Wither Joementum?

Brendan Nyhan wonders:

What happens to Joe Lieberman if the Democrats take the White House and expand their Senate majority to 56 or 57 seats? Despite his support for McCain, I think Democrats will want his vote on non-war-related issues, so they'll hold their nose and let him keep his seniority in the caucus. Others say he'll be stripped of his seniority, lose his chairmanship of the government affairs committee, and then leave the party to become a Republican.

I have no idea what will happen, but there's very little logic to keeping him in the party. If you had a Democratic Senator who was aggressively campaigning for the GOP presidential nominee, Exhibit A for the case for letting him keep his chairmanship would be "well, he won the Democratic nomination for his seat." But Lieberman didn't win the Democratic nomination. Naturally, under the circumstances he didn't endorse the Democratic candidate for U.S. Senator from Connecticut nor has he endorsed the Democratic candidate for U.S. President. So you've got a guy who doesn't have the Democratic Party nomination, and doesn't support Democratic nominees for federal office. That would seem to make his case for being a Democrat look pretty tenuous.

Comments

Last I knew he wasn't a Democrat. If he wants to get elected from Connecticut again, he simply can't go all conservative on economic or reproductive rights issues, so Democrats are likely to get his vote on that sort of issue whatever they do. And they're not getting anything else from him. It only makes sense to cut him loose.

Posted by David in NY | May 9, 2008 2:30 PM

If he lived in South Los Angeles this approach to clan loyalties would find him dead in an alley. Makes you rethink the widespread denigration of their lifestyle a bit.

Posted by steve duncan | May 9, 2008 2:33 PM

There is a legitimate suspicion that Lieberman could actively damage the Democratic legislative agenda by cooperating with Republicans. And there is also precedent.

Gramm [then a Democrat] perpetrated a now notorious double-cross. Sitting in on Democratic caucus budget meetings Gramm reported the party's budget strategy to David Stockman, then Reagan's budget director. He also collaborated with Stockman on Reagan's first budget, soon to be christened Gramm-Latta, and helped line up conservative Democrats behind it. The Budget Committee declined to renew Gramm's membership at the end of 1982.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1316/is_n3_v26/ai_14882978/pg_5

But in Lieberman's case, joining the Republicans would undermine his position of value to any Republicans he's seeking to work with.

If the Democrats manage to increase their Senate holding where Lieberman is not required, he needs to be set free to follow his heart.

Posted by El Cid | May 9, 2008 2:33 PM

As much as I don't like him, chew on this scenario:

The Democrats have 54 seats, plus Lieberman and Sanders. Priority one on the domestic agenda for President Obama: a major health care bill. Don't you think we'll need every single vote we can in order to reach 60 votes on cloture? As much as I'd love to tell Joe to stick it, he's pretty likely to be with us on that issue.

Are you willing to wait another 15 years to have another shot on health care, just so we can settle scores? I'm not.

Posted by gaucho | May 9, 2008 2:38 PM

I have no idea what will happen, but there's very little logic to keeping him in the party.

He gets you one vote closer to 60, right?

Posted by right | May 9, 2008 2:38 PM

The title for this post should probably be either "Whither Joementum?" or "Wither, Jomentum!" but not what you wrote.

Posted by J | May 9, 2008 2:39 PM

The title for this post should probably be either "Whither Joementum?" or "Wither, Joementum!" but not what you wrote.

Posted by J | May 9, 2008 2:41 PM

After he's arrested for treason - Liebermania should be kept at Gitmo as its only prisoner a la Rudolph Hess at Spandau. A rotating set of guards (1 Palestinian, 1 American, 1 Russian, and 1 Iraqi) should monitor his super high-tech cage 24-7, and once a month ziocon columnist Mona Charen should be flown in in chains from her single prisoner Abu Gharib cell and forced at gunpoint to administer a hot-lead enema to the once-peppy little Rice Krispies icon with the constipated whine.

Posted by Trevor | May 9, 2008 2:44 PM

Once the Senate is off the knife-edge, Lieberman for Lieberman is of no use to anybody. He's always going to vote hawkish. And he's never going to help with blocking Republican nominees. So what good does it do to keep him in the Dem caucus ? None at all: in fact it's positively harmful, as any and every stupid Republican nominee and legislative proposal gets counted as "bipartisan" by the Broderite MSM once Joe signs on.

If he hadn't gone so far as to endorse McCain, maybe Pres Obama could have given him some suitable grand-sounding but harmless position in the next administration to neutralize him. But now I'm afraid we're stuck with him.

Posted by Richard Cownie | May 9, 2008 2:46 PM

As others have pointed out, the relevant question is whether you are otherwise going to be stuck at 59 on any important issues. If so, then the question becomes who will be the cheapest member of the 41 to buy off. And that person may well be Lieberman.

