Welcome Lieberman Back to the Fold

First diary, hopefully I don't get flamed to death...

Can we please welcome Joe back to the party?

The main argument for attacking Joe Lieberman while letting off scot-free Ben Nelson, Mary Landrieu, Ken Salazar, etc., has been that Lieberman is from blue Connecticut, while the others are from red states. The level of venom for Lieberman on this site over the past year has matched or surpassed the venom expressed for Bush. This, despite Lieberman's record being more liberal than Nelson, Landrieu, and Salazar. The explanation has always been, "the state of Connecticut would support a Senator more liberal than Lieberman."

Well, that was proven wrong yesterday.  The state of Connecticut showed that it prefers Lieberman to a liberal, whether we like it or not.  It's a fact.  Many keep saying Lieberman "received more of his votes from Republicans than Democrats."  Well, sure, but what's the point? Those Republicans are allowed to vote, and they are going to be voting no matter what. The non-liberal bloc in Connecticut has proven larger than the liberal bloc.  Jodi Rell's numbers tell us that as well.

Thus, the idea that Lieberman should be vilified because Connecticut should have a more liberal senator is just not grounded in reason.  The state did not want a liberal senator.  A majority of Democrats may have, but they aren't the state.  I'm sure many Democrats in Louisiana would like a more liberal senator than Mary Landrieu, but you take the Democrat who will win a statewide general election.

The fact is, whether you like Joe Lieberman or not, we need him now.  The country, actually the world to be honest, needs a Democratic-majority Senate.  Joe Lieberman's caucusing with the Democrats (and thereby putting aside any feelings of vengeance or spite) is the key to this country's halting of the far-right Bush/Cheney/Rove machine.  And that, my friends, is the most important thing.  Whatever you think of Lieberman's politics, he should be commended for not holding a grudge against the party that rejected him, and for putting the country ahead of any personal feelings of resentment.  If we are going to criticize him for everything he does that we don't like, let's be fair and praise him for doing something we do like, especially when that something will save this country for the next 2 years.

•  tips/flames

  Thanks!

  by heineken1717 on Wed Nov 08, 2006 at 04:47:35 PM PDT

  •  I grudgingly agree. Rec.

    by Mr Met on Wed Nov 08, 2006 at 04:54:04 PM PDT

    •  Hell No!

      He has been a backstabber for decades. Clinton healthcare reform, signing up with the neocons, the Monica Affair, his weak ass vp nominee performance, undercutting Kerry in 04 w/ the jewish vote in fla...I looked passed all that shit. But this war, this war that has taken hundreds of thousands of lives, this war for oil, that he is the number one supporter of Bush/Cheney crime cartel. This I cannot forgive nor forget. I get sick when I look at him and I am amazed that the Dems in Washington and Conn. have the stomach to be around him. How in the world do you look the other way when you are dealing with a pathological backstabbing egomaniac. You dont. And I am definitely not going to support anyone who supported, passively or actively, his detrimental third party run that probably cost us Chris Shays seat.

      by texas hostage on Wed Nov 08, 2006 at 05:02:43 PM PDT

      •  yeah hell no.

        This fucker, lies about war, prevent investigation, wingnut judges, tries to kill social security.

        LIeberman should be THROWN out of the caucus period. So what if that means 50-50.

        Let it be. Better than working with a traitor.

        Pragmatism doesn't work in Lieberman case, cause he gonna play the entire party like violin. He also will leak information directly to Karl Rove.

        He is a liar and a weasle.

        F. HIM.

        by fugue on Wed Nov 08, 2006 at 05:25:45 PM PDT

        •  Now that Rumsfailed is out

          and Joe hasn't been named his successor, then he needs to pay for his disloyalty to the party!

          by Dem In VA on Wed Nov 08, 2006 at 06:24:05 PM PDT

          •  Good Idea

            It's WORTH losing the Senate to punish him....

            After all, look whay Jeffords did when the GOP punished him!!!

            Great idea.

            Then we can have a 50-50 Senate and Cheney will rubber stamp all of Bush's decisions.

            by coigue on Wed Nov 08, 2006 at 06:30:38 PM PDT

            •  Sorry, I'm pissed.

              He fucking should've been a man and accepted his primary defeat.

              What pisses me off more is that he was Hannity and Rove's candidate.

              We're supposed to embrace him, now?

              by Dem In VA on Wed Nov 08, 2006 at 06:33:45 PM PDT

              •  Only if you actually

                have power over the Dems in the Senate. If not, be as pissed as you want.

                But I am NOT giving up control of Senate...

                by coigue on Wed Nov 08, 2006 at 07:11:13 PM PDT

                •  what makes you think we have control?

                  You can bet Lieberman is bargaining like crazy to keep all positions. In which he pull all his neocon agenda.

                  by fugue on Thu Nov 09, 2006 at 12:46:26 AM PDT

                  •  I understand how you feel

                    by coigue on Thu Nov 09, 2006 at 08:57:55 AM PDT

    •  Thanks n/t

      by heineken1717 on Wed Nov 08, 2006 at 05:38:24 PM PDT

    •  The only people who get a vote on this

      are the People on Ct Democratic Town Committees and I'm certain they don't feel that Joe Lieberman is welcome in their Party.

