And here I thought the Democrats would actually show a spine. HAH!

Can this be revisited on 1/20/09? There will be a few new Senators, including Jeff Merkley, who might want to weigh in on this.

Is that he should have been stripped of HomeLundSecurixty a long time ago--that whole department needs a serious hard-boot or to just go away all together, and Lieberman's stewardship has been as lame as it gets--a major contribution to the problem. The man is incapable of scrutinizing anything.

In other words they had plenty of cover--they didn't need to do this. It is a disgrace.

I hedged my bets and lost everything, but I'll never admit that. The suckers in the Democratic Party have been gracious enough to reward my treasonous behavior with my Homeland Security chairmanship. BWAHAHAHHAHAHAHAH! JOE-MENTUM IS BACK! So, did you miss me?

You don't reinforce party discipline by caving to a renegade. And you certainly don't give him a committee chairmanship that is centered on the one area you have huge disagreements with him.

Stupid.

"That's who I am"

That's not who he is.

Unless that's the new definition of backbiting, opportunistic, self-serving weasel.

A classic example of why conviction-challenged Democrats usually lose national elections. Discouraging to say the least. As was Obama's take on the matter.

I suppose we should be grateful that in all that kumbaya spirit of reconciliation the Democrats did not make Lieberman Majority Leader. And judging by the CN polls, his constituents are chomping at the bit to grt rid of him.

That is all.

I'm sorry, but Lieberman left the Democratic Party, did he not? And who controls the Senate? Wouldn't that be the Democrats?

I don't understand why he is in line for any leadership positions at all. He's not a member of the majority party, and correct me if I'm wrong, but the distinguished gentleman from Vermont has seniority in the party of Independents.

The folks who insist that the Party should have kicked Lieberman to the curb are more interested in Politics than Governing. While I appreciate the sentiment, I've noted before that punishing the Senator could have been detrimental to governing (while acknowledging it may have helped "enforce party discipline" as some have argued).

But we need governing right now, not politics, and there are plenty of reasons not to punish Lieberman at this particular time. One poster asked if this could be re-visited after 1/20/09. In fact, this can be revisited by the caucus at any time, and may in fact be revisted down the line. Lieberman has demonstrated that his views viz-a-viz security issues are not wholly in step with the Party or the President-Elect. That in and of itself would be sufficient grounds down the line to strip him of the chairmanship of the Homeland Security Committee. But now is not that time, particularly with Senate seats in Georgia, Alaska and Minnesota still undecided.

Neither the Party nor the Government were necessarily harmed by today's action. The Senator gets to feel like he's still welcome among his Democratic colleagues. The only damage done is to those who want a pound of flesh, mostly for the sake of revenge. Again, this serves no current purpose. Revenge can be had when Joe runs again for his seat, when it can be served cold.

I would prefer for him to be stripped of his chairmanship, but I don't want to spend one more second thinking about Loserman (what the republicans used to call him, before he became a useful idiot for them). So a big whatever to this news, he rolled the dice and lost, so he doesn't move up or down, whatever.

The Ds obviously don't have any idea of just how few chances they have to prove themselves worthy of the trust placed in them by the majority of the electorate. We can put this in the sack of rocks they're already lugging, along with Obama's FISA vote: stains that no amount of obfuscation and claims of pragmatism or alleged "bipartisanship" will rub away. A political party can only string along its base for so long. Ask the Republicans. And while they're at it, some of these "bipartisan" Democrats should also ask themselves what their new best friends demonstrably did to THEM when they were in power. "What would a Republican do?" indeed!

After the Lieberman vote: not in my wildest imagination can I visualize forty two DEMOCRATS(!) supporting this egotistical turncoat. I can understand the political necessity of being blackmailed for the fifty first vote, but there is no assurance that he would be a dependable sixtieth. I am dismayed, disgusted, shocked and ashamed of those who voted for him.

I have never been a fan of Senate Majority leader Harry Reid. Today just added to the list of reason's why. Most items on the list boil down to the simple fact that he is spineless.

The Leiberman situation was NOT about him supporting John McCain, as some media outlets are spinning it. Leiberman attacked the Democratic Presidential nominee. He also stumped for Reublicans running for the SENATE. Which means that he actively tried to shrink the Democratic Caucus in the Senate. To give him a slap on the wrist for that is inexcusable.

So what if he bolted to the other side? Did Reid think that Leiberman would start voting on party lines if he switched sides? Bolting to the Republicans would have been political death for Leiberman, but a trivial annoyance for the Democrats. They had the upper hand once again and threw in the towel before the first punch was thrown.

Echoes of Biden's assertion that Gonzales was, "...the real deal."

You were mistaken.

The Auto bailout vote will take place this week. Republicans will fillibuster it down the line (perhaps had Michigan voted for McCain that might have been different). The Bush Administration insists that the bailout of the auto industry is DIFFERENT from the one for automobiles (Correct, most of the auto workers who will lose thier jobs are Unionized Democrats, most stockbrokers are Republicans).

We will see what Senator Joe does. If he does not side with the Democrats, I'm all for stripping him of his chair right now and getting it over with. Since the Republicans have the votes, Mr. Lieberman's vote is purely symbolic. If he sticks his finger in the Democrats' eye over this, then we know what will happen later on.