First Flip a Senator from R->I, then Dump Joe

Like many of you, I find watching and listening to Joe Lieberman lately so nauseating, so appalling, that I find I have to swallow repeatedly just to keep the bile level below my larynx.  

Here we have a man who has no problem being a complete traitor to his constituents, by utterly reversing his campaign promises within a few short months of his election.  Promises he made both during the primaries and the general.

But we're stuck with him, right?  Since without him, we have no majority.  But are we really?

I actually think it would be, in the long run, better to strip Joe of his committees even if he were to take the opportunity to switch parties.  But I can compeletely see why it makes sense tactically to stick with him for now, since our majority is more important.

However, wouldn't it be great if we could successfully appeal to an existing moderate-liberal Republican senator to switch parties?  

I realize its a long-shot, but in the current climate, apparently at least a dozen Republicans are reconsidering their stance on supporting the President blindly.  How many of them might consider (for their own political futures) switching to Dem if they were offered the chairmanships of committees in exchange for the switch?  

I think its actually a plausible scenario, but admittedly I don't know enough about precedents for this.  

Just putting it out there really, but I will continue to research the possibility and get back with an update.

Thanks for thinking about this with me.

UPDATE: DocGonzo and Lysis point out that we really don't need one to go D, just I and caucus with us.  Like Jeffords in 2002.  As of now, based on cskendrick's analysis, the most likely candidates are: Coleman, Voinovich, Specter, Smith, Gregg, & Shelby

•  How about some names?

  Voinovich, Hagel?  What about Gregg?

  by pawlr on Sun Jan 14, 2007 at 11:42:44 AM PDT

  •  They're hard-core far-right anti-government

    Republicans. That'd be like Ron Wyden or Debbie Stabenow going Republican.

    by DemocraticLuntz on Sun Jan 14, 2007 at 11:48:18 AM PDT

    •  Anti-government's a great thing to be lately.

      Perhaps you noticed that the GOP is now the party of big, intrusive, totalitarian rule?

      And we're not?

      BTW - Do you approve of Lieberman?

      by cskendrick on Sun Jan 14, 2007 at 11:57:46 AM PDT

      •  I prefer him to Hagel, Voinovich or Gregg.

        They're anti-government in the sense that they'd like to cut domestic spending to less than a third of what it is now. They can't be given a chairmanship because they'd hold up even the parts of our domestic agenda that enjoy decent Republican support (well, Gregg supports stem cell research; other than that, though, he'd want to cut just about everything).

        And I note that I predicted nearly a year ago that we'd be in this situation

        by DemocraticLuntz on Sun Jan 14, 2007 at 12:06:49 PM PDT

        •  Not so much anti-government in the sense that

          they believe there's a fundamental right to such frivolities as habeas corpus (note how the one non-Republican to vote against the Specter amendment was Ben Nelson) or antiquated  notions like women having the right to make their own decisions

          by DemocraticLuntz on Sun Jan 14, 2007 at 12:11:35 PM PDT

        •  The ladies up east in Maine

          look like candidates.  Especially Susan Collins.  The wind is blowing "left" in Maine.  She is toast in '08.  
          Wingnut is now a dirty word.  Liberal, not so much.  
          It felt good to type that!  ;-)

          by funluvn1 on Sun Jan 14, 2007 at 12:13:58 PM PDT

          •  Snowe won re-election 74-21 this past fall.

            Yes, she had a crappy opponent, but so did Ted Kennedy (won 69-31), Dianne Feinstein (59-35), Tom Carper (70-29), Dan Akaka (61-37), Hillary Clinton (67-31) and Herb Kohl (67-30), and yet none of them won by as lopsided of a victory as she did, despite all the Democrats listed being from Democratic-leaning or strongly Democratic states in a very heavily Democratic year and Olympia Snowe being a Republican from a Democratic-leaning state in a very heavily Democratic year.

            Collins obviously won't do as well (at least if Tom Allen or someone else good runs), but she's hardly toast yet.

            by DemocraticLuntz on Sun Jan 14, 2007 at 12:21:33 PM PDT

        •  Not a disqualifier...

          ...when the current state of big government is ridiculously bloated and heavily skewed in favor of spending in favor of the super-rich and coporate interests.

          A lot of Dems are anti-choice. I don't hear anyone saying we should run, say, the Catholics out of the party just yet and their presence hardly weakens the party at large.

