Strip his chairmanships and tell him he's free to caucus with the Democrats if he still wants to.  If not...

Bye!

We don't need him.

We're not likely to get 60 anyhow.  Don't lay options in front of holy Joe.  KICK HIM OUT!!  Don't strip him of his chairmanship.  KICK HIM OUT OF THE CAUCUS NOW!! It's time to act like the majority that we are.

He ran on caucusing with the Dems.

He ought to be offered nothing.

If the GOP wants to obstruct in the face of a historic mandate then procedural options are available to fight them.

The American people would certainly be behind anything that moves problem-solving legislation forward.

Never did like that filibuster thing, anyway.

Evan Bayh is a freaking spineless guy. I never liked him when they were considering him for President. He is just a doppelganger for Ferris Bueller's dad.

Here are things for Evan and his likeminded democrats to consider:

1. FORGIVE? What about Lieberman's statement that 60 fillibuster votes would be bad for the country? Seriously, how can one excuse that? That has nothing to do with friendship.
   
2. Why is Lieberman unwilling to forgive Democrats who voted against hinm in the primary? Seriously. Why doesn't Evan ask his buddy about that?
   
3. Sure, even if one forgives, what does that got to do with giving Lieberman a chairmanship? Shouldn't the party people get first preference?
   
4. Last, we do not need Lieberman to caucus with us to get 60 votes. Sure he may flip on some minor issues.  But on the issues that count, he will vote the way he votes anyway whether it is against the Democrats on the war or with them on some environmental issues. You really gain nothing  by keeping a malcontent in the fold. I am a Steelers fan and I didn't have too much problem when Coach TOmlin had to sit a star player for disciplinary reasons even if it meant sacrificing short term victory against the Giants. Same thing with Coughlin and Plaxico.

He actually can't get a better deal because the best he could do is ranking member if they honor his Democratic Seniority (a controversial move which R's might not do this far in the minority).

Also, having an R by his name in CT would be electoral suicide.  The reason he won as an I was he convinced people that he would be a good D.

Tell him he can take zero committee assignments and like it or he can switch to R.  We should start treating him as a member of a 3rd party (even though he is not in the good graces of the CFL party).

I truly despise Lieberman. Call his bluff, I say. Let's see how he likes being in the Republican caucus. His new fwends over there, especially the ones with seniority, will surely laugh at him when he asks for a ranking member position on Committee regardless of that committees lack of prestige.

Do the crime, take the spanking!

Throw the worthless bastard an anvil!

EVAN BLAND and his supporters, read this:
http://thinkprogress.org/2008/11/04/lieb erman-caucus-dems/

Seriously, how can someone who says they fear for the country if the Dems win 60 seats feel entitled to be a senior chair by caucusing with them?

Does Evan Bayh want to bend over permanently so Lieberman can put a boot up his ass every day?

As chair of the Homeland Security, didn't he go easy on Bush and Co's mistakes when they were going over what went wrong with Katrina? Shouldn't this guy get the boot on performance alone?

to vote against Obama with his scare tactics about Israel, why would any Dem Senator be worried about Lieberman?

Now, if the Israel lobby wanted to pressure Reid over Lieberman, they could, but why?

The Israel lobby doesn't need Lieberman to influence the U.S. Senate. In fact, Lieberman might be kinda a hindrance for the Israel lobby.

Lieberman has manufactured his own enemies, including Jewish enemies. And Lieberman insists on being out in front of policies that are either Likud inspired or simply anti-Arab, anti-Muslim.

Lieberman needs the Israel lobby to pressure Reid and they aren't gonna do it. Lieberman by himself has little clout and few friends at this point. But maybe he can call in a favor with John McCain, Sue Collins or Norm Coleman. I hear they will be real power brokers in the next Senate.

I just called up Senator Bayh's office and told him what I thought of Lieberman and that he should not be allowed to keep his chairmanship.  More need to call!

If you talk to Republicans, they are not too happy if Lieberman is offered something good to join them. Not to mention, that even if he is offered something good by them, it will pale to the minor stuff Dems can offer him. The guy has no leverage. Freaking Democrats do not know how to use that leverage. Bunch of wimps.