      Joe Lieberman had a meeting with close to 30 Dem town Chairs over a year ago.When they asked Joe to tone down his Pro-Bush and Pro-Iraq war rhetoric he said " I have over 70% approval of both Dems and Republicans in this state,a million in the bank and can easily raise 10 million more.I don't need or want your advice"

      He ran on the CT. for Lieberman(CFL) ticket and that Party of one is what he must wear for at least the next six years.

      by ctkeith on Wed Nov 08, 2006 at 06:09:13 PM PDT

  •  nah

    Lieberman fooled CT voters into seeing the contest as Dem vs. Dem.  He also ran on the basis of keeping Senate seniority, a piece of idiocy that can be laid at the feet of Harry Reid for not yanking it 5 minutes after the primary.  Finally there was the power of incumbency and the Incumbent Protection Racket that (with some exceptions) kept slimily supporting Lieberman full bore.

    For your notion that CT voters preferred Lieberman's policies to Lamont's to make any sense, you have to claim that Lieberman would have won a heads-up contest with Lamont for an open seat (no incumbency).  Of course you can believe that if you want, but the case for it is flimsy at best.  Lieberman lost the Dem primary even as an incumbent--for an open seat he'd have had to run as a Republican or independent, and a non-incumbent independent would have had no chance.  And the likelihood of CT electing a Republican senator in such a hypothetical contest this year (whether Lieberman or anyone else) was about zero.

    by clyde on Wed Nov 08, 2006 at 04:54:11 PM PDT

  •  Gave you a tip for balls and grace

    But I will HATE Lieberman until either he or I dies.

    I don't hate him because he's a warmonger from a blue state.  I hate him because he's a backstabbing, warmongering, Bush-loving two-faced sonuvabitch.  He'll gladly double-cross any Dem he can for a little love from Hannity or Matthews or whomever.

    He's slimy, he stands for nothing, he's egocentric and he's repulsive on every level I can imagine - from the what's-in-your-soul through the what-you-believe through the what-you-do through the what-you-look-like down dow his dirty, traitorous whatever's-best-for-me DNA.

    So - I say - he'll NEVER be a Democrat to me.  Conneticut for Lieberman is almost right.  Should be Lieberman for Lieberman as his party affiliation.  I'll be a Democrat for life, but I'll never count him in my party.  Ever.

    by teknofyl on Wed Nov 08, 2006 at 04:58:55 PM PDT

    •  ok, well thanks for the tip!

      and thanks to everyone else for tips and rec's too

      by heineken1717 on Wed Nov 08, 2006 at 05:03:44 PM PDT

    •  i agree with your sentiment

      but also say now is the time to suck it up for the majority. We have LOTS of work to do. This is not a productive battle for us. We've gotta single-handedly solve Iraq, realign our economy and energy policy, and fix the budget deficit. If we don't get some traction, 2008 might look pretty bad.

      So I say, hold our noses, get loserfuck locked in so we get our majority, then GET TO WORK.

      look forward. envision success.

      by SeanF on Wed Nov 08, 2006 at 05:24:29 PM PDT

      •  Agree, it is not a productive battle...

        Time to go forward.  

        Can't stand the man, and never will.  Respect him... Never.  

        But we have to pick and chose our battles.  And throwing him out will be cutting off our nose to spite our face...

        The Republicans are not going to lick their wounds, they are already coming out swinging.  Having a majority in the Senate is more important than having the satisfaction of taking away Joe's seniority.  

        I hate it, but that is the reality.  And we are supposed to be reality based.

        by JWC on Wed Nov 08, 2006 at 05:44:48 PM PDT

        •  AP just sed

          Webb is official. Allen concession is likely tomorrow. So the fight is on!

          by SeanF on Wed Nov 08, 2006 at 05:50:02 PM PDT

    •  a slam poetry masterpiece!

      and it has the added advantage of being true. every single word.

      plus you were nice to the diarist. :-)

      by isis2 on Wed Nov 08, 2006 at 05:29:46 PM PDT

      •  Thanks!

        Now I'm blushing ;)

        by teknofyl on Wed Nov 08, 2006 at 07:15:00 PM PDT

        •  ha!

          that's the great thing about those kooky internets... you get to blush in the privacy of your own pixels. :-)

          by isis2 on Wed Nov 08, 2006 at 07:38:12 PM PDT

  •  I'd just ask that you wait a day or two...

    in case he decides to become a republican! If he switched parties, I certainly wouldn't be surprised!!

    by reflectionsv37 on Wed Nov 08, 2006 at 05:26:51 PM PDT

  •  Tip for courage.

    landreau et al are at least Democrats, and none of them have given so much aid and comfort to the enemy as has Lieberman.

    That's a pretty bitter pill you're prescribing, doc.

    by b2witte on Wed Nov 08, 2006 at 06:03:19 PM PDT

•  Depends on how he behaves

  by CTMET on Wed Nov 08, 2006 at 04:47:59 PM PDT

  •  Speaking of which

    Olbermann just reported Joe has committed to caucus with the Democrats, can anyone confirm this?

    Starve the corporate beast, buy local!

    by EthrDemon on Wed Nov 08, 2006 at 05:08:11 PM PDT

    •  awesome, thanks for the info

      well-timed I guess...luck, I swear!

      by heineken1717 on Wed Nov 08, 2006 at 05:11:58 PM PDT

      •  I'd still give him a day or two!!! n/t

        by reflectionsv37 on Wed Nov 08, 2006 at 05:28:14 PM PDT

        •  hehe we'll see

          by heineken1717 on Wed Nov 08, 2006 at 05:31:41 PM PDT

  •  agreed.

    The problem with Lieberman might have started out as "he's no real democrat" which I admit was maybe a bit overstated, but the second he dismissed the primary results and went independant he proved that he really is NOT a democrat.

    And that's okay.  He doesn't have to be a democrat for us to work with him.  But at least now he isn't pretending.