          I'll trade any of them for Lieberman all day long.

          We're just not going to be agreeing on this one, Luntz.

          by cskendrick on Sun Jan 14, 2007 at 12:18:54 PM PDT

•  Ummm, who?

  I don't think any party in the Senate has ever been as ideological as the current Senate Republicans. They're not going to switch.

  by jfern on Sun Jan 14, 2007 at 11:44:04 AM PDT

  •  Hagel, Voinovich maybe? What about Gregg?

    If these guys really believe that the President's misguided Iraq War strategy must be stopped, and its really in the best interest for the country to do so, they might take a deal..

    I think it would have to be one of these two if it was at all going to happen.

    by pawlr on Sun Jan 14, 2007 at 11:46:52 AM PDT

    •  Hagel is a media whore

      He'll pretend to be standing up to Bush and then vote 100% with Bush. The others are probably similar. They see the polls, they have to look like they're standing up to Bush before they vote for his agenda.

      by jfern on Sun Jan 14, 2007 at 11:51:27 AM PDT

•  I don't know about candidates,

  but I can tell you a lot about acid reflux...

  by ezdidit on Sun Jan 14, 2007 at 11:44:30 AM PDT

•  Reco'd.

  For this observation:

  Like many of you, I find watching and listening to Joe Lieberman lately so nauseating, so appalling, that I find I have to swallow repeatedly just to keep the bile level below my larynx.  

  Joe's MTP neocon PermaWar prop-up piece this morning was a farrago of lies, deception, spin and total disregard for standards of decency, truth, justice and the American Way.

  It makes me physically ill to listen to his hideously-strained voice while watching his dead eyes.  He is the epitomy of death.

  by maxschell on Sun Jan 14, 2007 at 11:44:38 AM PDT

  •  He's being coached by Rove

    I'm sure - lots of payback for his "election." And we'll see the price being paid for the next 2 years - with Rove always upping the ante - not that Lieberliar won't be happy to pay it, of course. He's already assured his place in hell.

    I'd love to see Hagel switch because he's such an embarassment to the repukes already - but I don't see it happening 'cause I'm sure the Rovian blackmailers have too much on him - especially the fact that he used to own the voting machine company responsible for his "miraculous come-from-behind victories" in the past.

    by everhopeful on Sun Jan 14, 2007 at 11:58:08 AM PDT

  •  Farrago

    Nice to see spicey language at dKos.

    by Heart of the Rockies on Sun Jan 14, 2007 at 11:59:08 AM PDT

•  I don't know

  But I sure wish it was.  I find him as nauseating as Bush now.  

  It's a shame that Al Gore named him for VP and gave him the visibility he has never let go of since.

  by Urizen on Sun Jan 14, 2007 at 11:45:25 AM PDT

•  They aren't going to switch if it involves

  dumping Joe, cause they'd prefer to stay Republicans and be committee chairs (which they could do if Joe switched).

  Not to mention that something like that could spook Ben Nelson into switching.

  by DemocraticLuntz on Sun Jan 14, 2007 at 11:45:56 AM PDT

  •  Agreed

    It would have to be one that would forgo their existing chair for Joe's existing one.  (I think, not really up on how this works, am learning now)

    by pawlr on Sun Jan 14, 2007 at 11:49:00 AM PDT

    •  There's nobody who would want to do that.

      The only thing about Homeland Security and Government Affairs which may make it more than the least powerful committee in the Senate is the Government Affairs (investigation of the executive branch part), which current Republicans have all shown 100% unwillingness to do.

      And since all three moderate Republicans are already ranking members of committees, it isn't going to happen.

      by DemocraticLuntz on Sun Jan 14, 2007 at 11:55:45 AM PDT

  •  Moderates with chairs. In this GOP.

    Lieberman's presence would bump at least one of them.

    by cskendrick on Sun Jan 14, 2007 at 11:56:05 AM PDT

•  We need a margin of error.

  We have to flip more than one, in exchange for Joe.

  by hopscotch1997 on Sun Jan 14, 2007 at 11:47:12 AM PDT

  •  True. But not only that.

    Senate rules don't allow for stripping his committees or chairmanships mid-session.

