If Joe Lieberman wins as an independent, will he keep his seniority? There are conflicting signals:
Reid, the Senate Democratic leader, does not want to wrestle with these questions in public before the Nov. 7 election.
“The caucus won’t make any decisions until after the elections in November,� said Reid’s spokesman, Jim Manley.
While that response implies that Lieberman’s status is to be decided by the entire caucus, senior Democratic aides say questions of seniority are largely decided by Reid.
Lieberman said he would keep his senior position in the caucus, even though he lost Connecticut’s Democratic primary, and is running against Democratic nominee Ned Lamont, whom the Senate Democratic leadership has endorsed.
“That’s what I’ve been told,� said Lieberman in an interview Friday, before Congress recessed for the election. “Caucuses like to keep as many members as they can, not discourage membership,� implying that leaders risk his defection to the GOP if they strip him of seniority.
They’re quacking about this in Kosland, of course. But really, it makes perfect sense. Why the hell should Lieberman show any loyalty to the Democrats if they reward his 18 years of loyal service and consistent liberal voting record by stripping him of seniority? At that point, I personally would have no problem with him jumping ship. Kos & co. will portray it as a pure power grab, but that’s self-evidently wrong: if Lieberman were interested in power above principle, he would have either cynically abandoned his support for the war in 2003 like Kerry, Edwards, etc., thus possibly becoming serious presidential contender and certainly preventing the Lamont rebellion from happening in the first place; or else he would have jumped ship long ago, currying favor with the Republicans and joining their majority or maybe even the Bush Administration itself. Anyway, it simply isn’t necessary to cry “power grab” in order to explain a hypothetical Lieberman defection in the event the Democrats revoke his seniority. Such a move could be perfectly well explained by the fact that the Democrats would at that point be totally and completely saying “screw you” to Lieberman (not to mention “screw the voters of Connecticut,” who duly re-elected him in this scenario), and Lieberman would very naturally not want to respond by saying “oh well, aw shucks guys, okay, I’ll just get in the back of the line then… thanks for noticing me.” Why the hell should anyone expect him to do that? It’s ridiculous! At some point, when your former friends and allies show an endless willingness to kick you in the face over and over again, you’re not going to stand there and take it anymore.
What it really comes down to this. The Kos Kidz think all it’ll take to convince Lieberman to switch is a better offer from the GOP, regardless of the Dems’ actions:
Were the GOP to offer to honor his seniority to jump ship, what are the chances of his refusing that offer? Slim to none in my book. And it’s not an unlikely scenario at all should he be returned to the Senate and the Democrats make enough gains to approach a tied Senate.
No, it’s not unlikely, indeed I’d say it’s nearly 100% certain if the Democrats win 50 or 51 seats… REGARDLESS of whether the Dems revoke Lieberman’s seniority. That is to say, if Republicans need Lieberman, they will try to lure him over, even if the Democrats aren’t revoking his seniority. Just like the Dems did with Jeffords, the Republicans will offer him plum committee assignments, a seniority bonus, a really nice office, some bling :) … whatever it takes. And here’s the rub: Lieberman will turn them down, UNLESS the Democrats give him a very, very good reason to do otherwise. In other words, if faced with the choice of having somewhat less power on the Democratic side — but not being totally screwed over — versus having somewhat more power on the Republican side, Lieberman will do what he’s always done, and follow his principles: he’ll stay with the Dems. But if his Democratic “friends” spit in his face and say “yeah, you’ve been here for 18 years; so what? get in the back of the line, buddy,” then — and only then — will Lieberman give serious consideration to caucusing with GOP (regardless of the majority/minority situation). And at that point, he’ll be completely within his rights to do so, as far as I’m concerned. He’ll still vote as he always has, as an independent-minded progressive (which would make him a very odd member of the GOP caucus), but in terms of caucusing, it’s ridiculous to expect him to stay on the Democratic team if the Democratic leadership is going to send the unabashed message that “you’re not welcome here anymore.” At that point, Lieberman could very reasonably say, “I tried to be an ‘independent Democrat,’ like I promised, but it turns out the Democrats aren’t interested in independent-minded people anymore. They told me to take a hike. So now I’m just an independent, not affiliated with either major party. But, for purposes of caucusing, I had to pick a side, so I decided to caucus with the only party that was willing to respect my independence, which sadly, turns out to be the Republicans.”
