You don't use a weak reed to prop yourself up or give you any support; chances are that bugger will bend, snap and splinter and cut your hand up like nobody's business.
When the new Democratic majority took power in the Senate in 2006 I (along with many others) expected things to slightly improve. By "slightly improve" I mean that the Senate would insist more on its Constitutional prerogatives and fend off the Bush Regime's more egregious assaults on the rule of law and common decency.
Instead I was treated with the spectacle of watching Harry Reid (D-NV) whimper and roll over faster than a Nevadan hooker at the prospect of scoring some john's gambling winnings by taking it up the ass. On virtually every subject.
Which brings me, mercifully, to the subject of Joseph Lieberman (CT-Quisling).
Instead of actually punishing Lieberman for Party disloyalty or at least giving him a wedgie, the Democratic Senate Caucus is allowing him to sail on virtually unscathed, losing a relatively unimportant subcommittee chairmanship and giving what was probably a facile, insincere apology written for him by a Republican staffer.
It makes me wonder, particularly in light of the win by Anchorage Mayor Begich over incumbent Ted Stevens. That puts the Dems to within two seats of a filibuster-proof 60 seat majority, with the Minnesota and Georgia races still in contention.
If the Democrats can pull 60 seats in without Lieberman caucusing with them, I say cut his ass loose and good riddance. Then throw the pasty-faced wad an anvil when he runs for re-election in 2010.
In the meanwhile, I seriously advocate the Democratic caucus picking someone other than Harry Reid for the majority leadership. I've heard tell that Reid was once a boxer - how the hell did he win (if he ever did)? Conciliate them to death?