Can Lieberman Cherrypick The Senate Reorganization Votes?

Who's laughing now?  Joe Lieberman is greeted warmly by the rats returning to his unsunken ship:

Enter, Pariah: Now It’s Hugs for Lieberman

By MARK LEIBOVICH

WASHINGTON, Nov. 14 — Senator Joseph I. Lieberman strode into a Democratic caucus gathering like he owned the place or, at the very least, like someone who is a flight risk and could leave at any minute, taking the Democrats’ new majority with him.

In other words, everyone was extra-special nice to the wayward Democrat on Tuesday.

“It was all very warm, lots of hugs, high-fives, that kind of stuff,” said Senator Ken Salazar of Colorado.

Senator Ron Wyden of Oregon marveled, “One senator after another kept coming up and shaking his hand.”

And Senator Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas noted, “I gave him a hug and a kiss.”

A hug and a kiss?  Now I'm blanching.  And blushing.  Is Blanche Lincoln a woman or are the Dems planning a new thrust on gay marriage?

Oh, KIDDING.  We are all in favor of kissing here - after all, what would a patriot do?

Fine, now, serious up.  Mr. Liebovich barely alludes to Joe Lieberman's frozen relationship with the Nutroots, but it can't be good news for them that the nation's most powerful Senator loathes them.  I can hear him asking his colleagues now - "How can you get in bed with the people that put me in blackface?"  Not a bad question, Joe.

Secondly, I am not enough of a Senate parliamentarian to answer this question, but - can Lieberman cherrypick the Senate reorganization votes?

I take for granted that Lieberman won't switch to the Republicans.  However - as I understand it, the new Senate Majority leader is voted on by the full Senate.  Normally, the majority votes amongst themselves to pick a leader, then votes unanimously for that leader in the full Senate.  However, this gives Lieberman an effective veto over Harry Reid's presumed ascension - Lieberman could announce that he will support, for example, Mary Landrieu but not Harry Reid.  In that scenario, a floor vote for Reid would fail (assuming that Dick Cheney broke a 50-50 tie by voting "No") but a vote for Landrieu would succeed.

Or more dramatically - my understanding is that the Senate committee organizations are also approved by Senate vote.  IF that is so, could Lieberman announce that he is troubled by a Senate Armed Services Committee with a 13-11 Dem majority chaired by Carl Levin, but would support a Defense Committee that was had twelve Republicans matching twelve Democrats and was chaired by Maine Republican Susan Collins?  Would he be able to block the vote that would normally empower Carl Levin?

I don't know the answer, but I bet that by January, Lieberman will.

Comments

[Pete]

Lieberman will do what is best for Lieberman. He'll get a plum assignment.

[JM Hanes]

Wouldn't need a 12/12 Armed Services Committee or a Susan Collins Chair, although that would certainly be interesting.

As long as Lieberman himself is actually on the committee, a 13/12 division would do the trick and give Joementum the deciding vote every time it divides along party lines.

Even as currently proposed, I think Levin may have a tough time keeping his own party members, and thus his committee, in line. Read 'em and weep, Carl:

Armed Services
CHAIR: Levin
Kennedy
Byrd
Lieberman
Reed
Akaka
Nelson (Fl)
Nelson (Ne)
Bayh
Clinton
Pryor
Webb
McCaskill

[JM Hanes]

P.S. The committee I'm really worried about is Intel under Rockefeller.

[hit and run]

Oh heck, why doesn't Joementum just nominate himself for majority leader.

[Anonymous Liberal]

Even if Lieberman can do that stuff, he won't. Joe Lieberman always looks out, first and foremost, for Joe Lieberman. He'll be a thorn in the Democrats side on certain issues, but he's not going to take deliberately provacative steps, mainly because the Democrats seem likely to pick up a few more Senate seats in 2008. There are far more Republican seats up for re-election in 2008 than Democratic seats, and the pickup opportunities are skewed significantly in the Democrats favor. In other words, while Lieberman is the deciding vote now, he very likely won't be come 2008, and so it would be stupid for him to burn bridges now.

[Gary Maxwell]

"six to eight seriously corrupt Democratic senators" words from the here to fore truth teller Jack Abramoff ( at least according to Dear Leader Pelosi ). HMMM if this gets out, and I wonder where the caucus convenes? The cloak room?

