I kind of hope he does switch

[Johonny]

To me right now the Dems are getting a little bit of a black eye because they don't hold a true Majority in the Senate. Thus while they lose "control" of the congress they really have little power in the senate to pass meaningful or even non-meaningful legislation at the moment. Personally if the Senate isn't truly a Democratic senate (which it isn't at the moment), then I sure don't want THIS senate labeled as such. Which the press does continuously. So let the Senate go Republican and watch the fun as the Senate, House and Whitehouse fight it out for 2 more years. I'd rather go into the 2008 elections standing on the ground set by the house and than a congress in which one house is still tightly tied on many issues with a president less popular than the idea that aliens are visiting our planet, inviting people aboard their ships for potluck dinners.

[scarletwoman]

1. Nope. That would be a VERY bad thing -- think of committee heads.

No matter how much legislation gets stalled or stalemated, the fact that Dems hold the majority in the Senate means that ALL committee chairpersonships are held by Dems. This is EXTREMELY crucial, and certainly not something to be thrown over lightly.

I'd rather see two years of legislative deadlock than have Republicans back as the heads of important committees such as Intelligence and Judiciary.

sw

[Bjorn Against]

7. Read this article by David Sirota, he makes a good case as to why it would be good if Lieberman left

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/2/22/17934/5549

[RiverStone]

8. Question: Committee heads 101

scarletwoman (or anyone else in the know) - I'd greatly appreciate a quickie update on what are the biggest advantages of holding the committee head positions? Do we set the agenda? Does it give us any greater leverage over the appointment of judges?

Believe me, I want us DEMS to keep Senatorial power - even on a limited basis. I'm also so disgusted by Loserman waiving his little finger of threats. I'd love to just give him the (middle) finger and say good riddance - deeming this DINO 100% irrelevant.

Thanks!


peace
:)

[TlalocW]

2. He won't switch, but he'll gladly threaten to like a little child to try and get his way

If he switches, he'll become one of the most hated senators in history in Connecticut if not the US; he wouldn't have as much power with the republicans even if they let him keep his various posts because the split would be 50-50, etc. There's a republican senator from a state with a democratic governor who's undergoing Chemo, and I'm hoping he gets too sick to continue so a democrat can be appointed in his place, and Holy Joe can be told to go fuck himself. I don't believe in Karma, and I don't care what kind of person that makes me because as long as Joe can bog things down with tantrums then kids are going to keep dying in Iraq.

TlalocW

[Jacobin]

3. Here's why it would be a good thing and also why he won't

Senator Snowe and maybe one or two others would likely switch to dem if Lieberman formally joined the republican party and can you imagine the perks they could be offered. It would be mind boggling.


If Lieberman switched, and another R switched to dem, then Lieberman would be in the minority with all dems at his throat, no seniority, perks, etc.

I wish he would, but he won't. He'll keep calling their bluff, until, I hope, they kick his silly ass out of the caucus.

[Poiuyt]

4. Where have you heard that Snowe would switch?

I thought I heard that she wouldn't

[Jacobin]

5. Was just scrolling through TPM

Couldn't find the link. This is all speculation, but there are a couple of R senators who were rumored to be fed up with the party and especially Iraq and the temptation to come over and get rained on with perks would be pretty tantalizing.

I'll go look some more for the link.

[benddem]

6. we need the committee heads

God I don't want to go back to these fascists in control of anything!

[BlooInBloo]

9. The geniuses of the CT electorate wouldn't care - they'd still for for him.