What Will Happen to Joe Lieberman?  

Well now that the democrats have a big majority it would not surprise me if they dump him. The democrats are mad over him endorsing McCain and going to the Republican convention. The republicans in congress are mad because he votes with the democrats a large majority of the time. Neither side wants him. He is about to be all by himself.

Well frankly, I think it would be a big mistake if the democrats do something that stupid. It would show their commitment to a far left wing mentality and a complete intolerance towards those who won't fall in line and support anything with the letter "D" attached to it.

Frankly, I think the ball's in his court right now and he has a lot of power. He could wait and see what happens, potentially exposing the true motives of the senate democrats, but he could also be a master of his own destiny and choose to leave them based solely on the shoddy treatment he's already endured.

It seems clear that the republicans are more than happy to accept him right now. I think moderates like he and McCain are critical to this nation.

Lieberman has a brain, Harry Reid wants pawns. Lieberman reaches across the aisle, something the criminal Harry Reid pays lip service too, but considers treason against him.

Harry Reid is a two bid thug with an impressive job. He is half of the "leadership" of a Congress with an approval rating in the teens.

Lieberman has outlived his usefulness to the Democrat mafia.

It just goes to show that the dems don't want anybody who doesn't agree with them to be in their "yes" club. I think Joe should leave the dumocratic party, they've obviously thrown him under the bus and they don't care that he called a bunch of them out. Come on over to the GOP Joe, we'd love to have somebody with integrity and a back bone.

First of all, I think the key part of the article you linked to is the last paragraph:

"If Lieberman were to join the Republican conference, however, there’s not much McConnell could offer him. Virtually every ranking position is already spoken for, and Republican senators who have spent years moving up the ranks might not look kindly upon Lieberman leapfrogging them if he switches parties."

That doesn't really give Lieberman much bargaining power, if "power" is what he's looking for. To be honest I'm not sure what he should do or what either party should do. As a Democrat and as a voter who had supported Gore/Lieberman very strongly in 2000 and was admittedly very disappointed and even angry over how that all went down, I was quite stunned at how it seemed Lieberman had "turned" on the party that had made him their V.P. candidate. Maybe a better way to put it would be that I was surprised at how different he'd turned out to be on some issues than what I'd have expected. Therefore, when Lieberman first publicly endorsed John McCain I may have overreacted, including in some posts here, saying immediately the Democrats should "throw him out", etc. Looking back I DO see that may have seemed a bit hypocritical.

However, from what I've been hearing all along and have especially heard in recent days, many Democrats believe he really crossed the line with his speech at the RNC Convention. I'm sure some very partisan Democrats were already angry enough when he spoke out in favor of Bush's war policies, when he seemed to "cozy up" to Bush, when he openly endorsed McCain and started to campaign with and for him and finally when he agreed to speak at their convention; however, some have said and I agree with them and have no reason not to take most of them at their word, if Lieberman had spoken at the RNC Convention in support of McCain WITHOUT being outright derogatory towards Obama that would have been acceptable. They may not have been happy about it but they would have managed to rise above it perhaps. However, many people feel he failed to hold up his end of the bargain. It's one thing to speak FOR a friend and colleague who you sincerely believe has the better qualifications and ideas to lead your country at this time but when you imply that his opponent isn't a true patriot and hasn't always "put his country first", is it any wonder some people found that a bit offensive and, yes, even disloyal?

In all honesty I'm not sure what I'd do if it were up to me. Whatever either the Democratic or Republican leaderships do there are going to be those who aren't happy but the one in the really bad place right now is Joe Lieberman. As someone else here said, he's pretty much alone, the odd man out.
Annie

I'm not really sure. I have not floowed this much. I live in Indiana and have heard a little bit about this but not a whole lot.

I was watching O'Reilly Factor tonite, and it appears that Sen. Leiberman will be keeping his job..at least for the present time. Harry Reid made a good call, as far as I am concerned. Joe Leiberman has contributed much to the US Government, period, and certainly should keep his chairmanship. With the efficiency and honesty of a democratic government based upon a system of checks and balances, it would be a grave mistake for the Democrats to get rid of Joe Lieberman.

In Jerusalem we hope senator Lieberman will be the candidate of the Republican party against Obama in 2012. Or candidate to be vice President.

Former White House candidates Senator John McCain and Joe Lieberman and Sen. Lindsey Graham spoke with Palestinian Authority Chairman Mahmoud Abbas and Prime Minister Salam Fayyad in Ramallah Tuesday as part of a four-day “fact-finding tour.” They are scheduled to meet with Defense Minister Ehud Barak and other Israel leaders on Wednesday, followed by a news conference.

Sen. McCain was the Republican candidate running against Barack Obama two years ago, and Senator Lieberman, now an Independent, was the Democratic vice-presidential candidate in 2000, when Republican George W. Bush won his first term in office.

The senators’ meetings with the PA came several hours before Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu and U.S. President Barack Obama were scheduled to sit down for face-to-face talks at the White House. Fayyad and Abbas have stuck to their demands for PA control over all areas of Jerusalem, as well as all of Judea and Samaria, that were restored to Israel in the 1967 Six-Day War.

All three senators have gone on record as saying that Jerusalem is the unified capital of Israel.

Sen. Graham, the lesser known of the three, is a South Carolina Republican who also is a judge advocate in the Air Force Reserves. The Obama administration considers him to be one of the most bi-partisan senators.

Speaking at an American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) banquet earlier this year, he stated, “Jerusalem is not a settlement. No government in Israel will ever look at Jerusalem as a settlement. No government in the United States should ever look at Jerusalem as a settlement. It is the undivided capital of the State of Israel. It is the eternal home of the Jewish faith. And it is now time to move on to other issues.”

On Iran, he told AIPAC, "Sometimes it is better to go to war than to allow the Holocaust to develop a second time."

What is your opinion?