    But the bigger issue is: This is a huge waste of time and energy! Joementum is not the biggest problem we have over the next two years. He needs to be contained as much as possible, but we need him and we have a lot to do. We gave it our best shot--we did a helluva job opposing him. But now we need to keep our focus.

    by homogenius on Sun Jan 14, 2007 at 12:18:37 PM PDT

    •  Agreed.

      Three diaries on the list just now.  Did he do some new terrible thing this morning that I missed?

      by hopscotch1997 on Sun Jan 14, 2007 at 12:35:37 PM PDT

      •  He opened his mouth on MTP

        by Capn Guts on Sun Jan 14, 2007 at 01:44:12 PM PDT

    •  yeah, he a hemorrhoid, not cancer n/t

      by mollyd on Sun Jan 14, 2007 at 02:29:28 PM PDT

•  Olympia Snowe

  by Steven D on Sun Jan 14, 2007 at 11:47:26 AM PDT

•  You offer a great idea but...

  I doubt we'd be able to get any sitting (R) Senator to switch. If Linc Chaffee was still around, then this scenario would definitely be plausible but we needed to boot Chaffee out in order to just get a majority with Lieberman.

  If any Republican is going to switch with Joe, it'll be an outspoken critic of the War. Hagel and  Gordon Smith are leading the charge on the other side of the aisle but they're both so conservative on just about everything else that I doubt they'd ever come to our side just because of one issue. But then again Iraq is the issue of our time and Gordon Smith will have a tough reelction in 2008 so I wouldn't strike him down as impossible just yet.

  by dem4evr on Sun Jan 14, 2007 at 11:48:28 AM PDT

  •  Thanks, I didn't know about Smith

    Part of me thinks that if the Dem party is big enough for a guy like Harold Ford, it must be willing to accommodate some moderate-liberal Repubs.  

    Of course, you're right, getting a Republican senator to go for it would mean that they saw the Iraq situation as so important to the country that it would outweigh their positions on other issues.

    by pawlr on Sun Jan 14, 2007 at 11:51:14 AM PDT

    •  Gordon Smith.

      That's interesting.

      by maxschell on Sun Jan 14, 2007 at 11:56:12 AM PDT

    •  Harold Ford is significantly to the left of any

      Republican Senator on any economic issue.

      by DemocraticLuntz on Sun Jan 14, 2007 at 11:56:41 AM PDT

•  Collins or Snowe?

  Collins in particular might want to save her job...

  by World Patriot on Sun Jan 14, 2007 at 11:55:35 AM PDT

  •  Collins would never switch ...

    She's too god-damn stubborn.  

    by Ryno on Sun Jan 14, 2007 at 11:59:33 AM PDT

  •  Snowe's not going to roll.

    Too popular by far. Not even sure if Collins is as vulnerable as people make out.

    The three most vulnerable would be

    1. Coleman MN - Beyond opportunistc. Already switched once.

    2. Voinovich OH - Been cold for him in Wingnutia ever since the Bolton hearings.    

    3. Specter PA -  Might actually enjoy being able to declare his support for the Constitution, then actually do something about it.

    4. Smith, OR - The West is becoming a bad place to run as a Republican.

    5. Gregg, NH. New England's non-fun for Pubs, too. I seriously doubt Sununu is in any danger of switching.

    6. Shelby, AL - I think he was once a Dem.

    Snowe's got the highest net approvals of any Senator (least she did as of November's SurveyUSA data) and Collins was not far behind that. Turning one of the Maine Senators, save by fielding a superior Dem challenger and beating them at the ballot box, is in my opinion unrealistic.

    From where I'm sitting, Hagel would be a more likely turn -- and turning Hagel is not likely at all.

    Don't make it a single-issue appeal

    The Hundred Hours is chock full of strongly popular programs that the Republican Party is committed to fight, because there's no percentage in democracy for them.

    Find a state that is pro-stem cell research, pro-fair wage, pro-fair trade, pro-Constitution and anti-Iraq and I suspect you got yourself not one but a few new members of the Blue Team.

    And the best way to make that happen is to succeed with great legislation, have the American people send the message ahead of 2008 to their own representation that the Dem Way is America's Way, and I think you will see those defections make themselves happen.

    We can't worry what Republican Senators think or do...until they seriously commit to stop being Pubs.

