Like many of you, I find watching and listening to Joe Lieberman lately so nauseating, so appalling, that I find I have to swallow repeatedly just to keep the bile level below my larynx.
Here we have a man who has no problem being a complete traitor to his constituents, by utterly reversing his campaign promises within a few short months of his election. Promises he made both during the primaries and the general.
But we're stuck with him, right? Since without him, we have no majority. But are we really?
I actually think it would be, in the long run, better to strip Joe of his committees even if he were to take the opportunity to switch parties. But I can compeletely see why it makes sense tactically to stick with him for now, since our majority is more important.
However, wouldn't it be great if we could successfully appeal to an existing moderate-liberal Republican senator to switch parties?
I realize its a long-shot, but in the current climate, apparently at least a dozen Republicans are reconsidering their stance on supporting the President blindly. How many of them might consider (for their own political futures) switching to Dem if they were offered the chairmanships of committees in exchange for the switch?
I think its actually a plausible scenario, but admittedly I don't know enough about precedents for this.
Just putting it out there really, but I will continue to research the possibility and get back with an update.
Thanks for thinking about this with me.
UPDATE: DocGonzo and Lysis point out that we really don't need one to go D, just I and caucus with us. Like Jeffords in 2002. As of now, based on cskendrick's analysis, the most likely candidates are: Coleman, Voinovich, Specter, Smith, Gregg, & Shelby