Lieberman Switch Wouldn't Flip Senate

[RiverStone]

My apologies if this is a repost (did search). I'd really like to think that my rage against Loserman can chill for a while - or even better, this means he is almost not relevant anymore. :)

* * * * * *

Political Insider
2/22/07

With Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT) publicly stating he'd consider becoming a Republican if Democrats block new funding for the Iraq War, many Democrats worry that control of the Senate hangs in the balance. However, their fears are unfounded. Many think back to 2001 when former Sen. Jim Jeffords (I-VT) began caucusing with Democrats instead of Republicans, taking control of the Senate out of GOP hands. However, the two situations - though outwardly similar - contain one important difference.

If Lieberman were to caucus with the Republicans, they would still not take full control of the Senate, despite Vice President Dick Cheney's ability to break 50-50 ties. This is because of a little-known Senate organizing resolution, passed in January, which gives Democrats control of the Senate and committee chairmanships until the beginning of the 111th Congress.

complete story:

http://politicalinsider.com/2007/02/liebermans_switch_wouldnt_flip.html

[napi21]

1. Well, SOMBODY better tell all the"reporters" on TV!

I know I've heard everyone of them state if Joe switched it would turn over control of the Senate!

[Strawman]

2. That's good to know at least

Timmy was telling Carl Levin that he would lose his chairmanship if Lieberman switched on MTP this weekend.

I didn't know this either.

[RiverStone]

6. Any DUer wise to Senatorial procedure verify this?

This is because of a little-known Senate organizing resolution, passed in January...

This is just one source. I'd really like to believe this story is accurate. Not all we read is as we wish however. Can any DUer in the know about Senatorial procedure verify this as accurate?

Thanks in advance!




peace
:)

[cui bono]

17. Yes please... need help understanding this control resolution thingy. nt

[Strawman]

18. I saw this on Kos and Media Matters as well

It looks credible.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/1/18/211259/764

[RiverStone]

19. looking better - thanks

Appreciate it Strawman.

So the Senate passed a resolution on January 12 (S.Res. 27) which in essence says the membership of each standing committee in the Senate appears to be fixed for the duration of this (110th) Congress.

Looks like we are good for a year!

Then I wonder why the MSM has made so much ado about Lieberman's potential switch?

Answer: Because if the corporate driven media can sell fear, they can control the outcome. It all gets back to our elected DEMS doing the work that We The People elected them to with a compelling voice last November--- end the funding for an escalation! I'm beginning to get a little restless around what I see as rather wimpy attempts by DEM leadership to apply some BINDING checks and balances to the executive branch.

Clarifying that Lieberman's threats of a tantrum are empty should help to move authorization to end funding for this damn war right along - or one would hope anyway!

[Strawman]

20. I also emailed my Congress prof about this

I'm still wondering if the Republicans could try the nuclear option, or some other parliamentary tactic, or just try shutting down the Senate by refusing to give unanimous consent in order to force a rules change vote in the event of a 50-50 split with Cheney presiding.

[fooj]

26. I've read up on it, too.

Seems legit. I posted the link the other day...

I'm glad word is spreading. Wouldn't it be nice to have a definitive answer on this?

I can't wait to show that rat bastard the door.

[ComerPerro]

hell, dems don't even have control of the Senate now

we can't pass any meaningful legislation because every time we try, the Republicans shut things down. Yes, the same party that bitched about fillibustering radical extremists judicial nominees. And just to remind everyone, when the Dems caved in and allowed Bush to force his judges through, what exactly did we gain? Nothing?

[kath]

5. Ahhh, yes, we did gain something. The powder remained dry.

This was crucial, don'cha know?

[fooj]

3. Doesn't Reid KNOW this?

You certainly think that he would. I just don't understand how the rat bastard (LIEberman)is still allowed to pull the crap that he does...

[Lone_Star_Dem]

4. For that matter does Lieberman know this?

He sure isn't acting as if he does.

[The Count]

10. He might have found out which is why he reconsidered.

[Lone_Star_Dem]

13. I can just imagine the look on his face if that were the case

It would also explain why he called himself a "true Independent," He just found out he's all alone.

[JI7]

31. i think it was because Democrats are likely to gain more seats in 2008

and wouldn't need his vote at the time. so if he were to switch now and help the Republicans any gains and power they give him would last less than 2 years.

[tblue]

11. Well, let's just tell Joely Ho just incase he doesn't ! [phone]

[WI_DEM]

7. I'm not sure this would be the case

i think if a member dies or jumps to another party it would bring the GOP control due to Cheney's vote. What might be questioned is will the Dems and GOP share control the way they did after Jefford's jumped ship?

[fooj]

34. Here's the info...

http://mediamatters.org/items/200702240001

I think we've been duped. I can't imagine that our Democratic Leadership didn't KNOW this. This is a bizarre turn of events.

[redqueen]

8. That's it, then. Cut the funding!

Pouring more blood or money out over Iraq will not help. Just cause a few hawks say it is so doesn't make it so. They want us out, they have said so, let's abide by their wishes, for the good of all parties involved. (Well, except Halliburton, Blackwater, etc.)