    In the meantime, there is work to do and let the GOPers face the electoral music if they get in the way of the people's business.

    by cskendrick on Sun Jan 14, 2007 at 12:15:24 PM PDT

    •  Thanks for the great analysis n/t

      by pawlr on Sun Jan 14, 2007 at 12:18:20 PM PDT

    •  vulnerability isn't everything

      I don't think it makes sense to dismiss the idea of Snowe or Collins switching on the grounds that they're both popular.  I don't think that popularity is the motivating factor in a switch.  The last time there was a switch from R to D was Jeffords.  He was immensely popular, but he felt there wasn't a place for him any more in the Republican party.  I think that Snowe or Collins, among the few remaining New England Republicans in Congress, could go the same way.  Keep in mind that they wouldn't have to become Dems; they just have to become independent and caucus with the Dems.  

      Don't expect the switch to be based on electoral vulnerability; if someone switched for that reason, it would be obvious and politically disastrous.  

      One big problem with this whole scenario: in order to really make it work, Lieberman would have to leave the party before the Republican switched.  Otherwise, it would be tough to remove him from his committee chairmanship in mid-session.  

      by rsquire on Sun Jan 14, 2007 at 12:34:57 PM PDT

      •  Uh, no Chafee was not.

        Time to debunk this demonstrable falsehood once and for all

        Here are the November approvals for all 100 members of the Senate (compliments of SurveyUSA).

        The sorting is by net approve/disapprove, in descending order:

