if the senate is 49-49-2

[WalterMitty]

obviously the little screwball from vt is going to organize with the dems.

but who does lieberman go with?  i know he says he is going to remain a dem, but if his vote is the tie breaking vote, can the republicans entice him to come over?

[The Dowager Mod]

Not if the Dem leadership follows through and let's him keep his seniority.

[Joe Republic]

Not if the Dem leadership follows through and let's him keep his seniority.

But what if the Republicans offer him the same?

[The Dowager Mod]

Won't matter, He made a deal and if he breaks it he may as well retire when his term ends in six years.

[WalterMitty]

Not if the Dem leadership follows through and let's him keep his seniority.

But what if the Republicans offer him the same?

the republicans would probably offer him more...like an important committee chair.

i dont think there is any chance lieberman becomes a republican.  i do think there is an outside shot lieberman remains an independent and organizes with the republicans.

[GOP = Terrorists]

He already is a Republican and who he caucuses with doesn't matter.  His votes on the most important moral issues of the day will be with George W Bush.

[sethm0]

who he caucuses with doesn't matter.

 This is where you are very very wrong. Control of the Senate matters big time.

[adam]

With the exception of the one issue (which may not be an issue much longer if the Democrats take control of both Houses) Lieberman is a rank and file Democrat. Thus it would be rather odd were he to caucus with the GOP.

[7,052,770]

100% that Lieberman will caucus with the Democrats.  Both he and Harry Reid have consistently said this.  To say otherwise is to help Ned Lamont grasp at straws.

[Whacker77]

If I'm not mistaken, Lieberman has already announced that he will return to the Democrat party if he's re-elected.  Carl Cameron, of the evil FoxNews, said Democrats have already privately told Lieberman that he will retain his seniority.

[GOP = Terrorists]

With the exception of the one issue (which may not be an issue much longer if the Democrats take control of both Houses) Lieberman is a rank and file Democrat. Thus it would be rather odd were he to caucus with the GOP.

One issue?

Sorry he is the go to guy for every one of Bush's policies.  From being the last to sign on to protect social security to being the first to advocate illegal immoral wars of aggression and torture.  I don't care if he is slightly left of center he is a bloodthirsty monster just like Bush.

[Deano963]

The fact that there is even this much serious discussion about Joe switching parties can't possibly be doing him any good in this race.

[adam]

With the exception of the one issue (which may not be an issue much longer if the Democrats take control of both Houses) Lieberman is a rank and file Democrat. Thus it would be rather odd were he to caucus with the GOP.

One issue?

Sorry he is the go to guy for every one of Bush's policies.  From being the last to sign on to protect social security to being the first to advocate illegal immoral wars of aggression and torture.  I don't care if he is slightly left of center he is a bloodthirsty monster just like Bush.

Now had he won the nomination, he would be a moderate freedom fighter.

Every Bush policy eh? Well let's look: from OnTheIssues

Day 1: Repeal the Bush restrictions on stem cell research. (Jan 2004)
Voted NO on banning partial birth abortions. (Oct 1999)
Rated 100% by NARAL, indicating a pro-choice voting record. (Dec 2003)
Expand embryonic stem cell research. (Jun 2004)
Voted NO on $40B in reduced federal overall spending. (Dec 2005)
Expensive tax cut for rich will lead to high interest rates. (Oct 2000)
Flag burning is abhorrent, but not a constitutional issue. (Jan 2004)
Opposes laws against gay sex & sodomy; focus on real crime. (May 2003)
Support Equal Pay Act for women; plus loans & lawsuits. (Oct 2000)
I do support, and will support affirmative action. (Aug 2000)
Voted NO on constitutional ban of same-sex marriage. (Jun 2006)
Voted YES on adding sexual orientation to definition of hate crimes. (June 2002)
Voted YES on repealing tax subsidy for companies which move US jobs offshore. (Mar 2005)
Rated 25% by the US COC, indicating an anti-business voting record. (Dec 2003)
Rated 86% by the NEA, indicating pro-public education votes. (Dec 2003)
Destroying pristine ANWR not worth 6 months of oil. (Oct 2000)
Strengthen CAA; protect ANWR; create more national parks. (Aug 2000)
Rated 0% by the Christian Coalition: an anti-family voting record. (Dec 2003)
North Korean missiles were provocative, but don't over-react. (Jul 2006)

I am not going to go through the whole thing...but here is the link. http://www.ontheissues.org/Joseph_Lieberman.htm

The truth about Joe Lieberman is that he is a liberal defense hawk. If you take away defense, he is as equally liberal as Lamont.

[Deano963]

The truth about Joe Lieberman is that he is a liberal defense hawk. If you take away defense, he is as equally liberal as Lamont.

You should note that that is nothing more than your opinion. You make the mistake of equating the word "defense" with "Iraq". Lieberman is no more of a "defense hawk" than any other Democrat in the Senate. He is an "Iraq hawk" - and those two things could not possibly be any more different. Iraq never attacked us, did not have the capability to attack us, and was never a threat to us - so I fail to see how invading the country was an act of "defense". The very definition of the word "defense" is to protect yourself or fight back against an ATTACK. No attack ever happened - therefore saying that someone who is pro-stay-the-course-in-Iraq is a "defense hawk" is flawed logic and it insinuates that people who do not share Lieberman's and Bush's belief that Iraq was the next logical step in fighting the War on Terror are weak on defense. Are you saying Joe Leiberman is more of a "hawk" than John Murtha? Hah!

[© tweed]

If you take away defense, he is as equally liberal as Lamont.

If you take away the Holocaust, Hitler was a good guy.

[Хahar 🤔]

I can't wait to see this &%(* get kicked out of the caucus.

[7,052,770]

I can't wait to see this &%(* get kicked out of the caucus.

[ChrisFromNJ]

I can't wait to see this &%(* get kicked out of the caucus.

Lieberman should get kicked out for campaigning for the GOP's nominee, but he is still a very valuable vote for the Democrats on every issue but Iraq.

[Хahar 🤔]

I can't wait to see this &%(* get kicked out of the caucus.

Lieberman should get kicked out for campaigning for the GOP's nominee, but he is still a very valuable vote for the Democrats on every issue but Iraq.

That value'll disappear in the 111th Congress.

[ChrisFromNJ]

I can't wait to see this &%(* get kicked out of the caucus.

Lieberman should get kicked out for campaigning for the GOP's nominee, but he is still a very valuable vote for the Democrats on every issue but Iraq.

That value'll disappear in the 111th Congress.

Every vote matters. The liberal faction of the Democratic party can never have enough votes to pass legislation.

I am mad at Lieberman for campaigning with the GOP, but I still recognize the value of his vote, especially on socially liberal matters.

[Keystone Phil]

I am mad at Lieberman for caucusing with the GOP

Joe Lieberman caucuses with the Democrats.

[YRABNNRM]

I'd laugh if McCain wins and puts Lieberman in his cabinent, handing the GOP that CT senate seat.

[Keystone Phil]

I'd laugh if McCain wins and puts Lieberman in his cabinent, handing the GOP that CT senate seat.

I, too, am looking forward to Homeland Security Secretary Lieberman.

[ChrisFromNJ]

I am mad at Lieberman for caucusing with the GOP

Joe Lieberman caucuses with the Democrats.

Sorry, I meant campaigning.

[Frodo]

I am mad at Lieberman for campaigning with the GOP

Can't say I'd blame him, considering how he had been treated by his party before he bolted.