Joe Lieberman: Emperor of the Senate?

Great Debates
121

I’m talking about SCOTUS nominees, but if you have a cite that any SCOUTS nominee never got a vote in Senate Judiciary committee, I’d be interested in seeing it. Ditto for a cabinet level position.

I did a little research, and what happened in the Senate after the 2000 election (when it was split 50/50) was that the Republicans took the chairmanships, and each party had an equal number of members on the comittee. But it appears to be something that was negotiated, and a different outcome is possible in the future. Still, it’s hard to weigh the relative merit of the chairmanship vs a majority since one combination is simply impossible to have-- ie, the chariman being of one party and the majority being of the other party.

122

Harriet Miers appears never to have made it to the hearings.

123

First of all, politicians dismiss hypothetical questions like this all the time. The interesting thing is that Joe chose to entertain the question at all. That’s the take-away message right there.

Second, it was a pretty soft, hardly unrealistic hypothetical, wasn’t it? Who knows how much - or little - party ‘discipline’ it would take to make The Last Honest Man feel ‘uncomfortable’?

This wasn’t exactly “if the Dems endorse Osama for U.N. Secretary-General, and twist arms to make everyone go along.” It isn’t as if the Dems have a radical agenda that they’re going to try to force Lieberman to go along with. But they might actually stand up to Bush, and demand that Lieberman, as a Democrat, join them in doing so in a couple of key votes, just to show that he really is, you know, a Democrat.

That’s the sort of potential discipline we’re talking about here, and it might well make Joe uncomfortable, given his track record of literally kissing up to Bush.

And he’s said that if he gets uncomfortable, he might just switch teams. The voters of Connecticut should have been the ones to get the chance to ask what sort of discomfort it would take to get him to jump to the GOP, and to get the chance to vote on it a week ago. The Last Honest Man deprived them of that chance, choosing instead to play the Constituent Bamboozlement Game to stay in the Senate for one more term.

Anyway, we’ll see Joe’s true colors soon enough. He’ll chair the Senate’s Homeland Security oversight committee, which is an area (“heckuva job, Brownie”) that’s desperately needed some oversight for the past four years. He’s been awfully quiet about his plans, in the face of a target-rich environment. And after Pelosi’s House passes the 9/11 Commission’s homeland security recommendations in their first 100 hours, they’ll come straight to his committee.

We’ll know Joe, no question about it.

124

What about on Meet the Press?

I don’t think he will do it, but that he hasn’t ruled it out makes me not trust him. Hopefully the Dems will pick up more Senate ground in 2008 and tell him to go suck eggs.

125

He said nothing of the sort. In fact, he has said just the opposite over and over. Please give me a cite- other than the hypothetical question posed that one time- where he has said that since being re-elected.

They did, Joe ran as an Independent, which can vote for either and they overwhelmingly re-elected him.

BobLibDem sigh. That’s when & where he answered the **HYPOTHETICAL ** question, and that’s part of his answer to that HYPOTHETICAL question. Scroll down to where spoke- quoted the entire HYPOTHETICAL exchange, where Sen Lieberman’s answer starts with “Well, that’s a hypothetical…” So, what I asked for was "Find us a cite where Sen Lieberman seriously discusses the possibility, outside of a hypothetical question." And you give me the HYPOTHETICAL question and answer, which AFAIK, is the only place where Sen Lieberman has ever mentioned “crossing over”.

You dudes *do * know what “hypothetical” means, don’t you? :dubious:

126

Sure do. It’s the biggest weasel word in the dictionary. Means whatever you want it to mean. It means you can change your mind with a straight face, saying “Well, then, it was a purely hypothetical question, but the Dem’s position on [insert whatever] makes me so very uncomfortable…no, really, I’m not at all comfortable…that I’m going to backstab everybody who believed what I said about remaining a Democrat, and voted for me on that basis.”

127

:confused: That’s because she and Bush withdrew her nomination, not because the judiciarly committee chairman refused to hold hearings.

On the topic of switching parties, if JL were treated by the Senate Democrats the way he is treated by some of the folks around here, I wouldn’t blame him for switching sides. It’s almost like some people here want him to switch just to be proven right, even though it would hand the Senate to the Republicans. But everyone knows he isn’t going to switch. I’ll even make a simple non-monetary bet with anyone who thinks he might: Set a date for switching parties (say, Feb 1, '07) and loser commits to not post in GD of one week afterwards. Any takers?

128

Quick question here – does anyone posting in this thread really think it’s a serious possibility that Lieberman will leave the Democratic party? I’m all for the Lieberman hate, but I see no reason to entertain this question seriously.

