Sadly, The Democrats Still Need Joe Lieberman
Last week, Scott Keyes of the Political Insider pointed out that under the terms of the Senate's current organizing resolution, the Democrats would be under no obligation to cede or even share control of the Senate should Joe Lieberman decide to defect and caucus with the Republicans. The only reason the Republicans had to do so in 2001--when Senator Jim Jeffords switched parties--was because the Democrats had the foresight to have negotiated an organizing resolution that provided for shared control should such a defection take place. 2001 was actually the exception to the rule, though. Historically, there have been numerous instances in which the majority party lost their numerical advantage, but leadership of the Senate did not change hands.
Based on these facts, a consensus seems to have emerged within the liberal blogosphere that the deference currently being shown toward Lieberman by Senate Democrats is unwarranted, that Lieberman doesn't actually have the power to hand control of the Senate back to the Republicans. As Hilzoy put it, "Joe Lieberman: go jump in a lake. The Republicans can have you."
Unfortunately, I think people are letting history and parliamentary procedure blind them to some ugly political realities.
Suppose that tomorrow Joe Lieberman were to call a press conference and announce that he is leaving the Democratic party and will henceforth be caucusing with the Republicans. Here's what would happen. Within minutes after the conclusion of the press conference, Mitch McConnell and the Republicans would demand that the Democrats share leadership and committee control the same way the Republicans did when Jeffords defected in 2001.
If Harry Reid were to refuse--citing historical precedent and the lack of any relevant provision in the current organizing resolution--every single Republican politician, pundit, and blogger would instantly and simultaneously throw the mother of all political tantrums. We'd witness an all out wingnut supernova of rage and lunacy. The wailing and gnashing of teeth would be deafening.
Republican Senators--as well as Fox News, Rush Limbaugh, and all the other usual suspects-- would accuse the Democrats, in the most hyperbolic terms imaginable, of hijacking the Senate and subverting the very essence of democracy in their shameless desire to retain power. They'd claim that in 2001, the Republicans magnanimously agreed to share power (ignoring the fact that, had they not been obligated to share power by the then-operative organizing resolution, the Republicans never would have ceded control).
If, in the face of all this whining, Reid still refused to amend the organizing resolution, the Republicans would filibuster everything until they got their way. They would bring all Senate business to a halt.
All this partisan rancor would give the David Broders of the world the Vapors, but he would still end up siding with the Republicans and chastising Reid for not doing what the Republicans so graciously agreed to do in 2001. Mainstream journalists and pundits would focus almost exclusively on the 2001 precedent, ignoring more relevant (albeit less recent) historical examples, and thereby playing into the Republican framing of the issue.
In the face of this cacophony of lunacy and faux outrage, and with the Senate completely paralyzed, the Democratic leadership would eventually cave in and agree to share control of the Senate with the Republicans. The Republicans would then use their new found status to obstruct oversight efforts, kill Democratic legislation, and push through judicial appointments.
In other words, as much as I hate to admit it, the Democrats still need Joe Lieberman, at least until 2008. Control of the Senate is important, and if he were to defect, it really could cause a major headache for the Democratic party.
Based on these facts, a consensus seems to have emerged within the liberal blogosphere that the deference currently being shown toward Lieberman by Senate Democrats is unwarranted, that Lieberman doesn't actually have the power to hand control of the Senate back to the Republicans. As Hilzoy put it, "Joe Lieberman: go jump in a lake. The Republicans can have you."
Unfortunately, I think people are letting history and parliamentary procedure blind them to some ugly political realities.
Suppose that tomorrow Joe Lieberman were to call a press conference and announce that he is leaving the Democratic party and will henceforth be caucusing with the Republicans. Here's what would happen. Within minutes after the conclusion of the press conference, Mitch McConnell and the Republicans would demand that the Democrats share leadership and committee control the same way the Republicans did when Jeffords defected in 2001.
If Harry Reid were to refuse--citing historical precedent and the lack of any relevant provision in the current organizing resolution--every single Republican politician, pundit, and blogger would instantly and simultaneously throw the mother of all political tantrums. We'd witness an all out wingnut supernova of rage and lunacy. The wailing and gnashing of teeth would be deafening.
