and we can still block any bad legislation that happens to get through. Conversely, Bush's veto pen is only getting warmed up for any legislation that actually makes it through our Senate, so what does that matter?

Second, if Joe were to carry it through and caucus with the Republicans, that simply erases any reason for anyone to want to talk to him. He folds into the morass of other Republicans and he no longer holds any interest for the media. No more Joe Talking Head on all the pundit shows allegedly giving the "Democratic" line on policy. That alone would be worth it.

And finally, knowing this (see paragraph above), I don't think Joe would actually do it. Joe is all about being an attention seeker. He won't willingly abdicate that position and choose to caucus with the Repugs, no matter what the Dems do.

I say, call the bluff. Now.

[Benhurst]

1. I agree.

[gilpo]

2. I would agree but....

If he switches, Dem's lose the committee chairs, the subpoena power, investigative power. The House will continue to investigate, though.

[HardWorkingDem]

4. Does the Senate issue many subpoenas?

Just curious. It seems to me the more frequent issuing body of subpoenas is the House.

[donco6]

5. I'm not thinking that's such a big deal anymore.

We'd still have the House, as you said. Yes, we'd lose some good chairs, but I don't think even Republican chairs could let things get back to the "head-in-the-sand" state that they were before. Especially with the House agitating and popular support continuing to free fall.

The only real problem might be SC nominees, but if we could trust the Dems to filibuster, even that wouldn't be that big of a problem.

[Arugula Latte]

6. Too bad we can't trust that they've got our back.

They are still a bunch of namby pamby corporate suck-ups, with the exception of Feingold and a couple others. :(

[donco6]

7. There is that, of course.

I can't say I've been terribly impressed so far. But that only further makes my case. If they aren't going to actually USE their power, aren't we better of without them in power? It only highlights their ineffectiveness. Maybe that's a little harsh . . .

[gilpo]

19. No kidding, it is too bad....

[flaminbats]

26. 2008 is an essential year for our party!

not only because of the Presidential race, but because we can defeat at least three Republicans..Sununu (NH), Coleman (Minn), and Smith (Oreg)..all who come from states John Kerry won in 2004. More importantly we should actively work on persuading Senators like Bernie Sanders to join our party, which can ultimately make Lieberman's attempts at blackmail appear as nothing more than desperate and ineffective.

[KitSileya]

31. Are the Senate Dems investigating anything right now?

I mean, I've heard lots about Waxman and Conyers et al in the House, but who's doing anything in the Senate? Are they determined to find out what wrong-doings have been done in the past 6 years? (I have no belief that they'll actually follow though with any impeachable offenses they will find in the course of their investigations, if they are indeed investigating.)

[tavalon]

34. So, alas, we have to suck up to the bastard

I hate it, I fucking hate it, but he knows he has us by the balls.

[HardWorkingDem]

3. I'm with you...

I'm so sick and tired of this self-serving and lying jerk. And that is just what he is. Stuff his phony so-called integrity and let him go over. It would be better than to have him holding a sword over the heads of Dems for two more years.

[Norquist Nemesis]

16. Exactly! Let him go hold the sword over the Cons if that's what he wants

Let them deal with the "Watch me! I'm gonna do it! Watch me!" crap. Marginalize him to the max.

[originalpckelly]

8. Judicial Nominees?

Are you nuts?

[donco6]

11. I already addressed that.

And no, I'm not.

[TahitiNut]

14. You say "nuts" like it's a Bad Thing™?

Tsk, tsk, tsk! :silly:

[Norquist Nemesis]

9. Me too! As soon as the Cons bring up another divisive bill

he'll be threatening to switch back again. All the Democrats need to do is play the same game the Cons have been playing and fillibuster things, including judgicial appointments.

Enough is enough! Call his bluff!

[Smarmie Doofus]

10. They'll find someone else to fill this role.

>>>>No more Joe Talking Head on all the pundit shows allegedly giving the "Democratic" line on policy. That alone would be worth it.>>>

As it is essential to the format of what passes for legit debate in the korporate media.

If there's no quisling DEM available in the Senate they'll find one in the House.

[donco6]

13. True. But GOD at least it won't be him.

For another stand-in to gather the gravitas needed to hold a headline - it could take several stumbles, which would buy us time to make the opposition even more irrelevant.

[PhilipShore]

12. I agree 100% ---

And it's time to put Lieberman in his place - once and for all; the Dems should put out press reports, requesting that Lieberman leave.

