Skip to main content

Research 2000 for Daily Kos. 11/11-13. Likely voters. MoE 4% (6/30-7/2 results)

Do you approve or disapprove of the job Joe Lieberman is doing as U.S. senator?

Approve 36 (45)
Disapprove 61 (43)

If the 2012 election for U.S. Senate were held today would you to reelect Joe Lieberman would you consider voting for another candidate or would you vote to replace Lieberman?

Reelect 35
Consider Someone Else 18
Replace 48

Brutal. It seems that the people of Connecticut don't like the Republican version of Lieberman, the one that trashed Democrats on the campaign trail with John McCain, the one that spoke at the RNC convention, the one that failed to hold the Bush Administration accountable in Congress, and the one that pretended Katrina never happened.

He's already in trouble with his constituents. But look what happens if Lieberman follows through on his threats and caucuses with Republicans:

If Joe Lieberman loses his committee chairmanship at Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs and switches his allegiance to the Republican Party would you that make you more likely reelect Lieberman more likely to consider voting for another candidate or more likely to vote to replace Lieberman?

Reelect 31
Consider Someone Else 15
Replace 52

And those numbers look a lot worse with Democrats and Independents, since they are propped up by happy Republicans. (Full crosstabs below the fold.)

So Lieberman can threaten all he wants to caucus with Republicans if he doesn't get everything he wants. Fact is, he's in shaky electoral territory, and it would only get worse if he decided to become a Republican.

Call his bluff. Give him another committee chairmanship in an area where his ideology matches up with the Democratic Party. He won't leave the Democratic caucus. It would be career suicide.

No one likes Joe except for Republicans, yet there are the Senate Dems, once again ready to capitulate. Apparently, old habits die hard.

But maybe they'll prove us wrong and do the right thing.

Update: Oh, and the people of Connecticut are still suffering buyer's remorse:

If you could vote again for U.S. Senate would you vote for Ned Lamont theDemocrat Alan Schlesinger the Republican or Joe Lieberman an Independent?

Lieberman (I) 34 (36)
Lamont (D) 59 (51)
Schlesinger (R) 3 (7)

CONNECTICUT POLL RESULTS – NOVEMBER 2008
                                                                 
The Research 2000 Connecticut Poll was conducted from November 11 through November 13, 2008. A total of 600 likely voters who vote regularly in state elections were interviewed statewide by telephone.

Those interviewed were selected by the random variation of the last four digits of telephone numbers. A cross-section of exchanges was utilized in order to ensure an accurate reflection of the state. Quotas were assigned to reflect the voter registration of distribution by county.

The margin for error, according to standards customarily used by statisticians, is no more than plus or minus 4% percentage points. This means that there is a 95 percent probability that the “true” figure would fall within that range if the entire population were sampled. The margin for error is higher for any subgroup, such as for gender or party affiliation.


SAMPLE FIGURE:

Men                  282 (47%)
Women                318 (53%)

Democrats            251 (42%)
Republicans          115 (19%)
Independents/Other   234 (39%)

18-29                114 (19%)
30-44                204 (34%)
45-59                174 (29%)
60+                  108 (18%)


QUESTION: Do you have a favorable or unfavorable opinion of Joe Lieberman? (If favorable or unfavorable ask if it is very or not)

                 VERY FAV       FAV        UNFAV     VERY UNFAV    NO OPINION

ALL                  7%         28%         36%         27%          2%

                   FAV         UNFAV       NO OPINION

ALL                 35%         63%          2%

MEN                 40%         59%          1%
WOMEN               30%         67%          3%

DEMOCRATS           21%         77%          2%
REPUBLICANS         67%         29%          4%
INDEPENDENTS        34%         65%          1%

18-29               31%         66%          3%
30-44               35%         64%          1%
45-59               36%         61%          3%
60+                 39%         59%          2%


QUESTION: Do you approve or disapprove of the job Joe Lieberman is doing as U.S. senator?

                   APPROVE     DISAPPROVE  NOT SURE        

ALL                 36%         61%          3%

MEN                 41%         57%          2%
WOMEN               31%         65%          4%

DEMOCRATS           22%         76%          2%
REPUBLICANS         69%         27%          4%
INDEPENDENTS        35%         61%          4%

18-29               32%         65%          3%
30-44               36%         62%          2%
45-59               36%         59%          5%
60+                 41%         56%          3%


QUESTION: If the 2012 election for U.S. Senate were held today would you to reelect Joe Lieberman would you consider voting for another candidate or would you vote to replace Lieberman?

                   REELECT     CONSIDER    REPLACE     NOT SURE        

ALL                 35%         14%         48%          3%

MEN                 39%         18%         41%          2%
WOMEN               31%         10%         55%          4%

DEMOCRATS           20%         11%         67%          2%
REPUBLICANS         68%         17%         10%          5%
INDEPENDENTS        35%         15%         46%          4%

18-29               31%         12%         55%          2%
30-44               35%         14%         49%          2%
45-59               35%         15%         46%          4%
60+                 40%         16%         42%          2%


QUESTION: For whom did you vote for in the 2006 race for U.S. Senate Ned Lamont the Democrat Alan Schlesinger the Republican or Joe Lieberman an Independent?

                   LIEBERMAN   LAMONT      SCHLESINGER

ALL                 49%         41%         10%

MEN                 53%         38%          9%
WOMEN               45%         44%         11%

DEMOCRATS           35%         61%          4%
REPUBLICANS         77%          6%         17%
INDEPENDENTS        50%         37%         13%

18-29               40%         51%          9%
30-44               45%         46%          9%
45-59               54%         35%         11%
60+                 57%         32%         11%


QUESTION: If you could vote again for U.S. Senate would you vote for Ned Lamont theDemocrat Alan Schlesinger the Republican or Joe Lieberman an Independent?

