But if Lieberman strays off the reservation with an investigation into the Obama administration, will the Dem Caucus really have the stomach to take away his gavel?  I'm not so sure.  

I can't imagine why people think Democrats are wusses.

An apology?  Lieberman spends the better part of a year smearing - and it was smearing - his party's nominee for the presidency, and Senate Democrats are going to let him lead the committee most responsible for investigating issues with the new administration?  Wusses.

Yeah, but will some mealy-mouthed "things were said which I regret" apology really do?  Or must Lieberman truly allocute to the offense?  "It was wrong to suggest that Obama was a Marxist, it was wrong to suggest that he lacked patriotism, etc."  I'm hoping for the latter, because I'll bet that Lieberman doesn't have the stomach for it.

Au contraire, mon blogger ami.  The Onion, as usual, nails it:

www.theonion.com/.../liebermans_overlords_most

I saw the interview on Rachael Maddow last night.  She also went on to explain how Lieberman has outright broken almost every promise he's made since 2006, including his re-election bid.  How can the Democrats trust a single thing he says? And shouldn't there be some consequences for actively campaigning for the other side?  If the Dems don't take some action against him then it shows they don't have the spine to govern the country.

It doesn't matter.  He won't apologize.

Question - If the Dems dumped Lieberman now, could he possibly agree to caucus with the Republicans, thereby throwing them effective control of the Senate (with the Cheney tie-breaker) for the lame duck session?  Could Bush then use that to make some eleventh-hour mischief in the way of legislation and/or judicial appointments?

And if the answer to those questions is yes, might the Senate Dems just be running out the clock?

What exactly are Democrats afraid of? Where Holy Joe caucuses has no meaningful effect on their ability to prevent filibusters. That leaves two possible sources of hesitancy:

1. Personal feelings toward Lieberman.

2. Fear of public backlash.

Regarding the first point, one can only say to Senate Democrats, "Grow a spine." On the second, I think I speak for the citizenry at large when I say, "We don't care." Most adults, I suspect, understand the idea that parties are the teams of politics, and if Derek Jeter batted for the Red Sox in the ALCS, the Yankees would fire his ass. Or at least take away his team captaincy. When a member of your team goes and plays for your opponents in the playoffs, you don't welcome him back to your team with an apology.

Were I a senator, I would see just how far I could push Lieberman. Step one would be his removal from any committee whose members are eligible for classified briefings of any sort. Step two would be to reset his seniority to January 2007, which would affect not only committee standing but also floor seating and office space. It's inexcusable that other Democrats are in line behind Holy Joe for any perks or privileges. If those entirely proportionate measures provoke Lieberman to cross the aisle, then good riddance. If not, then message sent to anyone else who might contemplate trying to bat for both teams.

Also, I would encourage the Connecticut Democratic Party to establish a new bylaw making anyone who has served X terms in the Senate ineligible to receive the party's nomination, with X being the total number Lieberman has already served. Purely as an experiment in term-limits, you understand, to take effect in 2011 and sunset in 2013 unless renewed. Surely there's some DNC funding that could be directed to the CT Dems in exchange for adopting such a measure.

Rhubarbs: If the citizenry at large does not care, why all the vindictiveness to force him out?  The things, we, and the citizenry at large, care about, i.e. the economy, the war, climate change, a better Judiciary, health care reform, etc.   Like it or not, the people of Connecticut, including many Connecticut Democrats, elected him to Washington for 6 years.  Deal with it.  To get things done next year, we need all the votes we can get in the Senate.  Man up and realize we have actual things to get done, he's still technically a Democrat, and without the twin siren songs of McCain his buddy and the blogosphere wounding his ego he'll get back to being the Democrat he is.

PS: As for not getting his party's nomination in 2012: That didn't exactly kill him the last time, did it?  Don't shoot at a bear you can't kill: It just gets him angry, and is sure to ruin your weekend.

If Lieberman meant what he said during the campaign, then he shouldn't apologize for it, and neither should he expect to be a powerful committee chair in the Obama era. Lieberman's guy lost. If McCain really was Lieberman's candidate, and if Lieberman really meant to support McCain--going so far as to proclaim Obama unfit for the presidency--then Lieberman should face the consequences McCain is facing. The other guy won. Don't bother apologizing--you probably meant what you said. But take a seat. If Lieberman's a grown-up, he'll understand that. If not, well, then it's time to grow up.

As a long time Lieberman critic - the only time I have ever voted for the GOP was in 88 when this worm was running against Wiecker - I would love to kick this jerk in his useless nuts and throw him outta my party.

That said, it is more complicated. Obama has come in with promise of bipartisanship and governing in a new way. This may sound like a bunch of vapid bs but really, from what I am hearing in the street, many people really believe this.

Lieberman is a rotten pustule who deserves to be booted. However, making him a martyr is not advisable. Keeping him as the Chair of HS is also not advisable; this weasely bastard would more than likely backchannel info to his GOP friends. I simply would not trust him with this Chair.

I think Bayh has come up with the path of least resistance. Make it a requirement that Lieberman kiss our smelly, victory flushed hienies in full public view, proclaiming that to him, they all smell like roses, and the jerk can stay in the party. If not, boot him.

Fuck Evan Bayh and Joe Lieberman

Two rat fuckers cut from the same traitorous cloth.  We don't need you or your kind anymore scumbags.

Caving already. I guess an omibus package to repeal Bush executive orders and rules changes won't pass. (And to think, such legislation is immune from filibuster in the Senate.) My elation was fleeting and, obviously, unjustified. The GOP will roll the Dems, even when the Dems have firm control of the levers of power. How dishearteining.

What a bunch of whiners! Democrats aren't going keeping Lieberman in the party because they feel sympathy for him. Lieberman has no leverage, but party leaders have to decide whether he's more useful as a token of bipartisanship or as an example to other backstabbers. As jauntyboulevardier posts, that depends on Lieberman's behavior. His promises can probably be trusted; there's little chance of recidivism when the GOP has so little with which to buy Holy Joe. I think we'll have no satisfying revenge against Lieberman this year, not unless he loses his mind and refuses to "kiss the ring."

I'd like to say I appreciate the subtlety of this strategy, but as a friend of mine observed ... "Tossing your cell-mates salad can't be a part of a serious strategy of making him your bitch." so I'm with Aaron and FW on this one.

Joe must go  http://liebermanmustgo.com/

Off with his head.

As the High Executioner in Gilbert & Sullivan's "Mikado" sang: "Let the punishment fit the crime, the punishment fit the crime."  In the interest of bolstering Obama's pledge of bipartisanship, Odious Joe can remain a Democrat, but as punishment for his disloyalty no chairmanship of Homeland Security.  He is welcome to remain as a backbencher.   (And forget the apology --who cares? and who would believe it?)

JackR: I agree with EVERY word. . .