From Taegan Goddard's Political Wire:
Lieberman Switch Wouldn't Flip Senate
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.
What's the difference between now and 2001? A small but important distinction. When the 107th Congress was convened on January 3, 2001, Al Gore was still the Vice President and would be for another two-and-a-half weeks. Therefore, because of the Senate's 50-50 tie, Democrats had nominal control of the chamber when the organizing resolution came to a vote. With Dick Cheney soon to come in, however, Democrats allowed Republicans to control the Senate in return for a provision on the organizing resolution that allowed for a reorganization of the chamber if any member should switch parties, which Jeffords did five months later. There was no such clause in the current Senate's organizing resolution.
4 comments:
The Democrats should Heisman Lieberman
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-sirota/why-dems-should-hope-lieb_b_42019.html
"My guess is that Lieberman understands this, that he's not really going to switch, and that he's just going to periodically tell people he "might" switch whenever he feels he hasn't been given enough love by Beltway reporters. The man is, at his core, the biggest narcissist in contemporary congressional history. What motivates him more than anything is seeing himself on television. If that means backing out of his own promises and threatening to overturn a national election in order to send more troops to die in a war, then he's willing to do that. However, he knows that once he turns the threat into reality and switches, he immediately will be perceived as politically irrelevant and, because he will have switched in defense of the Iraq War, he will also likely remembered as the most hated and infamous U.S. Senator since Joe McCarthy.
"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 and that his melting, Emperor-from-Star-Wars face would stop appearing on my television set and freaking out my dog, Monty."
David Sirota
What do you mean by heisman him?
Are you saying we should give him a football trophy?
http://youtube.com/watch?v=heaNukZkEMg
this is what i mean
Oh, I should have known
Post a Comment