Did Pelosi cave to Lieberman? Are Dems paying for their committee posts

[jackstraw45]

with American blood?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x938419

If they aren't going to end the war in control of committees, what's the point?

[mike_c]

1. the real idiocy is that Pelosi could stop this tomorrow without Lieberman's help....

Appropriations MUST come from the House. Lieberman can go piss up a rope if House democrats simply refuse to appropriate further funds for international crimes against humanity.

[Virginia Dare]

12. Explain how Nancy Pelosi could end this tomorrow?

without Republican assistance? They don't have a veto proof majority, therefore, their hands are tied until they get some Repubs to put away their delusions unfortunately.

[katsy]

2. Pelosi is the Speaker of the House.

lieberman is a Senator.

[jackstraw45]

5. 2 + 2 is 4...I'm not an idiot but if Lieberman switches, the Dems in the Senate

lose their positions of power.

[katsy]

7. Pelosi has nothing to do with lieberman.

Pelosi is the Speaker of the House. The House of Representatives.

lieberman is a Senator... like, in the Senate.

Under what circumstances could Pelosi cave to lieberman?

If lieberman has a bone to pick, it would be with Senator Reid.

[KharmaTrain]

10. Wrongo...There Wouldn't Be A Switch

On the first day of the 110th Senate, Liberman and a majority voted that there wouldn't be a leadership change for the duration of the Congress...meaning that even if he flipped, Reid would remain Majority Leader and Democrats would remain in charge of the agenda.

[Junkdrawer]

11. Link? n/t

[Junkdrawer]

13. OK: I googled this link in support of your assertion:

With Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT) publicly stating he'd consider becoming a Republican if Democrats block new funding for the Iraq War, many Democrats worry that control of the Senate hangs in the balance. However, their fears are unfounded. Many think back to 2001 when former Sen. Jim Jeffords (I-VT) began caucusing with Democrats instead of Republicans, taking control of the Senate out of GOP hands. However, the two situations - though outwardly similar - contain one important difference.

If Lieberman were to caucus with the Republicans, they would still not take full control of the Senate, despite Vice President Dick Cheney's ability to break 50-50 ties. This is because of a little-known Senate organizing resolution, passed in January, which gives Democrats control of the Senate and committee chairmanships until the beginning of the 111th Congress.

What's the difference between now and 2001? A small but important distinction. When the 107th Congress was convened on January 3, 2001, Al Gore was still the Vice President and would be for another two-and-a-half weeks. Therefore, because of the Senate's 50-50 tie, Democrats had nominal control of the chamber when the organizing resolution came to a vote. With Dick Cheney soon to come in, however, Democrats allowed Republicans to control the Senate in return for a provision on the organizing resolution that allowed for a reorganization of the chamber if any member should switch parties, which Jeffords did five months later. There was no such clause in the current Senate's organizing resolution.


http://politicalinsider.com/2007/02/liebermans_switch_wouldnt_flip.html

[KharmaTrain]

14. Here's More On The Issue...

This is was from DailyKos back when Tim Johnson became ill and people were jumping out windows about losing control:

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/12/15/111912/70

[MasonJar]

3. Pelosi has no power over Lieman or he over her.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

4. Because the war is NOT THE ONLY FUCKING ISSUE

Believe it or not, we have an entire nation to fix, not just a war.

[jackstraw45]

6. So you're saying this action by the Dems is FIXING national issues?

So the earmarks they slip in are worth the extra bloodshed?

Tell that to the families at the FUCKING FUNERALS.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

9. You asked what point there was in having control of the committees and agenda.

I gave you the answer. The earmarks are not relevant one way or another, so cut the strawman routine. If you want to be an anti-war zealot, fine, but don't expect our elected officials to be that irresponsible.

Tell the families at the FUCKING FUNERALS that they should tell George Fucking Bush that HE needs to stop the war, as he's effectively the only person that can. With or without funding, the war will continue while he's in office - he's made that very clear.

[MonkeyFunk]

8. no

because they're in two separate houses. Lieberman has no control whatsoever over Pelosi.

Pelosi's smart enough to know what's what.