There’s a rumor going around that George W. Bush will nominate Sen. Lieberman as his next Attorney General. As much as I hate the idea, it does have a lot of merit from Bush’s perspective.
The Governor of Connecticut is a Republican and under state law she could appoint a replacement that would serve until nearly the end of Bush’s presidency.
Sec. 9-211. United States senator; vacancy. In case of a vacancy in the office of senator in Congress, the Governor is empowered to fill such vacancy by appointment as herein provided. If such vacancy occurs one hundred fifty or more days prior to a state election, the appointee shall serve until the third day of January following such election, and at such election there shall be elected a senator in Congress to serve for the remaining portion, if any, of the term vacated…
That would throw the Senate back into a 50-50 tie, although it would not necessarily shift control of the committees. That’s because the committee chairs are determined by an organizing resolution that is in effect until it is overturned by a new organizing resolution…and the Dems can filibuster any effort to revise it.
Things could get a little complicated, though, because the Republicans could make mischief if the Dems refuse to reorganize.
Even if the Dems maintain a hold on the Senate, they’ll lose their majority vote.
Add to this the fact that Lieberman could be easily confirmed by his colleagues.
And then add to it the glowing praise the press will shower on such a bipartisan gesture.
It’s a smart move.
Yet, it’s a risky move. Lieberman is horrible on national security and soft on oversight. But he isn’t a total tool. His confirmation hearings would still involve a lot of demands that he cooperate with congressional oversight…something he is not indifferent to. Would Lieberman promise to enforce congressional subpoenas? Would he have the audacity not to promise?
I still think the most likely course for Bush is to nominate somone unacceptable and run out the clock with an interim AG.
