I think you’ve got it sort of backwards. The Democrats have a majority in the Senate because of Lieberman (and Sanders, but he’s going to caucus with the Dems. anyway). If, right now, Lieberman said he was going to caucus with the Republicans, the Democrats would no longer have a majority…it would be a 50-50 tie, with a Republican vice president to break the tie.
If the Pubs. had edged out the Dems., then nobody would care which party Lieberman caucused with…it wouldn’t affect control.
Alright, I see the confusion here. Of course if he’s the tiebreaker he’s going to caucus with the Dems. Why in Hell would he do otherwise, given what he’s said up to now and the promises he’s made. But if the Dems hadn’t taken MT and apparently VA, people here don’t think Lieberman would be a lot more “independent” if it got him a chair?
51 includes Lieberman. Without him, it’s 50. When the press reports “51”, they’re already counting Lieberman (and Sanders, of VT) w/ the Dems.
Jesus Christ, I know that.
Because now he’s in a position to open himself up to the highest “bidder.” (And I mean “bidding” in terms of offering him positions of power in the Senate, nothing more venal than that.)
Besides which, Lieberman got a lot of financial support and a lot of votes from Republicans in the general election, which might tempt him to cater to that “constituency.”
However, Joe says he’s sticking with the Democrats, so I’m going to take him at his word until he gives good reason to think otherwise.
I honestly don’t know how it works when there’s a 50/50 split, but it can’t be pretty. If Lieberman’s the tiebreaker, his path to influence is fairly straight. If he’s the tie maker, I don’t even know what happens. I just can’t see how it would be in his interest to behave that way. He’d piss off a big chunk of his contituents needlessly, and cause himself and everybody else a load of grief. If he could have been a tiebreaker going the other way, now that would have been interesting.
Well, technically, Joe’s a first-term Independent. I believe he could be screwed over that way and also lose his position on committees, if he did not caucus with the Dems. That was one of the theoretical blandishments from the Pubs, that he would keep his seniority if he switched sides.
I don’t follow your reasoning. Joe is the tiebreaker, in either direction.
If there’s a 50-50 tie, Cheney gets to vote and break the tie. So a 50-50 tie is essentially a Republican Senate.
So if Joe goes with the Democrats, it gives the Democrats a 51-49 edge and it’s a Democratic Senate, if he goes with the Republicans (creating the 50-50 tie and giving Cheney the tiebreaker vote) it’s a Republican Senate.
No, technically this is his fourth term. Seniority in terms of office allocation is not based on how long you’ve been in your party but how long you’ve been a Senator.
Lieberam will caucus with the Dems- and that’s all that really matters, as now the Dems get to run the Senate in terms of chairs, President Pro Tem, and so forth. No doubt that by deciding to caucus with the Dems, Joe will get a nice plum, but with his seniority he’d get one anyway.
Sure, Joe won’t always vote with the Dems- nor will all the Dems vote with the way the Democratic leadership want them to, nor will nessesarily all the GoP Senators vote the way the GoP dictates. There’s about 10 or so “either way” Senators there, depending on the issue. For example the Dems may want to cut Tobacco subsidies, but the new Senator from Va might not go along with that. Raising the minimum wage by a modest amount might well get a couple GoP defectors. etc etc.
The Dem’s slight majority won’t even mean that they’ll be able to say “NO” to any judicial appointment they don’t like. Sure, the worst of the worst will go down, but any sort of reasonable moderate has a decent chance.
Really, all it means for sure is that the Dems get to appoint the powerful Chairs of Commitees.
This was based on my own ignorance of the VPs role in conferring control to the Senate in the case of a tie. I think I made the same statement in another thread, but should have done that here as well.
That’s not as true as it used to be. The Senate has become more partisan in recent years, with a number of party-line votes. So one vote can make a difference.
Of course. But it’s not always going to be the same “one vote”.
I’m not so sure. In a number of votes, only Chaffee has broken ranks to vote with Democrats, and he isn’t around any more. The party lines seem even brighter after this election.
