Deciding who to caucus with is very important in terms of who the majority leader is and who controls the chairmanship of committees. If Democrats (plus Sanders) sit at 50 and Republicans at 49 once the recount smoke clears, then Lieberman will be key to determining these things. If he goes with the Democrats, they get to set the agenda. If he goes with the GOP, the Republicans do. It’s a very important decision that will likely depend on Lieberman. To help make up his mind, he should wait and see which party offers him the best deal. Those deals could range from seats on important committees, chairmanship of an important committee, or things along those lines.
As has been pointed out, he ran saying he would caucus with the Democrats. However, if the above scenario comes into play, I could easily see him getting an important committee chairmanship from the GOP and him telling the Connecticut voters that because of chaning circumstances, he needed to do what was best for Connecticut. He’ll have six years to either convince them he was right. He can still vote as liberal as he ever did, but now he’d be a powerful chairman.
Does Connecticut have a recall procedure for senators? I ask because of Danalan’s previous post. I would think that “poaching” some party’s senators to affect the balance in the Senate to unethical, to say the least, and if the poachee accepted the bribe, I would hope that the people who elected him would recall him in disgrace.
I don’t think Lieberman is going to make anybody bend over backward to win him over. He said months ago that he would caucus with the Democrats if re-elected, called himself “an independent Democrat,” and is basically a foreign policy hawk with some socially conservative positions who votes Democratic on a lot of their bread-and-butter issues.
Look, party flopping happens. Remember Jeffords switching to the Democrats? I mean, “Independent, but caucusing with the Democrats”? Or back in 1994, when a dozen or so DINOs declared themselves Republicans so they could be in the majority party?
Renob went to the heart of the issue. The key question is which party has the majority, who gets to form committees, which party gets to set the agenda. This is critical, and any party member who voted against party on these issues is persona non grata . But the day to day votes, there is very little party discipline in the Senate. Lieberman will vote how he likes, as will most of the other Senators. They aren’t subject to the sometimes brutal backdoor armtwisting that goes on in the House, where if a junior Representative defies the leadership they’ll find themselves out of a job next election.
His vote can be brokered. He can be seen as a swing voter and he can set up shop on the senate floor. What a potential power spot he is in. Sanders wont sell out.
But Olympia Snowe might go with the Dems when Lieberman would not.
See, Holy Joe isn’t a republican. He’s socially conservative… but fiscally liberal. He’s also jewishly socially conservative, which is related to, but significantly different from christian varieties. And he is a man of faith. He takes his words seriously, including his promises to caucus with the Dems. He may break with them on occasion, but he will not sell them out, because of his contract with the voters of Connecticut, and only when it is the right thing for him to do, when he comes to this conclusion honestly.
Joe can’t be bought. Or at least, not permanently, not for more than horse-trading now-for-later.
Even in these partisan and divided times there are plenty of members of both parties that vote with the other side on certain issues. I wouldn’t worry about one man making much of a difference.
As I noted on that thread, the number of Senate seats each party is defending in 2008 is: Republicans 21, Democrats 12 (i.e. the Democrats have a strong built-in advantage toward increasing their majority).
If Lieberman presses his advantage too hard and ticks off the Democratic leadership too severely, his office in 2009 will be a space where a men’s room stall used to be.
Senators’ office space is allocated base on seniority, so I don’t think this will happen.
I know what you are trying to say, though, and you are probably correct. I think that E-Sabbath probaby hit the nail on the head: Lieberman will honor his word to caucus with the Democrats, giving them control of organizing the Senate. He should make them sweat a little, however, and extract something from them after his colleagues abanoned him after he lost the primary.
Lieberman will examine his bread closely to determine the topographic position of the butter. If the Virginia election holds up, the Dems hold the whip hand: they determine the structure of the all-important committees. If “Fightin’ Joe” wants his share of the public attention, he will have to line up for his share of the goodies, and he will paint his dick blue and bark like a fox if he has to.
Everybody knew that what has happened was impossible, but it happened. “Little Joe” was banking on holding the Dems nuts in his pocket, now they hold his in theirs. He will kiss what he must, eat what is put in front of him, smile, smack his lips and say “MMMMM! Good!”. And I am going to videotape it so that I can replay it ever once in a while when I need a good, cold chuckle.
I agree that a Dem majority without Joe’s contribution will probably modify his behavior if he wants to chair much of anything. But I don’t think for one moment there still won’t be some kind of leverage he’s going to apply. He’d be crazy not to.
No, that means that Lieberman has the upper hand. The Democrats will only have 49 seats. Sanders will caucus with them, giving them 50. If Liebermn caucuses with the GOP, the GOP will have 50, plus Cheney, giving them control of the chamber, just like six years ago with they briefly held a 50 seat “majority.”
So the Democrats need Lieberman much more than he needs them. If he abandons them as they abandoned him, he could keep the GOP in control. I doubt he’ll do that, but as I’ve said above, he should not allow the Democrats to take him for granted.
No, they did not have to campaign against him. They could have let Lamont go it alone, as has happened in other races where the national party leaders preferred a different candidate to their own party’s nominee. Like, for instance, happened to the Republican in Connecticut this time. The GOP leaders did not campaign for him.
He wouldn’t dare. Might as well nail his pecker to a tree and set the tree ablaze. If he stays “Independent” when the Dems have the committee assigning power, they can fuck him and spank him, but good. Of course, if the VA results are overturned, all bets are off.
But he said he would stay a Dem, if he betrays that he will never be elected to anything, ever again. The people who voted for him could have voted for a Republican if they wanted to, they didn’t want to. If he fucks them over, he will sleep with the fishes.
But the Democrats won’t have this power unless Lieberman caucuses with them. Even if they win Virginia, that only gives them 49 seats. Sanders brings them to 50. If Lieberman caucuses with the GOP (or even just agrees to vote with them on organizational matters), that gives the GOP control. Therefore, the Democrats need Lieberman to caucus with them if they are going to be able to control the Senate. They have no power without Lieberman, and therefore he’s in a great positioin to help himself out.
Of course, he’ll use what leverage he has. However, he’s also smart enough to realize that his leverage is somewhat limited by the risk that they won’t need him any more in two years (and will then pay him back if he’s been too much of an irritant in the meantime).