Bush Could Hand Senate To GOP By Appointing Lieberman To Replace Bolton (Joe Conason)

[kpete]

The Lieberman maneuver
Regardless of Sen. Tim Johnson's health, Bush could easily hand the Senate back to the GOP -- by appointing the Connecticut senator to fill Bolton's slot at the U.N.

By Joe Conason

Dec. 15, 2006 | The sudden illness of Sen. Tim Johnson, D-S.D., shook Democrats from their post-election bliss by reminding them that their Senate majority is as narrow as it could possibly be -- and that an unexpected misfortune could instantly deprive them of power in Congress' upper chamber.

Although Johnson now appears to be recovering from a brain hemorrhage that required emergency surgery on Wednesday, the potential shift that could result from his incapacitation certainly awakened Republicans to the possibility of regaining lost power. Nowhere are such chances eyed more keenly than in the White House, where George W. Bush and his aides face spending his final years as president under investigation by the Senate as well as the House of Representatives.

But regardless of Sen. Johnson's health, the president may yet be able to tip the balance. With a single stroke, he could restore control of the Senate to the Republicans, fill an embarrassing vacancy in his administration and score bipartisan points -- by appointing Sen. Joe Lieberman, I-Conn., to serve as the next U.S. ambassador to the United Nations. Should Lieberman be nominated and accept that position, Connecticut's Republican Gov. Jodi Rell has the constitutional authority to name a new senator.

In many ways, Lieberman provides a perfect choice for Bush to replace John Bolton, the departing ambassador who resigned recently because the Senate wouldn't confirm him. Nominating a longtime Democrat who has endorsed many of the Bush administration's foreign policy positions, especially on the war in Iraq, would give the appearance of bipartisanship without requiring any real compromise with the opposition.

more at:
http://www.salon.com/opinion/conason/2006/12/15/lieberman/

[derby378]

1. But would Lieberman accept the job?

Yeah, it sounds like another danger scenario here - we're seeing a lot of them lately.

[hughee99]

5. I don't think he would...

He'd be the UN Ambassador for 2 years and then his political career would be over. He would have lost his job in the senate, and once the CT voters realize the don't need him or miss him, he'd never get that job back.

[LTR]

9. Very true

He's getting all he wants in the Senate, and the UN ambassador job would be a step down. Not to mention the end of his political career.

I doubt he'll even be offered the job. I don't think any senator will take it.

[Horse with no Name]

11. He has too many political favors

To repay for his re-election to the Senate.
He called in all of his markers. Now he is going to have to make good on backroom promises.
Joe isn't going anywhere.

[WI_DEM]

2. Let's take one crisis at a time

[Ganja Ninja]

8. Exactly! We can't start worrying over possibilities.

If you want to worry about something how's this, Bush has the nuclear football! Is that scary enough for you?

[ruggerson]

3. Why would Elmer Fudd

want to give up enormous power as a swing vote in the US Senate for the relatively thankless, career ending job at the UN?

Won't happen. Elmer is happy as a clam where he is, holding his threats over the heads of the Dem leadership to get what he wants.

This is just journalistic blathering.

[cali]

4. Exactly.

Idiotic opinionating from Conason. Can't he find something else to write about?

[KittyWampus]

7. that's what I thought/wondered. Usually Conason is so astute.

[Hubert Flottz]

6. It wouldn't surprise me.

Would Joe go petrofascist on us? I think he might.

[sharp_stick]

10. I say no way to this

Lieberman would never give up his position now as the most important vote in the Senate for a thankless job as UN ambassador. Right now he has virtually unlimited power to control the debate and control the outcome.

[Peace Patriot]

12. Well, that would certainly put the Democrats in a tight spot. If they oppose

Lieberman for UN ambassador--which they might do for reasons similar to their opposition to Bolton (just too abrasive for the UN post, and too pro-Iraq War)--then, if they succeed in blocking Lieberman, he could them punish them in the Senate, with the pivotal vote on important issues, or even declare himself as a Republican, and destroy their majority outright (loss of chairmanships, etc.). And if they DON'T oppose Lieberman, the same thing could happen--they lose the majority.

This has been the mode of Bush-Cheney-Rove-Rumsfeld-Delay-Hastert-Frist politics: put the Democrats into the "drawing and quartering" machine, and tighten the screws. Kind of like the way they treat "enemy combatants." They like to hear the screams.*

However, I don't know if they want to continue treating the Democrats this way, at least in public. They might apply the screws in private, but they might want to create a better public face.