Really, though, I don’t think it will come to this. Frank Lautenberg is offering Harry Reid a very attractive “out”:
Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.)…views Lieberman’s independent status as an opportunity to press Democratic leaders to restore seniority he lost four years ago.
If Lautenberg retrieves seniority accrued during 18 years of Senate service before retiring in 2000, he could leapfrog Lieberman to lead the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee or the Environment and Public Works Committee [if the Democrats take back the Senate majority].
Lieberman has served 18 years in the upper chamber. Lautenberg has served a total of 22 years, but he has only four years of recognized seniority because he retired from Congress for two years in 2000.
Liberals don’t want Lieberman to be the chairman of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, because they plan to use that committee to vigorously investigate the Bush Administration if they take back the Senate. In point of fact, Lieberman would probably be a great man for the job, as he would certainly be willing to vigorously investigate where it’s actually justified, but not where it’s a mere political charade. Liberals, however, want a partisan witch hunt, not a fair-minded investigation (and mind you, that’s not a Dem-only insult; the same would true if the roles were reversed), so they don’t want Lieberman. Well, Lautenberg is the perfect answer to that dilemma. He can prevent the “Chairman Lieberman Nightmare Scenario” without forcing the Democratic leadership to metaphorically spit in Joe’s face and virtually push him into the Republican caucus. So that’s what I think will happen, if Lieberman is re-elected and the Dems take back the Senate: Lieberman keeps his seniority, but Lautenberg gets his old seniority back and is chosen to lead the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee.
(Hat tip: InstaPundit.)
|
Categories: Joe Lieberman, Election 2006
|
October 3rd, 2006 at 6:03:34 pm
Have we considered the possibility that he’d be stripped of Democratic seniority for leaving the Democrats? That’s not loyalty.
October 3rd, 2006 at 6:20:28 pm
He didn’t leave the Democrats, the Democrats left him.
Joe Lieberman has never stopped being a Democrat. His voting record has been consistently Democratic/liberal. But because of a single issue on which he disagreed with the party line, the left declared war on him, and started claiming that he had been disloyal even though that was a totally spurious charge. The voters bought it, and rejected him by a narrow margin. He is now giving the voters of the state as a whole a chance to decide, recognizing that he is still very well-liked among his constituents (and with good reason) outside the confines of the left. The left, having branded Lieberman disloyal and thus forced him into this position in the first place, now uses it as proof of what they were saying all along: that he’s disloyal. The circular logic of it is wonderful.
And yet, despite being viciously smeared by the Left, rejected by liberal Democratic voters in large part on the basis of those smears, and abandoned by virtually all his longtime friends and colleagues, he still intends to caucus with the Democrats. That is loyalty. That’s the very definition of loyalty.
But if he wins the election, and yet the Democrats say, “you know what, screw you, your seniority is gone” … at that point, his loyalty might reach its limit, methinks.
October 3rd, 2006 at 6:43:29 pm
Democratic voters decided they did not want him to represent them in the Senate anymore. And yes that was based in large part on one issue, but that issue just happens to be arguably the most important issue of our time. If lieberman had won the election nationally democrats were willing and planning on backing him, but he lost. He couldnt convince the people he had represented for 30 years that he deserved to still represent them. Yes, liberal bloggers contributed to this fall, but if your voters believe liberal bloggers over you as a senator, maybe you have lost touch with your constituents.
The real question is what lieberman is promising to his republican donors, i somehow find it hard to believe that they are giving him so much money and support without expecting his future support on conservative legislation. If Lieberman was overwhelmingly more popular among independents than Lamont, I would have more sympathy, but unfortunately hes not, his support comes from republicans, so why should Democrats let a person who is essentially going to be reelected with republican money and republican support, hold high level committee positions?
