The Lieberman deal: Folks it's all about the magic number, Sixty

[HamdenRice]

Sixty.

I hate the fact that Lieberman wasn't punished and that at a minimum his chair of the Homelands Security Committee wasn't stripped. But it's pretty obvious what was going on. If they had stripped his committee chairmanship, he was going to shop his vote elsewhere like the opportunistic weasel he is.

The incoming Obama administration is facing an economic crisis of staggering proportions. There is an evolving consensus that the only possible way to avoid an exceptionally severe recession and perhaps depression, is to go massive and go early on a "First 100 Days" type blitzkrieg of legislation. Some are saying do everything hard and expensive right away -- from auto and banking bailouts, to massive public works, to universal health care, and to help pay, perhaps an accelerated departure from Iraq.

The Republicans are expected to not just oppose, but howl, scream bloody murder, screech -- accusing the Obama administration of everything from communism to treason. It is going to be very, very ugly.

None of this can be done without 60 Senate seats. If we have 59, then the Democrats will have to bargain with the Republicans. Worse, the could simply prevent anything from happening -- yeah, they are that irresponsible, even in the face of economic armageddon. The Republicans simply don't believe in landslide elections being "mandates" when those mandates are for Democrats -- the way Democrats politely rolled over for Reagan, even though they didn't have to.

Right now, the Democrats have 56 confirmed Senate seats (excluding Lieberman), with several senate races still undecided.

It looks like Begich will win Alaska.

That's 57.

There's a stronger chance each day that a recount could put Franken over the top in Minnesota.

That's 58.

And the last necessary shot is the runoff in Georgia. If the Dems throw everything into Georgia, there is a chance, if not a good one, of Jim Martin beating Saxby Chambliss.

That's 59.

That leaves one seat to go to Sixty.

That's Lieberman.

There is no conceivable path to 60 without Lieberman's promise of voting with the Democrats, but given the record of Lieberman's **ahem...cough, cough** reliability in supporting the party, this deal can only made if it's guaranteed, confirmed, and covenanted in blood.

That's 60.

There is no path to 60 without Lieberman.

On the other hand, if we lose Georgia or Minnesota, the Democrats can turn around and tell Lieberman to go Cheney himself, because we won't have 60 anyway.

Hey, just thought of something: that means Lieberman must now be desperate for the Democrats to get to Sixty, which just days ago he was agreeing would be bad for America.

[WeDidIt]

1. 60-1=59

He shat on the Democrats twice, what's to keep him from continuing to shit in their faces?

A number that cannot be counted on = zero.

[msongs]

2. maybe it's obama's Sistah Soljah moment nt

[annabanana]

3. good points all. . We could watch him go from 60 to 0 in three seconds flat.

It would be a welcome balm to the loss of the magic number..

[HereSince1628]

4. There is NO MAGIC NUMBER. That's a hoax perpetrated on the dem base.

The reality is that on every issue senators make up their own minds and bolt the caucus on votes they don't agree with.

The tragic irony of not punishing Lieberman is that failure to hold him accountable actually encourages caucus members to split with the party, making it even MORE UNLIKELY to ever obtain a "filibuster-proof" majority.

[HamdenRice]

6. In the first few months after a landslide

with a supermajority held by one party, you actually should be able to predict much more than usual party discipline. Of course they all have different ideas and will bargain within the party, but each Democrat stands to gain much more by being loyal than going off the reservation -- at least in the early phase of the administration.

[HereSince1628]

9. What evidence suggests a prediction for more party discipline?

Curious.

[HamdenRice]

14. History

Clinton Bush pre 9/11 and Carter were exceptions to a new administration getting its agenda, but they also did not win landslides.

Reagan 1980 and Nixon 1972 got everything he wanted with massive Republican discipline, despite having Democratic congresses. FDR also got his 100 days.

It's both historical example, political tradition and game theory. Politicians seek to protect their self interest. There is little self interest in a Democratic Senator going against his party in the first few months during a legislative tsunami and economic crisis, when that party with 60 votes would have the power to give him/her anything she/he wants in return -- or to withhold it.

[HereSince1628]

21. I am not sure about your examples. Nixon got nothing passed in the first 100 days

Reagan's achievement was tax-cuts, based on nonsensical Laffer-curve argumentation that ushered in quarter century of supply-side economics. Reagan's accomplishment was significant, but it was also a long-standing agenda of the wealthy and tax-cutting in a tough economy had tremendous popular support.

Does the inverse of your cause-effect relationship predict the inverse result? Did W's first hundred days turn into mush because the R's lacked discipline or were Cheney's plans simply frustrated because the R's were in a minority?

[Hawkowl]

22. Democrats are not Republicans

They don't have party discipline. Notice Lieberman has no discipline because none is required? Conservative dems rarely vote in lockstep with their party. This magic 60 number is a fairy tale. The dems would have been better off by courting another moderate republican and giving her the chairmanship.

Lieberman is a political opportunist. A mercenary who'd stab his own mother in the back for the right price. How is that going to help Obama. He is hated in his own district and the dems could've sealed his fate. Truly astonishing.

