Here’s some interesting information from Political Insider:
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.
This raises some interesting questions. If this is true, then it might actually benefit the Democrats to force Lieberman to caucus with the Republicans. If the organizing resolution is set in stone then having Lieberman switch would mean that the Democrats could replace him on the Homeland Security, Armed Services, and Environment committees. And the Republicans, in order to make room for Lieberman, would have to drop members off of committees because they don’t have any extra room.
I’m no expert on organizing resolutions, so maybe I am missing something. But if I’m right, here is what would likely happen if Lieberman bolted the party. We would need a new chairman for the Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee. First in line is Carl Levin. He has a better job as chairman of Armed Services, so he would take a pass. Next in line is Daniel Akaka. He is chairman of Veteran’s Affairs. I’m guessing that he would consider Homeland Security a better gig. So, Akaka would become the new chairman, replacing Lieberman. That would create a vacancy in the chair of Veteran’s Affairs. Next in line is Jay Rockefeller, who has a better job as head of the Intelligence Committee. So, the chair of Veteran’s Affairs would fall to Patty Murray. She would join the swelling ranks of women in positions of Congressional power. Let’s take a look:
Senate:
Ethics (co-chair): Barbara Boxer
Environment: Barbara Boxer
Rules: Diane Feinstein
Veteran’s Affairs: Patty Murray (in this scenario)
House:
Ethics (co-chair): Stephanie Tubbs-Jones
House Administration: Juanita Millender-McDonald
Rules: Louise McIntosh Slaughter
Small Business: Nydia M. Velazquez
There is another consideration we shoud be taking into account, too, when we ponder a Democratic Party without Joe Lieberman. Part of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committees’ duties involves the following:
…organization and reorganization of the executive branch of the Government;…study the efficiency, economy, and effectiveness of all agencies and departments of the Government; evaluate the effects of laws enacted to reorganize the legislative and executive branches of the Government; and study the intergovernmental relationships between the United States and the States and municipalities, and between the United States and international organizations of which it is a member. ‘
In other words, Lieberman is currently responsible for oversight into the executive department, their organization, and their compliance with international organizations of which the United States is a member. This gets into the heart of the unitary executive theory. I don’t know how aggressive Daniel Akaka would be in this role. But he’d have to be a more reliable and effective investigator than Lieberman.
So, do I have this right about the Senate organizing resolution? If I do, I see a lot of benefit to just pushing Joe right out the door.
I would like to see Lieberman’s smarmy ass on somebody else’s side. He certainly is no friend to us and probably will be like the cheating spouse – he will continue to cheat regardless!
I haven’t read the organizing resolution personally, but every interpretation I have read in the last month agrees with Political Insider’s take on the issue. Senate control is frozen in Dem hands for the next 23 months. I wish Lieberman would do it and get it over with, I expect Dems to increase their majority in 2008 and don’t want Lieberman with any policy control whatsoever. And I don’t like him speaking for the party when he isn’t even part of it anymore.
On a completely unrelated note, where has Steven D been for the last week?
Steven is taking care of personal affairs. He will be back soon.
Somebody oughta e-mail this post to Harry Reid.
If I recall, the organizing resolution explicitly names each of the chairs and members by name. Decided to look it up, and it does explicitly state the names of each. So my guess is that if they kicked out Lieberman, then he would retain his committee positions and chairmanship unless Reid permitted an organizing vote to change that, and of course that would permit much more trouble than Lieberman’s committee seats are worth.
I think that the best way to rein in Lieberman’s power is to address issues that he does not or does poorly in other, overlapping committees. It is also probably too late to narrow the scope of his committee.
So, it effectively would throw control of one committee to the Republicans? As if that isn’t already the case?
I don’t think that Lieberman’s party affiliation really matters anymore. He has his seat, barring an attack of conscience or serious illness, but would have trouble winning in 2012 if he decides to caucus with the Republicans. Besides, like most of us he is probably predicting an Democratic majority at least through 2010, so why switch to the minority (except as a matter of principle).
Lieberman is best best ignored like an obnoxious drunk. Even if he does keep shouting out insults about our mothers when they can hear us and forget about it in the morning.
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.
He’s not already a Republican?!!
Liar-man might threaten to leave the Democratic Party but he won’t because as soon as he becomes a true independent or even a repugnant he will lose all influence and power. Who will listen to him?: both the Democrats and the repugnants (yes, who respects a traitor) will spit on him and he’ll be caught in no-man’s-liar-land. Maybe Bush will cozy up to him, but only for as long as Liar-man can deliver. Let him play out his vanity fantasy to the end and let’s kick him out of the Democratic Party. But never forget the Democrats who campaigned for him in Connecticut.
I kinda thought that Jeffords was a hero and a man of principle, and that is the role that Lieberman is casting himself into. The difference of course is that Jeffords didn’t campaign agaist his own party and promise explicitly to stay with it, that and he is from Vermont and people were more loyal to him than his party affiliation.
Booman, this is brilliant. I have been advocating telling Lieberman to go fuck himself for a while now. I didn’t even care if the Dems lost control of the Senate because of it, as the Dems should not allow themselves to be controlled by Neo-con Joe Lieberman.
I suspect there may be a couple republicans who might want to switch teams as well now. I would be honored if Chuck Hagel made the switch to Independent and caucused with Dems.