October 3rd, 2006 at 7:30:41 pm
I have to say, while I agree with Brendan (with less fervor, ofcourse) on the Lieberman issue at large, I think it makes sense for the Democratic Caucus to strip him of some of his responsibilities. The party has a mechanism in place, for better or for worse, in which the voters of a district democratically elect the person they want as the Democratic candidate for their district in the general election. Lieberman did not win that contest and he is running as an independent voter. Why would the Caucus put someone who the Democratic voters of his district decided they did not feel represented them well, in charge of powerful positions of power and influence? The Caucus is about politics and partisanship, like it or not. The Cacus cannot reward a “renegade” member who decided to run as an independent because the Democratic voters chose someone else to represent them. Now, I think Lieberman has every right to be pissed at his party, and every right to run as an independent, and I think it is stupid for the Democrats, leadership and rank and file, to alienate him any more than they already have, but I also think it makes sense to “strip” him of his seniority and to relegate him to position sof less power anf influece. After al, this is politics, and politics is not fair. It is the price Lieberman must pay for going agaisnt the established way of doing busines sin the party. Brendan, you have mentioned how annoying it is that protesters who engage in civil disobedience act indignant when they get arrested for their peacful disobedience. You point out they have to accept the consequences of their actions, like getting arrested. Likewise, if Lieberman wants to circumvent the Democratic Primary process and run as an independent, irrespective of how much I might agree or disagree with him and his actions, he has to face the consequences, which might include loosing some of the power and influence vested in him by the party, the party that this time around did not elect him to represent them.
October 3rd, 2006 at 7:33:22 pm
*independent candidate, not independent voter.
October 3rd, 2006 at 7:54:49 pm
Bea, I have no problem with the Dems not giving Lieberman X or Y committee assignment. I would have a serious problem with them resetting the clock on his seniority to zero. But this is where the Lautenberg thing comes in. It gives Reid a way to avoid giving Lieberman that committee assignment without stripping him of his seniority per se.
if Lieberman wants to circumvent the Democratic Primary process and run as an independent, irrespective of how much I might agree or disagree with him and his actions, he has to face the consequences, which might include loosing some of the power and influence vested in him by the party
And if the Democrats want to do that, they have to face the consequences, which might include him jumping ship to the GOP and costing them their majority (if they win it in the first place, which they probably aren’t going to, thanks to gas prices and the stock market).
October 3rd, 2006 at 7:58:13 pm
To be clear: I’m not saying there is anything ethically wrong with the Dems stripping Lieberman of his seniority. But, it is undeniably a major slap in the face. If he wants to caucus with them and they say, “okay, but you’re losing all your seniority,” at that point there is no reason for him to remain loyal to the party, which at that point clearly wants nothing to do with him. So basically I’m just saying, if the Dems do this, and then Lieberman bolts the party, that’s not some sort of a blot on Lieberman’s character, it’s just a natural and totally reasonable reaction to their actions. As you say, actions have consequences: both Lieberman’s actions and the Democratic Caucus’s actions.
October 3rd, 2006 at 8:17:47 pm
I am with Bea on this one, and I think it makes perfect sense to strip Lieberman of his seniority. However, just as those things were negotiated with Sen. Jeffords when he left the GOP, the Dems would be better off tactically to negotiate an agreement with Sen. Lieberman, since the balance of power is likely to be very close and will afford Sen. Lieberman a lot of leverage.
October 3rd, 2006 at 8:47:17 pm
Bea, your comments are, characteristically, very Reasonable. :)
I’d dissent only on the proposition that Lieberman “circumvent[ed] the Democratic Primary process”. I say he didn’t Circumvent anything ~ any more than Lamont Circumvented the Democratic Convention process when he exercised his legitimately-won option [just as he’d Said he would] to Force the discretionary, non-automatic, CT rarity ~ the Challenge Primary ~ after losing the Party Endorsement to Joe by 2 to 1 at the Convention.
So, Ned Achieved his Primary ~ which Joe (correctly) did Not claim was a “Do-Over” btw :) ~ and he and Joe both Went Through The Primary Process, which Ned Won. Nobody Circumvented Nothin’.