                   LAMONT      LIEBERMAN   SCHLESINGER NOT SURE        

ALL                 59%         34%          3%          4%

MEN                 53%         41%          3%          3%
WOMEN               65%         27%          3%          5%

DEMOCRATS           82%         17%          1%         -
REPUBLICANS          6%         73%          9%         12%
INDEPENDENTS        61%         33%          2%          4%

18-29               69%         21%          1%          9%
30-44               64%         29%          3%          4%
45-59               51%         42%          4%          3%
60+                 50%         44%          4%          2%


QUESTION: If Joe Lieberman loses his committee chairmanship at Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs and switches his allegiance to the Republican Party would you that make you more likely reelect Lieberman more likely to consider voting for another candidate or more likely to vote to replace Lieberman?

                   REELECT     CONSIDER    REPLACE     NOT SURE        

ALL                 31%         15%         52%          2%

MEN                 36%         19%         44%          1%
WOMEN               28%         11%         58%          3%

DEMOCRATS           14%         14%         71%          1%
REPUBLICANS         71%         14%          9%          6%
INDEPENDENTS        29%         17%         53%          1%

18-29               27%         13%         59%          1%
30-44               31%         15%         53%          1%
45-59               31%         16%         50%          3%
60+                 35%         17%         45%          3%

Originally posted to Daily Kos on Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 08:07 AM PST.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  I think Obama would be smart (5+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    jj32, Julie Gulden, Seeds, llbear, zukesgirl64

    to welcome Joe into our caucus.  It is a painless, cost free way of demonstrating his bipartisanship - upon which he based his whole campaign - and gives us another vote.

    What's the downside?  Injured pride?  We won.  We can afford to be magnanimous.

    and then we'll get a real Dem in there next time.

  •  The Loyal Opposition (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    frostbite

    isn't such a bad place to consign him.  Maybe he can con the Republicans into believing that he has something to contribute to their new ideology.

    "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." -Thomas Jefferson

    by ezdidit on Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 08:11:16 AM PST

  •  Lieberman needs another hug from Bush. (4+ / 0-)

    Been a brutal week for him, like a hunting trip with Cheney.

  •  That's not fair to Joe! (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    ezdidit

    He's made it very clear that America doesn't punish people for following their convictions!

    •  There's a Ted Stevens joke in there (6+ / 0-)

      I just can't put my finger on the punchline.

      The GOP has resorted to Cannibalism. Please send Condiments to GOP HQ

      by JML9999 on Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 08:16:17 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Everything about Ted Stevens is a joke... (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Miss Blue, JML9999

        ...and the punch line is alway, "Ted Stevens."

        What is it with Alaska? They just elected a corrupt congressman, and even with Begich winning, they are coming close to electing  Senator Felon. And of course their governor is accustomed to sidestepping the law.

        Is Alaska our Australia? Should we just start sending all of criminals there, where they will get elected to office?

        ~
        ••• CELEBRATE with America's BAraCK Stickers And T-Shirts •••
        ~

        by KingOneEye on Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 08:22:37 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  "convictions" ???? (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      JML9999

      (Like Stevens's conviction?)  No, America doesn't prosecute those who have been convicted in the media, nor those who have opposed their own party.

      Lieberman's a turncoat. He could have sat this one out, but he decided to campaign vigorously against Obama, booing him and egging on the Republican base (and the basest Republicans.)

      I think Lieberman should be hoisted back into the fold and voted out & away as soon as he gets anywhere near a gavel.  He could be good bi-partisan cover for the first 100 days or maybe even longer if he works out. Then toss him overboard for the least provocation.

      "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." -Thomas Jefferson

      by ezdidit on Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 08:18:10 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  It is fair to Joe. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      frostbite

      This isn't about America, it's about running a political party that can't accomplish anything when it has traitors running important committees.  It's fair to Joe because unless he's even more stupid than he appears, he had to know that his actions have consequences.  Poor guy.  He believed the Clintons when they said Obama could never win.  On second thought, maybe he is that stupid.

  •  Lieberman should go on David Letterman's show (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    ezdidit

    He's a constituent, right?

    McCainazuma's revenge part II

  •  i will look for the link to rachel maddow... (5+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    wozzle, Samer, dougymi, trinite, MingPicket

    she nailed it perfectly last night

    was a wonder to see...

    g

    There is no trickle down, because greed expands to absorb any excess. DevilsTower

    by thegelding on Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 08:11:44 AM PST

  •  He will stay on as Homeland Security (0+ / 0-)

    chair because the Democrats in the Senate do not want to abandon the necon policies, and for no other reason.

  •  GOP replacement a red herring (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Glorfindel, frostbite

    Nice touch Kos. I totally agree with your idea to call JL's bluff. There is no way he will resign and let Jody Rell replace him with a Republican because said individual will have the lowest seniority of any Senator.

  •  Kos is right on.. (3+ / 0-)

    Offer him another committee chair -- take it or leave it.

    Whether he caucuses with the Dems or not is immaterial at this point.

  •  Obama vs. Kos on this issue. (6+ / 0-)

    I have to say I'm with Kos.

    John McCain, you are _not_ my friend.

    by LarryInNYC on Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 08:12:24 AM PST

    •  I think the two agree with each other (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      tmo, Samer, frostbite, Rebecca74

      He should stay in the caucus, lose the Homeland Security chairmanship.

      Both have said he should stay in the caucus. Obama has made no indication that he'd like Lieberman to keep his current chair.

      A wishlist: Deval Patrick for Attorney General, Warren Buffett for Treasury, Bill Richardson for State, Robert Reich for Labor, Al Gore for EPA

      by Yirmiyahu on Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 08:14:31 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Hairsplitting. (0+ / 0-)

        The clear meaning of Obama's statement is that he doesn't want to appear to be vindictive or partisan.  That precludes punishing Lieberman in any way for his rather breathtaking breach of party discipline.

