When this happened in 2001, I think the parties created a power-sharing system. For better or worse, Sanders and Lieberman are just not that intriguing. I don’t think they’ll pull anything crazy. If they alienate everyone, in two years it will come back to bite them. Since the Republicans will have to defend 21 seats in 2008 and the Democrats only 12, it looks like the Democrats will have a good chance to increase their majority. The Democrats could then say “screw you, we’re stripping you of your chairmanships and giving them to guys who won’t try to play games with us.”
Well, if he were truly an independent thinker, he’d be a libertarian, now wouldn’t he?
Look, “Little Joe” wasn’t dragged unwilling into the Dem party, he wasn’t press ganged from a Shanghai bar. He joined! He allied himself with the like-minded for the same reason they all do: to have collective clout that is not otherwise available. Its a trade-off, certain personal sacrifices are made. Nobody forces you to do it, and I don’t. I have probably never voted anything but Dem, but am not a member. Like you, I value the independence of my thinking and am too much of a self-satisfied snot to do otherwise.
The GoP has the VP, who controls/votes only in case of a tie. Thus, there can be no tie.
Lieberman has already announced and been cited here that he’ll caucus with the Dem’s. We might as well go into “what if GWB is really an alien?” scenario’s. :dubious:
Alien??? We never resolved what would happen if he were gay.
I, for one, welcome our fabulous Insect Overlords…
If by “the CT” you mean his constituents, their opportunity to respond to such equivocation was last week, you know?
That’s why it’s pretty shitty for Lieberman to say now that he might consider switching, now that the ~30% of CT Dems who voted for him can’t change their minds.
Maybe “I’m not ruling it out” means something different to you than it does to me.
I’m not saying he will or he won’t. But I regard his willingness to leave the door open now to switching parties, where he was unequivocal before the election that he would caucus with the Dems, as a breaking of his word to his constituents. Your opinion may differ - but on this one, I frankly don’t care if it does. That’s not the sort of deception an honorable man takes part in. He’s had since June to consider all the options and decide what he might or might not do; he can’t exactly say, “I didn’t think I’d ever have to think about this.”
Just so. The time to tell your new wife that you’re gay is not at the wedding reception.
When it’s in the context of “Well, that’s a hypothetical…” then it does mean something different. Sen. Lieberman was discussing a hypothetical. Every single other of the dozens of times he’s been quoted, he’s gone 100% for being part of the Democratic caucus. It was a hypothetical in the context of “If in fact they ask for discipline in the Democratic caucus, and you start to feel uncomfortable with it…”.
Find us a cite where Sen Lieberman seriously discusses the possibility, outside of a hypothetical question. :dubious:
Not necessarily. Why would you say that?
Maybe it would be better if you defined the term “independent thinker”. It seem that you are implying that one must be completely non-aligned in order to be an independent thinker.
In the context of a US Senator, I think it means someone who is willing to break with their party when his conscience tells him to do so. JL fits that description pretty well, even if I don’t agree with him on what is good for the country all the time. Is he the most independent thinker in the Senate? I have no idea. But he’s certainly one of the most non-partisan, which I think is good.
I suppose that’s possible, if one’s conscience insists that one support a disastrous policy that has caused, and continues to cause, the deaths of uncounted thousands of innocent people. What manner of conscience would that be, John? Is it like Jimminy Cricket whispering into Pinnochio’s ear “Kill 'em all, let God sort 'em out!”?
So, *Lieberman’*s eviiiiil as he supports the same policy that the other 50% of the Senate also does? I mean, it’s not like the War didn’t get a solid majority when it came up for a vote- and still has a majority at least until this January. :dubious: Dude- I am not happy about the War myself, but let’s not lay that one at Lieberman’s feet- that’s a GWB thing.
Or is the “disastrous policy that has caused, and continues to cause, the deaths of uncounted thousands of innocent people” a refusal to Ban booze, smoking or even fatty foods, all of which kill more dudes than the War in Iraq? :rolleyes:
I can’t see what political riches the Republicans can offer Lieberman that the Democrats couldn’t also offer him. If he’s the deciding vote that could turn the Senate Republican, then he’s also the deciding vote that can turn the Senate Democratic. So he’s only got an incentive to ditch the Democrats if they refused to consider him a Democrat. But that would mean the Republicans win, so they won’t do that. Since they know that he knows that they know that he knows that they know, they’re not gonna shoot themselves in the foot, rather they go out of their way to make him happy.
And has been pointed out, why jump to a ship that’s sinking fast? If the Republicans had pulled off a triumph last week and dangled a committee chairmanship in front of Lieberman, he might consider changing. But if the Republicans had won handily there would be no need to bribe Lieberman. When it’s not raining the roof doesn’t leak, and when it rains you can’t fix it anyway.
And there was no power sharing in 2000. Due to the tiebreaking power of the Vice-president, there can be no tie in the Senate.
If all we’re talking about is Iraq, then we’re arguing two different things. Yes, Iraq is the big issue, but there are other things that are important, too. Why else do you think JL won in the very “blue” state of CT while other war supporters lost in very “red” states? Still, I think that reasonable people can disagree about the situation in Iraq. I, for one, think that you’re idea (withdrawl as quickly as possible) would result in a tremedous escalation of violence and death, but I don’t think of you as some evil Jimmy Cricket whispering in Nancy Pelosi’s ear.
Correction: If all you are talking about is Iraq, then we’re arguing two different things.
Maybe I’m misremembering, but I would have sworn that prior to Jeffords’ defection, the two parties did agree on a way to divide committee chair positions.
I think you are missing something. My recollection is that they did have co-chairmen so there was nominal power sharing, but the Pubs still had one more person on each committee, which is probably even more important than who the chairman is. Maybe someone with a better memory can clarify.
If you have a more desireable alternative, one that does not involve ghastly consequences, I’m sure we would all love to hear it. I don’t offer miracles, only a somber assessment of fact. Is the last American destined to die for this folly already serving, or has he not yet graduated high school?
I’m having trouble finding a cite, but my recollection is that committee memberships were split 50-50, with all Republican chairmen in respect of the fact that they had the tiebreaking vote with Cheney.
John, the membership only determines the outcome of votes. The chairman decides what is voted on. Isn’t that perhaps just a little more important?
I think it depends on how you look at it. For example, if Bush nominates someone to the SCOTUS, the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee can’t decide not to vote on that person in committee, can he? If the Pubs outnumber the Dems, though, they can send the nominee to the Senate for a vote. Both are important in different ways, and it’s hard to determine which is more important overall. But I’ll gladly change “probably” to “possiblly” in that earlier post since I really wasn’t trying to to argue one being more important than the other.
No, a number of nominees never get hearings, much less votes. Look at what the GOP habitually did to Clinton’s federal judge nominees, for instance.
I do hope you agree that there is a whole host of other things that Senators vote on. You can take down your “possibly” too, ya know.