Actually, a former Dem State Chairman & prominent Lieberman supporter had publicly urged Joe, as a Tactical matter, to drop his Dem renomination effort, Pre-convention, and just run independent, period. Now to me, THAT would have been Circumventing the Democratic Nomination Process. But Joe didn’t Want to do that. So, he Didn’t.
Having Engaged in the Primary process, and lost by less than 4 percentage points, Joe then exercised his legitimately-petitioned option [just as he’d Said he likely would in such circumstance] to run at the Election on the “Connecticut For Lieberman” (not “Democratic”) ballot designation. / He also chooses to exercise his First Amendment option of pointing out the incontrovertible legal Fact that he remains, personally, a Democrat.
Now, the Lamontistas DO whine (and/or, Bark :) that Joe’s November appeal to 2 million registered Voters is but a petulant “Do-Over” of his narrowly-failed August effort among 600,000 registered Democrats (43% of whom voted), but this is Cognitive Dissonance which they can’t really Help, it comes with the Ideology. :>
Anyway, I say nobody has Circumvented anything. :]
October 3rd, 2006 at 8:58:50 pm
Brendan, all well-argued, & I largely agree ~ but, a cautionary note: this could still all be Moot. Because, despite Saint Joe’s 10-point Quinnipiac Poll lead, his re-Canonization :> is Not a Done Deal. Far from it.
For one thing, obviously the continuing ~ escalating ~ drumbeat of Iraq-related Bad News is not exactly a Liebermanfriendly factor. :|
But more to the Point I think, there are some (relatively) unusual Technical aspects to this election which might (?) render voter Behavior at the polling place Unusually different from voter Response to even methodologically-Good polling like Quinnipiac’s. / To wit:
(That’s erroneous. In reality, the “Connecticut For Lieberman” ballot line will be no higher than sixth ~ horizontal Row F ~ and in MANY towns, including ALL those in CD 5 plus various others as well, it will be Row G, H or I, the latter being the 9th & Last row that there Is. Being a Merciful little fellow, I’ll skip the Accurate [i.e., the non-Hartford-Courant :] explanation of the Reasons Why this is so. :)
(Bottom Line, indeed. :> Now here’s the significant danger to Joe, into which the foregoing Positioning disadvantage Feeds ~ )
That is correct. And I agree with the “political operatives” :> that Ramblin’ Gamblin’ Alan :} will do a good deal better than the poll-forecasted 5%, per the combined effects of (a) hard-wired hardcore Republican reflexes [it’s Instinctive, you see :], (b) inertial Spillover from the massive Jodi Rell majority piling up on the lever just to Alan’s left, and [c] yes, the relative difficulty of Finding Joe ~ to include the impossibility of his campaign’s Advertising him at a single uniform statewide ballot position, which he Ain’t Got. (”Vote for Joe, on Lever 2F, 2G, 2H, or 2I, depending. Go Figure.” :)
It’s unheard-of for a CT major-party nominee for statewide office to pull 5% of the vote. Why, in 1990 even the hapless Cong. Bruce Morrison (D) grabbed (just barely :) 20% for Governor, in a four-way race won by the “A Connecticut Party” petitioning candidate, Lowell P. Weicker Jr. (and isn’t Himself now a bigfat Lamontista btw :). No, Schlesinger won’t draw THAT lousy a hand :). / And if he can get up into the 15% range ~ Certainly if he Gets to 20 ~ then Joe has a Problem. Cuz those votes aren’t coming out of Little Lord Neddy’s hide, OH no. :|
Another intriguing question, politically significant but unnoted in the press so far as I know, is whether Joe’s voters will ~ as Weicker’s for Governor did in 1990 ~ execute a massive Dropoff after voting for Yer Man. IOW: will a Big chunk of them, much bigger than the normal Downballot attrition rate, Find Joe ~ the Last Name Listed in vertical Column 2, US Senator ~ and plunk down his Pointer [yes, that’s what it’s Officially called ;] as their First act inside the voting booth (which Presumably is just what the Lieberman campaign will urge, it being the best answer to their Positioning Problem) ~~ AND THEN LEAVE? :>
If they DO ~ in large numbers, as happened with Weicker in ‘90 ~ the downballot effect will be to Help Democrats (!!! :), notably those in Column 3 (next after US Senator) running strong challenges for the US House in our 3 Republican-held CDs.