At that point Lieberman turns into a "vegetable" and stays with the Dems,
and then the Dems should kick him off any chairs anyway -- it's a win-win for the Dems.

[acmavm]

15. Get it over with. It's inevitable. Either that or we have to listen to

this old hairball threaten us over EVERYTHING. Pick our shot, do it at our chosing. Let him go now. We'll get the Senate next election and then the old bastard's not only out of the party, he's irrelevant and will go down in the history books as the duplicitous, lying, evil, bush** ass-kissing old bastard that he is.

[catmandu57]

17. We need to be working on getting vunerable republics to switch

party either to Democratic or Independent ones who are sure to go down in 08 unless they grab ahold of the prevailing attitude, and want to remain sucking on the govt. teat. Then we can tell holy joe to go take a flying fuck.

[maxrandb]

18. I agree 100%

Let him switch. There are so many reasons that this is a good thing. Especially if you look at only having to swallow it for two years under the lamest of lame-ass duck pretzledents.

- There are almost twice as many Repukes Senators up for reelection in 2008 than there are Dems. We could easily pick up seats from PA, OH, NH, VA, MN, TN, and possibly ME. Hell, if McConnel keeps pissing off the people of KY, we may even have a shot there.

- It would show the people that voted for Joe because he promised he would caucus with the Dems that he's a lying sack of shit whose word is about as good as Dick Cheney's.

- He could no longer go on the Sean Hannity Show and represent the "Democrat Party".

- The direction and the energy in this country is all toward the Democratic Party. This could be the start of another 50 years with the Republican Party relegated to the margins of power (where they belong).

- Since the Republicans have proven they don't deserve to be the majority, Joe needs to join them in the permanent minority.

Go Joe. Do it now!

[donco6]

30. Good points.

I think you're right about picking up the seats. And Bush has so little support even from his own party - I really don't think Joe matters.

[Sequoia]

20. No true Republican would vote for him. They would see him as a

1)Turncoat (might go back someday)

2) Flip Flopper

3) Whiny old man

4) Boot licker

[gilpo]

21. Norm Coleman is all of those things and he still got elected..

Although, only because his opponent, Paul Wellstone was dead at the time.

[Sequoia]

23. I thought Paul won anyway, but Norm got it by default.

[gilpo]

24. No, the Dem's ran Walter Mondale in his place and Mondale lost outright.

[myrna minx]

25. All of the absentee ballots that were cast for Wellstone were tossed

out, though. :cry:

[mac56]

22. All of that, plus -

He'll lose his seniority if he switches sides, won't he?

Call his bluff. The fallout will be preferable to "waiting for the other shoe to drop."

[renate]

28. that's an excellent point about the seniority

However, Jeffords was given a committee chairmanship when he switched. Does seniority come into play in any other way?

If it did, it would be fun to watch Joementum go from being the most powerful member of the Senate to one of the least. I wonder whether he'd really give up bring the cutest senator in Washington, with all those gentleman callers, to being just a turncoat senator on the trash heap of history.

[JerseygirlCT]

27. One good reason against: (as LynneSinn (sp?) pointed out,

I believe)

Judicial appts.

[ProgressiveFool]

29. Agreed

Bluffing is his only weapon at the moment.

Joe loves power, and being in power. That makes this two years his time in the sun, where he can threaten this and that and hope to change or stymie legislation.

He won't actually change parties because chances are very good that we will get an unassailable majority in the Senate in 2008, and he doesn't want to be in the minority. As a caller to Randi Rhodes said last night, it would be a move akin to a rat swimming out to a sinking ship and getting on.

[Nutmegger]

32. You're wrong

LIEberMe will switch but not at the moment. When the Dems gain more seats in 2008, which is looking pretty good at this moment, our majority won't be dependent on LIEberMe so he'll be dumped like a hot potato. He'll switch at that moment and become the repuke that he truly is.

And they can have him too. Besides maintaining the majority, I want no part of him. He and Zell can hug each other. :puke:

[Usrename]

33. Agreed, no mercy for Lieberman.

He cannot be counted on at all, by either party. He is useless politically. What makes the most sense is to try and drive him out now. That way the Repukes won't have to offer him anything to switch sides, so he loses (his senority and committees) if he goes. I think he would just beg to stay where he is if anyone ever got the least bit tough with him.

[B Calm]

35. I agree. You don't negoiate with blackmailers. People in Connecticut

will make his life miserable if he does switch parties.

[vssmith]

36. Call his bluff or get blackmailed for two years

[B Calm]

37. He would be thwarting the will of Connecticut voters. Impeach Lieberman