Can Lieberman shift the balance of power in the Senate by becoming Republican?

[Matariki]

I heard Thom Hartmann say this on his program today and suggest that it is why the Democrats are possibly backing down on Iraq. Saying that if Lieberman becomes a republican then the repubs will have the majority and it will put an end to all the investigations going on. Is this true?

I also read a post here yesterday suggesting the the majority of the Senate is set and Lieberman switching parties won't change that.

Which is true? Anyone know for certain?

[fooj]

1. The MAJORITY of the Senate is SET.

The rest is a bunch of bullshit. Harry Ried KNOWS that. That should answer the question.

[Matariki]

4. Not that I don't believe you

but could you point me to some info/links/search terms to better understand this? When is it set and when can it change - only at an election? If a senator loses their seat because of a crime, could this shift the majority?

[fooj]

12. OK I need to look for it.

I've posted it here before and I got the info over at Booman Tribune. KO's had it, too. I'll try and find it, ok?

[Matariki]

15. thanks.

i'm sort of at a loss as to how to search for the info. i'm trying some search terms on google.

[fooj]

17. Here ya go...

You see? I've written a letter to Reid personally and asked him what kind of game he thinks he's playing. To no avail...

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

Lieberman Switch Wouldn't Flip Senate

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.
<snip>

Harry Reid needs to go. He publicly ENDORSED Lieberman. In doing so, he crapped all over the democratic process. To hell with the will of the people. Now this. BS, I say.

[Matariki]

35. Thank you.

Do you thinks it's possible that this can be reversed if the republicans get a voting majority?

[Freddie Stubbs]

9. Under CURRENT Senate Rules

But if the majority of Senators want to change those rules...

[fooj]

18. FYI

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.

I took this from my previous post upthread.

[azurnoir]

2. Become?

I thought he already was:sarcasm:

[EV_Ares]

3. Regardless, WTF is worse; being held hostage by Lieb or moving on

with what you have and get something done. What are they accomplishing with Lieberman?

[Matariki]

7. If having the majority is the only thing that is allowing their investigations to go forward

then i could see that it's a very delicate balance. no possibility of impeachment, of investigating Gonzales, etc.

if it's true that the majority is 'set' then this doesn't matter.

[EV_Ares]

14. Yeah, you are right & you don't want to screw yourself but it is so hard

letting that goofball cause the havoc he does. However, public opinion I think now counts for a lot more than it did which should force whoever is in control to have to consider that fact.

What were the CT voters thinking?

[fooj]

25. It doesn't matter.

See my post upthread. It's written in STONE. The Majority is OURS until the 111th Congress.

[EV_Ares]

32. Thats good; then I say tell Lieb to take a hike/eom.

[jwirr]

16. I think the same thing they will without him. I would like someone

to pull up his votes on social issues. I think that is his only value to the Democratic Party.

[rurallib]

5. If Lieberman switches it is 50 - 50

with Cheney being the deciding vote. So in essence it is a Repub majority.
Also, Tim Johnson is still out, and there are a couple Dems who oft vote Repub now, so the current "majority" is essentially at best a standoff.

[mmonk]

10. Kind of a phantom majority.

[fooj]

21. Not true. See my post upthread.

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.

[madinmaryland]

6. Do we want Mitch McConnell running the Senate?

[fooj]

19. It WON'T happen. See my post upthread.

[depakid]

8. The Senate is proving worthless anyway

So a principled stand would not only be the RIGHT thing to do- in terms of showing a contrast between the two parties- but it would also be the pragmatic thing to do, since Bush is going to veto any responsible legislation anyway.

Unfortunately, the leadership has shown itself to be anything but pragmatic.

[no_hypocrisy]

11. It's like this, yes.

With the dems in charge, * is slowed down with his agenda and the potential exists for the dems to wake up and act like dems.

If it goes 50-50, then Dick Cheney breaks the tie, and the Senate rubberstamps whatever * wants like when Frist was in charge.

[Matariki]

13. Would this just allow Cheney to vote in the Senate or -

would the Senate leadership and committee chairs go to the republicans?

[no_hypocrisy]

23. Some information

http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common/briefing/Majority_Minority_Leaders.htm

[jwirr]

20. I think with a 50-50 they also co-chair committees.

[fooj]

22. Not true. See my post upthread.

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.
<snip>

[no_hypocrisy]

28. Thanks. These rules are mind-numbing.

[fooj]

30. No problem. This is important info. It needs to be shared.

:hi:

[onenote]

27. If Lieberman votes with the repubs, its already 50-50

Its not about the outcome of any particular vote (at this point, neither the Democrats nor the repubs are voting in lockstep that often). Rather, the significance of Lieberman leaving the Democratic caucus would be whether it would change who chairs the committees and the makeup of those committees. Today, the Senate committees are chaired by Democrats and each committee has at least one more Democrat than repub.

It has been reported on more than one occasion that under the organizing resolution passed at the beginning of the 110th Congress the Democrats will control the chairs and majority of the seats in Senate Committees even if Lieberman switches. I believe that this is true, and is supported by historical precedent. On the other hand, I also believe that the repubs would jump up and down demanding that "co-chairs" be named and that the membership of the committees be equalized, even if such action is not required. (When Jeffords switched, control of the Senate was impacted, but in that case the organizing resolution expressly contemplated and provided for such an eventuality, something that is not the case for the current organizing resolution).

[fooj]

29. Who cares what they jump up and down DEMANDING?

They are the MINORITY. We know what THAT'S all about, right?

[onenote]

34. just sayin'

There will be a lot of pressure put on Reid et al as the media points over and over to the Jeffords situation and suggests that the Democrats want it both ways. Do the Democrats have to capitulate? No. Will they? We'd have to see.

But I doubt that Lieberman switches. What is in it for him? He's got the Committee assignment he wants. He votes how he wants. And on those issues where he departs from repub orthodoxy and supports positions held by Democrats, his participation in the Democratic caucus ensures that Democratically controlled committees can move forward on those issues. Why change?

[Zodiak]

24. No

they made some kind of rule at the beginning that the leadership will not change again until the 111th.

[fooj]

26. Thank you! You are RIGHT ON!

See my posts upthread.

[Adenoid_Hynkel]

31. Joe won't do it-he's full of hot air

he knows the '08 odds heavily favor the dems (more open gop seats, most dems up are strong, safe seat)
the gop, at best, can only hope to keep the current numbers. most likely they'll be campaigning to minimize losses. they're not making gains.

joe knows that the second he jumps, he loses his special "tie-breaker" status. and that the second dems gain back that one seat, he's in a minority for the long term.
not to mention, that it would fuck him for reelection 2012, having pledged to remain a dem. he was able to fool just enough people from voting for lamont. he can't pull that trick again if he's on the gop ticket.

[DU GrovelBot]

33. ## PLEASE DONATE TO DEMOCRATIC UNDERGROUND! ##

==================
GROVELBOT.EXE v4.0
==================



This week is our second quarter 2007 fund drive. Democratic
Underground is a completely independent website. We depend on donations
from our members to cover our costs. Thank you so much for your support.

[Matariki]

36. I do. I did.

i do it once a year. see my happy star.