On the question of Republican CT Governor Rell's "constitutional authority" to name a new senator, which "constitution" are we talking about? CT? US? What are the other options for replacing a Senator? And what are Gov. Rell's politics (rabid Bushite, true conservative, etc.)? I guess I should read the rest of the article, to see if there are answers.

My wild guess at the political situation in CT: Lieberman won, a) because he is a known quantity--been in power forever, lots and lots of political chips to cash in, and liberal on non-war issues, and b) the war profiteers, including War Democrats, poured money and support into his campaign, cuz Lamont was such an "clear and present" danger to this war and to endless war.

If there were a special election--which, it seems to me, would be the fairest way to handle such a situation--Lamont or almost any Democrat would wipe the floor with whatever Republican was put up--don't you think? The last election was about loyalty to "old Joe," not about the war--I mean from the voters point of view. That's my feeling. And with no "old Joe" in the race, in an open contest between Dem and Repub political policy, almost any Dem would win. (--although you've got to wonder about CT voting a Repub in as Gov; I don't know much about that race, or why; it may just be that CT put in a central electronic vote tabulator, in the interim between the primary and the midterms, and now warmongers and Republicans will hold sway in CT, a once Democratic state). (I don't know who manufactures CT's electronic vote tabulator, and owns and controls its "trade secret" programming, but all three of the main electronic voting corporations have close ties to the Republicans, the Bush Junta and/or extremist rightwing religion).

-----------------------------------

*(I could hardly believe my ears when Bushite Senators got up and accused the Democrats of racism, for opposing Condi Rice for Sec of State. It the kind of thing that blows your brain circuits and makes you cry out in pain--which Bush "pod people" love to do.) (Lies within lies within lies, like an onion--and oh so smelly--and when you get to the center: nothing! Henrik Ibsen used that metaphor to describe the human condition. But it's quite applicable to the Republican condition as well.)

[Peace Patriot]

15. Lieberman is much too valuable to the war profiteers as a Senator. I agree

with commenters upthread. Both Lieberman, and the war profiteers that he is beholden to, would not trade his Senate power for UN ambassador. Dem Senate chairs can blather on all they want. They have no power to impeach. They have no power to stop the war. Cheney has notified them that subpoenas will be ignored. And if they manage to pass any laws that are of the slightest inconvenience to Bush/Cheney in their pursuit of torture, death and profit, Bush will attach a "signing statement to it, saying it doesn't apply to him and his Junta. Bush and Cheney don't give a crap about public opinion. They never have. They never will. They gained and retained power through stolen elections. Democracy is not their thing. So, what do they care about a bit of bad publicity from Senate chairs? Shine it on. Move on. Kill, torture, impoverish and starve more people. Rake in more billions.

[Doctor_J]

13. Score bipartisan points?

By forcibly re-making the Senate against the will of th epeople? Even the Limbeciles would see through this one.

[SoFlaJet]

14. he could do whatever he wants but nothing will change

the fact that his is a failed presidency and they're going down in flames-history will be very harsh and there is a price that's going to have to be paid-BY Bush and anybody stupid enough to attach themselves to him now.Go ahead Joe-take the gig...IF somehow the GOP gets an even split out of the senate WATCH OUT because the house of Reps will be the front-runners on all kinds of bad news and investigations

[KingFlorez]

16. Wasn't he supposed to be appointed Secretary of Defense?

We see how that went.

[Frank Cannon]

17. Bush will find another incompetent lackey as bad as Bolton...

or even worse, to take the job, and there are hundreds of those blackguards to choose from. No need to take another pro-war vote out of the Senate.

[Roland99]

18. Appointing a non-Democrat would violate the peoples' trust and the will of the people!!

If that happens and if the Republican Governor doesn't appoint Ned Lamont, then he's ignoring THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE!

And isn't that was Bushco keeps touting as it tries to spread "democracy" via cluster bombs and bullets? THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE??



But, in any event, why is the M$M so damned pressed for finding ways out of the Democrats taking control of the Senate next month? Just what skeletons are hiding in everyone's closet??

[dysfunctional press]

19. i don't see holy joe taking that job.

he can't service the insurance industry lobbyists from the u.n.

[Crankie Avalon]

20. If he had taken his loss in the primary and not run and won in the general election...

...would Lieberman still be the "first choice" of the Ass-Faced Weasel's?

OK, silly question.