        If he says otherwise, I'll believe it.  Until then I'll go with the clear meaning of his words.

        John McCain, you are _not_ my friend.

        by LarryInNYC on Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 08:18:48 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  the chairmanship issue and the caucus issue (4+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          tmo, Miss Blue, deep, frostbite

          are completely unrelated. The clear meaning of Obama's words:

          President-elect Barack Obama has informed party officials that he wants Joe Lieberman to continue caucusing with the Democrats in the 111th Congress

          He specifically said "caucus." If you want to replace "caucus" with "committee chair", then you're essentially believing Lieberman over Obama. Because Lieberman is the only person who is conflating the two issues.

          And it's not "hairsplitting." The caucus (non)issue is pretty meaningless. Please read my diary on the subject.

          A wishlist: Deval Patrick for Attorney General, Warren Buffett for Treasury, Bill Richardson for State, Robert Reich for Labor, Al Gore for EPA

          by Yirmiyahu on Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 08:35:07 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Lieberman. . . (0+ / 0-)

            is the only one who gets to decide whether he'll quit the caucus (or, stay in the caucus but vote against important procedural issues) if he loses his chairmanship.  Obama doesn't get to decide that, Kos doesn't get to decide that, and you and I don't get to decide that.

            If Lieberman states "I'll leave the caucus if you yank my chairmanship" and Obama then says "I want Lieberman in the caucus" the clear implication is that he wants Lieberman to keep his chair.  He won't say that as it would be improper for the President to try to decide the organization of the Senate -- a violation, at least in spirit, of the separation of powers.  But that's what it means.

            If Obama were to say "I don't think Lieberman should keep that position" then the situation would be as you suggest.  But he hasn't, and I doubt he will.

            John McCain, you are _not_ my friend.

            by LarryInNYC on Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 08:39:49 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  there is absolutely no incentive for Lieberman (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Miss Blue, frostbite

              to either leave the caucus or to vote against us on cloture motions.

              For one thing, Lieberman has already been against us on cloture votes that relate to domestic/social issues, but against us on cloture votes that have to do with Iraq/terrorism/national security. There's no reason that might change (in either direction). Are you suggesting that as far as domestic/social issues, he might vote against his own long-held positions and beliefs purely out of spite?

              And as far as leaving the caucus... If he leaves the Dem caucus, the Republicans have no committee chairs to give him. Furthermore, on the Republican side, committee seats will already be limited and in high demand, because we're cutting the number of Republicans represented on each committee to reflect the large Democratic majority. On the Republican side, there won't be a lot of good spots to offer him. And, of course, Republicans won't control the legislative agenda. So why would Lieberman leave the caucus? He has absolutely nothing to gain from doing so, and a lot to lose (including any chance of re-election in 2012).

              A wishlist: Deval Patrick for Attorney General, Warren Buffett for Treasury, Bill Richardson for State, Robert Reich for Labor, Al Gore for EPA

              by Yirmiyahu on Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 08:51:11 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  typo (0+ / 0-)

                Obviously meant to say "Lieberman has already been with us on cloture votes that relate to domestic/social issues"

                A wishlist: Deval Patrick for Attorney General, Warren Buffett for Treasury, Bill Richardson for State, Robert Reich for Labor, Al Gore for EPA

                by Yirmiyahu on Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 08:51:49 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

              •  That's what Bayh says. (0+ / 0-)

                If he would do that, then he's useless anyhow.  Well, he is mostly useless anyhow.  But you know what I mean.

                Frankly, I don't see him leaving the caucus over this either.  At least he could chair something, even if not Homeland Security.  Minority party cannot offer him any committee or subcommittee to chair.

                "The river always wins" - Mark Twain

                by Land of Enchantment on Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 10:09:08 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

        •  "The clear meaning" of Obama's words (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          tmo

          have nothing to do with the chair of Homeland Security.  They have to do with Obama being part of the Democratic caucus and nothing else.  If Obama wanted them to mean more, he would have said so.  The man knows how to use the English language and he would have said much more if he wanted Lieberman to lose nothing.

        •  He said he'd leave the matter of... (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          math4barack

          ... the Committee chairmanship and assignments to the Senate.  And he said he'd like to see a "compromise".  That certainly does not imply giving Lieberman anything and everything he wants, as you seem to have interpreted.

          "The river always wins" - Mark Twain

          by Land of Enchantment on Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 10:12:24 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

  •  a question (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    frostbite

    Regardless of the caucus/committee issues (which I diaried here), does anyone have suggestions for candidates to challenge Lieberman in 2012?

    Regardless of how the current situation resolves itself, I cannot imagine him winning reelection.

    A wishlist: Deval Patrick for Attorney General, Warren Buffett for Treasury, Bill Richardson for State, Robert Reich for Labor, Al Gore for EPA

    by Yirmiyahu on Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 08:12:59 AM PST

    •  John DeStefano? (0+ / 0-)

      Mayor of New Haven. He really brought down the crime rate in the city and the place feels a lot more prosperous now. OTOH, it's hard to differentiate the effects of the municipal government from Yale University because Yale has been running a quiet urban renewal program by buying up and improving depressed properties.

    •  By that time, the 2006/2008 additions (0+ / 0-)

      to the House delegation should be seasoned enough, and we should have a good sense of how they'd do as senators: Chris Murphy, Joe Courtney, and Jim Himes. If any of them have been doing a kick-ass job in the House, it would be nice to see them in the Senate.

      © sardonyx; all rights reserved

      by sardonyx on Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 09:18:09 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  There are good people to challenge Joe. (0+ / 0-)

      Ned Lamont would win if he ran again.  He's a good guy. We also have popular people in the House.  There's Rosa DeLauro and Patrick Murphy.  It would be a shame though to take Murphy out of the fifth congressional district because it tends to vote for Republicans and we don't want that to happen.  In the fourth district we just elected Jim Himes to replace Chris Shays.  Himes is a former head of Goldman Sachs and a Rhodes Scholar.  I can't wait to see what he does in the House.  He speaks well and is very bright and young.

