Bayh's Defense Of Lieberman Wrong, Senate Rules Expert Says

[Ichingcarpenter]

Bayh's rationale appeared persuasive to some Democrats, including former Clinton campaign operative Phil Singer, who wrote on his blog that the Indiana Senator's take was "not unreasonable."

But former Democratic Senate staffer Martin Paone suggested Bayh is under-educated on this matter. Paone, who became as the "secretary to the majority" in the Senate starting in 2001, notes that Republicans harbored similar desires in the past, but never executed them due to the threat of a filibuster.

"It takes a Senate resolution to change a chairmanship, and that resolution could be subject to a filibuster," Paone told the Huffington Post. Put simply, under Bayh's proposed scenario, Republicans would have every reason to filibuster a new Senate resolution taking Lieberman's chairmanship away if he was proving an effective antagonist of President Obama.
Paone noted that a similar game of political chess played out in the Senate's recent history. "We had a similar situation in the past with a Republican moderate senator, Mark Hatfield from Oregon, who voted the wrong way in the eyes of Santorum and others on the constitutional amendment on a balanced budget," Paone said. "There were rumblings they wanted to take his chairmanship away. But the ranking member on the committee was Sen. Robert Byrd, who wrote Hatfield a nice note saying, 'if they ever try to take your chairmanship away, I'll make sure we will filibuster such a resolution."

According to Paone, "the time to take a chairmanship away is when everybody is being appointed . Everybody has an investment in that resolution. In order for everybody to benefit, that resolution has to pass. It's much more difficult to cherry pick in this fashion, to take one Senator's chairmanship, at a later date."
Asked if Bayh understands this complexity, Paone said "I'm sure he probably doesn't.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/11/14/bayhs-defense-of-lieberma_n_143863.html

[Me.]

1. Was Bayh Purposely Doing A Flim Flam?

[Ichingcarpenter]

3. An Okie Dokey? A Bait and Switch? I don't know maybe he's naive

But it seems that removing Lieberman's chairmanship down the road
is not a simple affair as Bayh suggested and the Republicans would have good reason
to fight it if it came down to it.

[DireStrike]

2. Bayh's Defense Of Lieberman Wrong, I Says

Really? You're gonna attempt to revoke the chairmanship of a guy AFTER he starts attacking the party?

And you think this will look GOOD? It makes the PARTY look partisan, not loserman. It will fail and/or cost public opinion.

WHY ARE THEY SO FUCKING STUPID? WHAT DOES LIEBERMAN HAVE ON EVERYONE?! This is the ONLY chance that there will be to throw his traitorous ass out. If they don't do it now, he will definitely betray them again and they will not be able to do anything about it.

Actually, would the be able to appoint a new chair after the 2010 elections? Assuming we keep a majority? Even if so, ass-kisser would still cause a LOT of trouble over the next two years.

[w4rma]

4. DLCers are out for themselves and only themselves. Bayh is a DLCer. (nt)

[DireStrike]

5. Ohh ok, that explains a lot.

I knew that at one point. I'm slipping.

But there are other non-DLCers that support Lieberman, aren't there? I re-apply my comment to those without an obvious conflict of interest.

[Ichingcarpenter]

6. I even bought into "we can remove him at anytime" story

Not that I wanted him to keep his chair cause I don't. Now I find that argument totally disingenuous.

[Me.]

7. I Did Too

Thinking there's an out. And wasn't Bayh smooth when doing his sell?

[DireStrike]

8. Comforting, I thought that too for a while.

I guess I shouldn't be so hard. But once you get around to thinking about it, it's clearly a terrible point... doesn't hold up to scrutiny.

[many a good man]

9. He'll have to wait until 2011

That's when the next new Congress is seated. We can dangle the possibility of getting his chairmanship back in 2011 if he behaves himself. Or 2013.