What if Lieberman is the super majority tie-breaker?

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

Aw, fuck!

[book_worm]

1. I'd still kick his ass out of the party caucus.

[alcibiades_mystery]

2. Fuck 'em

They can't filibuster everything.

[LSK]

3. Collins and Snowe would be swayed to vote with us on some stuff

[chelsea0011]

9. Im convinced that if Snowe had been picked instead of Palin we would be looking

at a tossup election.

[MindMatter]

11. Exactly. Lieberman would be about 30th most likely

of all the Republican Senators to vote with us. Lieberman isn't a moderate. He's a hawk -- far right.

The moderates in the GOP will hold the cards. They are from districts that will expect them to support progressive initiatives. It is unclear how hard the remaining shell of the ultra conservative base will fight for hard-right positions. The spineless wonders on the Dem side have gotten a lot of heat in recent years, but there are also a lot of spineless wonders on the GOP side that will see very little reason to take bullets for the right wingers.

And if they do, we make sure they pay the price when they next stand for election.

Democracy is a bitch when there are actually two parties in the game for a change. We are just getting started.

[Pyrzqxgl]

4. Just gives the DU Lieberman Hate Squad something to do after Nov 5.

[book_worm]

6. and he has greatly earned that hate.

[Liberal Veteran]

7. Shit. We started a LIEberman hate squad and I wasn't invited?

I despise that turncoat bastard with the heat of a thousand white hot suns going supernova simultaneously.

[crankychatter]

5. then biden orchestrates the beating of his monkey ass NT

[cameozalaznick]

8. Not too worry...

There are plenty of moderate Republicans that will listen to reason on a variety of issues. They've moveable. Snowe, Hagel, Collins, Specter, spring to mind. Hell, even Hatch every now and then.

[MindMatter]

12. All of the above. Throw Lugar in there.

There are probably a lot more who will be reasonable when given a framework that rewards being reasonable.

[HooptieWagon]

10. It wouldn't matter.

The super majority is only important to cut off discussion (end a fillibuster) or to override a veto. Some Reps may vote with Dems on that, some Dems can be expected to go against the party... so LIEberman's vote won't matter. LIEberman was only necessary to get a simple majority (50%+1)in order to control the committee chairs, majority leadership, and office assignments. LIEberman did do his job in that aspect.

[MindMatter]

14. Not exactly

I'm no parliamentarian, but I think the Senate has adopted broad rules that essentially require 60 votes for any substantive issue. They did this under the theory that the other side would filibuster when pressed, so why go through all that? Either you have 60 votes or you don't.

The only time we see real filibusters now is when one side sees an advantage in delaying or getting more media attention.

[endarkenment]

13. Curb him anyway.

He is toxic shit. We will get stuff passed. The remaining refuglicans will not present a solid front.

[DefenseLawyer]

15. That is a dumb question.

It assumes quite incorrectly that senate votes on particular issues always break along part lines. It is the simple majority which gives control of the Senate that is important (a vote which obviously does go down party lines). Lieberman will have no more leverage than any other senator when it comes to breaking a filibuster. He is out of the caucus. Write it down.

[theothersnippywshrub]

16. Exactly. On any cloture vote he is just one of 100. And on any cloture vote where there are 59

votes, he is just one of 41. He is the very last odious Senate turd I would make a deal with on any vote. And I would rather lose most votes than make a deal with Lieberman.