You Realize Joe Lieberman Will Be More Powerful In A 60 Seat Dem Majority Than A 59-Seat One, Right?

[THUNDER HANDS]

If the Dems pick up all the seats they want this election in the senate, and end up with the magical number of 60, and that 60th vote is Joe Lieberman, expect him not to be removed from the caucus, and, in fact, have more power than ever.

If the Dems end up with 58, 59 seats, expect him to get kicked out, because there's no difference between 51 seats and 59 seats.

So, in a way, it would be better for those who want to see Lieberman kicked out that the Dems DON'T get 60 seats in the senate. Of if they do, that they completely run the table and get over 60, like 61 or 62.

But that's not likely to happen.

It's quite the conundrum.

[Doremus]

1. He's toast either way. Good riddance to bad rubbish. n/t

[scheming daemons]

2. I think that on Nov 5th, the Dems kick Joe out of their caucus... no matter what the number is

[Jack from Charlotte]

49. Yes. The 60 seat deal isn't like the 51 seat caucus.....

The 60 seat deal is voted on with each piece of legislation. It will change with each vote. For example, some Southern Dems will vote with Repugs on certain bills.

Joe gets striped of his committee chairmanship the day the senate comes back after the election.

He wisely was not striped now because it looks bad politically.

I want to terminate his command with extreme prejudice.

[Alter Ego]

3. Yeah, I'm not gonna lose sleep if Lieberman is the difference

between 59 and 60.

I'm more edgy now that he's the only bulwark giving us our majority in the Senate.

[Hope And Change]

4. Isn`t Bernie Sanders also an Independent who has endorsed Obama?

[Vinca]

5. Bernie's already included in the projected 60. We have to get to 61

to keep Lieberman from becoming King.

[bigscott]

12. fuck LIEberman

when McDouche loses, do you really think LIEberman will cooperate with the Dems in the next Congress? he will switch to the Pukes and I, for one, will not be sad to see him go. We can all stop pretending he is a Dem. he is an embarrassment to my state and to my country.

FUCK HIM

[Vinca]

19. Agreed, but we will still need 60 on the Dem side to shut them down.

I'd love Holy Joe to become an official Republican, but it would be sweeter if we had 60 votes remaining and could rule the Senate.

[bigscott]

41. my point being

that LIEberman is such a douche bag and sore loser he WONT vote with the Dems - especially if we take away his chairmanships - which they should do

peace

[THUNDER HANDS]

6. yes, he's in our caucus

right now he's the 51st senator that gives us a majority.

Lieberman is the 50th.

[C_U_L8R]

7. With the GOP going down in flames

it may be easier to persuade one of their more thoughtful Senators to come to our side.
Fuck Lieberman, he's a snake in the grass.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

29. It's not very likely.

Truth is, we've offed their most of their more liberal Senators at this point, and the few that are left, such as Olympia Snowe, have recently won re-election as Republicans. Here's what we have to work with in the Republican 2010 election class:

Bennett
Brownback
Bond
Bunning
Burr
Coburn
Crapo
DeMint
Grassley
Gregg
Isakson
Martinez
McCain
Murkowski
Specter
Thune
Vitter
Voinovich

Not a great list to choose from, with perhaps Specter, Voinovich, and Gregg being the most likely, which ain't saying much. I don't think we'll be able to count on that at all.

[cali]

30. what happened to Snow and Collins?

they'll be in the next Senate. And yes, it's easier to pick off repubs when you have a large majority. They'll be fighting for relevancy.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

37. Snow, perhaps, but definitely not Collins.

Collins would have just been re-elected as a Republican, and it's very, very difficult to justify changing parties so soon after an election. If it was going to happen with Collins, it would've been 9 months ago.

[cali]

39. Oh, I'm not talking about getting them to change parties, just

talking about picking off votes.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

42. Yeah, me too.

It's politically very difficult to get someone to change their party affiliation immediately after an election. The reasoning goes that many of the people whom voted for you did so on the basis that you were a Republican, and as such, they get very upset when you pull the old bait and switch. 2012 would probably be the earliest to get Collins to switch parties at this point.

[Dawgs]

No. We should hope for as many seats as possible.

Joe Republican can go fuck himself.

[high density]

8. So if we kick him, you think he's going to vote differently?

This is a guy that has endorsed McCain/Palin for president. I think the Dems have pussyfooted around him for long enough. Joe Lieberman only cares about Joe Lieberman.

I think we'd have better luck talking to Snowe, Collins, and/or Hagel when we need the votes.

[Thrill]

9. I doubt it. If the Dems have that kind of Majority. You can almost count on Snowe and Collins

crossing over with the Dems on the important issues ;-)

You can count on them more than Lieberman

[Tarc]

10. With a Democratic president though, maintaining 60 isn't as important

Unless I'm missing something, all it would provide is an automatic party-line safeguard against Republican filibusters. But I'd imagine if one comes up for a vote to end, they could easily pry one of the (vanishing breed of) moderate GOP'ers like Snowe or Collins to side with us.