      •  Sorry. It's Chris, not Patrick Murphy. (0+ / 0-)
      •  The 4th District (0+ / 0-)

        Just because Nancy Johnson was there for so long, I wouldn't classify it as Republican-leaning. Kerry (barely) won it in '04, and Gore won by 9% in '00... And though we don't know 2008's results by Congressional District yet, Obama won Litchfield County by 4% (which means he probably won the district as a whole by more than that).

        The last time any party had this margin of victory in the Senate (58 seats), House (257 seats), and Presidency (52.7%): 1964.

        by Yirmiyahu on Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 12:16:52 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  According to the new Kos (0+ / 0-)
  •  Another day of Lieberdrama (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    llbear

    What two things will survive a nuclear detonation? Yep, cockroaches and Sen. Nutmeg.

    The Republican brand: "Consequences, schmonsequences, as long as I'm rich"

    by D in Northern Virginia on Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 08:13:10 AM PST

  •  He WILL NOT Be Reelected... (5+ / 0-)

    ...and that gives him even LESS reason to "play nice" and thus MORE reason to take away his chair.  He IS going to be in Full Frontal Fuck You mode the rest of the way and you would think his former colleagues would know that.  Sigh.

    •  You are correct!!! (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Wolf Of Aquarius, usna77

      The Democrats in Connecticut already showed him the door.

      The Republicans won't back him again because he didn't help their ticket make any gains this election.

      Unless the Dems nominate a vegetable to run against him in 2012, he's going to be sitting on the sidelines for the duration of the Obama Presidency.

      •  Actually the CT Democratic leadership (0+ / 0-)

        and the only statewide Newspaper all supported Joe in the Dem. primary. It was the rank and file who voted against Joe--and the out of touch leadership had to go along.

        The CT Dems again voted against Joe in the general, but the Repubs loved chickenhawk Joe and he was elected as an indy.

        Peace.

  •  Nahhhh. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Nadnerb in NC, deep

    But maybe they'll prove us wrong and do the right thing.

    Not with "Give 'Em Hell Whatever They Demand" Harry Reid in charge.

    •  I am most disappointed (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Miss Blue, deep

      in Chris Dodd, who did the right thing in 2006 and publicly campaigned with Ned Lamont, and who made an impressive stand during the FISA-fight.

      From FISA-hero to wanker in one easy step.  As a former Doddmaniac, it pains me to say that phony Doddmania had bitten the dust.

      -- Stu

  •  I wish I could believe. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Nadnerb in NC

    But maybe they'll prove us wrong and do the right thing.

    Not bloody likely.  

    "I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use." -- Galileo Galilei

    by Dittoz on Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 08:14:29 AM PST

  •  you guys are missing the obvious (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Samer

    Lie-berman already knows he's toast in 2012, so to him caucusing with repugs in his eyes would be payback for being stripped of Homeland security gavel.

    May the Schwartz be with you! http://www.ebaumsworld.com/endofworld.html

    by FLS on Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 08:14:36 AM PST

  •  I wrote Joe directly... (0+ / 0-)

    and asked him to resign his chair immediately but got back a form letter saying he only has time to respond to CT residents and to write my own Senators.

    I think Boxer and Feinstein are both in Joe's camp, no?

    [sigh]

  •  Is this already a stumble? (0+ / 0-)

    Before he even gets into office, is President-elect Obama making a mistake? It sure looks like the rest of the Gummi Dems are. If there was only one Republican left in the Senate, they'd have a line waiting to capitulate.

    "...there is no evidence of a dramatic tightening of the sort he would need to make Tuesday night interesting." -Nate Silver, 11/3

    by iconoclastic cat on Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 08:14:45 AM PST

    •  how is Obama making a mistake??? (0+ / 0-)

      Obama would like Lieberman to stay in the caucus. 80% of us here agree with him on that.

      Obama hasn't commented on the committee chair issue.

      A wishlist: Deval Patrick for Attorney General, Warren Buffett for Treasury, Bill Richardson for State, Robert Reich for Labor, Al Gore for EPA

      by Yirmiyahu on Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 08:17:29 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  I disagree with Obama's request to keep (0+ / 0-)

        him around. I disagree very, very much. I think Lieberman is a backstabbing bastard.

        "...there is no evidence of a dramatic tightening of the sort he would need to make Tuesday night interesting." -Nate Silver, 11/3

        by iconoclastic cat on Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 08:19:30 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  "keep him around" ???? (0+ / 0-)

          Keeping him in the caucus is a non-issue. If he wants a (D) next to his name, so be it. It's meaningless. That is completely independent of the chairmanship issue. 80% of the people here on DKos think Lieberman should stay in the caucus.

          A wishlist: Deval Patrick for Attorney General, Warren Buffett for Treasury, Bill Richardson for State, Robert Reich for Labor, Al Gore for EPA

          by Yirmiyahu on Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 08:28:45 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Odd multiple question marks aside, (0+ / 0-)

            I understand your point. You are correct about the two being separate issues. I still want him out of the caucus. Let him become a Republican. He's already a neocon. Of course, that won't happen. He should definitely not be allowed to remain in his (or any) chairmanship, but I'm most likely in the minority on that one as well.

            I guess there's no political price to pay for attacking your own party any more.

            "...there is no evidence of a dramatic tightening of the sort he would need to make Tuesday night interesting." -Nate Silver, 11/3

            by iconoclastic cat on Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 08:35:37 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  It looks as if my fears (0+ / 0-)

            may be unfounded. http://www.dailykos.com/...

