Redstate

Do I like Liberman? No.
Do I understand that not everyone out there thinks exactly like me? Yes
(That applies to you guys)

I judge Liberman by his actions which in my opinion reflected that he was not much of a Democrat when it came to war. But he did vote for many thing That in my opinion were good for this country. I take the situation for what it is and work with it.

I think there is a general impression is that you guys have that the exact party line needs to be toed, and that just not true.

Our current choices are: name call him and deride him or attempt to understand and work with him. Will this work? Who knows? But turning away from reason and attempt of communication only creates a huge divide. In my opinion demonizing your opponents is how civil wars get started.

If you would like an analogy on your part of the spectrum think of "Lincoln Chaffe".

Does that answer your question Dan?

That we find ourselves depending on Joe Lieberman in such a pivotal way. And so I'll say it right now: I call on you, Mr. Lieberman, in view of the fiscal and moral support Republicans gave you in retaining your seat for the people of Connecticut, to caucus with the Republicans as an Independent.

Mr. Lieberman, the Democrat party has now betrayed you twice and without Republican support this victory and your continued service in the Senate would have been impossible. I urge you to do the right thing and caucus with us in this coming legislative term.

"But I'm sure that the Democrats will find some way to appease him enough to keep him in the caucus."

It will be interesting to see how they can appease him.

The Democrats essentially booted him out of the party for not behaving like a petulent overgrown toddler like the rest of the Democrats were. Not only that he *GASP!* refuesed to buy the party line that 9/11 was done by "Chimpy McBushitlerhalliburton" to steal Iraq's oil and throw Democrats in concentration camps. He behaved like the Democrats under FDR and JFK would have in a similar circumstance and for that he was excommunicated from the holy party but was burned at the stake by the Kossacks.

If I were Joe Lieberman they would have to kiss the "brown eye" and still I would not give them my support.

Do you support welcoming Rape Gurney Joe back into your party with open arms?

I wouldn't call him Rape Gurney Joe but I don't welcome him back to the party with open arms because he isn't in our party anymore. He left the party to run as an independent. That may sound too literal to some, but IMO he isn't a Democrat anymore.

Are you willing to stand up and say: that man is one of us? And if not, what are you gonna do about it?

Aside from make my opinion known about Lieberman, I am going to do nothing. I wouldn't mind at all if he was stripped of his seniority and made the junior member of the Science and technology committee, but that isn't the best move for the Party as a whole. Why should we cut off our nose to spite our face?

Oh, by the way, which one's Pink? - R. Waters

As a Kos-Dean-etc. Democrat who backed Lamont strongly, my answer is: Absolutely. Here's why:

As someone pointed out upthread, Joe has been a fairly reliable vote on Democratic issues except for the war in Iraq, and that on that issue, his rhetoric was not only factually implausible but counterproductive to finding any kind of voice for Democrats on the issue. Given the choice between Lieberman and Lamont, I felt that the best way to accomplish my goal: Moving away from Bush's preferred course on Iraq policy.

That didn't happen. Lieberman is now the Senator-elect. And while during the election, voting for him was the option least likely to achieve my preference, accepting him into the Democratic caucus would now be the option most likely to achieve my preference, since the alternative produces a Republican-controlled Senate. Therefore, Joe it is.

It's also worth saying that, in some sense, intellectual consistency requires me to support Joe. Many Democrats, myself included, endorsed the (apparently convincing) argument that Lincoln Chafee, his own votes aside, was unacceptable by virtue of the fact that he would vote for Republican leadership of the Senate. It seems incumbent on me now to argue *for* Joe for the same reason.

He promised the voters of Connecticut he would caucus with the Democrats. If he flips, he has broken his word, and becomes little more that Jim Jeffords with some gravitas. No, it is better this way.

"History will be kind to me, for I intend to write it"-Winston Churchill

The rationales offered by some of the "net roots" commenters here, for Democrats sucking up to "Rape Gurney Joe" Lieberman, actually do make sense. Still it's amusing, given the vituperation that's been directed toward Lieberman at Kos, DU, etc.

Obviously we have a lot more to be disappointed about in the election results than they do, and our discomfort is a source of pleasure to many of them. It is some small compensation to see the wailing and knashing of teeth from some at Kos about having to play nice with Joe. Instead of inflicting retribution on Lieberman after the election like the net roots had wanted to do, now the Democrats have to play nice with Joe, giving him the Committee Chairmanship he feels entitled to, etc.

The old Master of the Senate, Lyndon Johnson, figured out how that worked early in his career. Now the Senate Dems and net roots have to follow LBJ's understanding of their relative power with Joe Lieberman:

What does he want? - me to kiss his a**? Tell him I'll kiss him on both cheeks. I'll kiss him in the middle too if he wants it."
Master of the Senate: The Years of Lyndon Johnson, Robert Caro

Very logical, in fact inevitable since the Democrats are only up by one vote.

I think Reid must be courting Olympia Snowe and the other liberal Republicans, trying to get them to switch parties. Having a one vote majority is almost impossible to work, although in the Senate it matters less since nearly everything requires 60 votes to break a filibuster anyway.

Thursday, Nov. 9, 2006 5:18 p.m. EST
Sen. Reid Backs Lieberman for Homeland Security Chairmanship

Newly re-elected Sen. Joe Lieberman has been promised by Sen. Harry Reid – who is in line to become the next Senate Majority Leader – that he will support Lieberman’s efforts to become chairman of the powerful Homeland Security Committee.

In a private phone call on Wednesday, Nevada’s Reid told Lieberman that he would recognize Lieberman as the senior Democrat on the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, which would facilitate Lieberman’s move into the post.

Lieberman was the ranking Democrat on the committee, but he lost the Democratic primary in Connecticut and ran successfully as an independent. That leaves Carl Levin of Michigan as the senior committee member elected as a Democrat.

However, Lieberman had promised – before the election – that if he won he would continue voting with the Democratic Senate Caucus. Reid is evidently seeking to reward Lieberman for his loyalty with the chairmanship.

I don't think there are any real conservative Democrats left, but if there were I would support asking them to switch parties so we had a majority.

Senator Shelby used to be a Democrat and I think he has turned out to be a decent Republican. It used to be the only way for anyone to win in some Southern areas was to run as a Democrat.