E mail Harry Reid and demand Lieberman be removed of all comittee positions-he is worthless and disrepecting not only the Democratic party but the citizens who voted for him and the Country.
He won't investigate Katrina, he alignes with Bush and now says he might vote republican in 08.....throw him off the chairs!

Tell everyone you know do swamp Reid with this demand!

Thanks.Harry Reid Senate site

Joe is a hard take, but do you want the GOP to get control of the senate? He is a neccesary evil for our party right now. He knows he holds the key, and he can keep the democratic party in line. We are 51 to 49. If he goes to the GOP that would be 50 to 50 and Cheney would make the difference of one vote.

I wonder how many votes this scum would have gotten if he had come clean about his agenda in the beginning. He'd be fish bait is my best guess. Independent my a--.

:bad:

I no longer have any respect for Joe Lieberman after this. Has he gone insane??? Vote Republican??? :bad:

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=2830045&page=2

Lieberman May Back Republican in 2008

Sen. Joe Lieberman, Forced to Run As Independent in '06, Says He May Back GOP for White House

The Associated Press

WASHINGTON - Connecticut Sen. Joe Lieberman, the Democratic vice-presidential nominee in 2000 who won re-election as an independent last year, says he is open to supporting any party's White House nominee in 2008.

"I'm going to do what most independents and a lot of Democrats and Republicans in America do, which is to take a look at all the candidates and then in the end, regardless of party, decide who I think will be best for the future of our country," Lieberman said Sunday.

"So I'm open to supporting a Democrat, Republican or even an Independent, if there's a strong one. Stay tuned," said the three-term lawmaker who caucuses with Senate Democrats.

Lieberman is an ally of GOP Sen. John McCain of Arizona, a 2008 hopeful, and supports President Bush's new Iraq strategy. Lieberman won re-election as an independent last fall when Democrats backed an anti-war candidate who won the party primary.

Speaking of which politician he may support in 2008, Lieberman said, "Obviously, the positions that some candidates have taken in Iraq troubles me. Obviously, I will be looking at what positions they take in the larger war against Islamist terrorism."

He added, "I am genuinely an independent. I agree more often than not with Democrats on domestic policy. I agree more often than not with Republicans on foreign and defense policy."

The senator said he wanted to select someone "I believe is best for the future of our country. ... Party is important, but more important is the national interest. And that's the basis that I will decide whom to support for president."

Lieberman spoke on "Fox News Sunday."

The fact that he was on Fox News says a great deal in itself. That leaves little doubt where he stands. I know of no respectable individual that would even open the front door to Fox, even if it was by mistake.

I still wonder how Gore ever picked him. :?:

Lieberman seemed decent and respectable back in 2000, but I sure don't know what happened to him in the past seven years. :?:

I realize this but he's sticking it to us anyway only in a very passive aggressive way-this position he's in is the worst possible scenerio for us because he's more fixated on getting even with those who fell behind Lamont then he is about being a loyal and honorable Democrat.
I think it's absolutely appalling what he's doing. Every day there is something new coming out about him that aligns him more and more with the republicans so what difference does it make anymore? He's voting with them anyway...we might as well have someone chairing the comittees that is really going to serve the good of the people who put them there.
I've had with Lieberman-he is really an ass.

Just found this and it really rings true...

"So, Joe Lieberman may endorse a Republican for president because he disagrees with the Democrats, as well as the vast majority of the American public, on the Iraq war. Yawn.

I assume no one, even Lieberman himself, is deluded enough to believe that his endorsement could even begin to put pure-blue Connecticut into play. And as for any impact he might have on the election nationally, whether the major news media understands it or not, Lieberman is old news. Assuming the war is still going strong in 2008, which sadly seems likely, the level of public anger will be high enough by then that the slaughter of the GOP in 2008 will make what happened in 2006 look like a minor blip on the political radar screen.

And when that happens, the Democrats will no longer be dependent on Lieberman for their 51st vote in the Senate. He can then spend his last four years in the Senate as a backbencher, stripped of his committee chair (if he endorses the Republican for president that would cinch his dethroning), trying to explain to people why he should be forgiven for his role in causing one of the biggest self-inflicted wounds in the nation’s history.

As I’ve said before, have fun while you can Joe, because you’re standing squarely on the wrong side of history. "

Liberman gave a stinging rebuke to Pres. Clinton on the Senate floor because
of the ML affair and then refused to vote for censure causing others
to back off of the censure and actually saving Clinton from being censured.
He appeared to be so super moral.

It is just therory I've heard as to why he was selected for the VP slot.
Aside from that liberman has always had a decent environmental record.

But from the time he made his own presidential bid, I could tell he was
losing it, I mean getting wiggy. Now he's on a total power trip and
crazy to boot. He has us by the short hairs on this one, if we want to maintain
control of the senate we have to put up with him. :angry:

When I think of the Rock Solid Support given to Clinton by Al Gore,
during the scandle, it brings tears to my eyes-
That's the kinda guy I want on my side when the going gets Tough!
:good:

Why does Lieberman spew the right-wing rhetoric? I'll tell you why. It's because Lieberman is all about Lieberman. Whatever will get him into the headlines and onto the talk shows is what he'll do. Unfortunately, we do have to put up with him and placate him for the next two years (unless Reid can persuade Susan Collins to pull a Jeffords.) After that, when we solidify our majority in the Senate (taking Colorado, New Hampshire, and hopefully Minnesota,) Lieberman can rant and rave all he wants and we don't have to give in to any of it.

I HAVE ALWAYS EXPECTED THAT THE NEXT CONVERT FROM THE DARK SIDE
WOULD BE OLYMPIA SNOWE-BUT MAYBE THE "CENTER SISTERS" WILL
COME OVER TOGETHER-I can dream can't I :)

46 Repugs voted today to block Senate debate on the non-binding resolutions against the troop surge. Susan Collins voted with the Dems to have debate. Joe Lieberman voted against. :wtf:

Can a Senator be impeached? He ran as an independent Democrat - CT has every right to ask for a refund. :mad: :mad: :mad:

I'd like for someone to bind him in a resolution of duck tape and throw him into the Potomac!

Amphora, I doubt Olympia Snowe will switch parties. She is married to John McKernan, a Republican former governor of Maine. Olympia's first husband, the late Peter Snowe, was also a Republican politician, a state representative. So, she's a Republican by marriage, and, because of that, I doubt she'd switch.

Collins, on the other hand, would be my top target for switching if I were Harry Reid. As demonstrated by the vote on the surge (as Whybaby mentioned,) she is much more in line with our party than Joe Lieberman is!

Lieberman....I puke. He was given that chairmanship in exchange for votes don't kid yourself. Just more b/s by certain high ranking members of congress. we still have a long ways to go to get a congress that does the PEOPLES business. Just like whats going on right now in the Senate. Is all a bunch of b/s on this Iraq stuff. They have no inclination of doing what we want (the majority)
Snow...she just thinking about her political career which is rocky at this point.

Yes, Mr. Caped , I know that you are right and to add to your argument
she would make an outstanding running mate for anyone of them over there.

On the other hand I know that she schmoozes with very leftist Greek
Officials.
And she is too good to be one of Them!

As opposed as I may be to violence, I could make an exception for liberman
I have the duck tape, whybaby -give me a call.

What the f is going on with that BS artist HAGEL , he voted against his own
resolution. Good luck to him as a shoe salesman! :bad:

:clap: Interesting Info from the Political Insider :laugh:

February 22, 2007
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.

:good: [U]