            "...there is no evidence of a dramatic tightening of the sort he would need to make Tuesday night interesting." -Nate Silver, 11/3

            by iconoclastic cat on Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 09:51:00 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

      •  Yes he has. (0+ / 0-)

        Obama says it's an issue for the Senate to decide. There's regular procedures for such things, and he's decided not to interfere.  He's resigned his Senate seat, and won't even have a vote on it when the Senate takes it up.  That is his comment.  Just like he's not commented on who his replacement in the Senate should be.  Because that's the Governor's choice.

        Makes sense to me.

        "The river always wins" - Mark Twain

        by Land of Enchantment on Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 09:28:02 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  Assuming he's done his own polling (0+ / 0-)

    The arrogance he has to make the demands he has.

    The GOP has resorted to Cannibalism. Please send Condiments to GOP HQ

    by JML9999 on Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 08:14:49 AM PST

  •  I honestly don't get this guy. (0+ / 0-)

    If he came out against the Iraq war, he would have remained a Democrat and likely had more influence and popularity than he does now.

    But he hasn't, which makes me think he is genuinely sticking to his principles.

    But then he went out and knowingly lied about Barack Obama, who he had previously mentored in Obama's early Senate days.

    Is he merely standing firm on some deeply-held principles?  Does he get these principles primarily from support of Israel?

    Is he a megalomaniac who enjoys making Democrats sweat?

    Did he think the best route for him to gain more power would be to get a Republican President elected, and then be made powerful in a new Republican administration?

    I honestly don't get this guy.

    Warner 2016! (Premature? Naaah!)

    by elchip on Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 08:16:27 AM PST

    •  He Felt Betrayed (0+ / 0-)

      I think his position on Iraq was principled, and I suppose one could make a case that he felt the need to try to lend support to the increasingly unpopular war by praising the Bush administration. When he was challenged in the Primary, the Democrat party heavily supported him, much to the dismay of the grassroots efforts to unseat him, even Obama campaigned for him. However, once he lost to Lamont, the party had no choice but to endorse the winner of the primary and reportedly Lieberman felt a deep sense of personal betrayal. Nevermind that he was hardly the first incumbent to lose in a Primary, he felt as a Senior member of the caucaus and the party's choice in 2000 for VP, he was entitled to a level of support never pro-offered to anyone. He truely felt that his friends in the Senate should have supported him over the Democratic party's nomination for the seat. Even though he managed to maintain his seniority in the caucaus after the election, he appears to have been taking revenge ever since. I think the Democratic Senate members would be nuts to give him a Chairmanship that would give him the ability to harass the Obama administration. Removing him would  be a political disaster, if takes this tact, because everyone will want to know what the Democrats are trying to hide.

      •  The "Democrat" Party? (0+ / 0-)

        WTF?  That's what FOX News and Republicans call it.  I always think it best to call someone by the name they like to be called.  That would be the "Democratic Party".

        Anyhow, Connecticut has a closed primary.  So it was the "Democrat Party" that declined to choose him to run for another term.

        "The river always wins" - Mark Twain

        by Land of Enchantment on Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 09:24:57 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  My take... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    sdf, usna77

    "But maybe they'll prove us wrong and do the right thing..."

    This made me spit coffee all over my monitor. When given the choice to stand up or back down, my boys under Harry will lie down faster than a Times Square hooker.

    Safe money is on Joe keeping his Chair, staying in the Caucus and laughing at the impotent "leadership" while he steals their candy and pees in their cheerios.

    Status quo will be maintained.

  •  Makes me wonder... (0+ / 0-)

    Whether the netroots really does have any sort of sway in these inside-baseball levels of politics.  It's blatently obvious what SHOULD happen.  The only reason it's up to debate is because of the fraternity mentality of the Senate.

    How many phone calls and emails does it take to overturn that desire of congressional dems to bend over time and time again?

    "Every man is guilty of all the good he did not do." ~Voltaire

    by The BBQ Chicken Madness on Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 08:17:48 AM PST

  •  All this posturing from both sides ... (0+ / 0-)

    including spork-barrel political infighting and demands for a public apology. What's next, the comfy pillow?

    The Republican brand: "Consequences, schmonsequences, as long as I'm rich"

    by D in Northern Virginia on Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 08:18:22 AM PST

  •  It needs to be remembered that.... (0+ / 0-)

    While some Democrats are acting friendly to Lieberslime in order to not look vindictive, the secret ballot allows them to vote him off the committees without political repercussion.

  •  The Problem is if he splits R and D votes and (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    lgcap

    wins again as a 3rd party candidate.

  •  I'm not going to hold my breath. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    flumptytail

    If I did I'd be dead by now.

    You are entitled to express your opinion. But you are NOT entitled to agreement.

    by DawnG on Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 08:19:31 AM PST

  •  He should be isolated as the pariah that he is (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    usna77

    If the Dems give him back the Homeland Security Committee chair, that will be a very bad sign. I really hope that they do not do this.

    Stop bitching and start a revolution!

    by Randian on Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 08:19:46 AM PST

  •  Too bad CT doesn't have a recall option (0+ / 0-)

    but his constituents do have the capacity to make his life miserable.

  •  doubt he'll even run again (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Wolf Of Aquarius

    he'll retire first. he shot his wad in this last election, and frankly i think voters are just tired of his act.

    I think this issue will fix itself. Obama can easily demonstrate how he is the bigger man by not holding a grudge and by maneuvering Joe in to positions where he HAS show his support for the Obama Presidency. if played right, Lieberman will be kissing Obama's ass just as thoroughly as he kissed Bush's, and in the process he'll be demonstrating what a self-serving prick he's been his whole life.

    he's finished, no matter where he ends up.

  •  I don't think he cares (0+ / 0-)

    I don't think he has any intention of running for reelection. He was banking on a position in the McCain administration. He'll switch fully over in a couple years and go all out for their 2012 campaign. Possibly he'll even be a member of the ticket. If that doesn't work out he'll just retire. He just wants to stay with the Democrats a little longer to have a chance to undermine them more.