    Lieberman ran a truely horrible campaign.  Wretched and hateful and at times wickedly desperate campaign.  But what he does next is going to be the most important.  If he actually delivers on his high and mighty promises for co-operation and change from the partisan bickering then more power to him.

    I don't think we need to welcome Lieberman back into the democratic fold because frankly he isn't a democrat.  But we do need to suck it up and hold him to his word without penalizing him for his campaign tactics.  

    I'm willing to give him a clean slate and I hope he does well in his next term, but I am NOT willing to call him a democrat.  He is literally his own party and he doesn't speak for anyone but Connecticut and maybe that will be for the best.

    by DawnG on Wed Nov 08, 2006 at 05:27:37 PM PDT

•  No

  n/t

  by Miss Blue on Wed Nov 08, 2006 at 04:49:35 PM PDT

•  You kind of have it backwards

  Joe had no even won this last election before he was talking about "revenge" to those colleagues who he felt slighted him or betrayed him. See, to Joe, helping the people of Connecticut or the country is passee - it is about the revenge, it is about squeezing out that last drop of blood over a vote.

  Lieberman is a stubborn, arrogant man. This whole Lamont thing would have been avoided if he had just LISTENED to the people in the party here. Joe would have none of it. That was a big part of the problem - Joe feels like he is acting alone, not representing his state.

  by gladkov on Wed Nov 08, 2006 at 04:52:18 PM PDT

  •  The Connecticut voters disagree

    They obviously felt he did help them. Isn't that what matters?

    by heineken1717 on Wed Nov 08, 2006 at 04:55:31 PM PDT

    •  The Connecticut _Republican voters disagree. n/t

      by scardanelli on Wed Nov 08, 2006 at 05:00:16 PM PDT

      •  One can say the same about La., Col., and Neb.

        Those 3 senators win because Republicans cross over to them. In some states you can't win without that.

        by heineken1717 on Wed Nov 08, 2006 at 05:06:07 PM PDT

        •  In some states

          it's illegal to stay in the race after losing your party's primary.

          It's dishonorable in all of them.

          I agree with you, by the bye, that for viciously pragmatic reasons Senate dems are going to have deal with Lieberman. But I'll be damned if that means the rest of us have to change how we feel about him, or forget all the dishonest things he's done. Your diary confuses bitter necessity with a kind of 'is he really that bad?' attitude, and strongly disagree with that.

          by scardanelli on Wed Nov 08, 2006 at 05:13:56 PM PDT

          •  don't agree, but you have a right to keep ...

            your opinions about him, no question.

            by heineken1717 on Wed Nov 08, 2006 at 05:35:17 PM PDT

            •  Well, that's more than Joe conceded to those

              who thought that the war was going badly. Guess we can agree on the first amendment, anyway.

              by scardanelli on Wed Nov 08, 2006 at 05:41:33 PM PDT

            •  you should think about the concepts

              behind scardanelli's very apt point:

              It's dishonorable in all of them.

              Sure, that's an opinion, but it's also more than an opinion. It's a statement that represents an idea of unity and solidarity behind a broad platform of common values, one of which for Dems even happens to be the right to dissent, but not the right to betray and then expect no consequences; and that concept for Joe is something he just doesn't really understand--despite all of his posturing.

              What I think is important here is that maybe you, heineken, should think about this particular opinion that scardanelli voiced, and how it sums up exactly what it is that pisses so many of us very reasonable people off about Joe Lieberman.

              I appreciate your concern and even for stating your opinion in that it provides the impetus for this discussion. However, the party has the momentum again, see how Joe turns into the wind? He's looking out for himself and himself alone. He should caucus with the Dems, it's smart for him on so many levels, but this doesn't mean we have anything to gain by letting him off easy for his dishonorable behavior, because it's just Joe-ism masquerading under a debased notion of "centrism."

              by hyperstation on Wed Nov 08, 2006 at 05:53:11 PM PDT

          •  Hopefully for only 2 years.

            If 9 a big if) we pick up more Senate seats in 2008 then Lieberman becomes less important.

            by Osiris on Wed Nov 08, 2006 at 06:46:47 PM PDT

        •  Excuse me,

          are you saying that Colorado, Louisiana and Nebraska won't vote for a Democrat unless they act like a Republican?

          They must be confused.

          by relentless on Wed Nov 08, 2006 at 06:40:21 PM PDT

      •  unfortunately...

        ...or rather not unfortunately, Connecticut republicans do count.  They like joe and they got joe.  

        But will joe return the favor is what we need to wait and see Iguess.

        by DawnG on Wed Nov 08, 2006 at 05:33:02 PM PDT

    •  Most voters are not educated on the facts

      Joe lied about every aspect of his record and fulled a majority of the people. I consider him more dangerous as a mole inside the party than many Republican senators. At leat you know where they stand.

      by gladkov on Wed Nov 08, 2006 at 05:03:28 PM PDT

  •  We're not going to be held hostage by Joe

    If Joe threatens to quit the caucus unless we do A, B, and C, we can't appease him. If we do, he'll just demand more. We won't have a majority, really; we'll have a maJoerity. And what's the point of that???

    I am resigned to the fact that Joe may go his own way, that the Senate might end up 50-49-1. For all I know, he'll go caucus with the Republicans.

