Senator Joe Lieberman, a Connecticut independent, says his disagreement with the Democrats over the Iraq war won't prevent him from working with his former party. For now.``I hope the moment doesn't come that I feel so separated from the caucus'' that he decides to shift allegiance to the Republicans, he said in an interview. Asked what Democratic actions might cause such a break, he invoked Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart's famous 1964 definition of pornography: ``I'll know it when I see it.''
The 65-year-old lawmaker is the margin of difference in the Democrats' 51-49 control of the Senate. A switch to the Republicans, which he won't rule out, would create a 50-50 tie that would allow Vice President Dick Cheney to cast a deciding vote for Republican control.
Lieberman has ``gone from being dispensable to essential for the Democrats,'' said Ross Baker, a political scientist at Rutgers University in New Brunswick, New Jersey.
First things first. The leadership of the senate is already cast in stone until 2008, barring the defection of about 10 Democratic Senators.
Bloomberg News should research the Senate rules before they print cheap copy like that. It is also obvious that Joe Neocon Lieberman doesn't understand how empty his threats really are. Lieberman doesn't get how irrelevant his cheap threats are any more than Fred Lucas at the NewsTimes ever did. So go ahead Joe, take the red walk of shame into obscurity: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.
What is significant about these resolutions is that neither contains any provisions for implementation of a change in the party affiliation of committee chairs or the party make up of each committee even if there is a change in the identity of the party with the numerical majority in the Senate. Taken together, these resolutions appear to lock in Democratic control of the Senate for the entire 110th Congress (2007 and 2008). The reason that they lock in control is that they cannot be changed without further action by the Senate, which would require a filibuster-proof majority of 60 senators who were willing to support a change in party control of the Senate. It is possible that such a filibuster-proof majority could emerge in the event of a shift of a seat from Democratic to Republican hands and a 50-50 deadlock in the Senate (with Cheney the tie-breaker) but it is not likely that the 10 Democratic senators required to produce that 60-vote majority would agree to vote with the Republicans on organizational matters.
Fred Lucas just doesn't get it:
Lieberman said on Meet the Press Sunday he would not rule out caucusing with Republicans under certain circumstances. True, the statement came from some high pressure questioning from Tim Russert, but Lieberman nonetheless left the potential open.
The Economist magazine called him the nation’s most influential senator. Most political analyst say the slim 51-49 Democratic majority, makes Lieberman ultra powerful.
If the Dems irk him and he caucuses with the Republicans, it creates a 50-50 Senate. That would put Vice President Dick Cheney in charge of casting tie breaking votes.
Joe knows how powerful he is, and he’s letting Democrats know he knows how powerful he is.
The only reason The Economist calls him influential is because they know his vote can be bought. Lieberman can bloviate all he wants about crossing the aisle.
LET HIM! I dare him to. I double-dare him to! lol
He can go ahead and do that but a look at the Senate elections in 2008 shows that it would slip Lieberman into obscurity as fast as fast can be.
Does anyone think the "Lieberman For Lieberman" party is going to let its only candidate slip into the abyss of 4 years of irrelavence in the Senate that is in store for any GOP members left after 2008?
And ALSO consider the cold hard reality that Lieberman has been salivating over becoming relevant in a committee for ages. He has that job on the Dem side of the aisle. Do you think the GOP would bump its senior members to make room for Liberman? They are already battling a completely fractured base and don't need Joe to become another HUGE wedge in their already feuding base.
Show a little common sense Fred. Joe can talk until his face turns red BUT he will stay on the blue side of the aisle unless the Democratic party kicks his lobbyist bought'n'paid-for-ass to the curb AGAIN!
And don't be too surprised if the Democratic party does kick him to the curb if wahbaby Joe tries to hold the voter approved Democratic agenda hostage...
Losing the Senate for 2 years ain't no big deal considering it will just make Joe and Republicans the bad guys for maneuvering against the American voters' wishes to take Congress away from the Republican children that broke it.
No matter how you look at it... If Joe goes to the red side he kills his gravytrain and any Republican chances of fixing the right-wing-nuttyness that has broken their party...
Yep... In fact, I triple-dog-dare you Joe... Be a man and walk the fuckin' walk of RED SHAME into obscurity.
If Joe Lieberman walks now, the Senate remains in the control of the Democratic party , and Joe's prospects for his final 4 years in the Senate are dismal by his own "It's all about me!" standards. He talks the talk, but Joe isn't man enough to walk the walk...
No comments:
Post a Comment