Lieberman's Desperate Drive for Attention

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Other Politics
Posted on Mon Mar 19, 2007 at 07:09:10 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

Joe Lieberman desperately grasps for attention and relevance. After urging Dem primary voters to not vote against him just on "one issue," after insisting on his Dem bona fides, after promising that he would caucus with Dems in his independent run, Joe now says he might switch to the GOP.

Why does he do this? Because he is no longer a Faux Dem, he is just Joe Lieberman, Bush and Cheney's best friend, not a very interesting profile. Not much of an attention grabber.

So Joe "wouldn't rule out switching" to the GOP. But understand this, because of the Senate organizing resolution, Joe would be switching to the minority caucus. He ain't doing that.

That he pretends he might demonstrates what a desperate attention seeker he is. And of course, how dishonorable he is. How his word is meaningless.

< Earth to Netroots, Move On, You Are Not Up For Reelection | On Iraq: Feingold vs. Mikulski >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

Lieberman's Desperate Drive for Attention | 28 comments (28 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

Nope. (5.00 / 3) (#2)
by TomStewart on Mon Mar 19, 2007 at 07:56:32 PM EST

He'll never do it. He'd be just another Republican if he switched. his power now lays in the fact he can blackmail Dems over a switch, and the Dems will bend over backward for him, the Repubs won't.

Lieberman Switch Wouldn't Flip Senate (5.00 / 1) (#9)
by Edger on Tue Mar 20, 2007 at 12:41:23 PM EST

hilzoy @ Obsidian Wings had a great post Feb 22 about organizing resolutions:

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.
...
Joe Lieberman: go jump in a lake. The Republicans can have you.

Which Ox? (none / 0) (#1)
by jarober on Mon Mar 19, 2007 at 07:48:08 PM EST

Depends on whose Ox is being gored. Lieberman wobbling on being a Democrat? Bad.

Jeffords doing the same as a Republican? Good

: That's your problem (none / 0) (#7)
by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Mar 20, 2007 at 10:37:20 AM EST

Not mine.
Lieberman lied.
If JEffords lied to YOU, you go be upset.

Hey! He still gets it done as this.... (none / 0) (#3)
by A Citizen on Tue Mar 20, 2007 at 12:05:40 AM EST

...very fine clip shows. Ol' Joey the LiarMann is a person of sagacious judgement.

I do wonder about those CT voters though.
.

Big Tent (none / 0) (#4)
by jimakaPPJ on Tue Mar 20, 2007 at 08:53:06 AM EST

You're whistling past the graveyard. All Lieberman has to do is change and you have lost the Senate.

I would advise that you treat him nice.

Very nice.

Good idea (none / 0) (#5)
by Edger on Tue Mar 20, 2007 at 09:26:17 AM EST

The way to deal with corrupt losers is to suck up to them.

Nothing new here.


An expert (none / 0) (#6)
by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Mar 20, 2007 at 10:36:19 AM EST

on organizing resolutions are you?

Obviously not.Jim speaking with his usual ignorance.


It is potentially possible (5.00 / 1) (#8)
by andgarden on Tue Mar 20, 2007 at 12:12:20 PM EST

to use the nuclear option on an organizing resolution. All Republicans would have to be willing to do it though.


: Nah (none / 0) (#15)
by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Mar 20, 2007 at 02:58:09 PM EST

The Nuclear Option was the CONSTITUTIONAL Option, based on the Senate responsibility for Judicial confirmations.
IT is NOT possible.

BTD - What a rude person you are. (1.00 / 2) (#10)
by jimakaPPJ on Tue Mar 20, 2007 at 01:02:10 PM EST

How many members of each party are there in Congress?
There are 233 Democrats, 201 Republicans, and two Independents in the House of Representatives. In the Senate, there are 50 Democrats and 49 Republicans and one Independent.

Perhaps someone can show me otherwise, but if Lieberman switches to being a Repub the split would be 50-50 with Cheney being the tie breaker. I think that would make the Repubs the majority.


Ha! (5.00 / 1) (#16)
by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Mar 20, 2007 at 02:58:41 PM EST

You calling anyone rude is akin to Move On calling anyone spineless.


: I don't know about MoveOn, but I'm right on. (none / 0) (#25)
by jimakaPPJ on Tue Mar 20, 2007 at 09:40:09 PM EST

Who called who "ignorant?"
Wanna show some insults...?? You show mine and I'll show yours???

Edger (none / 0) (#11)
by jimakaPPJ on Tue Mar 20, 2007 at 01:05:37 PM EST

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.

Interesting.

So what would prevent the Repubs from passing a new resolution?

The filibuster (5.00 / 1) (#12)
by andgarden on Tue Mar 20, 2007 at 01:07:31 PM EST

Which could only be broken by the nuclear option.


