To me, that's a far more painful punishment than just cutting him loose. And it does a much better job of serving the Dem majority's purposes.

FDR's response to progressive demands: "I agree. Now go out and make me do it."

the hill reported yesterday that trent lott, ex RATpub sen, now high $ k st. lobbyist, is urging the RATs to `aggressively pursue' Lieberman:

"They should aggressively pursue him," Lott told The Hill, offering advice to his former colleagues in leadership and those close to the former Democrat-turned-Independent.

 Lieberman, who was the Democratic vice presidential nominee in 2000 and still caucuses with Democrats, is in danger of losing his chairmanship of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, his possible punishment for endorsing Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) in this year's presidential race.

...

Conservative activists and commentators have denounced centrist GOP lawmakers such as these as "Republicans in Name Only," or RINOs, and are likely to react similarly to Lieberman.

steve benen offers this opinion on the prospect of him jumping the aisle:

Looking ahead, the caucus almost certainly won't have any incentive to leave Lieberman in the big chair[s] in 2009. First, they'll probably have a much bigger majority. Second, Lieberman has been an awful committee chairman. And third, Lieberman has to realize he'll be punished for his campaign-season conduct.

My guess is, if Lieberman loses his committee[s], he'll feel compelled to spite the party and caucus with the Republicans. I guess we'll see soon enough.

but l really have to agree with kos' take on this one, Listen to Trent, Joe:

...poor Joe has backed himself into a corner. Is he really going to abandon his decades as a liberal on issues such as health care, labor, and choice in order to join a Republican Party that is increasingly intolerant of apostates? He could, and would crush any reelection hopes of 2012. And for what? To be the ranking minority member on some committee? Or, he could be the "maverick" in the GOP caucus, and find that Republicans are far less tolerant of his ridiculous antics than even we were.

Or, he can stay a Democrat, without his plum committee chairmanship, and be relegated to irrelevant backbench status in a majority that won't need him except for issues he's likely to vote with the Democrats anyway (like the aforementioned choice, health care, labor, and so on). Connecticut voters would still get a chance in 2012 to elect someone new who wouldn't be a pariah in the majority party, and one who's ability to deliver for his constituents would be greatly diminished.

It's a delicious lose-lose proposition, isn't it?

If Lieberman wants to send Dems a big "fuck you", his best bet would be to resign his seat and let Republican Jody Rell appoint an interim successor, until a 2010 special election. But I'd be cool with that too, because believe it or not, it's an even more favorable map for our team than 2008 was on paper. So we would be able to bust past 60 seats, while getting rid of Lieberman four years earlier than originally planned.

So make that a lose-lose-lose proposition.

poor ol joe bet his future on the wrong horse, eh.

couldn't happen to a more deserving ass.

the revolution will not be televised...