There seems to be a consensus forming that the best solution to l’affaire Lieberman is to allow him to continue to caucus with the Democrats but to strip him of his chairmanship of the Senate Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee. Let me explain why this is a reasonable, but inadequate, punishment.
It’s a reasonable punishment, in that it takes something tangible away from Sen. Lieberman without doing the equivalent of cutting off one’s nose to spite one’s face. Having Lieberman might provide the Democrats with a very real benefit…but it isn’t what you think it is.
It comes down to the partisan weighting of committees. Right now, with a 51-49 split, the Democrats have exactly one more seat than the Republicans on each of the Senate committees. If the Republicans remain united and they can pull a single defector out of the Democratic side, they can prevent committees from sending legislation to the floor. Now that the Democrats have (at least) 56 seats (not including Lieberman) they can rearrange the weighting so that Democrats have two more seats than the Republicans on all the committees. But if the Democrats reach 58-60 seats, they will have an argument for three more seats on the committees. That’s where Lieberman can add value by remaining in the caucus.
It’s actually a very complicated problem to solve. Technically, as long as the Democrats lack sixty votes, the Republicans can veto any attempt to re-weight the committees. But, respecting precedent, the Republicans will concede at least a two seat deficit. The question is whether they can be bullied into conceding a three-seat deficit. I don’t have a resource to tell you the historical cut-off points, but there have been three seat differentials with less than sixty seat majorities in the past. This, then, is the strongest argument in favor of allowing Lieberman to caucus with the Dems.
He must be punished in some way, however, and losing his committee chair is the bare minimum. The problem is, it’s not enough. Lieberman sits on three other committees: Armed Services, Environment & Public Works, and Small Business. I have no problem with Lieberman working on infrastructure, environmental issues, and small business, but he must not be allowed to continue on serving on the Armed Services committee. He will be a Republican voter on the committee and an obvious ally of the Ranking Member, John McCain.
Lieberman cannot be trusted to sit in on strategy sessions related to national security. He simply cannot be allowed to stay on Armed Services, or to serve on other intelligence related committees. That should be the penalty. He can take it or leave it. He can caucus with the Republicans if he wants. He’ll probably vote the same way 99% of the time regardless of which party he caucuses with. He’s as likely to filibuster as a Democrat as a Republican. His only use to the Democrats is theoretical (that he might lead to an extra seat per committee). That’s worth something and he doesn’t need to be expelled, necessarily. But he does deserve worse than merely losing his committee chair.
There is no other solution.
he has to be expelled. i don’t say that in my standard firebreathing brendan way.
as you say, he can’t be relied on to support the democrats. he isn’t a democrat, he’s an independent. he can’t be trusted in strategy sessions. he’s useless to everyone, including the GOP.
“respecting precedent, the Republicans will concede at least a two seat deficit.” dude, you know better than to make assumptions like this at this point in your career. Republicans respecting precedent? Don’t make me laugh.
I don’t even see it as punishment: it’s just business. If the CFO from coca-cola was canoodling with the leadership from pepsi, he/she would be fired quicker than you can say “Drink Dr. Pepper”.
The costs outweigh the benefits. There’s no need for him: cut the arm off before the gangrene spreads.
I’m with you 100% on that. Lieberman needs to be thrown out on his ass in the cold.
Lieberman can’t be trusted. Ever.
This is the same guy who questioned President-elect Obama’s patriotism. Now, he wants to be forgiven of all his election smears.
Joe needs to ride the horse he bought and fed…the losing horse.
Senator Reid, where is Zell?
I think that little will happen until all of the votes for Senate seats are counted and Democrats see how many seats they actually have to work with.
Today was just putting Lieberman on notice that his behavior has been noticed.
I’d put Ned Lamont in a Cabinet post where he could make Lieberman’s life miserable.
Can he be recalled? Who can run against him in 2010?
My understanding is that only the Senate can boot him out. Or he’d be out if he landed in jail. But the people of CT cannot remove him.
“…respecting precedent, the Republicans will concede at least a two seat deficit”.
Hahahahaha!
I’m with Brendan on this.
More, keeping him is going to be taken as weakness, not as a shrewd political calcuation by the genius Reid.
Throwing Joe overboard will signal the Blue Dogs that turning your back on your party is not a good idea and that maybe they should join Joe.
Or… you could abolish filibusters.
No. There will be a time when we aren’t in power and will need the filibuster.