Hmmm, good point I guess... (none / 0) (#13)
by jimakaPPJ on Tue Mar 20, 2007 at 01:42:13 PM EST

I just called one of my Senator's officies and no one on his staff had an answer...

I guess the next question is does the fillibuster apply to an organizing resolution, or to legislative bills only??

And would the Demos want to risk one?

My guess is they would have co-chairs and equal party representation, which would be the fair thing to do... Which, I believe was the Demos argument in Jan 2001...


Wrong (none / 0) (#14)
by andgarden on Tue Mar 20, 2007 at 02:36:47 PM EST

there was a special organizing resolution in 2001 because Al Gore was still VP between Jan. 3 and 20. The Democrats could have organized the chamber and frozen out the Republicans.
Organizing resolutions are fillabusterable. This could be gotten around, but only with the nuclear option. Go look it up.

Sorry (none / 0) (#17)
by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Mar 20, 2007 at 02:59:57 PM EST

You're wrong on this.

The Nuclear Option was based on the idea that judicial nominations are DIFFERENT than everythng else.

You are misinformed.


BTD - andgarden, et al (none / 0) (#18)
by jimakaPPJ on Tue Mar 20, 2007 at 03:12:01 PM EST

So to stop it the Demos would have to fillibuster??

Another interesting question would be, what Repubs voted for such a "special" resolution, given the numbers... ?

As for Jan 01, that doesn't make sense. What you are saying is that the outgoing administration gets to organize the incoming Senate???

And if that was true, why didn't the Repubs just do that in this Jan??

All the Repubs would have had to do is oppose the measure until the new members are sworn in...

It will be fun to see what the Senate staffer says when he gets back to me..


No, (none / 0) (#20)
by andgarden on Tue Mar 20, 2007 at 03:14:49 PM EST

The people in the majority when the Senator convenes (that would have been the Democrats in Jan 2001 with 50 + 1) get to organize the chamber.


: I hear, (none / 0) (#26)
by jimakaPPJ on Tue Mar 20, 2007 at 09:43:20 PM EST

it just doesn't make sense that the outgoing Congress can organize the incoming Congress. That would lead to chaos..

I don't think I am (none / 0) (#19)
by andgarden on Tue Mar 20, 2007 at 03:13:09 PM EST

The nuclear option is really just a constitutional point of order. Who determines whether the point of order pertains to the Constituion? The Chair. If he so desired, Cheney could make the decision. The Republicans are free to make a stupid arguement ("it is unconstituional for a minority to control the chamber") and sustain it by majority vote.


I think you are (none / 0) (#21)
by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Mar 20, 2007 at 03:27:18 PM EST

The Nuclear/Constitutional Op tion is a GOP crea tion and it was based on the argument that judicial confirmations are a special Constitutional act of the Senate and thus Senate rules can not overcome this duty.

To wit, filibustering judicial nominations is unconstitutional.

They made the express point that filibusters in ALL other scenarios is NOT unconstituional.

You misunderstand the nuclear option.


What I'm saying (none / 0) (#22)
by andgarden on Tue Mar 20, 2007 at 03:36:57 PM EST

Is that what they argued before doesn't matter. All they have to do is come up with 50 votes plus Cheney on a point of order. They might not be able to do that, but the process is pretty straightforward. As my friend DemocraticLuntz puts it:

Here's the likely effect of Lieberman switching (analogous to the nuclear option):
1. Lieberman announces he will caucus with the Republicans
2. A Republican Senator makes a point of order that the current Senate rules giving control to the minority caucus are unconstitutional.
3. The chair (Dick Cheney) rules that the Senate rules are in fact unconstitutional.
4. A Democratic Senator appeals the ruling of the chair.
5. A Republican Senator makes a motion to table that appeal
6. The motion to table the appeal of the ruling of the chair carries, 51-50, with Dick Cheney casting the tiebreaking vote.
7. Senator McConnell becomes Majority Leader, Senator Lott becomes Majority Whip, Senator Stevens becomes President Pro Tempore, etc.

Well (5.00 / 1) (#23)
by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Mar 20, 2007 at 03:40:05 PM EST

Anything is possible. I do not think it is likely, even remotely so.


: I wouldn't put anything past McConnell n/t (none / 0) (#24)
by andgarden on Tue Mar 20, 2007 at 03:45:56 PM EST

Question (none / 0) (#27)
by jimakaPPJ on Tue Mar 20, 2007 at 09:44:58 PM EST

Can you show me where the fillibuster is in the Constitution??


: It isn't (5.00 / 1) (#28)
by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Mar 20, 2007 at 10:08:33 PM EST

None of the Senate rules are.
Do you have a point?