i don't have much love for joe and i couldn't believe it when connecticut voted him back in. and man did he make his bed during this campaign---he'll have to lie in it, impotent. i mostly feel as otto does on this issue but i have to say that the dems are set to let him fade away into the background. he's lost face.
Hagel spoke at the Dem convention, trashed McCain repeatedly, traveled with Obama, whispered in Obama's ear when he made a mistake, and campaigned against Repub Senate candidates? Gee, I must have missed that part. Lieberman has no equal.
Are you sure about that? I was listening to analyst on NPR who said that leadership votes could be changed at the start or even middle of the session. Consider how Jeffords switched his vote over while the Congress was in the middle of the session.
Yes. I'm sure. The NPR analyst is wrong. At the beginning of each two year cycle, the House and Senate pass organizing bills. There is no provision in the current senate organizing bill for a transfer.
I see it looks like the rules have changed for this Congress over what happened in 2001 when Jeffords switched.
haha, stupid koolaid drinkers. democrats aren't and never have been anti-war....they are anti republicans. what do they care about lieberman supporting the war when is was politically fashionable not to? If they can get him to come back that's just more power for the democratic party.
I am fine with this--this committee is a domestic one. If it was the Senate Foreign relations committee I would have a big problem with it. After all it was all about foreign policy (and Israel & the ME) why Lieberman has done what he has done (been so pro War and pro McCain). But again, the committee Lieberman chairs is domestic focused. Good for Obama seeing the big picture and not pushing for retribution.
Whether Lieberman's switch would've tipped control of the Senate it still would've put Republicans in the majority on votes. Given how much the Democrats are trying to accomplish in even this lame duck session I think they felt it was better to keep him around. Except that Obama is now the head of the party and the increased Democratic majority does owe part of its success to him. So while yes the Congress is a co-equal branch of the government given what happened last time the Democrats controlled all three branches of elected government the last thing they want to do is have a split between the WH and Congress. As I've said before even though Lieberman campaigned for Republicans and made some inflammatory comments about Obama the only thing that really matters to party leadership is how he votes in the Senate. I think how lopsided the vote was to let him keep his seat showed that most of the Democratic Senators looked at it that way. Now that might be cowardice or it might be pragmatism.
