If Vitter resigns, we won't have to caucus with Lieberman anymore.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

Somebody else made that point earlier, but it bears repeating.

That's assuming Vitter resigns, and Blanco doesn't stab us in the back by appointing a republican.

Just to let everybody know that this isn't just another dumb media story. If Vitter goes down, Joe goes with him.

Just imagine that. After all these years we get rid of Joe because of a scandal involving prostitutes and dirty diapers.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

1. You're not getting rid of Joe.

So stop masturbating.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

10. Oh, he'd be there.

But he'd be useless as tits on a bull.

[movonne]

14. The repugs are not going to let him go..remember libby, they do

anything they want and the dems seem useless..

[eleny]

2. 2 birds with 1 stone

[CK_John]

3. Remember this LA and counting on Blanco to buck the system is very risky. n/t

[CK_John]

8. Also why would you think Vitter will go. You can't shame the shameless. n/t

[robinlynne]

19. I say we let her know exactly what we want, in large numbers. I'm not counting

on her; it is too important.

[Canuckistanian]

32. Buck the system?

A Democratic governor appointing a Democratic senator to replace a Republican resigning in disgrace?

How is this bucking the system?

[populistdriven]

4. so will we all send l. flynt roses then?

[rodeodance]

5. what have I missed?----why would Joe go down?

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

6. Because we'd, hypothetically, pick up a Senate seat.

And Joe would become useless to everybody.

[Demeter]

7. He's Already Useless--But He Could Become Pointless!

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

11. He's "useless" but we still have to caucus with him.

[badgerpup]

25. He's all that and a bag of chips right now because...

...for all practical intents and purposes he's the 'swing vote', the guy who can put his thumb on either side of the balance.
Tiptoe on eggshells around Holy Joementum LIEberman, cos he's got TEH POWAH!


Another Democratic senator will render him irrelevant.

He swore when elected to caucus with the Dems...but you know he's 'thinking it over' whether he'll caucus with the repubs instead. He's been voting the republican ticket as it is.

[wryter2000]

35. True, but

He couldn't flip the Senate if he decided to turn Republican. That would be the difference.

[Exultant Democracy]

20. He is useful to Bush and he will continue to be no matter what happens

unless somehow we get a veto proof majority.

[ellie]

36. hee hee

Hilarious! It's my big dream to realize his pointlessness.

[rodeodance]

22. ah thanks-I get it now.

[BlooInBloo]

9. Mmmmm.... And their shit-for-brains electorate could go to hell with him.... i LIKE it!

[ProgressiveEconomist]

12. For a few months until a special election, anyway.

IMO, a Blanco interim appointment likely won't even have until November 08, let alone the end of Vitter's term in 2010.

See the links in http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

13. Yeah, but a lot can happen in a few months.

[ProgressiveEconomist]

16. Possibly. But if the interim appointee plans to run for the rest of Vitter's term,

it would make sense to try to amass a "neutral" voting record until the special election, wouldn't it? Otherwise, likely Republican candidate Bobby Jindal would try to paint Mitch Landrieu (or whoever else might get the nod from Blanco) as an "ACLU/Hillary Clinton liberal".

IMO the most common successfu generall political strategy may be to try to appear on both sides of most issues.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

17. Fair question.

"it would make sense to try to amass a "neutral" voting record until the special election, wouldn't it?"

Maybe. It also might make good sense to take an activist stance against Bush. Given recent LA history.

[ISUGRADIA]

15. If Blanco does not agree to some deal, the GOP will deal

with Vitter until Jan 2008 when they may get a Governor Jindal who will appt a GOP successor.

[ProgressiveEconomist]

27. Is that "logrolling"? Blanco appoints a Rethug, or a Rethug appoints a Rethug?

[dysfunctional press]

18. that's THE reason that vitter WON'T resign...

if Blanco can appoint a Dem, the rnc won't let him give up his seat.

[femmocrat]

23. Yes, from the tone of his press statement today, it seems he's staying put.

Said, "I will work every day to rebuild (your) trust." Called the NO stories "falsehoods." Then he laid out his plans for when he returns to the Senate.

He even had his "lovely" wife there standing by her man.

[Marr]

24. I agree with you, and I think it's the strongest argument for lobbying Blanco to appoint a Dem.

If the GOP has assurances that she'll appoint a Republican replacement, they'll take their get out of jail free card. All she has to do is reject the GOP suggestions for replacement, and we'll keep Vitter there through the end of his term.

He's an albatross around their necks- and we're heading into an election season. I think two years of prostitute PR is alot more valuable than the short time we'd have a Democratic replacement.

[cascadiance]

29. Can we "Bob Packwood" him?

Even if we can't get a majority vote to throw him out, we can at least have a NICE threat of a noose around the Republican's necks that voted to keep him in for the coming election that we can remind the voters of! Can't really lose by trying. If we threaten this, perhaps they might think twice and just have him resign instead!

[Swamp Rat]

21. imagine...

[ecstatic]

26. Blanco will stab us in the back

In a useless attempt at bipartisanship.

[cascadiance]

28. Give SOMEONE ELSE Homeland Security Committee chairmanship!

For a while I was saying recruit Susan Collins to jump ship and take over this chairmanship from Joe!

But if we get a decent replacement for Vitter, we can give it to someone else and tell Joe to take an F'IN! hike!

[HowHasItComeToThis]

30. LARRY FLYNT WOULD BE A GREAT NOMINEE

[fooj]

31. We DON'T have to caucus with Lieberman.

http://politicalinsider.com/2007/02/liebermans_switch_w...

Lieberman Switch Wouldn't Flip Senate

With Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT) publicly stating he'd consider becoming a Republican if Democrats block new funding for the Iraq War, many Democrats worry that control of the Senate hangs in the balance. However, their fears are unfounded. Many think back to 2001 when former Sen. Jim Jeffords (I-VT) began caucusing with Democrats instead of Republicans, taking control of the Senate out of GOP hands. However, the two situations - though outwardly similar - contain one important difference.

If Lieberman were to caucus with the Republicans, they would still not take full control of the Senate, despite Vice President Dick Cheney's ability to break 50-50 ties. This is because of a little-known Senate organizing resolution, passed in January, which gives Democrats control of the Senate and committee chairmanships until the beginning of the 111th Congress.

What's the difference between now and 2001? A small but important distinction. When the 107th Congress was convened on January 3, 2001, Al Gore was still the Vice President and would be for another two-and-a-half weeks. Therefore, because of the Senate's 50-50 tie, Democrats had nominal control of the chamber when the organizing resolution came to a vote. With Dick Cheney soon to come in, however, Democrats allowed Republicans to control the Senate in return for a provision on the organizing resolution that allowed for a reorganization of the chamber if any member should switch parties, which Jeffords did five months later. There was no such clause in the current Senate's organizing resolution.

I've written Reid two e-mails about this and I asked him why he continues to allow the Dems to believe that we need Joe. He hasn't responded. Wonder why THAT is?

[cascadiance]

33. Is part of his deal that he keeps his chairmanships?

Because that WOULD make it worth being able to ditch him! If we can say, "Sorry Joe, no more chairmanships for YOU!", that would be choice!

[samsingh]

34. that would be so cool.