This issue has been diaried a thousand times in the past couple days, and everyone has their own opinion about what should happen to Lieberman. But a lot of people seem to be confused about some basic facts. I'd like to clarify some things rather than add yet another opinion to the mix.
First of all, let's talk about how committee seats work.
In the U.S. Senate, there are 17 standing committees. Within these 17 committees, there are 70 standing sub-committees and 2 ad-hoc sub-committees. There are also currently 4 "Special" or "Select" committees that sit outside of this structure and are (in theory) temporary. Add it up, there's a shitload of committees.
At the beginning of each 2-year session of Congress, the majority party divides up the number of seats that each party will get on each committee. For instance, the Judiciary Committee currenty gets 10 Democrats and 9 Republicans.
Once it is decided how many seats each party gets on each committee, it is then up to each party's caucus to divide up those seats among themselves (this is where the importance of caucusing with one party or another is relevant). Each and every Senator gets assigned seats on a number of committees. But, despite the overall large number of committees and sub-committees, committee chairs are at a premium. Only members of the majority party get chairs, and even then only the more senior members. For instance, currently, none of the Senators elected in '06 are in charge of any committees or sub-committees. And chairs of the 17 standing committees are highly prized spots.
These committees are in charge of considering bills, monitoring government agencies, conducting investigations, etc. Committee chairs are powerful positions for the same reason that the Speaker of the House is powerful: they set the agenda. But each member of a committee gets a vote on what to do with a bill being considered.
Now, Joe Lieberman is currently the chairman of the standing Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. This committee is in charge of two very broad, unrelated issues: homeland security, and internal government oversight. Lieberman is also chairman of two minor sub-committees. Now, if there is one committee where Lieberman can do the most harm, this is it. As kos has pointed out, this is the committee that should be in charge of investigating some of the worst aspects of the Bush administration.
So, now that I've gotten that out of the way... Let's talk about what to do about Lieberman. There are really 3 separate issues.
Issue #1 is whether he gets to chair a committee (assuming for the moment that we allow him to stay in the caucus). Lieberman's current committee is damn important. And it focuses on the issues that Lieberman is furthest from the Democrats on. I think it's pretty clear he's going to lose this chair. So, the issue is really whether he gets to chair a different committee, or none at all. Harry Reid's offer was the Veteran's Affairs Committee. I can live with that.
Issue #2 is the caucus (assuming for the moment that he doesn't get any committee chairs). Should we even allow him to caucus with the Democrats? Unlike the chairmanship issue, this question is pretty inconsequential, considering we're well above the 50 seats needed for control of the Senate. Regardless of whether he's in the Democratic caucus or the Republican caucus, one of the parties is gonna assign him some committee spots. Like I pointed out above, everyone gets committee spots... For what it's worth, Obama has said he wants to keep Lieberman in the caucus.
We could keep him in the caucus, but give him no chairmanships. That would put him in a position no worse off than he'd be with the Republicans. They have no chairs to offer him. This is why the Democrats have all the leverage on this issue. There is absolutely nothing that Lieberman can gain by caucusing with the Republicans... And, it could potentially be advantageous to try to keep him in the caucus, because then we could control what committees he's put on. Maybe we could give him his pick of committees dealing with domestic/social issues. Places where he can do no real harm.
Issue #3 is cloture votes. I cannot stress how little this has to do with the above two issues. Here, party affiliation is meaningless. The votes do not break along party lines. Ignore what the traditional media tells you about 60 Democrats being a magic number.
Cloture votes are specific to the issue at hand. For instance, the Republican Senators from Maine (Collins, Snowe) have mostly been voting with us on issues like Iraq and the environment. They're not half bad on labor issues, either. Arlen Specter (R-PA) votes with us on labor issues. Richard Lugar (R-IN) is with us on some Iraq votes. Lieberman votes with us on most social/domestic issues, but against us on Iraq/national security/torture/etc. And oftentimes, Democrats like Mary Landrieu, Ben Nelson, and Blanche Lincoln vote against us on oil/environmental issues. And there's always that contingent of conservative Democrats who are spineless whenever the word "terrorism" is invoked.
Lieberman's committee status, and status within the caucus, won't affect how he votes on cloture motions. On each issue, he's always voted the way he's voted, and I cannot see that changing. Do you really think he's suddenly going to change his mind on issues like abortion, education, civil rights, the environment, healthcare, Social Security, gun control, etc., simply out of spite? (Btw, I'm by no means saying he's perfect on all these issues. But he's not a Republican on them.)
He also has political considerations. He's up for re-election in 2012, he's in good heath, and he's "only" 66 years old (the average age of the Senate is 63)... But his constituents hate him: A DailyKos/R2K poll from September 2007 showed that Lieberman would lose a rematch with Ned Lamont by 8%. And as of April 2008, Lieberman would lose a rematch by 14%. And I think he'll try to be mindful of his unpopularity. Though I don't think he has any chance in hell of winning re-election, I think that he thinks he has a shot. See, for instance, his 2004 Presidential campaign.
---------------------------------------------------------
One more thing about cloture votes. Because cloture votes do not fall along party lines, on many many issues, we will have the 60 votes for cloture. But I don't even know if it will even be necessary. Are the Republicans really stupid enough and self-destructive enough to be obstructionists, considering the size of the Democrats' mandate?
When thinking about what the Republican Senators are likely to do, consider the following... Once again in the Senate, there are more Repubicans than Democrats up for re-election in 2010. Within that group, they have a number of older Senators, some of whom will likely retire (Arlen Specter, Chuck Grassley, Bob Bennett, Richard Shelby, etc). And they have a number of vulnerable incumbents with negative approval numbers (Mel Martinez, Jim Bunning, Richard Burr). Oh, and Sam Brownback has already announced his retirement, with term-limited Kathleen Sebelius lined up to pick up the seat.