How'd that endorsement work out?

Lieberman has the Dems over a barrel (4.00 / 1)

Right now as an independent who technically caucuses with the Democrats, it gives the Democrats a majority, a majority in all the committees, and the Chairmainship of each committee, and thus some voice and the abilitity to pursue a direction and an agenda.

It is better than an outright tie and co-chairmanships with the Repubs. 

It is frustrating because Lieberman caucuses with the Democrats and then, I'm told, goes over to the Republicans and tells  them what the Democrats are doing.

We need a Democratic blowout in 2008 and a real filibuster proof majority to make Joe irrelevant.... and maybe in 2010 someone other than Ned Lamont who can carry the moderates and independents in Connecticut.

Barbra Casbar Siperstein 

 

"Discrimination caused by ignorance and fear is a tax on human progress" - Barbra Casbar Siperstein

---

by: Babs NJSD @ Sun Dec 16, 2007 at 22:33:03 PM UTC

Technically... (4.00 / 3)

...we can't throw Lieberman off a committee or strip him of his chairmanship without Republican support.  It takes a resolution of a Senate to change committee membership.  Under normal circumstances, such changes are traditionally accomplished by unanimous consent resolutions, But if Democrats try to eject Lieberman from his committees, Republicans can object.  Democrats would then have to secure 51 votes to kick Lieberman off, and minus Lieberman and the Republicans we only have 50.

Fortunately, this same rule will prevent Republicans from changing committee memberships should Lieberman switch.  Of course they would gain the chair of Homeland Security, because Lieberman sits on that committee, and majorities on the other three of Lieberman's committees, but Democrats would retain the chairs of the other 13 standing committees.

The only thing Democrats can do to punish Lieberman without consent from Republicans is to ban him from their caucus.  I say we should do that.  If we try to force Lieberman's hand, we could lose majorities on four committees and accomplish nothing in the process.

Come next January, when we have a solid majority in the Senate, is when we can take out our revenge.

---

by: Scott Weingart @ Mon Dec 17, 2007 at 00:03:37 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Actually, with Lieberman and Cheney, the GOP would then have 51. As bad as things are do you really want GOP committee chairs??? n/t (0.00 / 0)

---

by: Creed Pogue @ Mon Dec 17, 2007 at 03:06:53 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

There won't be GOP committee chairs (4.00 / 1)

The Senate must agree to a resolution to change committee assignments of members.  Such resolutions are debatable and filibuster-able.  Hence Republicans need 60, not 51.  And on the road to 60, they only have 50 right now.

Unless, of course, they invoke the nuclear option.

---

by: Scott Weingart @ Mon Dec 17, 2007 at 03:30:55 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

I believe you can reorganize the Senate any time you have 51 votes. n/t (0.00 / 0)

---

by: Creed Pogue @ Mon Dec 17, 2007 at 03:53:49 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Apparently, I am mistaken. :-( n/t (0.00 / 0)

http://politicalrealm.blogspot.com/2007/02/lieberman-party-switching.html

So, it is a stalemate.  Can't bounce him off committees, but he really can't give the GOP official control.

I still think the answer is to make the GOP do real filibusters instead of folding at the threat.

---

by: Creed Pogue @ Mon Dec 17, 2007 at 04:01:40 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Hold em, don't fold em (0.00 / 0)

Again we agree, Creed? Congressional Democrats need to stand up and push a lot more and force the Republicans hands. Hmmm, do we then agree on the weakness and poor choice of tactics House Democrats made on jettisoning transgender people in the ENDA fiasco?

Babs

"Discrimination caused by ignorance and fear is a tax on human progress" - Barbra Casbar Siperstein

---

by: Babs NJSD @ Tue Dec 18, 2007 at 00:41:04 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Alas, we do not... (0.00 / 0)

One of two bad outcomes was going to come from the vote on the Baldwin Amendment:  either it was going to fail resulting in a great deal of gnashing of teeth at House Democrats or it was going to pass with the help of mischeivous Republicans who wanted a poison pill and then ENDA itself was going to fail.  Neither would have been a good outcome.  I think the most interesting vote was the last minute attempt by the Republicans to have the bill recommitted so it couldn't come up for a vote again until next year:  all NJ Republicans supported that motion.

---

by: Creed Pogue @ Tue Dec 18, 2007 at 01:18:52 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Oh, I beg to differ ... (4.00 / 1)

Endorsements by New Jersey politicians don't mean too much in Connecticut...

I was in Connecticut with the Lamont primary campaign with a mighty delegation of DFA folks, after the Menendez/Lautenberg endorsements and during the whirlwind pro-Joe visit by Cory Booker. The Lieberman folks pounded those names as evidence of how much big-name Democratic support he had (we had our own big names with us, from elsewhere). 

Cory Booker was particularly demoralizing infuriating. And African-American voters in Bridgeport, where I was, especially took notice that a rising superstar mayor was backing Lieberman. 

It's not a particularly snappy signature, but here's what I think we need in the next NJ Democratic State Chair.  

---

by: Rosi Efthim @ Mon Dec 17, 2007 at 15:27:40 PM UTC

Easiest way to get rid of Joe Lieberman (0.00 / 0)

appoint him ambassador to South Badassistan when a Dem takes the White House in '09.

---

by: Thurman Hart @ Mon Dec 17, 2007 at 17:48:16 PM UTC

good idea (0.00 / 0)

I hear the capital, Reallyreallybad, is stunning in March ...

---

by: denniscmcgrath @ Mon Dec 17, 2007 at 19:10:49 PM UTC

[ Parent ]