    So be it. I don't see how that's worse than elevating Joe Lieberman to de facto Senate Majority Leader and Dem Basher in Chief.

    by Icarus Ascending on Wed Nov 08, 2006 at 05:01:44 PM PDT

    •  in your scenario

      i agree you can't let him of all people be the arbiter of anything. let him fly. but i'm really not convinced it's gonna play out that way, so i think we can better spend our time engineering a scenario where we play nice, get our majority, and solve some problems.

      planning for failure tends to encourage it.

      by SeanF on Wed Nov 08, 2006 at 05:26:14 PM PDT

    •  Correct -- the Dems must have a true majority

      If Lieberman's conditions for caucusing with the Democrats effectively deprive the Democrats of majority power, than there is no downside to turning him down.

      If he wants Democratic-controlled senate committees to not investigate the Bush administration, or not investigate the FUBAR'd war -- no sale.

      If he wants a Democratic Senate majority to cooperate with Bush's misguided war effort -- no sale.

      If he wants to be a cooperative team member of the Democratic caucus, working with the leadership and not standing in the way of this being a truly Democratic Senate majority, then he is welcome and can keep his seniority and committee chair.

      by MJB on Wed Nov 08, 2006 at 06:15:14 PM PDT

  •  Agreed.

    And recommended.

    But I also agree with the intent of the original diary, which is to say that functionally he is the same as the other DINO's. WIth a 51-49 majority and the VP with the tiebreacker, any one of them has the power to undercut a party line vote. And so I way that it would be best to treat him as if he were a just another conservative Democrat, unless and until he starts to act like a double agent again. I guess the House will be the factory of change, and the Senate will be the place where that change is moderated. And I assume the veto pen will come out enough that the R's won't be able to charge the Dems with obstruction in two years.

    Has anyone figured out if Joe retains seniority and committee assignments?

    Finally, galdkov, that's not in the Laozi. Where does it come from?

    by MarkC on Wed Nov 08, 2006 at 05:09:35 PM PDT

    •  That is actually a famous quote

      and have heard it attributed to Laotse many times, here's the German version: Was für die Raupe das Ende der Welt, ist für den Rest der Welt ein Schmetterling. I've seen it many places

      by gladkov on Wed Nov 08, 2006 at 05:20:10 PM PDT

      •  Fascinating

        I've taught the Laozi every year for a decade or so, and swear it doesn't contain this quotation. Yet Google tells me there are hundreds of places on the web where this phrase is attributed to Laozi!

        I saw that in a smaller number of places it is attributed to Richard Bach, the best-selling author of Jonathan Livingston Seagull. More searching led me to think it is from his 1977 book Illusions. This is where I think the false attribution might have started, a confusion with the famous butterfly story from the other major early Daoist classic, the Zhuangzi:

        "Once Chuang Chou dreamt he was a butterfly, a butterfly flitting and fluttering around, happy with himself and doing as he pleased. He didn't know he was Chuang Chou. Suddenly he woke up and there he was, solid and unmistakable Chuang Chou. But he didn't know if he was Chuang Chou who had dreamt he was a butterfly, or a butterfly dreaming he was Chuang Chou. Between Chuang Chou and a butterfly there must be some distinction! This is called the Transformation of Things." (Burton Watson, translator. Basic Writings of Chuang Tzu, p.45).

        But I don't really think they're saying the same thing. Oh, and here's a quote that I came across, too:

        "A caterpillar who wanted to know itself well would never become a butterfly." - Andre Gide (1876 to 1951)

        by MarkC on Wed Nov 08, 2006 at 05:55:35 PM PDT

    •  well said n/t

      by heineken1717 on Wed Nov 08, 2006 at 05:25:26 PM PDT

•  That's not going to happen

  Anybody who said something along the lines that "those who criticize the president in a time of war do so at their own peril" can rot in hell.

  You don't get to enable the far right cabal who have subjugated us to their lunacy for the past 12 years and then just say "my bad" when the people demand a return to sanity DESPITE your lack of leadership.

  Fuck Joe Lieberman

  by guyute16 on Wed Nov 08, 2006 at 04:52:52 PM PDT

  •  Yes... all of that

    I agree with it all.

    No way in hell do I want Joe back.  If he wants to caucus with us, then fine, but no way in hell do we give him anything.  I'd sacrifice control to be rid of that traitor.

    by TheC on Wed Nov 08, 2006 at 05:18:56 PM PDT

    •  so your good feeling

      is more important than solving iraq and getting good justices on the supreme court?

      :(

      by SeanF on Wed Nov 08, 2006 at 05:27:26 PM PDT

      •  Lieberman is still the tiebreaking vote

        On all those issues.  Even if he votes for Reid, he may still support W's choices (on everything).

        Joe is a slime and I don't want him in the Democratic Party.  I am a CT Dem and he is not in my party.  Period.

        by TheC on Wed Nov 08, 2006 at 06:06:59 PM PDT

        •  dint answer the question

          if repubs have majority, they control everything. if we control the majority, bush wouldn't even send wackjobs for consideration.

          but that is irrelevant to your purity test, so yes, your feelings of self-righteiousness are more important than good governance.

          thanks for that

          by SeanF on Wed Nov 08, 2006 at 06:52:20 PM PDT

          •  And you ignored my answer

            If W knows he has Joe's vote in the bag (which he will most of the time no matter who Joe caucuses with), then he has 50.  However, I think it won't matter much because even with a 50-50 split, moderates like Snowe and Specter can bully the Repub side more to keep them centered.

