Here- 2 sources that say Lieberman agreed to vote w/ Dems on procedural matters to keep his status

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Lieberman

Following the election, Lieberman struck a deal with Democratic leadership allowing him to keep his seniority and chairmanship of the Governmental Affairs Committee. In return, he agreed to vote with the Democrats on all procedural matters unless he asked permission of Majority Whip Richard Durbin.
*************************************************************************************************************************************
http://www.amconmag.com/article/2008/jun/16/00006/
Lieberman’s Revenge PDF
If the Connecticut hawk can’t convert the Democrats, he’ll take them down.
By Michael Brendan Dougherty

skip

Even after losing the 2006 Senate Democratic primary to the antiwar Ned Lamont, Lieberman promised to remain faithful to his party. He announced that he would caucus with the Democrats and stand with them on procedural votes if elected, though he owed his seat to the GOP: 70 percent of Connecticut Republicans cast their ballots for Lieberman, compared to only 33 percent of Democrats. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid allowed him to keep his seniority and his committee positions. And Lieberman told colleagues that he wished to see a Democrat elected president in 2008.

Ok, I know one is wikipedia and the other I found thru Googling because I had a vague recollection of this. Can't trust Joe for shit. I would say his recent pronouncements appear to violate this deal.

[ClassWarrior]

1. Good find. Let's get this to the Senate.

NGU.

[Clio the Leo]

2. And this is what Durbin was saying Monday.....

.... which seems to be hinting at what Lieberman did Tuesday.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/26/durbin-progressives-force_n_334438.html

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

4. The wiki article in the OP says specifically he has to ask Durbin's permission

to screw up any procedural vote. I want to know if Durbin gave him permission to go rogue and if so, why?

By the way, I'm not seeing any hint of Lieberman's action in the Huffington Post article you posted. What am I missing?

[tsuki]

7. I'm calling today to find out. nt

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

8. Great! Let us know when you find the answer please. nt

[krispos42]

3. Less astrrcks would make this easier to read

The long line of astricks forces the web page to be a fair bit wider than my screen.



Good find, though. K&R

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

5. sorry, it was late - I didn't even notice I messed up the margins, sorry. nt

[krispos42]

13. Just for future reference...

:-)

[Jennicut]

6. Obviously Lieberman is worried about losing Repub support in CT

He won because of them and it does not surprise me. As a liberal, I voted for Lamont and my conservative parents and their conservative friends voted for Joe.
He is a total complete liar and will do anything to get elected. He makes Specter look like a saint as far as being a chameleon.

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

9. I seriously doubt he will run again. His situation is just too weird

That's why I buy the speculation that he's doing this to maneuver for something like an ambassadorship. He's screwed with Democrats after campaigning for McCain. I guess he could become an official Republican - fine with me if they'll have him. He can't run on the Connecticut for Lieberman ticket since he was tossed out of his own vanity party in a coup(!) so he would have to start up a whole new independent Party- my suggestion is the Lieberman for Lieberman Party.

On thinking it over, his best opportunity is to run as a Republican. Maybe he is moving his stratego piece into position.

[SergeStorms]

12. I think you're right............

and I believe he's ALREADY made a deal for his "retirement", and part of that deal includes his constant dumbfuckery and obstructionism since his "re-election". :grr:

[LiberalFighter]

10. Talking Point:

He announced that he would caucus with the Democrats and stand with them on procedural votes if elected, though he owed his seat to the GOP: 70 percent of Connecticut Republicans cast their ballots for Lieberman, compared to only 33 percent of Democrats.

He may owe his seat to the GOP but he owes his committee positions to the Democrats.

Whoever wrote the Wicki wasn't being true to the facts.

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

11. You're quoting from the second article and not the Wiki

the wiki entry says-

"Following the election, Lieberman struck a deal with Democratic leadership allowing him to keep his seniority and chairmanship of the Governmental Affairs Committee. In return, he agreed to vote with the Democrats on all procedural matters unless he asked permission of Majority Whip Richard Durbin."
*************************************************************************

He definitely owes his committee positions to the Dems - there's just no debate about that- that is a fact and that is what the Wiki says. Now, the second article makes a great point, that he was in fact elected by Republicans and owes them bigtime. I think that fact gets lost in the shuffle when people try to decipher his actions. It is a good reason that the Dems should not have honored his seniority and committee positions in the first place. He ran as an independent after being rejected by Conn. Dems and then was voted in by Republicans. The whole point is keeping him in the Dem caucus was expediency and I guess this deal that was cut that he would go with the flow on procedural issues. Except, surprise, surprise, he isn't. So he is of no real use to Democrats AT ALL. My God, he campaigned for John McCain and the Dems STILL kept him!

No wonder the Dems have absolutely no organization. There is zilch moral hazard or consequence for their actions by their Party Leaders.

[LiberalFighter]

15. I stand corrected. The article was written by Michael Brendan Dougherty

Naturally they can't put all the pieces together.

[IndianaGreen]

14. And some LGBT DUers thought they could count on Holy Joe on DADT

I am still laughing about that one!

[Honeycombe8]

16. Unless and until LIEberman states that publicly, we can only go by what he has stated

publicly: he will go along with the Republicans in filibustering.