[dogday]

9. Happy to send this to the greatest

that is what I have been saying... He was always a republikan in Democrat's clothing. I am glad for one he can't claim the party any more... His stupid remarks can't be associated with this party any more....

[wuushew]

12. Does any one have a map of Senate seats up in 2008?

If we stand to pick up seats in 2008, then Lieberman should be privately encouraged to leave the party.

[Jim Lane]

28. The breakdown of the 2008 Senate elections

Here's a state-by-state summary: http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2007/Senate/senate_races.html

Of the 33 seats where incumbents' terms will end, 21 are held by Republicans and only 12 by Democrats. Of course, most of the incumbents are favored to win re-election. The linked site gives information about each party's top pickup opportunities.

[madfloridian]

14. Ok, I posted this in a thread...someone said debunked but never got back to me.

I saw it posted at other blogs, which referred to it. I still don't know, but it sounds good.

I'm with Sirota...let Lieberman switch and let the Republicans get the blame...

The person never got back to me, and I can't find anything else about it.

[Catamount]

15. Whoppee! If it's really true!

K&R

[AnnInLa]

16. Minority Leader, Mitch McConnell disagrees with you

In a post I made last week here, McConnell had a conference call with some RW bloggers, and they discussed the possibility of Lieberman switching parties. McConnell said Lieberman would never do it, but if he did, then the Republics would take over the Senate...whole ball of wax. I wish we could get a definitive answer from Reid or someone like that.

[Bucky]

24. McConnell is right. It would absurd to try and override majority rule

It was evil when the Supremes did it in 2000 and it would be equally bad for our side to try the same stunt.

[tritsofme]

21. Even in the case of Lieberman jumping ship, Reid can remain Majority Leader

and Dems can retain committee chairmanships.

A new organzing resolution would have to be filed, and Democrats could filibuster it.

Might seem like a "nuclear option" but Lieberman made a promise and Reid should see to it that he abides by it.

[Bucky]

22. I'm not convinced. The Senate switched control 3-4 times in 1953-54 w/o such a resolution

The wording on the resolution was a nice touch on the Democrats' part back in 2001, but that compromise was hammered out because they knew beforehand that the deciding vote would switch hands on January 21st. I don't think they need that organizing resolution in order to follow the rules about majority control of the floor. While 2001 was a special case, 2007 is not. It's just a closely divided Senate and is subject to sudden switches based on majority rule.

This is a nice theory, and maybe Harry Reid will try this as a last ditch plan B if Lieberman bails. But I'm certain it won't work. It would be an anti-democratic blunder and public relations nightmare. Either you approve of this scenario or you approve of democracy. You can believe in both.

[matcom]

23. I don't buy it.

I'd LIKE to but I can't.

[Bucky]

29. You're right to be skeptical. There's no reason to believe that one blog post is authoritative

The reality is that majority control is a guiding principle of Congress. If the two caucuses reach parity, ruling the floor will be decided by the presiding officer. A 50-50 senate, no matter when it occurs, means Cheney will pick the floor leader. If Lieberman hops sides, control of the Senate goes with him.

The fact that Reid didn't introduce an organizing resolution (if that's even true) back in January means nothing. History is quite clear: the 83rd Senate switched control twice during its 1954 session due to deaths and replacements. When party balance shifts mid-session, so does control of the floor business.

Remember also when Tim Johnson fell ill earlier this winter. The concern was that the Republicans would take over when his seat flipped. It's the same procedure as if Lieberman were to switch caucuses. People saying otherwise are talking out of their asses.

[Lasher]

30. No, that's not right Bucky

Senate party balance in the 83rd Congress (1953-55) changed but control did not.

When the Senate convened on Jan. 3, 1953, the GOP was in charge 48 to 47, plus one former Republican, Sen. Wayne L. Morse-- an independent so independent that he moved his seat to the Senate aisle and would not vote with the Democrats to organize.

By Aug. 3 of that year, when the first session adjourned, three members -- including Majority Leader Robert A. Taft (R-Ohio) -- had died. When the next session began in January 1954, the Democrats had become the majority, 48-47-1, but they did not assume control. At one point during that session, as various members died, the D's even had a two-vote lead, but they never challenged Republican control of the body. The Senate adjourned Aug. 20 back where it had started, with the GOP holding a one-vote majority.

So why didn't the Democrats take over? For one thing, seems the "minority" leader, Sen. Lyndon Baines Johnson (D-Tex.), didn't particularly want to. He preferred to have the Republicans deal with Sen. Joseph McCarthy (R-Wis.), according to Senate associate historian Donald A. Ritchie.

It was an ugly time at the Senate. Sen. Lester Hunt (D-Wyo.) committed suicide, shooting himself in his office in the Old Senate Office Building on June 19, 1954. McCarthyites were after Hunt, who strongly opposed McCarthy, and they threatened to reveal that Hunt's son had been arrested the year before, accused of soliciting a male undercover police officer in Lafayette Square. The McCarthyites wanted Hunt to announce he would not run again. He did so, then killed himself.

