Perhaps the easiest way to fix the
Lieberman problemn is to amend the caucus rules ---- No Senator who leaves the party and runs as an independent will retain his original seniority but instead his seniority will run from the date he rejoins the caucus.

this would move Lieberman as teh least senior member of the Democratic caucus fro the freshman Senate Class of 2006.

Lets mince words.  Joe we didn't take away your chairmanship --- you simply lacked the seniority to be the committee's chair

Props to Leahy!

Finally, someone with the balls to stand up for what is right. Thank you Sen. Leahy for being the voice of reason on this one and not taking the soft Evan Bayh approach.

sen leahy for AG!!!  i know he's a little old, but he'd be great.  also, gov douglas would be terrified of a backlashat the polls in 2010, so he'd probably nominate a weak dem, or an independent/liberty union/progressive to the seat.  douglas would know that the electorate would swing against him if he propped himself, dubie, rainville, or (gag) tarrant up to the senate.

I think I would feel better if someone, anyone, could give me a single reason why to keep him on at all.  He's done absolutely nothing on Governmental Affairs and he needs to not be anywhere near the people in charge there.

I wish you guys would stop posting that video of Rachel Maddow. LOL. Every time I see that freeze frame her hair looks exactly like mine did in the preppy '80s.

Some of it took off. I wish I could retrieve it. :)

Was picking Joe Lieberman.    If Gore would have picked Evan Bayh, he could have won Indiana and the election.

I love the look on Maddow's face at the end.

This may may strike a raw nerve for some people, and I really apologize for that, but I have to say it.  In 2004 and 05, I was a lobbyist on domestic violence for a non-profit women's group.  If you're in that community, you know that there are certain traits and histories that are common among victims of domestic violence.  For example, having been abused as a child, and thus not really knowing what was right, or what you deserved, or when or how to stand up for yourself.  Abuse someone for their first 18 years, and they think that's what their life is supposed to be like.  They often have their self-importance and self-concept literally beaten out of them.  People often, idiotically, ask why the woman doesn't leave her batterer.  (The question they should ask is why men commit violence against those they love to begin with)  The answer to that question is complicated and multifaceted, but I think part of it is that the victims A) don't know any better, and B) enable it, knowingly or unknowingly (which is hardly to put them at fault).

Soon after the 2004 election, a piece circulated in the DV community that really seemed to be on the money.  It argued basically that Democrats acted like DV victims.  The Republicans hit them, but they didn't really do anything about it, so Republicans were emboldened to hit them again--with more frequency and intensity (I'm reminded of Al Franken's deconstruction in The Truth With Jokes of the 2004 campaign).  What we tend to think of as being nice or fair or decent sometimes resembled enabling the Republicans to defeat us.  Thus, until we collectively got some therapy and strength/confidence/support/certainty, the GOP would keep beating us.  If you act like a doormat, you will get walked on.

Four years later, things look very different.  I don't think Democrats look much like that anymore.  Except for Lieberman apologists.  On a practical level, even if you don't believe in punishing Lieberman for the MANY ridiculous things he's done, the reality is that as long as he gets away without paying a price for them, he will keep doing it!  Lieberman is like a bully who keeps attacking everyone else in his party, many of his "friends", and every time he sees that he can commit a transgression against us without repercussion, he is only emboldened to commit more and bigger ones!  Appeasement, like Jean Carnahan and Max Cleland voting for the war only to lose their seats anyway, does not work.  So far Holy Joe has merely had to run for reelection as a sort of independent.  He won a fourth term in 2006, he was credited with all of his Senate seniority as a Democrat, and he was allowed to chair a committee even after announcing that he'd just ignore Katrina and "let bygones be bygones"--damn those killed or sick from formaldehyde-laced FEMA trailers.  Lieberman is a bigger asshole every year, but he has yet to pay any price for it at all.  Indeed, any backlash he does face (a credible primary opponent) just feeds his martyr complex and drive for attention.  The media play jujitsu and portray Lieberman as the victim and those horrible left-wing bloggers as bullies (because it's fine for Pat Toomey to challenge Arlen Specter, but not for Ned Lamont to beat Lieberman).

Memo to Senate Democrats: IF YOU DO NOT PUNISH JOE LIEBERMAN, HE WILL KEEP ATTACKING AND UNDERMINING YOU!

What weak-ass Harry Reid has proposed is not even kicking Joe out of the caucus.  It is not even stripping him of his committee assignments (which was done to Jim Traficant and Larry Craig).  It is not discarding his 20 years of seniority as a Democrat now that his party nominated someone else and he's an independent (even though Frank Lautenberg gets no credit for his 18 years of service 1982-2000 though he was then and continues to be a real Democrat).  What the Democratic caucus is voting on Tuesday (Reid won't even do it unilaterally!) is among the mildest possible slaps on the hand they could give Traitor Joe: you can keep your caucus membership, your committee assignments, AND your 20 years of Democratic seniority.  You even get a subcommitee chairmanship as a consolation prize.  You just can't chair the Homeland Security/Government Affairs Committee anymore, a position you've done nothing with anyway.  They take that away, and it's up to Lieberman whether to stay in the caucus.  Call.  His.  Bluff.

If Senate Democrats are unwilling to do even that, they're going to be hit with a still more maniacal Lieberman in the near future, and they're going to deserve it because they knowingly enabled him.  Fifty senators will deserve it, but the whole party will suffer for it.

I hope someone leaks the names of those voting to let Joe keep his chairmanship, because they will deserve a SHITSTORM of protest.