BERNIE SANDERS needs to use his leverage and say that he will offset this whole crap by declining to caucus with them if they appease Lieberman. Will Bernie Sanders come to our rescue?

Wow... it seems like he ACTUALLY didn't think they'd strip him of his seat.  What an idiot.  

As for calling my senators... Well one of them is a little busy being President-Elect, but I'll call my other one.  However, I think Joementum is mud with both of them, so not to worried about their votes.

Actions have consequences.  We can't have someone who actively worked against our nominee chairing our committees.  You think Sen. Ben Nelson of Nebraska agrees with Obama on everything?  Of course not.  But he wasn't out there kissing McCain's ass and spreading dishonest lies about Obama.

Take his chairmanship.  Let Joe do whatever he wants.  If he thinks he will be more powerful as a Republican, then so be it.  We'll still have him for certain votes (like EFCA), and on others he will continue to sell us out.  Whether he's an independent aligned with us or a full Republican isn't going to change that.  However, the latter makes it much easier to beat him in 2012.

Feinstein with no position yet, left a message on Boxer's voicemail.

I despise Lieberman, and part of me says we should strip him of his chairmanship and toss him from the caucus.  He simply isn't a Democrat anymore, so he shouldn't get to be part of the majority.  If he stays, and if he runs again in two years, he will try to claim all the Democratic successes as partly his own.  And we shouldn't allow that.

On the other hand, Obama ran on a 'post-partisanship' message.  If one of the first steps we take is to throw a supposed 'bi-partisan' out of the caucus, it will look like vengeful partisanship and will provide the Repubs with a talking point.  The people (other than hardcore democrats) will not see it as a reasonable move (even though I think it is).  So, I think the smart move is to strip him of his chairmanship but not throw him out of the caucus--call his bluff and let him leave (or not) on his own.  He will have no pull no matter what he chooses to do.

Lieberman currently holds a 2-7 offsuit and is presenting it as pocket aces.

If there is a bill that Lieberman supports that is getting nowhere because of a filibuster, Lieberman is going to support cloture.  But even if he remains in the Democratic caucus, 'Mr I-support-the-filibuster' is going to oppose closing debate for bills he opposes.

Even if the Minnesota, Alaska AND Georgia seats go our way, we get 60 seats with Lieberman.  If Begich and Franken end up winning, and Georgia remains in play after all the votes are counted and a runoff needs to occur, Martin is not going to win if there is a risk he is the 60th vote for cloture with Lieberman in the caucus.

At this point, I'd rather have Martin in our caucus than Lieberman.

Call his bluff.

Are there any Republican senators we can approach about switching parties?  Let Lieberman walk if he wants.  He can then kiss re-election goodbye in Connecticut.

A possible face-saving way out: Obama appoints Lieberman to some non-partisan position in the executive branch, perhaps in the Justice Department, and Connecticut then appoints a real Democrat to take Lieberman's place.

Is there any leverage at all to anyone in DC for a constituent who lives in R-dominated Texas and is disgusted with Lieberman?

Is there anyone I can call, write or email to?

Let Joe know that the caucus will vote on one question: Whether to remove him from all positions of authority, including all of the subcommittees. Then privately offer him the option of keeping one subcommittee if he signs an agreement making the caucus vote moot. There should be clear conditions to him retaining even that one position.

If not, let's get popcorn and watch what happens when he goes to the GOP caucus and gets absolutely nothing. There will only be 40-43 Republicans left. How many are going to step aside for someone who has a liberal voting record on many social issues and is a demonstrated turncoat and liar?

You know, I've always said there was just one thing about the VP pick that pleased me more than Biden's being it, and that's that Bayh wasn't it.

he makes me want to hurl.

..just to see how badly THEY will treat him.

Lieberman doesn't want to caucus with the Republicans because being a "Democrat" is his only leverage with them. Once that's lost, they'll have no more use for the little backstabber. Republicans can be real assholes like that.

Let us not forget he chairs Government Affairs, and under his leadership the Bushies were not held accountable for anything. Guess why he's so desperate to keep it now there's a democrat in the White House.