[hit and run]

Meanwhile, back in the house, our main man Murtha is being made to eat crap and like it because that's what Nancy wants. (via the Corner)

Murtha Calls Ethics Bill "Total Crap"
Wednesday, Nov. 15; 1:14 pm
By John Bresnahan,
Roll Call Staff

Rep. John Murtha (D-Pa.) told a group of Democratic moderates on Tuesday that an ethics and lobbying reform bill being pushed by party leaders was "total crap," but said that he would work to enact the legislation because Speaker-to-be Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) supports it.

Murtha and Rep. Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) are locked in a battle for the House Majority Leader post, and both men made presentations for to the Blue Dog Coalition on Tuesday in a bid for their votes.

"Even though I think it¹s total crap, I¹ll vote for it and pass it because that's what Nancy wants," Murtha told the Blue Dogs, according to three sources who were at the meeting...

One of the Blue Dogs raised his hand and asked Murtha, "If Nancy were to ask you to jump off a cliff..." at which point Murtha stormed out.

OK, once again, I made up that last sentence.

[John Konop]

President Sonny Perdue?

Clinton, Romney, McCain, Giuliani, Obama, Frist, Gingrich, Gore, Kerry, Rice, Edwards, Pataki, Biden… Like it or not, the 2008 presidential race is officially underway. What’s missing is a clear front-runner for the Republican nomination.

Georgia governor Sonny Perdue is, perhaps, the GOP’s best hope of maintaining control of the White House.

Republicans are Mad about Spending and Immigration

Perdue balanced the budget in Georgia, which insulates him from the criticisms that face any candidate that comes from our irresponsible, deficit-swelling congress.

Perdue passed the toughest immigration legislation in the country, while Washington did nothing.

Independents are Mad about the Iraq and Trade

Since Perdue wasn’t in Washington during the vote to authorize the Iraq war, he can approach it with an open mind and no political baggage.

Regarding trade reform, Perdue can reach out to natural allies like Gingrey, Norwood, Deal, and Westmorland, all of whom have been outspoken about cracking down on Chinese trade abuses (especially regarding child and slave labor).

Perdue was the GOP’s Only Bright Light in the Mid-Term Election

With Perdue at the top of the ticket, Georgia Republicans picked up both the Lt. Governor and Sectary of State offices and expanded the Republican majority in the statehouse. Republicans in the rest of the country took a “thumpin.”

And there’s plenty for the media to like too. Perdue is a veteran, a veterinarian, father of four, foster parent of eight, and was a walk-on quarterback at the University of Georgia. He also has a small role in the upcoming Matthew McConaughey football movie “We Are Marshall”.

I challenge anyone looking at the current list of GOP hopefuls to name a stronger candidate than Governor Sonny Perdue.

[Geek, Esq.]

He's got himself the DHS Chair, which will allow him to steer plenty of pork to Connecticut.

Committee assignments have already been announced:

http://www.govexec.com/dailyfed/1106/111506cdam1.htm

[Daddy]

OT, I've heard the Dem's elected a Muslim guy to Congress. If so, does anybody know his name and or a link where I can read up on him. Mellow guy?, radical?, what committees he might wind up on etc, and is it to the Dem's/MSM benefit to play this guy up or to play this guy down. Just asking.

[maryrose]

Lieberman is now Independent and as a former member of the Gang of 14 along with Pryor, Nelson, Byrd et al judges will also have to pass muster. I agree with JMHanes-Rockefeller at Intelligence-{he of Leaker fame} is the most catastrophic announcement. How is that leak of intelligence investigation going? I thought we were to hear something about MOM last May. I personally thought it was going to be the October surprise but no such luck.

[lurker]

Keith Ellison. Powerline has been writing up on him for several months.

[Pete]

Lieberman gets DHS Chair. Told you.

BTW - great analysis Anonymous Liberal.

[rarango]

Second Pete's comment: nice post Anonymous Liberal!

[Don]

If you guys are counting on Lieberman to save your ass, you're in worse shape than I thought.

