It is time to eject Lieberman from the Dem Party.

[usregimechange]

He endorses a GOP presidential candidate, runs against the Dem senatorial candidate, supports the pukes at every turn. Enough is enough. Do you agree? Is it worth losing control of the Senate? Your damn right it is!

[slick8790]

1. We don't really lose control of the senate.

The way the senate was negotiated at the beginning of this session of congress, no matter what the actual balance is, Dems still stay in control, at least via comittee assignments and control of legislation.

[MonkeyFunk]

3. people keep saying that

but I don't trust it.

What would stop the Republicans from just voting another organizing resolution?

[slick8790]

7. I don't know if senate rules allow it.

It's possible an organizing resolution is set in stone for the entire session.

[MonkeyFunk]

11. It can't be as a general rule

because the senate reorganized when Jeffords switched parties.

[Rowdyboy]

14. I believe that different congresses negotiate different deals.....

The way I understand it, when Jeffords flipped the agreement allowed for control to switch. Todays agreement supposedly doesn't include tht provision. The only way I can see to defend it would be by filibuster.

Who knows..... :shrug:

[MonkeyFunk]

15. I'm not sure organizing resolutions can be filibustered

or else the Republicans wouldv'e filibustered the switch in 2001, thus keeping the old arrangement in place.

[Rowdyboy]

17. Regardless, you and I agree 100% on one thing.....in 2008 Democrats will

win a minimum of four new senate seats (between 4-12), ensuring that Joe Lieberman's vote will be absolutely unnecessary. At that point, if Lieberman isn't stripped of his committee chairmanship I will quit the party I've supported since 1972.

[Perky]

23. My guess is that it would then be a 50 50 tie and I suspect

that the ruies do not allow Cheney to vote on oranizing the Senate because he is not a senator.

That means theree is no majority cote ands the status quo remains in place.

[MonkeyFunk]

27. except

before Jeffords switched parties, the Senate was 50/50 with Cheney breaking the tie.i


Edit: I found an interesting article on the situation:

http://hnn.us/articles/34708.html


it turns out the 2001 organizing resolution was unique in that it specifically allowed for a new majority to take over committee chairs. The 2007 resolution does NOT have that provision.

However, it IS possible for a new majority to vote a new organizing resolution, but it's unlikely to happen. Read the article - it's interesting. A situation like this occurred in the 50s.

[slick8790]

28. Well that wasn't because of a new senate organizing resolution.

That was because the original one had a clause that said if the balance of power switched during that session, then the senate reorganizes. That clause isn't in this session's organization, as far as i know.

[MonkeyFunk]

31. correct

see my post right above yours.

[Clintonista2]

2. Lieberman is an independent

Not a dem.

[slick8790]

6. I think the poster means kicking him off his comittee assignments, etc,

Meaning he'd lose his seniority.

[antiimperialist]

20. His biography in the senate website describes him as an "independent Democrat"

I'm not too sure it's accurate to say he's not a Democrat.

[MaineDem]

22. That's the Party he formed to run in CT

He's an Independent Democrat (with a capital I)

But he's not a member of the Democratic Party...thank God!

[Greeby]

4. I thought that happened with the primary last year

:shrug:

[sniffa]

5. no, we can't!!!1!

since he's an indy. kick him out of the caucus - yes, eventually. then out of the Senate.

[Fed_Up_Grammy]

8. The people of Connecticut obviously think he's just great.

It's a mystery to me,but he was elected.

[SaveElmer]

9. I see no harm in taking away his committee charmanship and...

Kicking him out of the caucus...

Dems will retain control until the next election anyway...and it isn't like he votes to support the Dem leadership on anything...

[Debi]

10. Didn't he already do that himself

by running as an Independent after losing the Democratic Primary?

[A-Schwarzenegger]

12. No, do not eject him.

Catapult him!

[whatdoyouthink]

13. Put a Hold on all his "Pet" Projects

And don't invite him to Dem, Meeting's etc...but don't inflame (him) them -so the can appeal (push/pull) to the India's this (next) yr

Silent treatment? anyone

[WheelWalker]

16. Shun the bum. Make him irrelevant.

[onenote]

18. If Lieberman decides he wants to caucus with the Dems after 08, I bet he's allowed to

and here's why: he still will have leverage even if the Democrats pick up additional Senate seats given them a safe majority without him.

What leverage? Well, the number of Dems and repubs on each Committee is determined by the number of Dems and repubs overall. If Lieberman caucuses with the Dems, there may be one more Dem (and one less repub) on every Senate Committee. If he caucuses with the repubs, there could be one more repub and one less Democrat on each Committee. Lieberman himself only will be on a couple of committees, but where he caucuses could mean the difference between additional Committee slots for every other Senate Democrat. So Lieberman still will have some leverage.

Personally, I hope it doesn't play out that way. I think his endorsing a repub for president should disqualify him for a committee chairmanship. But I won't be surprised if he still ends caucusing with the Dems and keeps some sort of committee position in return.

[cmkramer]

29. Ed Kilgore

seems to think that it's a foregone conclusion that Joe will caucus with Republicans in 2009. I kind of disagree mainly because except for the war, Lieberman pretty much votes with the Democrats on the issues.

But then again, Ben Whitehorse Campbell broke with the party over one issue - the balanced budget amendment - and ended up becoming a Republican so I suppose it could happen.

My guess is that if Democrats win more seats in the next election and have a larger majority, if Lieberman decides to caucus with Republicans, they'll only kick up a nominal fuss. If it's the same kind of one seat majority, they'll try to keep him caucusing with the Democrats.

[paulk]

19. it's not worth losing control of the Senate over

what a stupid thing to say.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

21. He is not a member of the Democratic party

That smear has been repeated endlessly on TV today, despite the fact everyone knows it is false.

Bernie Sanders and Joe Lieberman are both Independents who caucus with the Democrats.

[Freddie Stubbs]

24. He is no longer a member of the Democratic Party

He is an independent. Happy now?

[Dr Fate]

25. Has the DLC ejected him as a member- or do they still defend & support him?

Seriously- has the DLC kicked him out- or have any fellow DLCers such as Harold Ford so much as apologized for supporting him?

Seriously- do any of the many pro-DLCers here at DU have the answer?

I'm uessing he is still somehow a member in good standing- but I would love to be proven wrong....The DLC shunning their old ally would be a great sign of hope...

[cmkramer]

30. There's a statement from Al From on their website

It says he's "profoundly disappointed" and that we need to elect a Democrat for president.

I'm waiting to hear from Dan Gerstein myself.

[LeftishBrit]

26. He's already been ejected from the Dem party...

and no, I don't think it's worth losing the senate over him.