        
State U.S. Senator Party Sr/Jr Approve Disapprove Net
ME Snowe, Olympia R Sr 76% 22% 54%
ND Conrad, Kent D Sr 74% 22% 52%
IL Obama, Barack D Jr 72% 23% 49%
ME Collins, Susan R Jr 72% 24% 48%
SD Johnson, Tim D Sr 70% 24% 46%
ND Dorgan, Byron D Jr 69% 27% 42%
VT Leahy, Patrick D Sr 68% 27% 42%
HI Inouye, Daniel D Sr 65% 26% 40%
IN Lugar, Richard R Sr 66% 27% 39%
RI Reed, Jack D Sr 64% 26% 38%
MS Lott, Trent R Jr 67% 31% 36%
NY Clinton, Hillary D Jr 67% 31% 36%
WV Rockefeller, Jay D Jr 65% 30% 34%
ID Craig, Larry R Sr 62% 28% 33%
ID Crapo, Michael R Jr 61% 28% 33%
MS Cochran, Thad R Sr 64% 31% 33%
VT Jeffords, James I Jr 63% 30% 33%
AK Stevens, Ted R Sr 63% 32% 32%
WY Thomas, Craig R Sr 61% 29% 32%
IN Bayh, Evan D Jr 62% 31% 31%
MT Baucus, Max D Sr 61% 30% 31%
NE Nelson, Ben D Jr 64% 32% 31%
NM Domenici, Pete R Sr 61% 30% 31%
VA Warner, John R Sr 61% 30% 31%
WV Byrd, Robert D Sr 64% 33% 31%
WI Kohl, Herb D Sr 61% 32% 30%
OR Wyden, Ron D Sr 59% 30% 29%
AZ McCain, John R Sr 62% 33% 28%
LA Vitter, David R Jr 60% 32% 28%
MA Kennedy, Edward D Sr 61% 33% 28%
NE Hagel, Chuck R Sr 60% 32% 28%
TX Hutchison, Kay R Sr 60% 31% 28%
NM Bingaman, Jeff D Jr 57% 31% 27%
WY Enzi, Michael R Jr 59% 32% 27%
DE Carper, Thomas D Jr 58% 33% 25%
SD Thune, John R Jr 60% 36% 25%
AR Pryor, Mark D Jr 58% 33% 24%
IA Grassley, Charles R Sr 60% 35% 24%
MD Mikulski, Barbara D Jr 58% 33% 24%
UT Hatch, Orrin R Sr 60% 36% 24%
AL Shelby, Richard R Sr 56% 34% 22%
CA Feinstein, Dianne D Sr 57% 37% 20%
NC Dole, Elizabeth R Sr 56% 36% 20%
UT Bennett, Robert R Jr 54% 33% 20%
AL Sessions, Jeff R Jr 54% 35% 19%
CT Dodd, Christopher D Sr 54% 36% 19%
DE Biden, Joseph D Sr 58% 38% 19%
NH Gregg, Judd R Sr 55% 36% 19%
GA Isakson, Johnny R Jr 51% 33% 17%
NY Schumer, Charles D Sr 55% 39% 16%
WA Murray, Patty D Sr 54% 38% 16%
WI Feingold, Russ D Jr 55% 39% 16%
MA Kerry, John D Jr 55% 40% 14%
IL Durbin, Richard D Sr 51% 38% 13%
MO Bond, Kit R Sr 53% 39% 13%
AR Lincoln, Blanche D Sr 52% 40% 12%
KY McConnell, Mitch R Sr 52% 40% 12%
NV Ensign, John R Jr 52% 40% 12%
CA Boxer, Barbara D Jr 51% 41% 11%
NH Sununu, John R Jr 52% 41% 11%
OR Smith, Gordon R Jr 50% 38% 11%
LA Landrieu, Mary D Sr 53% 43% 10%
MD Sarbanes, Paul D Sr 48% 39% 10%
OH Voinovich, George R Jr 50% 40% 10%
SC Graham, Lindsey R Sr 50% 40% 10%
KS Brownback, Sam R Sr 49% 41% 8%
PA Specter, Arlen R Sr 50% 42% 8%
GA Chambliss, Saxby R Sr 47% 40% 7%
IA Harkin, Tom D Jr 51% 44% 7%
KS Roberts, Pat R Jr 47% 42% 6%
MI Levin, Carl D Sr 48% 42% 6%
CT Lieberman, Joseph D Jr 50% 45% 5%
FL Nelson, Bill D Sr 44% 39% 5%
MI Stabenow, Debbie D Jr 49% 44% 5%
MN Coleman, Norm R Jr 49% 44% 5%
WA Cantwell, Maria D Jr 50% 45% 5%
CO Ken Salazar D Jr 48% 44% 4%
HI Akaka, Daniel D Jr 47% 45% 3%
NV Reid, Harry D Sr 49% 46% 3%
OK Coburn, Tom R Jr 46% 43% 3%
TN Alexander, Lamar R Jr 46% 42% 3%
AK Murkowski, Lisa R Jr 48% 46% 2%
TN Frist, Bill R Sr 47% 45% 2%
FL Martinez, Mel R Jr 43% 42% 1%
VA Allen, George R Jr 47% 47% 1%
AZ Kyl, Jon R Jr 47% 47% 0%
KY Bunning, Jim R Jr 44% 44% 0%
RI Chafee, Lincoln R Jr 46% 48% -1%
SC DeMint, Jim R Jr 42% 43% -1%
NC Burr, Richard R Jr 42% 44% -2%
TX Cornyn, John R Jr 40% 43% -3%
CO Allard, Wayne R Sr 42% 46% -4%
MO Talent, Jim R Jr 44% 50% -5%
OK Inhofe, James R Sr 40% 49% -9%
MN Dayton, Mark D Sr 39% 50% -11%
NJ Lautenberg, Frank D Sr 39% 51% -12%
NJ Menendez, Robert D Jr 38% 50% -13%
MT Burns, Conrad R Jr 40% 56% -16%
OH DeWine, Mike R Sr 38% 55% -17%
PA Santorum, Rick R Jr 38% 57% -19%


        Do note relative position of Senators Snowe, Collins and former Senator Chafee.

        by cskendrick on Sun Jan 14, 2007 at 12:45:13 PM PDT

        •  I don't think I equated them

          I think you may have misunderstood my post.  My point was that Snowe or Collins would be the most likely switchers even though they're both popular.  

          by rsquire on Sun Jan 14, 2007 at 02:51:57 PM PDT

          •  That I understood. I'm ending the meme...

            ...that Lincoln was popular and lost, which has become a blatant and often-repeated error.

            People have forgotten just how vulnerable Chafee had become by the time he was de-lected.

            Separate from that

            Senators Snowe and Collins are elected officials. They are among the most popular senators in the nation. Mainers by and large quantifiablt like them as they are, far more than Rhode Islanders liked Chafee. Any change of party has more costs than benefits to Snowe and Collins.

            From where I am sitting, they have no incentive to change parties that wins them votes. Ethical considerations would be nice, but there's no anecdotal evidence that qualms about being in the pro-war, pro-torture GOP bother either of them in any meaningful way.