More important, there was "no way the Democrats could have claimed a majority," Ritchie said, "because the Republicans could have blocked them" with a filibuster, and in the Senate, most everything can be filibustered -- even by the minority.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/14/AR2006121401571.html

However, you have to ask yourself if this bunch of Senate Publicans would try to use the nuclear option to regain control. They were ready to do just that to get their SCOTUS nominee confirmed, so I think they would.

The Nuclear option is a parliamentary ruling by the presiding officer of the Senate to end debate and hold an immediate vote on a matter under consideration. The President of the Senate (AKA the Vice President) is the presiding officer. In his absence that authority falls to the President pro Tempore, who normally designates a junior Senator of his party to preside.

Although Senator Byrd is the President pro Tempore, I do believe Cheney could take over as presiding officer to trigger the nuclear option, switching control to Publicans. I'm not going to stop worrying just yet about Lieberman flipping control of the Senate by defecting to the GOP.

[RiverStone]

32. Looks like this thread's gone full circle....

Then what of this?

From KOS:

There has been some confusion and uncertainty as to whether Joe Lieberman has the power to flip control of the Senate to the Republicans. I come bearing good news!! As of this past Friday (January 12), it appears that Lieberman is powerless to effect party control of the 110th Congress.

This is due to the fact that the Senate passed a resolution on January 12 (S.Res. 27) that designates various Democrats by name as committee chairs and specifies the Democratic members of each committee. The Senate also passed a similar resolution (S. Res. 28) the same day that names various Republicans as the ranking minority members of each committee and specifies the Republican members of each committee. Based on these two resolutions, the membership of each standing committee in the Senate appears to be fixed for the duration of this Congress. Further, it includes one more Democratic member than it does Republican members in each case, thereby providing Democrats with control of the committee system and the flow of legislation in the Senate.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/1/18/211259/764

* * *

Lasher, it seems like you have a good understanding of the nuances which dictate Senatorial decisions. :applause:

Now after a day of comments, this thread has yet to provide a definitive answer to the Lieberman question? Would his switch change our DEM majority rule? It seems to be an easy question - though not an easy answer.

I wonder where we could find that?

[Lasher]

36. That Daily Kos thread is mighty fine, RiverStone

I've been reading through all the responses but I'm getting sleepy and will finish the rest after I get some shuteye. So far the contributions there confirm my belief - Organization of this Senate is for the duration of 2 years, but Publicans might invoke the nuclear option to change it to regain control.

But as you ask, would they? I don't think that is anything that we can predict for certain but I've got an open mind on the subject. Maybe I'll put up an OP tomorrow (I mean today, it's 3 AM) after I finish absorbing the wisdom from that Kos thread.

Thanks for the kind words of encouragement. Wasn't nothin'. :blush:

[Strawman]

25. It makes me wonder how much longer the filibuster can survive

with a polarized, relatively evenly split country. Some majority is going to want power now and the filibuster is going to be gone someday because it got in the way. We almost had the "nuclear option" last session.

And it might not be the worst thing ever even if it leads to a temporary setback. Given the fact that in 2008 we're likely to be in year 5 of an unpopular war and now possibly a recession in the wake of a supposed "recovery" that trickled down to almost nobody, any move by a 50 + Cheney Republican Senate majority to undermine the power of filibuster might come back to bite them in the ass big time in 2 years if we recapture a Senate majority, hold or expand our House majority and take the White House in 2008. George W. Bush's party would be wise to prepare for some time in the wilderness after 2008. They'll need the filibuster then.

Part of me likes the filibuster because the Senate naturally skews conservative and it gives too much power to small, more conservative states. But, on the other hand, all in all, I think the filibuster has probably screwed progressive reform alot more than it has stalled reactionary policies or deterred bad conservative judicial appointments. It's kind of ironic that if anyone eventually kills it I expect it to be power-hungry Republicans for some immediate benefit like this or a SCOTUS appointment. Then, when we Dems have the majority, the filibuster won't be there for the Repugs to stop some of the social benefits we've wanted to deliver for decades. And if we do get those benefits passed, it will be hard for them to take them away once they are in place.

So flip Joe Lieberman and go nuclear on our rule change filibuster, assholes. I dare ya.

[robinlynne]

27. I am glad to hear that, but on the other hand, I do not approve of backseat

deals, such as this one, which change power. I do not think the senate has the right to change the rules about how these things work. (If you read the story, you will see that it was a backdooor deal made by the dems and republicans. )

[brooklynite]

33. I don't believe the Senate can bind itself going forward...

There's no reason a new organizing resolution can't be brought up to succeed the old one.

[in_cog_ni_to]

35. GOOD! Kick his ass to the curb. Let him go slummin' with repukes!

The Dems need to call his bluff and shut his ass up. Let him go. He'll lose his all-important committee chairmanship. He'll never give that up.

Someone might like to remind him that the Dems are going to win BIG in '08 and he'll be a member of the MINORITY PARTY for a long, long time.