[Tom Maguire]

From the Times article:

He was re-elected comfortably, and the Democratic Party he still belongs to is now in the majority, assuring him the chairmanship of the powerful Homeland Security Committee.

As to Anon Lib - excellent point, although a shorter and more accuate version would be, times change, and what goes around comes around. Whether the Dems pick up seats or lose them in 2008, Lieberman won't want to make enemies on his side if he plans to be a Senator for Life.

[maryrose]

TM:
Excellent point and probably how his tenure will play out.

[cathyf]

As Taranto pointed out last week -- the more credible Joe's threat the jump the aisle, the less likely that he'll need to.

[clarice]

Harry Reid?:
"As convicted lobbyist Jack Abramoff reported to federal prison today, a source close to the investigation surrounding his activities told ABC News that Sen. Harry Reid (D-Nev.) was one of the members of Congress Abramoff had allegedly implicated in his cooperation with federal prosecutors.(snip)
A source close to the investigation says Abramoff told prosecutors that more than $30,000 in campaign contributions to Reid from Abramoff's clients "were no accident and were in fact requested by Reid."

Abramoff has reportedly claimed the Nevada senator agreed to help him on matters related to Indian gambling.

The Associated Press reported earlier this year that Reid wrote at least four letters helpful to the tribes that had contributed money to his campaign. "

http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2006/11/abramoff_report_1.html

[MayBee]

In other words, while Lieberman is the deciding vote now, he very likely won't be come 2008, and so it would be stupid for him to burn bridges now.

I don't think he ever intended to burn any bridges. All he did was run for re-election, it was his fellow democrats that (tentatively) supported dumping him.
The bridge that will be burning is the one between serious Dems and the silly netroots.

[clarice]

[quote]Murtha Calls Ethics Bill 'Total Crap'": Pelosi's pick off to a great start!. ... P.S.: If Tom DeLay said that, you think it might get some coverage?... One would think this would sink Murtha ... Via IP, which also cites an example of Pelosi's subtle armtwisting

Baltimore Sun's Hay Brown reports the speaker-in-waiting is playing hardball: She summoned Rep.-elect Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY) to her office to ask why Gillibrand was supporting current Dem whip Steny Hoyer (D-MD), and, completely coincidentally, asked for Gillibrand's committee preferences[/quote]

http://www.slate.com/id/2153680/

[JM Hanes]

Don:

"If you guys are counting on Lieberman to save your ass, you're in worse shape than I thought."

It's not our asses on the line in Congress any more, and the real question now is how much Democratic ass Joe will be willing to save, isn't?

As far as I'm concerned, I just want him to keep the Dems from selling Iraq down the river.

Anonymous Lib:

Don't look now, but you've got groupies riding your coattails.

[Pete]

You talk about selling Iraq as if you guys own the damn place.

[Specter]

ahhh...but Pete...we don't - the dems do...that is what they ran on. And according to your favorite slanted polling group, AP/Ipsos, 57% of Americans (remember it was oversampled in Dems again) think that the Democrats have NO PLAN for Iraq. Welcome to the real world. No more La-La Land for your archairists. I blogged about the poll here.

[anonymous]

Couldn't the Republicans nominate Lieberman
for majority leader. He would have to vote against himself and all the other Democrats would have to vote against him.

If he didn't vote against himself, maybe abstained, Cheney would break the tie and install Lieberman
as leader.

[Bob]

ah spector go easy on little pete... it's been 12 years since they in power. and from the sound of pete's ramblings, one would guess that he was still in grade school back then!

[Specter]

Well....he started it! LOL. But the poll results are interesting. Democrats feel that democrats have no plan for Iraq. Imagine that. And now all the generals that said we were doing such a bad job are changing tunes. Imagine that. And the NYT is saying maybe we shouldn't leave just yet. Wow. And yet little-Petey keeps clinging to the "Bush Lied" meme. Can't help it sometimes.

BTW - Lieberman does have an axe to grind with the nutroots and the people who threw him under the bus. Wait and see.

[Patton]

If they want to get really ugly, the Republicans could vote for Lieberman as Majority leader on the Sabbath while he's at home.

Unfortunately, only Hilliary has balls that big.

[cathyf]

Couldn't the Republicans nominate Lieberman for majority leader. He would have to vote against himself and all the other Democrats would have to vote against him.

