I suppose that if I, too, adopted the attitude that I am right and Professor Green is wrong, then I, too, would come across as an arrogant prick. Seeking to avoid that label, I’ll just say we agree to disagree, and leave it at that.

Steve, I didn’t expect you to shy away from your previous comments. That doesn’t make them any more correct, but good for you for sticking with them.

Dave and Shecky, I would like to put Lieberman on a two-inch-wide raft in the middle of the Atlantic with a bunch of sharks around him, but I fear that the sharks would avoid him on the grounds that he would leave a bad aftertaste.

I had assumed that Reid let Lieberman (who is done in 2012), keep his chairmanship with the caveat that, “someday, and that day may never come, I will ask a favor of you….”

or that he told Joe, “Don’t ever take sides against the family.”

If Lieberman holds up cloture, he is a dead man walking (politically), and will be stripped of his charimanship.

Lieberman is a Democrat in name only. Virtually every vote he’s cast has been with the Repubs. If there was ever a mole in the Senate, it’s Lieberman. Throw the rat-bastard out and let him rot!

I don’t shy away from my comments that directly blamed Reid for not removing Lieberman, and I still believe Reid should not have listened to Obama. (Reid runs the Senate, not the president, as you know.)

Reid would not have faced criticism from progressives for removing Lieberman. Quite the opposite. And I knew when I called for Lieberman’s disfellowshipping that Democrats would lose a vote toward cloture. But I didn’t care (perhaps that’s ill-informced?) because I knew that Lieberman’s vote was never there to begin with.

Yes, I believe that comment followed more than a month of ill-informed comments that either blamed Reid for not removing Lieberman or claimed that he shouldn’t listen to Obama, who, after all, is a figure of minor importance.

To repeat: I do not disagree with you. I wanted him stripped of the chairmanship. I still want it done. But if Reid had done that at the time Obama asked him not to, I have the funny feeling that Reid would be facing the same amount of criticism.

Oh, really, Dr. Green? Perhaps you’ve forgotten about this story, in which Sen. Harry Reid declared he did not work for Obama. It seems the good senator wanted to let the president know that he’d run the Senate the way he wanted to run the Senate, thank you very much.

Obama and Reid anticipated that being kind of Lieberman — and bowing to Lieberman’s outrageous demand that he keep his chairmanship lest he go join the Republicans — would keep him in their camp. Of course they miscalculated Lieberman’s penchant for treachery. I will repeat myself: What is the point of having the son of a bitch in the caucus if he’s constantly undermining the caucus? And who cares who wants him to stay if he’s only going to screw over his fellow caucus members?

Reid should have gotten rid of him long ago. Now’s the time, if ever there was one.

Rather than simply repeating myself, I link to this story:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/11/10/obama-wants-lieberman-to_n_142731.html

I don’t like Lieberman either. If I were Harry Reid, I wouldn’t have let Lieberman keep the chairmanship–until the newly elected president from my party publicly said he felt otherwise. That is what Reid did.