Switching parties--So what does the senate care?

[EST]

Time after time, in various threads, someone will post a breathless query, worrying about what would happen if Joe Lieberman should switch parties. When all the squawking settles, it becomes obvious that there is a paucity of information and understanding of senate rules.
I'd like to clear that up.

Ever since the direct election of senators was adopted nearly a century ago, consideration of what would happen if the majority in the senate should change mid-term had to be made. This has happened before and could well happen again, so certain rules were adopted to handle just such an occasion. This set of rules is set up early in the life of each new congress and it is called an "organizing resolution."

At the beginning of the 110th congress, the organizing resolution adopted by the senate spelled out that, no matter what happens to individual senators or their seats, the committee leaderships remain the same.

What does this mean? It means that Lieberman's switching parties - which he guaranteed his constituents he would never do ( "I've been a democrat for forty years and I will die a democrat," he said) - means exactly nothing will happen.
Nothing-nada-zip-zilch-nothing. Joe would continue voting mostly with the republicans, which he does right now, but the all important committee leadership positions, which are where the real power lies, would remain in democratic hands.

Had senator Johnson not survived his medical problems and a republican been appointed in his stead prior to the installation of the new congress, all would be different and the senate would now likely be in republican hands, but such was not the case. Now, since the senate organizing resolution was passed, it wouldn't make any difference even if a half dozen democrats became republicans-things would stay the same unless enough seats changed parties so that the democrats could not filibuster a new organizing resolution.

And that's it. From now until the end of the one hundred tenth congress-Jan, 2009-the only way this could change would be if a filibuster proof majority opted to pass a new organizing resolution that delivered the senate into the hands of the republicans. Oh, and by the way, an organizing resolution could be passed-why anyone would want to do it, I don't know-that hands the control of the senate to the republicans even if there were eighty democrats.

So, for now, everybody just relax and stop worrying. Until the 111th congress is sworn in, no amount of party switching is going to make any real difference unless enough democrats become republicans to enact a new organizing resolution over the wishes of the remaining democrats and their ability to filibuster. We can be assured it just ain't gonna happen.

[cyclezealot]

1. lieberman is no Democrat.

But, with all Bush's trouble , outside of Iraq even ; why would a politician switch over to a sinking ship. Is Lieberman so obsessed with Iraq, he'd join them. With the present Gonzales scandal and the investigations into the DA firings why? How stupid.

[Demeter]

2. If So, I Have Great Hopes For This Congress

They started off on the left foot!

[MADem]

3. It has everything to do with articles like this, that appear in TIME Magazine (this in FEB 07)

Whatever Joe Lieberman Wants

....Lieberman says leaving the Democratic Party is a "very remote possibility." But even that slight ambiguity — and all his cross-aisle flirtation — has proved more than enough to position Lieberman as the Senate's one-man tipping point. If he were to jump ship, the ensuing shift of power to Republicans would scramble the politics of the war in Iraq, undercut the Democrats' national agenda and potentially weaken their hopes for the White House in 2008. Those stakes are high enough to give Lieberman leverage with both parties no matter how slim the chance of his crossing the aisle. Which means Senate leaders aren't worrying only about whether Joe Lieberman will switch parties. They're wondering what, if anything, he plans to do with the power that comes from keeping that possibility alive.

So far, Lieberman is using his clout mostly in ways that discomfit his fellow Democrats, while his relationship with Republicans has involved more collaboration than coercion. When Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said Bush's State of the Union proposal for a bipartisan terrorism panel was redundant, Lieberman, who supported the idea, privately sent Reid a letter saying he was "upset." Within days, Reid backed down and negotiated the panel's makeup with the White House. And last month, after Lieberman told Reid he had stopped attending the weekly Democratic lunch because he didn't feel comfortable discussing Iraq there, Reid offered to hold those discussions at another time. Lieberman has started attending again.

It stands to reason that Lieberman, a lifelong Democrat, would be interested in extracting concessions from Republicans as well. He describes himself as a hawk abroad, and lately his rhetoric has come to resemble the G.O.P.'s, notably when he said Democratic opposition to Bush's troop surge would "discourage our troops, hearten our enemies." But he's progressive at home; he has a long record of fighting for environmental concerns, prides himself on his early support for the civil rights movement and has earned strong ratings from labor. He's even working on a military mental-health bill with California liberal Barbara Boxer. His staff claims he votes with Democrats more than 90% of the time, if Iraq is removed from the calculation.

And Lieberman is uniquely positioned to influence the Bush Administration. In December 2004 the White House "sounded him out" for the job of U.N. ambassador, says a source close to Lieberman, and although he declined the offer, he remains in regular contact with the Executive Branch. Before Bush's State of the Union speech in January, National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley brought in Lieberman for a private consultation with the President. Lieberman says he talks with or e-mails Hadley, Homeland Security chief Michael Chertoff and White House legislative-affairs head Candida Wolff every week or two.

Lieberman's G.O.P. flirtation has its risks — and a time limit. By this time next year, the 2008 election cycle will overshadow anything that happens in the Senate. The longer he waits to capitalize on his moment, the greater the danger that he'll be tagged as one of those politicians for whom having power is more important than using it.

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1592758,00.html

[EST]

4. His vote is important, as is that of every other senator, especially Democrats.

But his ability to cause the upheaval that some folks worry about is more limited than many of us suppose.
I am just trying to clear up some confusion that consistently recurs here and causes needless consternation.

There is also, apparently, considerable confusion surrounding the second Hatch act and the presidential records retention act, which I intend to write about later.

[MADem]

5. I understand your goal, but it's also important to note that these fears aren't emanating from thin

air--the corporate media is schlepping this possibility from pillar to post.

In the HuffPo, on 29 March, there was this (actually pretty funny, and worth a read for the amusement): http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ellis-weiner/its-your-party-and-they-_b_44547.html

And here's an idiot blogger published in the media who doesn't get it, so no wonder those who don't lock on don't get it, either: http://www.kxmc.com/getARticle.asp?ArticleId=113753

And then there's this shit: http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_lynne_gl_070320_the_dems_have_only_t.htm

I couldn't help but note the "Politico" sourcing of Joey's attention-whore quote.

This subject "came up for discussion" suddenly in late February through the end of March, really. Like magic. And then, so many people just started talking about it--oh, my!

Nothing happens by accident. This is a planted bit of business, designed to incite fear and uncertainty in the Democratic Party, to prevent them from going "too far off the ranch" or getting "wild ideas." That's what this is all about--herding everyone into the mushy middle, so wild ideas don't gain too much currency.

[EST]

6. As usual, your clarity penetrates right to the heart of the matter.

I have been involved in raising animals of various sorts all my life, so the parallels between people and critters is pretty automatic.
People in groups and flocks of chickens are astonishingly similar. Easy to panic over little or nothing, lots of talk, talk, talk with no tangible results, fights just to show superiority rather than substance, funnier comparisons abound.

Individual people and dogs are alike, too, with nothing much to say but an overwhelming urge to say it over and over in a loud voice.

I keep getting the impression that "Politico" is definitely anti-democrat in their general slant and that there is a concerted effort, especially among the trash talking head set, to push them to a position of prominence. Do you concur?

[MADem]

7. I certainly do concur. Politico, to be politically incorrect and use an animal reference, is

rather like teats on a bull at this stage of the internet game. They aren't great, they aren't even good, and they sure as hell are not filling any void.

Yet they have been shoved to sudden prominence, mentioned EVERYWHERE, especially on GOPTV. Where are they getting their cash, ya gotta ask yourself!!

Edit-spelling error, sticky key!