Those scenarios are actually kind of far-fetched -- razor-thin majority/minority will tend to focus everyone on keeping all of their bridges in good repair.

But on the other hand, for decades the country was governed by a coalition of moderate (blue-dog) democrats and moderate (country-club) republicans. The democrats "took" congress by recruiting candidates from the center and center-right. Now that they have been elected it's a bit unrealistic to expect them to fall into lockstep (goosestep?) with the lunatic left. Lieberman is just the poster child for their problems -- he's not the only senator who will refuse to go along with lots of nuttiness, and it's not just the senate, but the house, too.

It seems to me that Americans voted for divided government because that's what they want -- they like gridlock. And that given the kind of people they elected, that's exactly what they are going to get.

[JM Hanes]

Pete:

"You guys" have been quoting Colin Powell and telling "us" we owned it for years, but it's been more than a century since selling somebody down the river implied actual ownership.

Now if you want high handed, try the lectures Carl Levin thinks the Iraqis need to hear, or Joe Biden glibly saying we should just divide the place in three, or folks like Greg Djerejian who wants to convene a regional conference like Iraq's a neighborhood fixer upper -- and doesn't even include Iraq on his list of conferees.

[vnjagvet]

cathyf:

Another name for gridlock -- "Stay The Course".

LOL

[Pete]

"Plan" means nothing.

Bush had a "plan", which failed miserably. The Bush administration which got us in this mess has made so many wrong predictions, and shifted the goalpost so many times it is pathetic.

Cheney is on on record stating that "we will hunt the last insurgent down" in Iraq. Never mind that he has not said that for well over a year.

Before you declare victory you need to define what victory is.

[Sue]

Bush had a "plan", which failed miserably.

Is that the new talking point? Bush's plan failed? I can't keep up with democratic talking points. Last I heard he didn't have a plan.

[Pete]

I have no affiliation with the Dems.

I don't think that Bush had a viable plan. His plan was invade, get rid of Saddam and then democracy would bloom and the Iraqis would be one happy family.

What else do you expect from someone who is quite ignorant and uncurious about foreign cultures.

[lurker]

re-pete is definitely a mouthpiece of the Democrats.

Funny how Bush talked about reconstruction in Iraq after we successfully invaded Iraq. Sounded a lot like a plan.

Insurgency was a bit of a surprise but anticipated.

Doesn't matter whether he was ignorant or not; curious or not. He delegates and relies a lot on CIA, FBI, and other military agencies for their expertise, information, and advice.

[Sue]

I have no affiliation with the Dems.

Of course you don't.

[lurker]

The victory is to wipe out the insurgency.

I remember how the democrats kept harping about how we "controlled" Iraq so we handed over to Iraq as soon as they are capable. Once we operated under them, the democrats quieted down.

I believe that the democrats are actually the ones that created the current mess, although this mess spawned from the last fifty years of Islamofascism.

Medved has an excellent article up:

Propaganda About "Stolen Land" Poisons Mid-East Debate

[Specter]

C'mon Pete - How many Republican candidates did you vote for two weeks ago? I voted for 3 Dems, 3 Repubs, and one Independent who now owns the Senate. You?

[Extraneus]

Hey Daddy, you were asking about this guy.

[lurker]

On the point

Today's hearings

"SO WE HAD THESE HEARINGS ON IRAQ, and generals Abizaid and Zinni are arguing against timetables for withdrawal, which has been the Democrats' main policy proposal.

Did the Democrats know beforehand that this is what the generals thought? If so, were they dishonest in not taking it into account? Maybe they were relying on this sort of thing to keep from having to do what the MoveOn crowd wants, but what they know is wrong?

Or did they not know, making them clueless? Neither one's impressive. But since the big criticism of Rumsfeld, which led to his defenestration, was that he "didn't listen to the generals," what are the Democrats to do now that the generals have spoken?