The big Weicker ‘90 Dropoff (from Column 1, not 2, perhaps an important difference) helped downballot Republicans, including one who unexpectedly Upset the incumbent 2-term Secretary of the State, because Weicker’s voters were about two-thirds Democrats & Dem-oriented unaffiliateds ~ which is why Hapless Dem Bruce “20%” Morrison, see Above, got so Slaughtered for Governor that year. I.e. a whole lot of “normally Democratic” Weicker Likers voted for Gov-&-LG and skipped the Underticket (since Weicker had none). // Win or lose, Lieberman’s big bloc of 2006 voters will be the mirror image: predominantly (though by no means Exclusively) Republicans and Republican-oriented unaffiliateds. Sooo, to the extent that these presumptive Chris Shays, Rob Simmons and Nancy Johnson supporters may just Vote Joe and then Skedaddle…well. You see the point.
Isn’t It Ironic? ;> Joe Lieberman might be singlehandedly responsible not only for Holding a Senate seat for the Sanity Wing of the Democratic Party, but for a Dem Sweep of CT’s House seats as well. :)
(However: I somehow Intuit that Joe’s Dropoff will be notably Lower than Lowell’s was. We shall See.)
October 3rd, 2006 at 9:14:05 pm
Joe, I am not up to date on how CT Dems elect their candidates, so you would have to excuse me :) If CT Dems have always done the Convention thing and this year all of a sudden Lamont asked for a primary election, then perhaps he also circumvented the process. Perhaps those Dems who wanted to oust Lieberman knew the election route was a good way to do it and so Lamont ot away with the election idea. My point is, still, if you decide to say to the party, look, I know you want to run this other guy instead of me, but I am going to run anways, then, uhm, he is not exactly staying with the party on this one, and will face the consequences. I have no problem with Lieberman running as an independent, because like I likely agree with your and Brendan’s assesment of the sutation, but I think it makes perfect sense, in a partisan world, to ostracise him and alienate him. I also think the party should not go too far with the alienation thing, lest he does totaly jump ship when they might need him most. Political calculations call for a balance, just enough alienation to make their point, but not so much he flees to the Republicans. Personally, I do not care either way, because I think Congress is all fucked up right now, the Dems are like a bickering aimless boat, the Reps are a bunch of compacent fat cats who forgot what it means to be a conservative, and we need some new blood in there, a shake up. I see your point Brendan, but, politically, why give Lieberman anything, when he is not the most popular guy with the party, leadership and rank and file? Political expediency is the only reason, and it is a good reason too, but like I said before, when it comes to Caucus decisions, it is about partisan politics, not fairness, and loyalty in the sphere of partisanship is not about principle, but about following the party line. Lieberman was not loyal to the party, he was loyal to his principles. If he was loyal to his party, he would have stayed out of the race and taken the shove. Politics is dirty, and loyalty requires ugly shit, which is why politis suck ass. Now, I think nobopdy should have to get eaten up by the party, and I do no necesarily respect taking the shove, all I am saying is, when it comes to party poltiics, it is not about hte individual, but about the whole, and everyone, even Lieberman is a cog on the party machine. Sad, I know. I hope that Liberman ends up in a position where a close majority on either side gives him some leverage, because even though I do not always agree with the guy, I think he had the balls to tell the party to fuck off for screwing him over and I respect that.
October 3rd, 2006 at 9:37:13 pm
Bea, I basically agree with you ~ as Brendan Basically did too, I think. Sure, if re-elected Joe should expect to Take his Lumps from the D Caucus. (Within Reason.)