[NewJeffCT]

11. No, we'd only need 1 or 2 Republics to break ranks each time

and, with the failure of conservatism and Bush, at least some of them will be rushing to prove how moderate & bipartisan they are for their 2010 campaign commericials.

[Virginia Dare]

25. It's possible we could see somebody like Olympia Snowe..

bolt and come over to the Dems side, there probably will be at least a couple, especially if the repubs experience the debacle that is being predicted.

[NewJeffCT]

35. What will be beautiful to watch

The far right crowd will start shrieking that they lost because the Republicans nominated McCain, and not a "true" conservative...

Meanwhile, McCain's fracturing image as a moderate is one of the few things that is keeping the race as close as it is. The other candidates the Republics put up were far more flawed than McCain.

So, it will be a life & death struggle to see if the far right can still maintain their influence in the party and possibly make them even more radically right-wing... and, sending the few remaining moderates to the Democratic party.

[H2O Man]

13. Respectfully disagree.

Joe Lieberman is nothing if not a prostitute, who will do anything to try to exercise power. He had his feelings hurt in 2006, when the democrats in his state rejected him in the primary, and when he resented fellow Washington democrats perceived lack of support. That led to his taking a gamble on accessing power through a partnership with John McCain. But with 60 democrats in the Senate, Lieberman will attempt to access power among them.

[Wetzelbill]

28. right

He has to do it. Unless he decides to retire when he's up for election again. But with a Dem president and both Houses firmly in Dem control, Joe knows whose ass he has to kiss now. And it's not John McCain and George Bush's anymore.

[DefenseLawyer]

14. No more powerful than any other republican senator in the minority.

The 60 is on individual votes. He doesn't have to be in the caucus to vote with the Democrats. They need him now to vote for the leadership. They won't after November. He's out.

[lakeguy]

15. less powerful

if he votes against the dem platform he will be the sole one responsible for failure and will be easily picked off in the next election, hopefully.

[Gman]

16. Which is a good reason why people should stop trashing Lieberman

the only thing Lieberman is wrong on is the occupation and related issues. But some here will say the war is everything and they would rather lose everything than have Lieberman on their side.

Kinda sounds like the anti-abortion voters. Same mentality.

[chiefofclarinet]

17. I just posted a thread like this last night

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=7390462&mesg_id=7390462

It is quite possible for Lieberman to get to be the 60th member of the Dem caucus. On the other hand, with such a whopping majority, it may not matter that the turncoat is sitting with us. And also, it is possible for us to run over enough Republicans to get 60 without Lieberman.

[cali]

18. no. you couldn't be more wrong. There's a huge difference

between a 51 seat majority and a 58 seat majority. history teaches us that. It is much, much easier to pass your agenda when you have a substantial majority even if it's not a supermajority. And it is much easier to pick off repubs like Collins, Snow and Spector who are desperate to remain relevant.

[TheCowsCameHome]

20. That's assuming republicans vote strictly along party lines

A number of them have been known to vote with the left quite frequently.

[nichomachus]

21. Not true -- you're making a fundamental error in reasoning

The only reason Joe is useful now is because he caucuses with the Dems, giving them the majority and control of the Senate. However, he pretty much votes with the GOP.

So, the Dems put up with his voting because they want control.

However, the 59-60 seat "conundrum" you speak about is about voting, not majorities or control. If Joe continues to vote solidly with the GOP, then he would not provide the protection from filibuster that you want from a 60-seat majority. So, it really doesn't make any difference if the Dems have 60 nominal seats -- as long as one of those seats will betray them on every vote.

[WinkyDink]

22. Yeah, whatever. Let's aim for FEWER! The Republicans WIN if we win more! WTH?!

[lapfog_1]

23. You are wrong on this,

Lieberman is important today because without him in the caucus, we could lose the leadership of the Senate, and that includes all of the committee chairs.

After January, no matter how many Dems we get, his will be just another vote, no different than any other Repuke. If we need him to prevent a filibuster of some bill or another, we could just as easily appeal to some other centrist Repuke, especially one that we pull aside as say to them "next election cycle, do you really want President Obama showing up in your state and making speeches for your opponent?" Joe is only special right now because of the "caucus" thing. As soon as that's not needed anymore, I think he should be the last one we talk to. Maybe the people of Connecticut will wake up next time and vote his ass out of there.

[Virginia Dare]

24. Think of LIEberman as a republican in your calculations..

I think we'll still get the majority without him. FUCK HIM! I HOPE HE FUCKS OFF AND DIES!!