  •  Hickory Dickory Dock (4+ / 0-)

    His chair was a mortal lock
    He chose the wrong side
    Got killed in a landslide
    Now we're cleaning his clock

    Submit your best Holy Joe nursery rhyme!

    You and me will all go down in history, With a sad Statue of Liberty, And a generation that didn't agree - SoaD

    by nsdq on Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 08:22:24 AM PST

  •  I grew up in CT (5+ / 0-)

    and it is bizarre watching Lieberman turn into this neo-con....thing. Way way back in the 80s when he was Atty. Gen. of CT he was doing environmental protection and all sorts of good stuff.

    All that said...screw him. He can run Veteran Affairs or become the junior member of the GOP.

  •  It would be good for Joe to remember (6+ / 0-)

    that Obama won every single county in the State of Connecticut.  There is no place for him to hide.  Connecticut voters, no matter their race or socioeconomic standing, want to see the country move in Obama's direction.  Lieberman has been on the wrong side of the trend.  He will be defeated unless he does a major about face.

    Alternative rock with something to say: http://www.myspace.com/globalshakedown

    by khyber900 on Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 08:23:59 AM PST

  •  Other interests at stake (6+ / 0-)

    One forgotten thing is this:  it is not all about Joe. There are a bunch of Senators who have worked hard to advance good policy, have worked to elect good Democrats, and who have as much or more experience as Joe who deserve a chance at the chairmanship of this important committee.

    They are out there slugging away, not threatening anyone, not undermining other Democrats, why shouldn't they be rewarded with the Chair when it is clear they would do a better job. The public has an interest in the quality of the Chairmanship. Are we going to subordinate those interests to a self-centered unprincipled person like Lieberman?

    This is more important than whether he can be re-elected. I doubt Joe wants to be re-elected.

    "Mr. President, I'm not saying we wouldn't get our hair mussed." General Buck Turgidson

    by muledriver on Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 08:24:01 AM PST

  •  Like that poll (0+ / 0-)

    Brilliant!

  •  As a CT resident (6+ / 0-)

    those were the poll questions I've been waiting for.  Those numbers are good to see.  Thanks Kos for running the poll.  

  •  Why not trust Obama on this? (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    bloomster, dave3172

    My theory is that Obama will be making Lieberman an offer he can't refuse: Ambassador to Isreal.

    Rahm's penchant for leaks will have the Jewish community thrilled - and if Joe declines, they won't be so thrilled. Sure, we get a new Republican Senator but Obama demonstrates that he is a unifier, is not vindictive, and wants to genuinely work in a bi-partisian manner to accomplish important stuff.

    The magic 60 number? Don't worry - there will always be at least 1 or 2 Senators willing to play "Let's Make a Deal" with the ultimate deal maker - Rahm [sure, I don't like him, but he can be useful].

    And then, when Lieberman strays off the reservation, he gets fired. Fair & Square.

    Hire the competent: Draft Tammy Duckworth for Secretary of Veterans Affairs.

    by llbear on Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 08:25:39 AM PST

  •  Lieberman has a "vision." (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Land of Enchantment

    I'm certain he's seeing things.

    "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." -Thomas Jefferson

    by ezdidit on Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 08:25:59 AM PST

  •  re: (0+ / 0-)

    But maybe they'll prove us wrong and do the right thing.

    Yeah, right.  The Senate are just a bunch of buddies watching each others back. The sick thing about them is some of them refuse to acknowledge the knives JL has been plunging in their backs for years.  And, in a fit of insanity, they are planning on letting him have the power to stick more knives in the back of the party leader and our new President by caving into the party traitor.

    It's a shame I can't think of a term more appropriate for our Dem "leaders" other than "fucking idiots". Obama isn't even in the White House and they are already taking the first steps to grasp defeat from the jaws of victory by lining behind the Lieberfuck for a position that he did nothing of note for years.

    Give him something else, sure.  Let him caucus if it will make the cocktail parties more bearable, but for fuck's sake, strip him of the power to put down petty and unnecessary hurdles for a President wading into the BushCo nightmare.  Some Senate Dems are so ensconced in the bubble they can't see Lieberman's a fucking backstabbing petty rethug in Independent's clothing. He was a petty backstabber during Clinton's administration and he's even more of a petty backstabber now. Fucking idiots.

    Do you ever get the feeling that the only reason we have elections is to find out if the polls were right? - Robert Orben

    by mentaldebris on Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 08:26:14 AM PST

  •  I don't like the prospect of Joe Lieberman having (0+ / 0-)

    subpoena power and the ability to initiate impeachment proceedings, for those two reasons alone I would have him stripped of his chairmanship duties. Unfortunately for Obama, he ran on a campaign of true bi-partisanship and transparency, so it will be tough for the Senate to do what needs to be done about Lieberman. I like Bayh, but I don't buy the rhetoric that says if Joe steps out of line, he's gone. He should be allowed to caucus with the Dems, he's toast in any CT re-election attempts right now anyway, and serve out his term with [whatever's left of his] dignity.

  •  But the Dem leadership will still go with this (0+ / 0-)

    traitor/backstabber/fifth columnist - instead of building up another candidate in CT for when Joe's seat comes up for another election.

    "I don't do quagmires, and my boss doesn't do nuance."

    by SteinL on Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 08:29:26 AM PST

  •  Thanks for polling this. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    flumptytail

    It's good information to throw at the pols as they're considering his fate.

  •  Embittered Voters? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    deep

    Hmmm, this looks ominous.  Bitterness setting in among Lie-berman's constituency.

    Somebody break the news to Evan Bayh....

  •  No chairmanships. (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Randian, lurks a lot, usna77

    If you give joltin Joe a chairmanship of some other committee he'll be taking it from a Democrat who presumably actually cares about the work of that committee.  Joe doesn't want to do work.  He just wants to be important.