Republican Senators--as well as Fox News, Rush Limbaugh, and all the other usual suspects-- would accuse the Democrats, in the most hyperbolic terms imaginable, of hijacking the Senate and subverting the very essence of democracy in their shameless desire to retain power. They'd claim that in 2001, the Republicans magnanimously agreed to share power (ignoring the fact that, had they not been obligated to share power by the then-operative organizing resolution, the Republicans never would have ceded control).
If, in the face of all this whining, Reid still refused to amend the organizing resolution, the Republicans would filibuster everything until they got their way. They would bring all Senate business to a halt.
All this partisan rancor would give the David Broders of the world the Vapors, but he would still end up siding with the Republicans and chastising Reid for not doing what the Republicans so graciously agreed to do in 2001. Mainstream journalists and pundits would focus almost exclusively on the 2001 precedent, ignoring more relevant (albeit less recent) historical examples, and thereby playing into the Republican framing of the issue.
In the face of this cacophony of lunacy and faux outrage, and with the Senate completely paralyzed, the Democratic leadership would eventually cave in and agree to share control of the Senate with the Republicans. The Republicans would then use their new found status to obstruct oversight efforts, kill Democratic legislation, and push through judicial appointments.
In other words, as much as I hate to admit it, the Democrats still need Joe Lieberman, at least until 2008. Control of the Senate is important, and if he were to defect, it really could cause a major headache for the Democratic party.
posted by A.L. at 11:28 PM
9 Comments:
"Need" joe LIE-beman? Kind of like we all "need" an asshole, right? However, we don't "need" hemroids and would try to have them removed or at least alleviated, right?
Sorry - don't buy that anyone but the chimp and his band of thieves needs JOE MUST GO LIE-berman.
Much as I hate to admit it, a.l., you're right... and I was on Hilzoy's side of the issue until now. Excellent, well-reasoned, annoying post; thanks for it. :)
Also, why the hell would the Dems want control of the Senate but still be in the minority (51-50 Republican counting Cheney's vote if Joe were to switch)? Looking for ways to reduce one's majority for spite (considering that other than on foreign policy Joe votes with the Dem mainstream) is just stupid.
I'm with voxpoptart:
"Excellent, well-reasoned, annoying post."
Also, why the hell would the Dems want control of the Senate but still be in the minority
This question doesn't make much sense. Lieberman is going to vote however he's going to vote no matter what he calls himself (and he's Independent right now, not a Democrat). It's not like switching parties would affect his vote on other issues or change the current ideological makeup of the Senate.
Not true, AL, don't you think that a Lieberman told by the Dems "f--- off, go join the GOP, we would rather endanger our majority than have you be a part of it" might be a wee bit less inclined to vote with his former party. Maybe? A little bit?
Not true, AL, don't you think that a Lieberman told by the Dems "f--- off, go join the GOP, we would rather endanger our majority than have you be a part of it" might be a wee bit less inclined to vote with his former party. Maybe? A little bit?
Sure, but I don't think anyone is literally suggesting that Harry Reid should tell Lieberman to "f**k off". Rather, they're suggesting that Lieberman's threat is an empty one, and therefore, the Dems should not fear that pushing certain legislation through will anger Lieberman.
My point was that Lieberman's threat isn't so empty. If he changed parties it really might affect leadership and committee control.
Great post, particularly for facts beyond those I put forth in reaching the same conclusion at Oh!pinion.
I especially got a kick out of this:
" . . . every single Republican politician, pundit, and blogger would instantly and simultaneously throw the mother of all political tantrums. We'd witness an all out wingnut supernova of rage and lunacy."
It evoked a mind's eye image of a cross between "Fox News All Stars" plus Rush, Coulter, Malkin and Novak, and "Night of the Living Dead."
For the record, Lieberman bills himself an independent Democrat, which Connecticut election law provides for.
Whatever label he wears, Lieberman is in the catbird seat and he knows it. I don't doubt for a minute Mitch McConnell has promised Lieberman plenty if he'll just liberate his inner Republican.
My guess, though, is that there's timing involved. McConnell would most want Lieberman to switch in the wake of Senate Democrats launching some big, decisive move to get our troops out of Iraq, especially if that move appeared likely to get enough votes to pass.
Good commentary, there's just one thing that bugs me, and that's Sen. Lieberman right behind VP Cheney in pictures from the Weekly Republican Stratgey Meeting at the Capitol.
Not only does it sort of give me hives, the danger of a Republican-Lieberman strategy in the works gets my paranoid thoughts churning.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home