As Dave Price notes, this is Bush's Iraq trump card:

The bedrock political strength of Bush's Iraq policy is that it rests on the advice of the military, in which public trust runs deep and wide, whatever they may think of the war itself or the decision to invade. Democrats may have no qualms about calling Bush incompetent, but witnessing how quickly they ran away from Kerry's perceived knock on U.S. troops, it's safe to assume they will be very wary about voicing similar opinions regarding the commanders on the ground in Iraq. That public view of the military as nearly sacrosanct is a major difference between now and Vietnam, and it puts the Dems in an awkward position when they advocate a position the military vehemently disagrees with.

Sure, Iraq hasn't lived up to the naive predictions of some ("two to three months of a very strong military presence"), but as wiser heads noted, "Victory in that dark, intricate conflict remains years away. While the operational victory is extraordinary, strategic victory in the War on Terror requires focused and sustained military, political and economic efforts." [Later: See this, too.]

Cut-and-run doesn't fit this strategy, and it's nice to see the Democrats being reminded of it. It's too bad, though, that the media neglected this stuff -- along with a lot of other things -- before the elections, as part of their effort to deliver Evan Thomas's 15 percent to the Democrats. Still, better late than never.

Plus, this seems right to me: "Our goal now must be to focus on projecting power on Iran, and preventing an open Al Qaeda base from establishing itself in Sunni Iraq. And we must protect Kurdistan."

UPDATE: A reader emails:

My son is a Marine and is scheduled to deploy to the sandbox this spring. His first time there, but not the first time the fundamentalists have tried to kill him while in uniform.

While going through SOI (School of Infantry) a couple of years ago, one of his sergeants told the class that this would take over 5 years to get the Iraqi army to the point of being able to defend the country. He also told them not to listen to what people predicted about getting out of Iraq quickly. These guys were going to take some time to build up a seasoned fighting force (meaning Non-Coms) This was not “US policy”, just the comments from someone who knew his job and what it was realistically going to take to complete the task. I knew then that it was questionable if we had the stomach for that long of a commitment.

In case you are curious, the Marines do."

Nope, no botching of this war at all.

[Pete]

I voted for 2 Ds (House and Senate). Voting against "Macaca" Allen was the first time in my life that I felt my vote really made a difference.

I am convinced that it is a BAD idea for a party to control the Presidency and the Congress. Gridlock works best.

[lurker]

Webb may disappoint you, re-pete.

You missed the real definition of "macaca" that Allen used.

[Specter]

And you have no connection to Dems...Right. Like I believe that for a minute. Just like aninnymouse's claim to be apolitical.

[lurker]

And a gridlock means that our US troops will stay in Iraq until real victory in our favor is accomplished, in which case, our own freedom is preserved and protected.

[lurker]

One Last Push Hope he wins.

[lurker]

Coburn letter to elect UN secretary

[JM Hanes]

Specter:

Split ticket here too, 5 Republicans, 5 Democrats, 1 unaffiliated.

So, Pete:

How many Republicans did you vote for, not being affiliated with the Democrats in any way?

[Pete]

As I mentioned I voted for 2 Democrats and 0 Republicans in this election. I have voted for Republicans in the past.

It would have been a huge mistake to give Bush yet another rubber stamp Congress. IMO, a divided govt works best.

I'm glad to see Allen gone. We'll see about Webb (there will be another election 6 years later), but so far so good.

[hit and run]

Pete:
I am convinced that it is a BAD idea for a party to control the Presidency and the Congress. Gridlock works best.

That always sounds like a really noble idea. Until the party you favor has power in one branch and the election centers on the other branch. And, when you personally step into the voting both and have a choice of one particular person over another.

Would it be fair to say that you voted republican in 1998?

Would it be fair to say you cheered the repubs retaking congress in 1994?

Would it be fair to say that you will vote republican for pres in 2008?

Would it be fair to say that if Kerry had won in 2004 ::shudder:: you would have voted for Macaca last Tuesday?

[Pete]

The person I am voting for does matter. I would never have voted for macaca Allen, but under different circumstances I may have switch my vote for the House.

I was happy about '94 and '98. I'm open to voting for a R for President in 2008, depending on the candidates (I'd never vote for Hillary based on her Iraq vote).

There are very few elections where I feel my vote counts (heavily gerrymandered districts, states heavily leaning one way or the other). Our election system needs reform.

[lurker]

I hope the electoral college never change.

There will never be a consensus on the details to reform the electoral college and it still works.