            I don't fear a Lieberman desertion.  And yes... in this instance my feelings of self-righteiousness are more imortant.  

            by TheC on Thu Nov 09, 2006 at 12:54:54 PM PDT

            •  joe's vote was

              "in the bag" primarily only for iraq.

              but i give you points for the confession in your last sentence.

              by SeanF on Thu Nov 09, 2006 at 03:29:41 PM PDT

              •  Not just Iraq

                He voted for Condi and Gonzalez.  He voted for Bush's terrible energy bill.  He voted for Bush's awful Prescription Drug plan.  He didn't vote for Scalito, but he effectively did by not supporting the fillibuster.  But even more than his votes are his spoken words to the media.  He is one of Bush's most effective propaganda tools because he provides a Democrat always happy to go in front of a camera and say "Me too!"  I don't see any of this changing regardless of who he caucuses with.  Just look at his lovey-dovey interview with Hannity yesterday.

                I understand why you would stress the practicalness of keeping him on board.  Of course I want control of the Senate.  Part of this is frustration from watching this jackass the past six months here in CT and really realizing how awful he is.  And it makes me question where I draw the line.  I don't know.

                by TheC on Thu Nov 09, 2006 at 06:52:51 PM PDT

      •  Lieberman will vote to confirm the

        Bush appointees.

        by slatsg on Wed Nov 08, 2006 at 06:19:08 PM PDT

•  Can't guarantee he'll caucus with us

  In fact, his public comments suggest otherwise.

  How about we caucus with Olympia Snowe, instead?

  by Anderson Republican on Wed Nov 08, 2006 at 04:53:01 PM PDT

  •  A Bush rubber stamp

    but a more solid character than the Liarman.

    How about Hagel or the other Maine lady?

    by HeavyJ on Wed Nov 08, 2006 at 04:55:18 PM PDT

  •  because she votes with Bush as said above

    Lieberman is 90% with the Democrats, that's why

    by heineken1717 on Wed Nov 08, 2006 at 04:58:28 PM PDT

    •  it's that 10%

      ...when he didn't that hurt us. and where he reveals his true priorities. alito may fall into that 10% but the impact is much larger.

      i'm sure your intentions are good and probably based on strategic concerns. but lieberman will be a radioactive hot zone for some of us for a very, very long time. it might be a little too soon for this diary.

      the most i can promise right now is not to heckle him if i should find myself in his general vicinity. and really, that's an easy promise to make because i'm no good at it. oh, to be stephen colbert for 15 minutes.

      by isis2 on Wed Nov 08, 2006 at 06:02:37 PM PDT

•  Wrong from the jump

  The main argument for attacking Joe Lieberman while letting off scot-free Ben Nelson, Mary Landrieu, Ken Salazar, etc., has been that Lieberman is from blue Connecticut, while the others are from red states.

  I don't recall Nelson, Landrieu, Salazar, or for that matter, Tom DeLay or Rick Santorum, ignoring the results of their primaries.

  And no, he's not to be commended for fulfilling a campaign promise.

  And no, I don't care how he feels. At all.

  by HeavyJ on Wed Nov 08, 2006 at 04:53:17 PM PDT

  •  umm...

    they all won their primaries

    by heineken1717 on Wed Nov 08, 2006 at 04:54:06 PM PDT

    •  what a great observation

      by shpilk on Wed Nov 08, 2006 at 04:55:02 PM PDT

    •  Ding Ding Ding

      You are correct.

      by HeavyJ on Wed Nov 08, 2006 at 04:56:23 PM PDT

      •  well so it's an unfair comparison

        It doesn't mean anything. Lieberman wouldn't have ignored the primary either if he had won. And one could make the argument that the party rejected him, so he was basically kicked out of the party.

        by heineken1717 on Wed Nov 08, 2006 at 04:59:48 PM PDT

        •  It's called losing a primary

          It's a fairly basic political concept.

          by HeavyJ on Wed Nov 08, 2006 at 05:16:46 PM PDT

        •  No one ignores the primary

          except for St. Joe.
          BTW, just curious: in the election, were you hoping Joe or Ned would win? or didn't you care?

          by collegekid318 on Wed Nov 08, 2006 at 05:36:54 PM PDT

          •  Well it seemed like a foregone conclusion

            Lamont was never really competitive in the general election. So I guess I didn't really care. I won't hide the fact that yes, I do like Lieberman. I can't stand some of his positions, most notably Iraq and censorship. But I very much appreciate his commitment to the environment (he's the one responsible for ANWAR not being an oil well), gun control, and Amtrak. And I don't forget what I've read in the history books about his action for Blacks in the early 1960s.

            by heineken1717 on Wed Nov 08, 2006 at 05:43:33 PM PDT

            •  Most don't want gun control

              That is a loser for Democrats.  The NRA sneak around knocking on doors and sending out mailers that the Dems will take your guns.  I know people who won't vote for democrats because of that.

              That is an important part of our rights to own guns.

              by relentless on Wed Nov 08, 2006 at 06:44:15 PM PDT

    •  Yeah

      that's what separates them and Sore Loserman. I only started caring about this race after the primary. It burned me to see all the Lamont supporters, who would have gladly staffed Joe's campaign (after all, is there anyone better at taking one for the team then the Democratic base), forced to try and beat him twice.

      by collegekid318 on Wed Nov 08, 2006 at 05:35:03 PM PDT

  •  Salazar ignored the CT primary though.

    The main problem is that we have NO leverage with Joe anymore.  He can basically take what he wants.  Whatever bitterness and revenge we might rightfully want to beat him about his jowls with will have to wait until '08 when we can get a few more senate seats.

    Unless you'd prefer for Pat Roberts to remain in control of the intelligence committee, for example.

    by Mr Met on Wed Nov 08, 2006 at 04:57:26 PM PDT

    •  you always have leverage

      until you decide you don't. play to win, not to feel good.

      by SeanF on Wed Nov 08, 2006 at 04:59:03 PM PDT

      •  Let's say for the moment that Webb wins,

        and we're in that 51-49 position.  Do you think the Republicans will not offer him the world to go with them?

