Why we should all hope Lieberman becomes a Republican

[retyred]

Why we should all hope Joe Lieberman becomes a Republican
http://www.workingforchange.com/blog/index.cfm?mode=entry&entry=EB66CD99-E0C3-F090-A1D2679A51EFDABB

So, to sum up: I hope Lieberman switches because A) it would be advantageous for Democrats in the long-term B) it wouldn't hurt Democrats or progressives in the short-term, if Senate Democrats developed the spine to filibuster horrible nominees (admittedly an "if") and C) while he already is politically irrelevant in terms of actual power, Lieberman's switch would, finally, make him widely perceived as irrelevant, meaning that he would cease to have any effect on the national debate.

[Fresh_Start]

1. You forgot to mention that than the GOP

would be saddled with the burden of Lieberman. Cause there's no way Lieberman would go quietly into the fold of GOP politics either.

[MethuenProgressive]

2. "becomes"?

little late there...

[Viva_La_Revolution]

3. Have I mentioned lately

that he turns my stomach... just like the Shrub and Cheney do....

[ChairmanAgnostic]

14. no, but I really look forward to seeing you do that.

let us know when you will post something along those lines.

[Name removed]

4. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Colobo]

6. That's a bit too extreme

[napi21]

5. NO! Your wrong! It WOUld hurt Dems in the short term!!!!

All those scheduled hearings...GONE!

All the unanswered questios...NEVER WILL BE ASKED!

All the Committee Chairs would be replaced by Pubs!

And YOU don't think that would hurt the Dems????????

[More Than A Feeling]

9. Actually, he's right, it wouldn't

The organizing resolution of the senate this session has no provision for switching control if the numbers change UNLIKE the one that allowed the chamber to switch when Jeffords defected (it was negotiated by the Dems in return for giving the GOP control of the senate while Gore was still VP, IIRC. Or something like that. The point is, two different types of resolutions.)

[HappyWeasel]

10. Actually, we wouldn't lose the committee chairs...

...but Lieberman could still protect us from having John Ashcroft put on the Supreme Court. Still though, if we get Udall, Franken, (Collins or Allen...her choice) on our side in the senate, we should basically kick Lieberman and Ben Nelson out of the party.

[retyred]

11. not true

Democrats control the House, and as we've seen on the Iraq debate, a narrow majority in the Senate effectively stops that institution from doing anything. Thus, we have basic gridlock right now. Additionally, most believe that President Bush will veto any good legislation that manages to get out of Congress right now - meaning this gridlock is extra-guaranteed by the White House. Throwing the Senate to the Republicans by one vote (which, by the way, a Lieberman switch would not necessarily accomplish, thanks to gray areas in Senate rules) wouldn't change this gridlocked situation at all. Democrats would still have the House and filibuster-ready Senators to stop anything awful from getting to Bush's desk. Meanwhile, Democrats would still have investigatory/oversight power from their House chairmen.

[HappyWeasel]

13. and I guess we could get Cheney tied up with investigations SO HE CANT VOTE IN THE SENATE

[napi21]

18. Are you folks really sure about that Committee Control?

Absolutely EVERYTHING I've read and heard said the opposite until you posted this tonight. IF what you say is right, why have the Dems been pussyfooting around Lieberman since Nov? I don't want to fight with you, but I can't believe what you're saying about retaining the committee chairs without some proof. Even all the "news" channels have been saying if Jow switches it would turn control of the Senate over to the Pubs because of Cheney!

[Hippo_Tron]

25. If we only have the House, we will have fewer investigations

If we control both the House and the Senate we control more committees and therefore we can do more investigations.

[AtomicKitten]

7. it would tip the balance of the Senate to the GOP

... which cannot be perceived as a "good thing" any way you look at it.

[Fresh_Start]

12. I understand why you say that

but given the lack of maneuvering room in the Senate, we can't assume that we can get any legislation passed it.

So better if the burden of obstruction falls on the shoulders of the GOP. Nancy can keep pushing the house. We'll get most of the hearings done in the house. The house can be responsive to the populace and the GOP can take the hit for failing to respond to the people.

Its not that big a loss especially since AG is bypassing the consent process anyway.

[AtomicKitten]

15. it would also alter and diminish the bragging rights of the Democrats

having won the Senate back last year. On the up side, I read somewhere that Olympia Snowe said if that happened, she would consider switching parties to honor the will of the voters in the 2006 election. I have also caught wind of rumors that CT voters may try to recall him. Lieberman is an epic douchebag that is reveling in his position of control. Ugh.

[Fresh_Start]

16. Its my understanding that there is no recall process available

its not a state office subject to state constitution. Its a federal office and the US Constitution has no provision for recall. Sounds like an amendment whose time has come.

[Fresh_Start]

17. Lieberman didn't win as a democrat

it doesn't effect the bragging rights from the election. Lamont would have had to win for and then changed for it to be a bragging rights issue.

As a native nutmegger since transplanted, I cannot believe the willingness of CT voters to overlook Liebermans many faults.

[AtomicKitten]

19. good point

Lieberman didn't win as a democrat

But unfortunately Dems would lose control nonetheless.