The CT Process (R & D alike) is Essentially (oversimplified here, for brevity) This. A Convention names a Party Endorsed Candidate. If no Other contender seeks the nomination, the Party Endorsed becomes the Nominee (at a certain point in Time) automatically, with No Primary held. This is the Norm: the vast majority of nominations occur this way. / However IF another, unendorsed, candidate(s) Seeks said Nomination, AND Qualifies as a Primary Challenger (to the Endorsed) ~ either by at least 15% of convention Delegate votes received, or by sufficient Primary Petition signatures (formula varies by office) ~ AND timely Files such Petitions or Certification of such Convention vote ~ THEN a Primary is held to determine the Nominee. This is the Exception: relatively few Nominations are conferred via Primary.
AND now, on not-unrelated but somewhat Lighter note(s):
Lord Ned kicks in another Half-Mil for the Cause (making his total $6,751,500, & counting :)
CT Jews for Joe: Not Unanimous (not Hardly)
Senate Candidates Set Five-Way Debate at The Bushnell, Hartford, October 19
Said Other 2 being in Stamford & New London, 3-ways Only, among R, D, and CFL. / Yes, this last item is Cruelly included only to get Brendan Doing his Flips & Reshuffling his October Itineraries :>
October 3rd, 2006 at 10:32:20 pm
Jews? Unanimous? Yeah, right! ;)
(Hey, it just occurred to me… my mom is now Jewish, which means that according to Jewish law, I’m Jewish… so, does that mean I can make Jewish jokes with reckless abandon? Woohoo! Oy! Hehe.)
October 4th, 2006 at 4:19:07 am
It just occurred to you that you could be claimed Jewish?! Brendan, at times, you truly amaze me.
October 4th, 2006 at 2:36:09 pm
The bottom line, so far as I am concerned, is that the CT Democratic Party members have made their choice and Lieberman is running as an independent, therefore the Senate caucus owes him nothing. He’s outside the party structure, regardless of what he says about his political state of being. In what way does the Senate Caucus owe anything to him? He’s openly said that he has put himself above his party, which is absolutely his right, but he doesn’t have much room to bitch about the consequences. Seniority is a function party, if only by tradition, and he surely understands the risks.
Bear in mind, he hasn’t just taken a given stand on the war in Iraq, he has actively declared against the party in that area. They’d be stupid to keep him in for any reason *other* than to maintain parliamentary process controls.
I am entertained that it’s okay for the Club for Growth to weed out moderate Republicans, but apparently not for the CT Democrats to vote against someone with whom they no longer agree.
October 4th, 2006 at 2:37:21 pm
One other thought re: “He didn’t leave the Democrats, the Democrats left him.”
“I didn’t get fired, they didn’t let me back in the building.”
October 4th, 2006 at 3:46:40 pm
DC Trojan, I’m not sure where you’re getting that I think “it’s okay for the Club for Growth to weed out moderate Republicans.” I’m quite certain I’ve never said that. I would direct you to my comments about Lincoln Chafee if you want to know (as opposed to assuming) how I feel about the matter.
October 4th, 2006 at 5:08:54 pm
Yes and also, DC Trojan, re your “…but apparently not [okay] for the CT Democrats to vote against someone with whom they no longer agree” ~ as one of the 48% of participating CT Dems who voted FOR Joe, I say: Certainly it’s OK. Unwise, IMO, in this particular instance ~ but of course, OK. I.e. legitimate, valid, acceptable, understandable even, etc etc. / In our great American system it is Always OK for the Voters to be Unwise. :>
October 4th, 2006 at 6:36:16 pm
Hmmmm … theologically philosophising, for Brendan to be considered Jewish, would his mother not have had to be Jewish at the time of his birth ?
October 5th, 2006 at 3:02:13 pm
My snarky comment about the Club for Growth was an unfair and apparently inaccurate generalization. Apologies.
October 5th, 2006 at 3:06:26 pm
Apology accepted. :)
October 15th, 2006 at 6:29:02 pm
Visit our site for the very latest information regarding weight loss and diets.
http://www.lose-10-pounds.co.uk
This site is Free usage and very informative