Joe Lieberman cannot investigate President Obama and anyone

[cali]

that's touting that is pig ignorant as to how a Senate Committee operates. Or just flamebaiting. Or delusional. Or all three.

[Parche]

1. only if he is chairman of committee

and if he reads books

[cali]

2. no, sorry. that's not how it works.

[Parche]

6. so how does it work?

did you read a book on it?

[cali]

7. please see my post

below. And I read quite a bit about it when Jeffords was essentially castrated by the repukes when he was chairman of Health, Ed and Welfare.

[rateyes]

3. As chair of Homeland Security and Govenment Oversight, he

can set the agenda.

[RagAss]

4. Yes

[cali]

5. He can try, but the rest of the dem senators can shut it down by a vote

and don't forget, there will be at least one less repuke and one more dem on each Senate Committee in the next Congress. And yes, a committee chairman can be effectively sidelined. See Jeffords, Jim for an example. And please, none of the mythological crap about how different repukes are and how much more ruthless with their own.

[rateyes]

8. And, if they don't follow the agenda he sets, he can keep meetings

from occuring. The chair has a lot of power. When a vote comes down in committee on a war resolution, will he vote with the Democrats? What about policy toward Israel in the Armed Services Committee??

When he lost the Democratic nomination in Connecticut, had he been a real Democrat, he would have bowed out. Instead, he runs as an independent, says he's a Democrat, and campaigns for the Republicans. The consequences? He's rewarded with a chairmanship of one of the most powerful committees in Congress. And, HE'S NOT A DEMOCRAT. He ran against a Democrat, and kept him out of the Senate.

Piss on Joe. On this one, your Senator, Mr. Leahy, was correct.

[Truth2Tell]

9. Why do you think it's a myth

that Republicans enforce stricter party discipline? I think that has been pretty well established. In fact, haven't you argued exactly that in the past to justify why Dems didn't use the filibuster to block the Bush agenda? :shrug: I guess it could've been someone else...

btw - I agree with you that Lieberman isn't a threat to harass or investigate Obama - and in the worst case scenario (which won't arise) - they could remove his chairmanship at that time.

[pgh_dem]

10. Was that 'all three' in the Lee Mercer sense?

Your explanation below regarding how the Senate Committee operates doesn't take into account the makeup of the committee going forward
From hsgac.senate.gov the current committee is:

Joseph I. Lieberman Chairman (ID) (CT),Susan M. Collins Ranking Member (ME),Carl Levin (MI),*Ted Stevens (AK),Daniel K. Akaka (HI),George V. Voinovich (OH),Thomas R. Carper (DE),(?*)Norm Coleman (MN),Mark L. Pryor (AR),Tom Coburn (OK),Mary L. Landrieu (LA),Pete V. Domenici (NM),(*)Barack Obama (IL),(*)John Warner (VA),Claire McCaskill,(MO),(*)John E. Sununu (NH),Jon Tester (MT)

I put a (*) mark in front of the Senators who will not be on that committee in the next congress, (*?) for Norm Coleman hoping Al Franken wins.

We don't know who will replace Sen Obama on this committee, but there will be one less GOP and one more Dem on it. But with Stevens, Warner and Sununu out

But if you assume Pryor, Landrieu, and Carper keep their committee seats, where do you imagine this wrathful castrating majority will come from on the Democratic side? You can count on a vote to 'screw with Pres Obama' from Lieberman and every republican. Can you count on 'don't screw with Pres Obama' votes from all the Democratic Senators?

Being chairman involves more procedural matters as well, to block other matters until his pet projects at least get an 'up-or-down' vote

Not to mention weekly appearances on Fox News complaining how Leftist Senate Democrats won't let "me, THE CHAIRMAN!" bring investigations against Pres Obama.

Bear in mind...we've never seen this committee do ANY real work. How are you so convinced of the limits of the power of its chairman, if it was actually interested in oversight of the White House?

Does this really rise to the level of delusional and pig ignorant?

Or, to approach from another angle...do you think Lieberman threatened to bolt the Democratic Caucus over the removal of THIS chair (not the EPW), because it has so little power and just looks nice on his resume?

Maybe you could leave it at 'in my opinion, he won't have as much power as some think'.