        On the other hand, if I understand the '08 numbers correctly, we stand to pick up quite a few more seats then, so maybe Joe would simply forestall the inevitable back-benching he deserves whether he stays with us or goes with them.  He might decide the near term future is with us, and be ever so slightly contrite if we pushed him hard enough.

        by Mr Met on Wed Nov 08, 2006 at 05:02:16 PM PDT

        •  Make Joe prove his virtue

          Offer him what you would if had been the dem candidate, but if he gives in to repub offers, let him go and get very public that he is dishonest and misled his constituents.

          by glazeone on Wed Nov 08, 2006 at 05:09:26 PM PDT

        •  I don't know if they will or not

          if you were joe, wouldn't you want to make something work out with the dems? The reason being that it's clear the repubs are intellectually bankrupt and defeated. Be part of the action with the dems. All dem leadership has to do is engineer a face-saving scenario for all involved and joe will lap it up.

          in the grand scheme of things, (fixing iraq, reinstituting the constitution, saving gov't) Joe is merely a pimple. If dem leadership fucks it up, Joe could become a knife in the back. Just sayin that if you can get the outcome you want, dealing with the pimple is worth it.

          by SeanF on Wed Nov 08, 2006 at 05:13:26 PM PDT

        •  What can they offer him?

          Really?

          by HeavyJ on Wed Nov 08, 2006 at 05:18:49 PM PDT

          •  Committe assignments that he wants

            Chairmanships probally so he can pontificate and they have to deal with him to get something important done.

            by Osiris on Wed Nov 08, 2006 at 06:53:19 PM PDT

    •  That's a great point

      So did Landrieu and Nelson I think. They all ignored the same primary Joe ignored. Yet only Joe gets trashed.

      by heineken1717 on Wed Nov 08, 2006 at 05:00:38 PM PDT

      •  It's a total bullshit "point"

        They weren't running in the CT primary, unlike Lieberman, who was.

        Either you're stupid or a concern troll.

        by HeavyJ on Wed Nov 08, 2006 at 05:15:25 PM PDT

      •  Yeah...

        The difference: they don't live in Connecticut, so it really doesn't matter if the give a big F.U. to the Democratic Party of Connecticut. They haven't represented it for 18 years, and they aren't supposed to speak for its interests.
        And Landreiu, for all her conservative flaws, at least has the balls to criticize the president every one in a while. I would join St John in sacrificial Hari-kuri if I ever heard RG Joe strongly criticize the president.

        by collegekid318 on Wed Nov 08, 2006 at 05:42:19 PM PDT

    •  So what?

      As you say, "we" have no leverage with him.

      And presumably, he isn't held by the campagn promise he made to caucus with Dems.

      So what course of action are you advising?

      by HeavyJ on Wed Nov 08, 2006 at 05:13:14 PM PDT

      •  presumably?

        what is that based on? Once he signs up, he's locked in. Once someone has been given power and is in the majority, how attractive would it be to risk all of that for uncertainty?

        I'm totally comfortable dealing with joe as only a self-interested ass, but in this case, his self interest, if we set it up right, serves our interest as well.

        It's time to suck it up cuz we got bigger fish to fry.

        by SeanF on Wed Nov 08, 2006 at 05:20:45 PM PDT

•  He'll be on probation

  He should first promise to never break a filibuster.

  From there, if he speaks against the party on Sunday TV, or hints that we're traitors, that kind of thing, he should be kicked out of the Dem Party, committees stripped from him, kicked out of caucus for good.

  He's on probation. Dean is his probation officer, and Pelosi is the judge. He'd better be a Democrat, or he'll spend the rest of his term locked up in    
  purgatory.              

  by ZappoDave on Wed Nov 08, 2006 at 04:53:38 PM PDT

  •  What about breaking Republican filibusters?

    We are in the Majority now, its a different game... We have to get used to attacking those darn obstructionist Republicans. "We need an up or down vote!" So much fun.

    Too bad we never forced the Republicans to use that "Nukular Option."

    by earwulf on Wed Nov 08, 2006 at 05:04:41 PM PDT

    •  Filibuster still important

      On issues where we lose votes at the edges (i.e. Nelson, Landrieu, etc.)

      Starve the corporate beast, buy local!

      by EthrDemon on Wed Nov 08, 2006 at 05:10:14 PM PDT

      •  Hm... but don't we control the committees?

        How exactly are the wimpy sore looser Republicans going to get their crazy right wing bills on the floor?

        I know the Senate is a heck of a lot more open than the house, but still, being in the majority matters... a lot.

        by earwulf on Wed Nov 08, 2006 at 05:29:13 PM PDT

      •  Yes, we will still have to filibuster on SCOTUS

        If Bush gets to make another SCOTUS nomination, he may very well nominate someone who would win the votes of Nelson, Landrieu, Salazar, Johnson, et al. and thereby have more than 50 votes.

        We will then be trying to count 41 supporters for a filibuster.

        by MJB on Wed Nov 08, 2006 at 06:23:06 PM PDT

  •  So sorry, he's no longer a Democrat

    He lost the Democratic primary in his state. He refused to abide by the results of the primary. He ran as an independent. If he chooses to caucus with the Democrats that's his decision, but he is not, and will never again be, a Democrat.

    Now, do you want to be associated with someone who is a known liar? Who very likely engaged in election fraud by passing out street money? Whose only position on critical issues is whatever he thinks will hoodwink the public into plumping up his ego? Who was the silently acknowledged Republican candidate in his state, supported almost exclusively by Republicans?