Love the evil empire quote. Are you saying that the Dems wouldn’t so this if the roles were reversed?
But he isn’t, so all the paranoid delusionings are for naught:
http://www.nytimes.com/cq/2006/11/08/cq_1915.html?adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1163099853-vN2esEAfV5P1iXNyo9W9yw
"*Connecticut Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman, who was re-elected as an independent after losing his Democratic Party primary, is staying in the fold.
Lieberman said Wednesday that he is “definitely going to organize with the Senate Democratic caucus.”
After talking with Democratic Leader Harry Reid of Nevada on Wednesday morning, Lieberman said he was assured that he would retain his seniority on the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee and be named chairman if Democrats control the chamber.
“To maintain my seniority, you know, you’ve got to join a caucus,” Lieberman said. “I’m going to organize with the Democrats.”
Reid’s spokesman, Jim Manley, also signalled that Reid would support Lieberman for the top Democratic post on the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee — a move that Reid refused to make before the election.
“I expect Senator Lieberman to be the next chairman,” Manley said.
Lieberman reminded reporters that he has such a good relationship with current Chairwoman Susan Collins, R-Maine, that she campaigned for him.
In a congratulatory call, Lieberman said, “She said, ‘Now the only thing I’m worried about is that you actually might end up the chairman of the Homeland Security Committee.’ ”"*
and here:http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/09/nyregion/09conn.html?_r=1&ref=politics&oref=slogin
*"Mr. Lieberman said he spoke Wednesday morning to Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the Democratic leader, and that Mr. Reid assured him that he would retain his seniority despite having bolted the party after losing its primary in August to run on his own party line. …There were no calls from the White House, Mr. Lieberman said, or offers to court him away from the Democratic caucus in the Senate. And even if there were, Mr. Lieberman said, he would not accept. Asked if there were anything Republicans could do to persuade him to switch parties, Mr. Lieberman responded with a sly smile.
“There’s a little playfulness in me that wants me to make a joke about that, but it’s too serious,” he said. “The answer is no.” Indeed, though Mr. Lieberman’s news conference was completed moments before President Bush’s announcement that Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld would resign, he went out of his way to make it clear, again, that he was not interested in that job — or any other post in the Bush administration.
“I would reject any offer, which has not come, and, I believe, will not come,” he said.
"*
There seems to be some confusion here about what a “caucus” is in Senate terms.
Theoretically, as well as practically, the “Senate Democratic Caucus” is the Democratic Party so far as the U.S. Senate is concerned. It’s only once a senator caucuses with a party that he really becomes a member of the party.
Remember, before 1994, Dick Shelby and Ben Nighthorse Campbell had both been nominated by their respective state Democrats and had been elected to the Senate with the Democratic label. But as soon as they stood up and said “I’m a Republican now” and started caucusing with the Republicans, they instantly became Republicans.
So if Lieberman says he is a Democrat and he caucuses with the Democrats, he is a Democrat, regardless of what party label was next his name on the ballot.
For people like Jim Jeffords and Bernie Sanders, in my view, they are effectively Democrats as well. The only difference is that they continue to say that they are independents. If from now on, Lieberman says “I am an independent,” then he’ll get similar treatment. But if he says “I’m a Democrat,” then that “(D)” belongs next to his name as much as it does any member of the Senate who was elected as a Democrat on the ballot.
You know the phrase “For the greater good”? Evil is the opposite of that. Evil puts things ahead of people, doesn’t care about harming people.
Evil people are primarily concerned with themselves and their own advancement. They have no particular objection to working with others or, for that matter, going it on their own. Their only interest is in getting ahead. If there is a quick and easy way to gain a profit, whether it be legal, questionable, or obviously illegal, they take advantage of it. Evil people have no qualms about betraying their friends and companions for personal gain. They typically base their allegiance on power and money, which makes them quite receptive to bribes.
Evil transcends party affiliation.
That’s gotta be one of the best non-answers I’ve ever read, Danalan. You should run for something.