Lieberman would have served as a much better example of what happens when you cross the line. Don't forget he has done a miserable job as chair. Katrina? Massive corrupt spending where Wyoming gets more anti-terrorism dollars than NYC per capita?

All this does is send a blaring, klaxon of WEAKNESS. 59 Senators and we still have to depend on a traitor!

[ProSense]

5. How does that work? Did they trade their principles for his loyalty?

Did Joe sign a pact abandoning his warped principles in return for the chairmanship?

So we can expect him not to oppose Democrats ever again on the war or join the RW smear against the Muslim community?

[HamdenRice]

7. What principles?

We're talking about Joe Lieberman here.

But even an unprincipled weasel can be held to account by political contract -- at least for a few months. Then he can be discarded.

[mkultra]

8. he will still shop his vote

They should have dealt with him

[Neshanic]

10. Hey kids! It's you're an idiot again lecture for not getting the big picture!

You know us stupid Democrats that were against the Bailout, you don't get it!

Us imbeciles that don't want the car companies bailed out, You can't see the bigger picture!

The people that said the economy was going to tank a year ago, chicken littles all of you!

[RaleighNCDUer]

11. "...he was going to shop his vote elsewhere..."

As if he's not going to anyway? With or without the chairmanship, we DON'T HAVE LIEBERMAN in our column.

Placating the traitor will make no difference whatsoever.

The simple fact is, if we want 60 we have to 1) convince some republicans (some of whom are more willing to work with us than Lieberman is), or 2) wait for two more years.

Lieberman is a lost cause.

[endarkenment]

12. bullshit

Lieberman is not a reliable vote. Not now, not before, not ever. You are as usual apologizing for obvious perfidy.

[Mass]

13. Well, 60 is NOT a magic number where all members are forced to vote with their caucuses.

At every moment, we can either get this number with Snowe or Collins voting with us, or lose it because Pryor or Salazar or Landrieu will vote against us.

In addition, there is no easy way to strip Lieberman of his chairmanship once he has it. It was posted earlier this week. So, no, Lieberman is not desperate. He has won and there are only 12 Democratic senators who had the balls to go against that.

[KittyWampus]

15. It's about Lieberman not being at all dependable. What makes you think he'll vote with Dems

when it's most crucial?

[HamdenRice]

16. As much as I despise Lieberman, on most policy votes

(not related to foreign relations), he actually has been reliable. It's mostly on foreign relations and party campaigning that he's been a traitor.

Besides, the main thing is to get the 100 days legislative agenda through.

[ladjf]

24. Because, if he doesn't, he will immediately lose his committee

position. That's the deal.

[EstimatedProphet]

17. Exactly, and that's the real problem.

I agree with you on the philosophy, but the fact that it is all about the magic number means that the Repubs will fight a helluva lot harder to grab Lieberman than we will to bring him back. We can expect them to make some astounding offers (maybe not all even legal) to get him. If we are close to 60, and he is the deciding factor, count on him suddenly changing party affiliation in the new Congress, and suddenly coming into possession of his very own tropical island.

[tkmorris]

18. Sorry, I disagree

I could write an essay of epic proportions detailing why I think so but it really isn't necessary. It comes down to just one line. You said:

"None of this can be done without 60 Senate seats."

And there is the rub. You see, having 60 seats by itself doesn't mean squat. What we need is 60 VOTES on any given piece of legislation and it is there we will likely fall short with anything truly progressive,, or conversely will easily reach 60 if the legislation is more mainstream. Having 60 'D's is nice but when the vote comes down can you really rely on all 60? Has that ever worked, even once? You mentioned "an accelerated departure from Iraq" as one of the things we need 60 for. You think ole Holy Joe is gonna vote for that? Not a freakin' chance buddy, no way. Do you think that any legislation that gets the Repubs knickers in a twist isn't also going to face some serious opposition by say, a Salazar? How about the Nelson twins, Tweedledum and Tweedledumber? Hell, if a proposal involves any drawdown to the war in Iraq or decrease in Defense spending we will have to drop a house on Feinstein before we can even begin.

People keep focusing on 60 seats as if it is some universal panacea when in fact it just... isn't. We will get just as many things done whether we end up with 59 or 60 when you get right down to it. Lieberman will vote exactly the same whether we take his committee chair or not. ESPECIALLY now. How could the leadership possibly twist his arm now and be believed?

"Hey, just thought of something: that means Lieberman must now be desperate for the Democrats to get to Sixty, which just days ago he was agreeing would be bad for America.

Joe wants to wield as much power as he can for as long as he can and that is all. If you honestly think anything else motivates him you are delusional.

[Neshanic]

19. Excellent post.

[TheWraith]

20. Kicked and recommended.

I doubt that they'll kick him out even if they do get the extra seats, but you're dead on that this is all about a numbers game.

[ladjf]

23. Arithmetic as it relates to political power. No more, no less. nt

[mmonk]

25. 60 is a fantasy even when we have the numbers.

Its just a number as the last two years have shown us with the legislative voting records.