    Personally, I want nothing to do with the man. He is, IMO, an example of the worst our political system produces. There is nothing decent or honorable about him. Wishing won't make it so.

    by grayslady on Wed Nov 08, 2006 at 05:14:04 PM PDT

•  Like cousin that's been caught DWI 6 times

  has 7 illegitimate kids and can't be trusted to go to the store to get milk.

  Ya. That's about it.

  by shpilk on Wed Nov 08, 2006 at 04:53:48 PM PDT

•  I really kind of can't stand Lieberman, but

  you make a good point.

  And, with us in control of the Senate and the House, his ability to do harm in the way he has in the past is minimized, I hope.

  A vote for Harry Reid is what matters more than anything else here.  When Democrats set the agenda, we've got a fighting chance.  And even if I'd rather see Lamont in Washington, I'm willing to appreciate that vote.

  by dmauer on Wed Nov 08, 2006 at 04:54:13 PM PDT

•  agreed

  welcome him back, give him the job of helping fix iraq, nuts and bolts type of stuff, and keep him on a tight leash. If he starts acting dickish again, pressure him hard and enforce party discipline.

  now's not the time to eff around with refighting the Nov 7 election. It's time to unite, recognize who the real enemy is (was), and GET THINGS DONE.

  If we don't make some hard accomplishments, we'll be on wobbly ground for 2008 and all these purity contests will be for nought.

  by SeanF on Wed Nov 08, 2006 at 04:54:14 PM PDT

•  Hey, Joe, you wanna be part of the caucus?

  Well, that comes with responsibilities.  Play nice.

  Leave it up to him whether he wants in, but he's gotta behave & not attack fellow Democrats.

  by stcroix cheesehead on Wed Nov 08, 2006 at 04:55:12 PM PDT

•  Huge difference

  non of the others lost a Democratic primary. Saying that I don't see this being anything more than an annoyance. Joe is a prostitute for power so will be towing the party line.

  by stevej on Wed Nov 08, 2006 at 04:56:20 PM PDT

  •  well Lieberman was getting bashed

    long before he lost the primary. Nelson, Landrieu, and Salazar may lose a primary too if they're treated the same way. Hopefully we'll be smart enough to realize they are the ones who will win in their states.

    by heineken1717 on Wed Nov 08, 2006 at 05:02:12 PM PDT

    •  Unfair

      Ned Lamont would have cruised to victory and likely carried Diane Farrell past Chris Shays if Joe Lieberman accepted the results of the Democratic primary contest HE ENTERED. Most people on Daily Kos are pragmatists and are not thinking of focusing their energies on primaries in Red States. Connecticut is deep blue. Joe Lieberman won with GOP money, GOP voters, GOP message, and a smokescreen.

      I'm all for laying off the talk of stripping his seniority and kicking him out of caucus because at this point that is a misplaced priority. But Joe Lieberman will undercut Democrats at critical moments with no regrets. I don't know how you welcome that into your party. Tolerate it for expediency, yes. Welcome it, NO.

      by joejoejoe on Wed Nov 08, 2006 at 05:11:40 PM PDT

      •  exactly

        We need to tolerate him, because we need him.  If he were the turncoat people make him out to be, all he has to do is make one phone call to whoever the hell the GOP minority leader turns out to be, and BOOM we lose our Senate majority.

        SO DON'T BE SO FUCKING STUPID, LIEBERMAN-HATERS!!

        As for him undercutting Democrats on tv... you think that would stop if he were no longer a Senator?  Hardly.  He'd still be on tv, spewing the same old shit, with even more venom.  We're stuck with that, until he dies probably.  So cope.

        I've been repeatedly told by "moderate" friends that we "lost" yesterday because we failed to unseat Lieberman.  And listening to the whiners around here, I'd almost believe it.

        by Leggy Starlitz on Wed Nov 08, 2006 at 05:38:49 PM PDT

        •  Look on the bright side

          Lieberman is one of 100 Senators. If he switches there is nothing to prevent a GOP Senator from switching to the Democrats for the same reason - power. Lieberman can play up his role in the media but the reality is he's one more Democratic vote from being a marginal figure.

          by joejoejoe on Wed Nov 08, 2006 at 05:57:02 PM PDT

          •  but who?

            We just took out Chaffee.  Snowe?  There's hardly any moderate Republicans left.

            by Leggy Starlitz on Wed Nov 08, 2006 at 06:07:37 PM PDT

            •  I don't know

              I've been reading about the history of party switches. I think any potential switchers will wait to see how Bush and McConnell handle the lame duck months.

              I have to read up more on the NH Sens.. Sununu is a balanced budget guy who was suspicious of the Patriot Act and NH just went blue in it's state legislature.

              It's too close to election day to sort out. There are a lot of very low probability outcomes that could pan out but I think everybody on both sides will play it cool for a bit to see what is actually going to happen as opposed to the nice words everyone is saying today.

              I saw where Joe Lieberman was on Sean Hannity talking about how he is looking for new ways to be 'Independent' and to remember his new friends. That sounds like payback more than comity.

              by joejoejoe on Wed Nov 08, 2006 at 06:27:45 PM PDT

        •  Excellent points n/t

          by heineken1717 on Wed Nov 08, 2006 at 05:58:53 PM PDT

    •  Yes

      God forbid we ever criticize a Democratic incumbent. We should just bow before the Duke of Connecticut and give him his deucal right.
      Nelson, Salazar, and Landrieu haven't told me I'm making the country less safe by criticizing his Georgeness.
      Also, a liberal Dem would not win the primary in Louisiana or Nebraska. That's why the progressive base of the party swallows its pride every time and works for these people.

      by collegekid318 on Wed Nov 08, 2006 at 05:48:18 PM PDT

      •  I think a bread and butter FDR democrat would win

        in lousiana. The Democrats have moved too far off track.  You think the working poor, middle class and the elderly care about most of the social agenda?  If anything that turns them off.