    Fuck him.  Sit on the back bench or switch and be damned as a faithless traitor to the party who nobody trusts.  Remember the Brits never trusted or admired Benedict Arnold after he turned, either.

    We elected the smart guy? How the hell did that happen?

    by nightsweat on Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 08:31:13 AM PST

  •  "No one likes Joe except for Republicans..." (0+ / 0-)

    Republican like Joe as a tool. He gives them legitimacy in attacking Dems. They want him to stay D.

    But, if he goes R, then the wingnuts will catagorize him as a RINO, Club for Growth will primary him, and virtually any CT D will rout him out of his Senate seat.

    So Joe is much more useful to the R's as a D.

    JMHO

    If CEO's and their brethern have employment contracts, why do they insist that their employees don't need one?

    by JDPITALIA on Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 08:31:56 AM PST

  •  Prove he is worthy (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    deep

    Why doesn't anyone tell Lieberman if he wants to stay with the Caucus, he better get working to get the 3 unresolved races to go the Dems way. He could be donating funds to the legal fight in Alaska and Minnesota and should be down in Georgia campaigning for Martin in addition to pumping every last dime he has into the campaign. He shouldn't need too large a war chest since there is no way he will be re-elected in CT.

  •  The fine folks of Connecticut (0+ / 0-)

    need to pass a recall law affecting their Senators quick, before the capitulationists and boys of the Senate club reappoint Lieberman to his chairmanships.

  •  Excellent...I was with you until... (0+ / 0-)

    Call his bluff. Give him another committee chairmanship in an area where his ideology matches up with the Democratic Party. He won't leave the Democratic caucus. It would be career suicide.

    No chairmanship for Lie...man. Sorry, he earned the rebuff. And I don't believe he'll leave the Dem caucus for a minute. To go to the minority party caucus? No way.

  •  If they were going to do the right thing (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Miss Blue

    then why would Senate Dems act like they aren't? Just to see how many Kossacks bitch and moan about it? Doubtful.

    Nope, they're going to do what they usually do, whenever given the opportunity: Knuckle under.

    So weird, too. They're in the majority now, Lieberman can't afford to back up his threats, and his chairmanship is in the perfect position to torpedo the Obama administration.

    Are they looking for an eager scapegoat to blame for getting nothing done? Torpedo Joe will be happy to oblige.

    Oh, and how are your kids? Doing well? I'm so glad. Here, let me shake your hand as if I really care.

    Reinstate the Fairness Doctrine!

    by jimbo92107 on Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 08:39:01 AM PST

  •  Lieberman is like an unfaithful spouse (0+ / 0-)

    If you had a spouse who was with you 4 days a week, but one day of the week decided to slep arpund, would you keep her/him?  Thats J Lieberman.  He votes Democratic 90% of the time, but sleeps with the Republicans the other 10%.  Who needs the agravation?  Send him packing, stripped and barred

  •  I posted this in another diary (5+ / 0-)

    I live in CT.  Joe is my Senator. I cant stand him.  I couldnt stand him as a Democrat.  

    Joe likes to say that he is a democrat, but when the Democrats said "Joe we dont want your representing CT any more."  Joe said, "Screw You,I will run as and independant, and the Republicans in the southwest of the state will get me elected".

    He was right.  

    As a citizen of CT, There is no way he wins reelection as an idependent.  If he caucuses with the GOP, he might as well resign now and let Gov. Rell appoint a succesor. The GOP would have a better chance of holding on to the seat.  

    Joe is done in CT.  We are sick of the hypocrisy the lies, and Joe first attitude.

  •  Rachel Maddow got it right...the 60 seat (3+ / 0-)

    "filibuster proof" Senate is a myth. Lie...man can't be counted on to vote with the Dems anyway so let's not use that to justify keeping him on as a chairman. Boot him now before he does more damage.

  •  Markos, one thing I love about (5+ / 0-)

    your stories is you produce actual polls to back up your assertions.  Thank you so very much.

    The point is Lieberman, if he wants to survive, must stay with the Dems.  And the Dems, if they want to have any respect from the base, need to strip him of his chairs.  It's really that simple.

    We have done the impossible, and that makes us mighty.

    by TheStormofWar on Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 08:50:18 AM PST

  •  What did CT dumbfucks think they were getting? (0+ / 0-)

    Well DUH.  What did you dumbfucks in Connecticut think you were fucking getting? Jesus this makes me mad.  You knew what he was before the election you dumbasses. Connecticut is the new West Virginia for stupid ass shithead voters. Joe Lieberman was ALWAYS a fucking Republican with a "D" after his name.  You had a chance to elect a Democrat and you stuck with asswipe.  And now America is saddled with him for another 4 years.  Every Democrat in Connecticut who voted for this asshole should have to pay a $25,000 fine to the DNC or be deported to Mozambique.

  •  Maybe Ken Salazar will be next (0+ / 0-)

    Joe's BFF. Colorado would have to turn pretty blue to get rid of him.

  •  Rachel gets it (0+ / 0-)

    Look, it's better if we have a filibuster anyway.  It'll help keep the Democrats in check.  I think that it would be great if we had Dems running committees who were also unafraid to go after Democrats.  Problem with Loserman though is that he is already set on going after Obama.  That's not what we need.  We need someone who will be a fair arbiter.  That's what government oversight is for.  

    I wish Lieberman would just resign from the Senate and run as a Republican instead of this "Independent Democrat" nonsense.

  •  Salazar certainly has his problems (and they... (0+ / 0-)

    are many).  But Colorado may not be liberal enough to replace him yet.  Furthermore, a primary against Salazar could be very divisive and cost us the seat altogether.  The Salazars are force in Colorado politics whether we like it or not and Salazar is better than any Republican that Colorado could elect.