[Wetzelbill]

26. I don't think he'll have much power at all

He'd only be effective in a filibuster type situation. And Joe still basically agrees with Dems on certain bread and butter issues. He's most radical on foreign policy. Plus never forget what a frontrunning scuzzy opportunist Lieberman is. In the past capitulating to Republicans helped him because they either had all the power or the presidency. With Dems firmly in control of both houses and Obama as president he'd have to curry some type of favor with them.

Plus, Republicans like say Olympia Snow might flip from time to time so they can get something done. I think all in all, Joe's time is past and if he wants to have any shot at reelection, he can't be seen as an obstructionist.

[endthewar]

27. Wrong. Some Repubs will vote with the Dems, e.g. Olympia Snowe and others

This was actually discussed by Chuck Todd on MSNBC. He talked about how the Dems actually want to get 58 seats since that will effectively be a filibuster-proof majority for the Dems.

[zbdent]

31. I think that the 60 Dem majority is referring to the idea of 60 Dems

Joe Lieberman (1 Repuke-lite), one independent, and 38 Republicans.

[WeDidIt]

32. Our best bet is to take ten Senate seats

A very somber Ed Rollins predicted ten Democratic pickups in the Senate, too.

[Zen Democrat]

33. Joe wishes he could be relevant ... at any number... not.gonna.happen!

Whether our side has 58 seats or 60 seats, Lieberman is gonna be a whiner on the back-bench, at best.

[PuppyBismark]

34. What happened to the "nuclear option?" WE CAN USE IT!

Back when there were Supreme Court nominee discussions the REPUBS were talking about changing the Senate rules via the "Nuclear Option." It is now an option for the DEMS. These are going to be tough times and we will need to get work done in the Senate.

Well, I just looked it up and yes the DEMS can change the rules if they have the guts to step up to the plate, and it only takes a majority to do it! At one time it took 2/3 of the Senate to stop debate, it was lowered to 60% by just a majority of those present, so it is time to fix this along with everything else.

<http://www.cfif.org/htdocs/legislative_issues/federal_issues/hot_issues_in_congress/confirmation_watch/nuclear_option.htm>



:nuke: :nuke: :nuke:

[Sensitivity]

36. NO. Only affects filibusters and vetos and we have 2 Rep who switch in these circumstances.

-- of course depending on the merits of the issue

[Orangepeel]

38. Nah. The power is in controlling the Senate, not on voting on specific bills

There will ALWAYS be some Democrat who votes the "wrong" way and the few "moderate" republicans left (e.g., Collins and Snow) are almost as likely to vote the "correct" way as Lieberman on a particular vote.

[Onlooker]

40. No, that doesn't make sense

If Joe is the 60th vote, he'll vote to override a filibuster on those things he agrees with the Democrats on (social issues) and vote to maintain a filibuster on those things he doesn't agree with them on (Iraq). Lieberman will actually be more valuable than some of the other conservative Democrats, such as Ben Nelson. Lieberman is not the most conservative Democrat, he's just one of the most conservative and the only one to betray his party.

[LiberadorHugo]

43. Hopefully Liebertraitor's been sucking up a lot to Yhwh this Yom Kippur...

Wouldn't it be grand if Lieberfuck becomes #61 and all of his powerful positions are handed over to radicals like Sanders and Feingold?

[Hokie]

44. Leiberman will have to decide if he wants to be a back bencher regardless

I will make two predictions:

1. Lieberman will lose his committee chair and will leave the caucus (good riddance)
2. Hillary Clinton will replace Harry Reid as Majority Leader.

[Shae]

45. Kick him out whatever the number . . .

Let him go over to the dark side where he belongs.

(But sometimes I wonder if he ever regrets hitching a ride on the "Straight Talk Express").

[SuperTrouper]

46. Well, McCain will kick the bucket soon or have a nervous breakdown and Gov. Napolitano will appoint

a Democrat to fill McThuselah's seat.

[BlooInBloo]

47. Teh STUPID!! It BURNS!!!!

[grantcart]

48. Nope because there will always be a couple of Republicans that will cross

on important legislation

If the dems pick up 8-9 seats then there will be kowtowing by Repubs not defiance.

[TexasObserver]

50. Nuclear Option.

It's a rule and it can be changed. It has been changed in the past, twice in the past century, to be exact. If we get 58 seats in the senate, a big House majority, and the presidency, it's time to steam roll through an agenda and FIX the mess Bush has made.

[onenote]

51. not really

He's demonstrated that he's going to vote the way he's going to vote no matter what. Do you really think he'll vote for cloture on anything he doesn't plan to vote for inthe first place? And do you think he'll vote for things because he's still got a committee chairmanship that he'd vote against otherwise?

If the Democrats capture 59 seats, they will have a lot of folks that have earned senior spots on committees. Joe L is not one of them and they will wish him a fond adieu.

[yardwork]

52. We need more than 60 but I'll take 60 over 59.