Even without the switching, though, as the Senate’s “pre-eminent bipartisan figure,” Lieberman does have a kind of clout that a solid leftist like, say, Russ Feingold doesn’t have. Lieberman is in a position to act as a spoiler on key votes. He doesn’t have to go near the party-switching issue (which makes it puzzling that he would even entertain it hypothetically).

And Arnold Schwarzeneggar has proven that a recall election is not a dead letter in American politics. If Lieberman really went anywhere near leaving the Democratic party, how long do you think it would take before the solidly Democratic constituency of Connecticut would throw up a recall attempt? Even if Lieberman did survive such an effort, he would be looking at certain retirement after 2012.

129

Does CT have the “mechanics” for a recall? Not all states do, IIRC.

130

That said, I lean towards it being unlikely that “Fightin’ Joe” will bolt, simply on the basis of risk. A number of punditti have pointed out that the next election cycle has more Pubbie Senators at risk, which might mean that Joe will be bolting for what will be the minority party two years into his term.

Which means that all of his weaseling commentary is just smoke and mirrors to milk as much attention and payback as he can get without substantial risk.

But I don’t trust the two-faced little turdbucket any further than I could throw him against the wind.

131

It’s also easy to overestimate the power of one Senator. Senate votes rarely fall strictly along party lines unless the issue is set up on purpose as a partisan matter-- like the “lets get out of Iraq now” resolutoin the Pubs set up last year to mock Murtha. More likely, it’s small groups of centrists, like the gang of 14, who can force the extremes of either party from acting without checks. And on legislative issues other than Iraq, JL is far from being the most conservative Democrat in the Senate. I don’t understand why JL is singled out for so much vitriol while someone like Ben Nelson merits narry a word.

132

I think Lieberman is concerned about the Democratic party seeking rapprochement with IRAN; and possibly making a deal with the palestinians. Lieberman is solidly pro-Israel, and he cannot accept this.

133

The importance isn’t on how JL would vote on any issue. The one vote that counts is on organizing the Senate. Whether the committee chairs are Dems or Pubs makes a huge difference on what comes into committee and what goes to the floor. Nobody is talking about Ben Nelson because he isn’t going to bolt the party- but Lieberman might and only because his would be the deciding vote does anybody care. If the Dems had 51 solid seats they’d tell Joementum to take a long walk on a short pier. But for two years he must be handled with kid gloves.

134

OK.

Your words. You don’t like 'em, you shouldn’t have used 'em.

?!?

Damned if I can parse this.

What do you have against BobLibDem?

[Firesign]
We can shout, don’t hear you. :slight_smile:
[/Firesign]

I know what it means, thanks. And there’s absolutely no reason to regard as meaningless the answer to a hypothetical question, just because some guy on a message board has made a personal rule that answers to hypothetical questions are out of bounds for reasons discernable only to himself.

135

So your cite for "Please give me a cite- other than the hypothetical question posed that one time- where he has said that since being re-elected. " is where? :confused: Hey, a hypothetical answer to a hypothetical question isn’t meaningless, sure. But Sen Lieberman has never given any indication at all, anywhere- other than that hypothetical- that he will cross over. If you have such a cite- *other than the hypothetical, the one time, the Meet The Press interview- * please trot it out. In fact- other than the hypothetical- Sen Lieberman has said over and over and over and over that he will caucus with the Dems.

I don’t get the hatred for Lieberman. 50+ other senators are more pro-war than he is. At least one other Dem senator. So, why Joe? Is it because he’s Jewish? :confused: I don’t get it.

136

Umm, maybe the fact that I asked for a cite other than the one **hypothetical ** answer to the **hypothetical ** question, and his cite was for the exact **hypothetical ** I said we had already seen and I wanted something else?

137

Kind sir, in reading the previous postings I somehow overlooked a prior posting of the Meet the Press quote. Because it happened on Sunday, I thought I had gone far enough back in the thread to search for it. Obviously I didn’t. I am unworthy to wallow in your spittle.

138

We really need the pukey smiley right now.

139

So, which **Hypothetical ** did you think I was talking about, when I said “*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?” * :confused:

140

:mad:

Shame on you.

I don’t have any particular feelings about Ben Nelson, maybe it’s because he’s an open conservative running as a conservative Democrat in a conservative Republican state. And as far as the Democratic caucus goes, he tends to fly under the radar. I disagree with most of Nelson’s positions, but he doesn’t get under my skin.

Lieberman is an ostensibly liberal eastern Democrat representing a liberal Democratic state who has gone out of his way to be obnoxious towards liberals – like suggesting that we’re disloyal for criticizing a president “in wartime.” If he had done absolutely nothing else, that one fact is enough for me to want to punch him in the mouth.