            I just don't see them changing parties. Not just yet. Being Republican and being in Maine doesn't appear to be hurting them in the least.

            by cskendrick on Sun Jan 14, 2007 at 02:59:11 PM PDT

      •  either both or neither

        they were both somewhat upset at being abandoned by Jeffords.  My sense is that either both will come together or neither would come.

        Which is why I believe neither - after all, Collins was just the deciding vote to reinstate Trent Lott into the leadership.

        by teacherken on Sun Jan 14, 2007 at 12:48:26 PM PDT

    •  Shelby was a Dem before the 1994 elections

      by dpinzow on Sun Jan 14, 2007 at 01:41:44 PM PDT

      •  What would it take to bring him home?

        Or are Alabamans that endeared to George W. Bush's every whim?

        by cskendrick on Sun Jan 14, 2007 at 01:45:34 PM PDT

        •  Seems the latter is much more true.

          by Displaced Blue SoCal Girl on Tue Jan 16, 2007 at 05:25:16 PM PDT

•  Reality dictates...

  That Lieberman would be more likely to switch than any moderate Republican.

  by Super Pretzel on Sun Jan 14, 2007 at 12:12:52 PM PDT

•  To Independent Like Jeffords

  As recently as 2002, Jim Jeffords, senator from Vermont, switched from Republican to independent, briefly turning the Senate to a Democratic majority by caucusing with Democrats. He was disgusted by what Bush's Republican Congress was doing, and had planned (specifics we might never know). But he switched, and handed the Senate to the Democrats. A switching Republican senator now would be less of a change, not changing the control, but just acting as insurance. It would cost Harry Reid and Chuck Schumer a lot less to hand a switcher some power for caucusing that it's costing now to suffer Lieberman. And by 2008, Lieberman will have been invoked by Republicans like Bush so often that he'll equal "there's no difference between the parties", a huge cost in the 2008 election to keep a Democratic majority and score the trifecta.

  So let's look at 2008 Republican incumbent Senate candidates for someone to squeeze. Those people will be running for their lives against the wave. They can ride the wave by distancing themselves from the bankrupting Republican Party. Without campaigning on caucusing with Democrats when they are reelected, if that's their strategy (the "Lieberman Defense"). I'd pick Maine's Susan Collins and Oregon's Gordon Smith. Smith has been earning himself off Bush/Rove's vassal list lately, with attacks on Bush's Iraq as "criminal". And Collins faces running to be one of the last couple of New England Republican Congressmembers, in a Blue state as a Blue wave continues through the polls.

  In fact, I'd work on both. Lieberman will likely recaucus with Republicans once stripped of his committee power, or jump ship for a Homeland Security Czar to flush the failed and hated Chertoff (clearing an actual Republican to be appointed by Republican governor Rell). So even flipping just one would make any senator in the Democrat caucus, especially the less "loyal" independents, positioned to demand wildly disproportionate power concessions, as the "swing vote" protecting Democrats from Cheney's tiebreaking. Getting both would mean two senators, or 4% of the caucus, would have to collude to threaten the majority, which will not happen. And it doubles the probability of getting at least one, to tighten the majority enough to move on and just rule already.

  by DocGonzo on Sun Jan 14, 2007 at 12:13:34 PM PDT

  •  Exactly.

    We don't need (R) to (D).  We need (R) to (I) and a promise to caucus with (D) for the greater good.  That's all.

    by Lysis on Sun Jan 14, 2007 at 12:18:01 PM PDT

    •  And we don't need to promise them anything.

      They'll get the benefits of no longer being in the Sinking Ship Party.

      And being seen as "independent thinkers, not beholden to any... [yada yada yada]."

      by pat208 on Sun Jan 14, 2007 at 12:21:43 PM PDT

      •  You shouldn't need a reward to do the right thing

        I agree with you completely.   It's about saving the lives of our soldiers.  If caucusing with the Dems for one session guarantees that, country should trump party.  

        by Lysis on Sun Jan 14, 2007 at 12:27:54 PM PDT

      •  To Each According to Their Needs

        That's not how politicians work. They can ask for something in exchange for the benefit to Reid, so they will. And Reid will give it to them. Even Jeffords, apparently principled, got Reid's own Environment & Public Works Committee, because Jeffords gave up his Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee that Republicans had given him.