    I am proud to admit that I come from one of the districts that had the least votes for George W. Bush in the entire country.

    by ThePrometheusMan on Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 09:28:14 AM PST

  •  It's nice to see that (0+ / 0-)

    the people of Connecticut are waking up to Joe Lieberman, but it would have been a hell of a lot nicer if it had happened in 2006.

    "If BS were currency, Palin would be able to bail out Wall Street by herself." Kathleen Parker

    by pollbuster on Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 09:41:42 AM PST

  •  I think Joe has one issue (0+ / 0-)

    He likes an America that will foolishly, bully and take on Israel's enemies. I'm sure he would love any war that the US prosecutes against any Arab country, he loves it.

    Back to 67 borders, or there will never be a deal. Start there.

  •  This poll has the potential to change the debate (0+ / 0-)

    Lieberman needs Obama to get reelected a lot more than Obama needs him (Obama sure didn't need him this year).  Move him to a committee where he agrees with the Democratic party.

  •  CT does have recall ability! (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    math4barack

    CT voters do have the ability to start a recall effort.  The voters can start a recall campaign and this would force a new vote for representative.

    If the voter start the process, then Libermann and the GOP governor will not have the ability to assign a republican into the senate seat!

    Can someone check up on this?

    To date everyone has been talking about Libermann resigning or leaving,

    Don't leave the choose to Libermann and the Republican Governor, the people should start the legislative process to perform a recall vote to reelect another representative.

    This would strip the power from Libermann and the Governor, it will be up to the people of CT!

  •  Legislation craft needed for Joe the Disloyal! (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    math4barack

    The bill will have to be crafted carefully.

    1.  It must leave Joe the Disloyal in office until after the recall election.
    1.  Joe the Disloyal will not be removed from office until after election of a new Senator to represent the people of CT.
    1.  I think this would effectively give the power of selection back to the people of CT and since Joe is not allowed to resign or leave office, the governor will not have the power to assign a republican!
  •  The States have impeachment and recall ability (0+ / 0-)

    The states have impeachment and recall abilities if the government or representative no longer represent the peoples views or have commited treason or sedition against the people of the state.

    These clauses are incased in the constitution to give the people the ability to remove high officals if they go against the will of the people.

    Remember most constitution of states state the government officals serve at the will of the people!

  •  CT-Voters have Rights too Initiative Process! (0+ / 0-)

    Everyone is talking about the rights of Joe the Disloyal and Gov. Jodi Rell of CT.

    What about the rights of the voters to start a recall and new election initiative?

    •  Point out where to me (0+ / 0-)

      in federal or Connecticut statute that this right exists. Since it doesn't, your argument is pointless.

      We can talk all day about the rights that we think we ought to have, but it's just talk.

      Some states have recall provisions against state officials: witness Gray Davis in California. Aside from impeachment on the federal level, or the House or Senate voting to expell one of their own, there isn't anything else. If you find something, let us know.

      © sardonyx; all rights reserved

      by sardonyx on Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 12:12:50 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Chris Dodd had better take heed!! (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Mehitabel9

    Chris Dodd's approval ratings aren't much better.  If he keeps sticking up for Lieberman, it is curtains for Dodd in 2010.  

    We could sort of understand his reticence to come out strongly for Ned Lamont in 2006.  But now there is absolutely no excuse whatsoever for Dodd or Amman to support Lieberman.

    And it is clear from the numbers that Dodd continues down this path at his electoral peril.

    And I'm a CT resident and Democrat Town Committee member.

    Senator Dodd is forewarned.

  •  2012 can't come fast enough (0+ / 0-)

    Lieberman can't win a Dem primary any more (he won't even try), and one would assume a Republican more capable and less dogged by scandals will throw their name into the ring.  He's screwed.

  •  Give him some pansy-assed little (0+ / 0-)

    subcommittee and be done with it.  Some subcommittee with no real power.

    He will not do anything differently whether he keeps the chairmanship or not.  He'll still filibuster.  He'll still vote with the Rethugs.  He'll still either be a complete do-nothing chairman, or even worse, he'll try to abuse his position and that committee.

    What he won't do, is bolt to the Republicans, because if he does, he kisses re-election goodbye forever.  Truth is, he's probably done that anyway, but I just can't see him killing what's left of his chances.

    "I'm just an asshat with a keyboard and an obsession." -- JeffLieber

    by Mehitabel9 on Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 12:13:54 PM PST

  •  Thanks, Markos! This Poll is Valuable (0+ / 0-)

    And this comment is spot on:

    Call his bluff. Give him another committee chairmanship in an area where his ideology matches up with the Democratic Party. He won't leave the Democratic caucus. It would be career suicide.

    It is the correct response to the argument Joe votes with the Democrats most of the time. Then give him a position where he is in sync with Democrats! Not Homeland Security, where is has undermined our security by not exposing abuses by the Bush Administration. Let a Democrat have that chair!

    "... if I can lead you into the promised land someone else can just as easily lead you back out again." --Eugene Debs

    by Shliapnikov on Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 01:23:18 PM PST

  •  FINALLY:A Diary defending CT despite Lieb. (0+ / 0-)

    I've spent the past week defending CT, my home, despite Lieberman because all these "what should we do with lieberman" posts always revert into the "what was CT thinking category".  

    CT is the 2nd most liberal state in the union.  CT has NO republican reps/senators AT ALL.  CT just defeated our own version of Prop (H)8 and now allows marriage equality. Read my Diary about CT's Question 1 here. For president CT supported Obama:60.6-McCain:38.3, a margin of 22.3, one of the highest in the country.  It was the majority of the national democratic establishment that didnt support Lamont.  The democratic voters in CT did back Lamont and the GOP backed Lieberman as an independent because the GOP candidate was horrible.

    Better DEAD than red!

    by AfroPonix on Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 02:03:59 PM PST

  •  CAN LIEBERMAN be recalled? (0+ / 0-)

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site