        They do care about their Social Security, decent medical care and a decent life. Do you think they want to work all their life, then give all their savings to the insurance and health care companies? And lose their homes due to the high costs? Would you want to do that?

        Do you really believe that they want Republicans, who are for the rich, in power?

        There is something wrong with this picture.

        by relentless on Wed Nov 08, 2006 at 06:56:45 PM PDT

•  With all due respect....

  This is horseshit.....

  The non-liberal bloc in Connecticut has proven larger than the liberal bloc

  If Lieberman had done the right thing and respected the results of the primary then Lamont would have won running away.

  he should be commended for not holding a grudge against the party that rejected him, and for putting the country ahead of any personal feelings of resentment.

  This to is horseshit....Lieberman is a Trojan horse within the democrat party. He coudn't go running to chat with Sean Hannity quick enough to day to play kissy face with Hannity and by extension the neocon Republicans and at the same time declaring he would be looking for more ways to demonstrate his "independence".
  Joe Lieberman is a cancer on the Democratic party. And mark my words for all the emphasis that has been placed on his vow to caucus with the Democrats he will cause MORE problems for the democrats over the next 6 years than he is worth.
  He is a selfish,power hungry man who ignored the process (losing the primary) in order to maintain his position. He deserves nothing but derision and I for one hold nothing but contempt for that vile little man.

  by Akapl on Wed Nov 08, 2006 at 04:56:33 PM PDT

  •  whoops

    This to is horseshit

    That "to" should be "too"
    Sorry, nonetheless the analysis of this diary is still HORSESHIT...did I spell that correctly?

    by Akapl on Wed Nov 08, 2006 at 05:01:36 PM PDT

  •  The name of our party

    is the Democratic party. Just because the wingnuts on the radio call it the "Democrat" party doesn't make that its name.

    by Rupert on Wed Nov 08, 2006 at 05:47:29 PM PDT

•  I grudgingly agree

  I am not ahppy about it but we need him now to make Reid Majority leader.

  "Keep your friends close and your enemies closer".. Vito Corleone

  by pat7724 on Wed Nov 08, 2006 at 04:56:44 PM PDT

•  Don't compare Lieberman to Salazar etc.

  Those others -- and I don't love 'em -- didn't use their prestige to go on the Sunday morning shows and talk down to Dems who took a stand on the war as too 'partisan.' They didn't write op-eds for the WSJ equating dissent with a lack of patriotism. They didn't use the CheneySaw against other Democrats.

  There are exactly 50 Democrats in this country who now have to, somehow, deal with (if not welcome) Lieberman. They're Senators.

  As for the rest of us... what I do we have to feel anything for him but the contempt he so richly deserves?

  by scardanelli on Wed Nov 08, 2006 at 04:56:47 PM PDT

  •  exactly.

    that's the heart of the matter.

    your mentioning the 50 senators who have to deal with him suddenly made me think of jim webb, who is so obviously a man of real character and integrity. quite a study in contrasts.

    by isis2 on Wed Nov 08, 2006 at 06:35:45 PM PDT

•  Lieberman

  Let's not forget that he voted for the Bush Torture bill that also ended Habeus Corpus.  How do you forgive that?

  by solai on Wed Nov 08, 2006 at 04:57:21 PM PDT

  •  He wasn't the only Democrat

    Are you going to campaign against all Democrats who voted for the bill?

    by heineken1717 on Wed Nov 08, 2006 at 05:07:40 PM PDT

    •  Damn right I will

      They have violated their oath to uphold the Constitution.

      by Rupert on Wed Nov 08, 2006 at 05:48:28 PM PDT

    •  hey buddy

      you gonna answer scardanelli's questions?
      Helping a far-right wing government is not being bipartisan. Sometimes, you have to stand up and say "you've gone to far."
      Bipartisan implies you have beef with both sides. Lieberman only complains about the Democrats.
      BTW you should have just wrote a Yippee Joe won diary!
      And why is having a senate that respects the Constitution too much to ask?

      by collegekid318 on Wed Nov 08, 2006 at 05:52:54 PM PDT

•  The Cold Calculus

  The Cold Calculus dictates that we welcome Loserman back into the fold.

  I think this is why the support from the Dem Establishment with Lamont was so damnned lukewarm. They just wanted 'hedge' their bets on Loserman

  You know, power politics over and above anything else eh?

  by krwada on Wed Nov 08, 2006 at 04:57:25 PM PDT

•  no X 2

  My much wiser wife says that not welcoming him  back is cutting off your nose to spite your face- that he is a decent man who stood by his beliefs.  I say any politician who believes that he can do an end run around the will of the people needs to be sent a message. I say to Democratic Senators- Have a spine, stand on principle.  If he wants to caucus with his rethug friends when he is denied a chairmanship, well, I hope the door does'nt hit him on the ass on his way out.

  by Van Buren on Wed Nov 08, 2006 at 04:57:31 PM PDT

  •  He caucuses with them

    We lose the Senate. He is the tie breaker like it or not. He votes for McConnell it's a 50-50 Senate, and Cheney breaks the tie by voting. Joe has a lot of power, the bastard.

    by trifecta on