        The value to Reid of Senate Republicans fleeing the sinking ship is so great that I wouldn't mind at all his handing some Democrat slots to independents punching more holes to scuttle the scow. Remember, it might feel like "we" are promising benefits to switchers, but it's Harry Reid, Chuck Schumer and Howard Dean: the guys who bet on Lieberman winning the primary, who just gave that "independent" the Homeland Security Chair for caucusing for "the greater good".

        "The greater good", and "seen as..." are PR spin slapped onto the TV reports of whatever deal for hard power is actually made. There are no lateral moves in Senate politics: only winners and losers.

        by DocGonzo on Sun Jan 14, 2007 at 03:00:05 PM PDT

•  Flip a Republican, dump Joe...

  I love the idea. Don't know how realistic it is, but I'm gonna recommend your diary to thank you for such a happy thought. Gawd, anything to get rid of that endless whining. We need another float of the kiss, only this time, Bush is mooning Lieberman and Lieberman is lip smacking Bush's butt.

  by Bugsby on Sun Jan 14, 2007 at 12:21:34 PM PDT

•  good idea

  Before November's election, I would have thought this an impossible idea.  But with the anti-Bush mood in the nation damaging the reputation of the Republican party, and I see this only getting worse as the Iraq war goes on endlessly, the possibility of flipping an R to D goes up.

  I know Hagel is a maverick on Iraq, but what about his record otherwise?  Is he a free-marketer, doctrinaire Republican?  Coming from Nebraska I don't think he's a good possibility.

  Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe have shown they will carry the President's water on every major issue, and they are classical Republican on economics.

  I think a good possibility is Gordon Smith or Oregon.  Facing election in blue Oregon in 2008, he has broken with the Republicans on the war.  Despite his being an evangelical Christian, he has come out for understanding on gay rights issues.  I think he might be a man we can work with.

  I am so sick of putting up with Lieberman's bs.  Personally I am torn, part of me wants to say the hell with him regardless of what will happen to Senate control if he switches, part of me suspects he's going to screw us bigtime in the future and we might as well cut our losses now.

  I leave it to Harry Reid and the big boys to deal with this traitor.  They might know something we don't know.

  by Michigan Paul on Sun Jan 14, 2007 at 12:31:55 PM PDT

  •  Another thought on Smith

    Smith, IIRC, is a Mormon, so Harry Reid might actually be a guy he feels more comfortable with as Majority Leader than Mitch McConnell.

    by displacedyankeedemocrat on Sun Jan 14, 2007 at 12:40:30 PM PDT

•  Lieberman Doesn't Matter

  I'm pretty sure that what I've read is that the Democrats have control of the Senate, including Majority Leader & Committee chairs, whether they have a majority or not.

  As I understand Senate rules, once a Senate begins, it elects its leadership and nothing can change that for 2 years until the next Senate is empowered.  That's because a change requires a vote of more than 60 -- the cloture rule.

  Many people are thinking of the '02 circumstance where Jeffords changed his vote and threw control of the Senate from the GOP to the Dems.  But that was a unique circumstance, since the election was 50-50, Daschle got Lott to agree to a possible shift in control at the original organizational vote of the Senate, just in case something happened to change control.

  This year, the GOP did not challenge the organizational vote and did not negotiate anything unusual.  If Reid wanted to kick Lieberman off his committee chair, even if Lieberman began voting for the GOP, I'm sure the Dems would still control the Senate for the full 2 years of the 110th Congress.

  Here's a clip from the AP story on the first day of organization of the 110th Congress, Jan. 5, 2007:

  Republican leaders decided not to seek special language spelling out the terms of a transition in case of a power shift -- say, if Johnson vacates his post and his state's GOP governor appoints a Republican to replace him. Under that scenario, power would effectively shift to Republicans, because Cheney would provide the tiebreaking 51st vote. But for Republicans to take parliamentary control, the Senate would have to vote for new organizational rules, a move Democrats could filibuster.
  A similar scenario unfolded in January 2001, when a 50-50 Senate convened. In 2001, Democrats demanded a "kick-out clause" in organizing negotiations that would automatically scrap agreements on committee ratios and funding levels and force new organizational rules. But Republicans decided this month against a confrontation that would come from demanding a similar clause.
  "Nobody over here talked about that at all," said Don Stewart, spokesman for McConnell.

  by tailor324 on Sun Jan 14, 2007 at 01:38:48 PM PDT