Connecticut was aided and abetted by the GOP in a big way in re-electing Lieberman, and quite frankly I think what we are seeing now is payback from that little toad to the GOP for their help.

[JanusAscending]

20. For the "umpteenth time"

There is no power of recall of US Senators in Ct.! So we are screwed unless he does something worthy of impeachment!

[AtomicKitten]

22. relax

... and thanks for the information.

And I believe the term is "screwn." :)

[HappyWeasel]

21. or maybe both snowe and collins...

Collins could be in trouble if she doesn't switch. So we could get two seats if we lose lieberman. So, the conservatives would have to win both seats of ours that are in trouble, win a third term in an open primary (first time since the Gilded Age (if you consider the Gilded age everthing between Appomattix and Black Monday)) to take the senate. If they can do this, we are pretty much history (Which we are not).

[Pushed To The Left]

27. Good for Snowe! I hadn't heard about that. n/t

[proReality]

8. You forget that if he does switch parties...

Cheney will once again be breaking any tie votes...we have one Dem unable to vote because he's recuperating. So pray that if he does switch at least one of the moderate Repubs will go Independent and vote with the Dems.

[Greeby]

23. Lieberworm is a cancer on the Democratic Party

That needs to be cut out

[Lasher]

24. I am just astonished

I'm amazed that you are even trying to argue that losing control of the Senate would be a good or even neutral thing. It's incredible that there are actually people who are agreeing with you.

[fuzzyball]

26. The way senate works you need 60 seats to have control

otherwise the filibuster can stop just about any legislation.

[Pushed To The Left]

28. Just imagine if we got 60 seats in 2008!

I heard that there are way more Republican seats up for grabs than Democratic seats, so it could happen!

[elizm]

29. Unless Rove...

...gets the math right this time.

[Lasher]

32. I don't think the issue is laid out very well in this thread.

It is true to say that it takes 60 votes to invoke cloture so that debate will be ended and measures can come up for a simple majority vote. I believe Senate Republicans will heavily exploit this rule over the next 2 years to block legislation. Considering the measures that have been approved in the Senate over the past 6 years, it is not realistic to assume that Democrats would do the same with as much enthusiasm if they once more found themselves in the minority. So it is not realistic to assert that Democratic filibusters can be counted on to block bad legislation in the Senate.

Even with this relative gridlock, a great deal of power is enjoyed by the majority party in the Senate. The majority controls the committees and their investigative power, and also sets the agenda. But unlike other times in this decade, this power might not shift in favor of Republicans if they regain the majority.

As The Washington Post reported on January 5, Republicans would not be able to automatically reorganize the Senate if Sen. Tim Johnson (D-SD) were replaced with a Republican, effectively the same scenario as Lieberman caucusing with the Republicans:

Republican leaders decided not to seek special language spelling out the terms of a transition in case of a power shift -- say, if Johnson vacates his post and his state's GOP governor appoints a Republican to replace him. Under that scenario, power would effectively shift to Republicans, because Cheney would provide the tiebreaking 51st vote. But for Republicans to take parliamentary control, the Senate would have to vote for new organizational rules, a move Democrats could filibuster.

A similar scenario unfolded in January 2001, when a 50-50 Senate convened. In 2001, Democrats demanded a "kick-out clause" in organizing negotiations that would automatically scrap agreements on committee ratios and funding levels and force new organizational rules. But Republicans decided this month against a confrontation that would come from demanding a similar clause.

"Nobody over here talked about that at all," said Don Stewart, spokesman for McConnell.

http://mediamatters.org/items/200702240001

This point is well taken, but it is not certain that Democrats would prevail. For example, Republicans were ready to employ their 'nuclear option' to override the cloture rule, in order to get their SCOTUS candidate confirmed. You should ask yourself if they would be willing to do the same to regain control of the Senate with Cheney breaking a simple 50-50 tie vote in their favor.

We might not have a choice, but if we do it's just not worth the risk.

[cali]

30. Wrong. Wrong and Wrong.

It could easily be BAD for the dems in the long run. How do you think the MSM would portray it? Hmm. Try this: The dems have become so liberal and extreme that Joe was forced to leave the party. Would the broad majority of Americans fall for it? Yeah. Filibustering judicial nominees is not popular with the public. That hurts them too. It's far fucking better to have dems control that process. Do you really want to see Inhofe as chair of the environmental Committee. Bye-bye Barbara Boxer.

We're already set to make gains in the Senate in 08. They have 21 seats up, we have 12. And boy, do they have some vulnerable seats: Colorado and Oregon come to mind.

I didn't click on the link, but this sounds like Sirota's idiot reasoning.

And oh yeah, there's no guarantee that Lieberman as a repuke would become irrelevant. That's up to the MSM. Do you really trust them?

[LeftishBrit]

31. I would advise not giving the senate back to Cheney!

If the Dems increase their majority in 2 years, and especially if there is a Dem president by then, then it doesn't matter what Lieberman does after that.

I wouldn't recommend that the Dems vote for the war just to prevent Lieberman from switching parties - and I don't think he will; I think he's just huffing and puffing and looking for attention. But I wouldn't recommend that he be positively encouraged to switch either.

Not really my business, except insofar as it's better for the whole world when Bush and Satan-Cheney have an opposition.