Posted by DTM | May 9, 2008 2:47 PM

Best suggestion for dealing with him is making his position on the committees contingent on very specific terms. First and foremost, he must vote the democratic party line on all cloture votes. He can vote as he wants on the actual bills, but if he wants the democrats to give him something, he must be willing to give something big in return.

Posted by malraux | May 9, 2008 2:53 PM

The title for this post should probably be either "Whither Joementum?" or "Wither, Joementum!" but not what you wrote.

I was wondering about that too. I really can't tell a lot of the time whether Matt's engaging in subtle wordplay or just being his usual last-place-in-the-spelling-bee self.

Posted by James Gary | May 9, 2008 2:55 PM

Joe has demonstrated that he's going to vote his conscience anyways. Hand wringing over Joe is pretty much pointless. Be nice and respectful to the guy and he'll vote your way sometimes. Be mean and call him names and he'll vote your way sometimes. His constituents like that about him. He's a moderate that hawks for Israel and that's never going to change. Move on. It would be wiser to court some of the other moderate Republicans into your camp than bothering with Holy Joe.

Posted by Roboticghost | May 9, 2008 2:55 PM

Of course the big question is: If the next POTUS is a Democrat, will Lieberman start using his committee's heretofore unused oversight powers to start launching embarrassing investigations? That would probably decide whether or not he gets to keep the chair.

Posted by badger | May 9, 2008 2:55 PM

The other angle is how much Obama helped Lieberman in '06, and how Lieberman has subsequently stabbed Obama in the back. I'd like to know from Joe just what "too far to the left" (his description last month) positions Obama has, and why therefore Lieberman would even allow Obama to campaign for him.

Sorry to say, much as I'd like to see Joe in Gitmo, we may need that 60th vote at times. Lieberman's power after January will be vastly diminished anyway by then.

Posted by maxgowan | May 9, 2008 2:56 PM

Maybe it should be "Whiter Joementum!"

Posted by Lukeness | May 9, 2008 2:58 PM

Missing in this analysis is Reid's promise not to throw Lieberman under any buses regardless of the 2008 electoral outcome.

http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/15232.html

If that's a promise Reid wants to stick to, perhaps there's a bus with his name on it too. Clinton would make one hell of a Senate majority leader, for a good long time.

Posted by Nat | May 9, 2008 2:59 PM

I think after he pulls a Zell Miller with an appearance at the Republican National Convention this year...he won't have much pull, and they won't want to give him any.

Posted by McL | May 9, 2008 3:00 PM

Isn't the question whether being stripped of his seniority would change his vote on health care and other issues? There's very little benefit to demanding that he caucus with the Republicans, but there certainly are benefits to placing him lower in the Dem. hierarchy. The questions are about how he would respond to this, both in terms of changing party or just changing his votes on particular issues.

Posted by washerdreyer | May 9, 2008 3:01 PM

OT:

You just knew he was going to be a trust fund scumbag.

Posted by SoCalJustice | May 9, 2008 3:08 PM

His possible vote with the Democratic majority on some issues would be offset by his seniority-powered obstructionism. He has enough power, and the tendency, to do more harm than good. Strip him of seniority, and buy him off on individual issues.

Posted by Kiril | May 9, 2008 3:10 PM

F*ck Joe Lieberman and f*ck cloture. Demand that Republicans fillibuster popular Democratic legislation. It becomes more difficult to hide behind obscure procedural votes when you have to stand in front of the American people explaining why you don't want them to have universal healthcare. While George Bush is president, I understand that this will be of little benefit as the boy prince will simply veto legislation or annul it by signing statement. But with a President Obama and a simple Democratic majority (i.e. 51, without Lieberman) then there is no excuse for needing 60 senators to pass our agenda.

Posted by drjimcooper | May 9, 2008 3:12 PM

The real question is what sort of a thorn he might be in the side of an Obama administration if he keeps his government oversight chairmanship. Presumably the Democrats don't *need* there to be any Senate oversight of Obama; would Lieberman stay as lax then as he is now?

Another question is what his options would be once he's kicked out of the caucus? If he starts voting with the Republicans on domestic issues, then he's toast in 2012 in Connecticut. He largely won in 2006 because he could still pretend he's a Democrat. If we all stop pretending he is, then he might lose the seat altogether.

Posted by phil | May 9, 2008 3:19 PM

Don't you think we'll need every single vote we can in order to reach 60 votes on cloture?

You're assuming that Lieberman will suddenly start voting against health care, against better environmental laws, against better labor laws,... etc.

If he's willing to turn his back on everything he supposedly believes in, then the sooner the Democrats ditch him, the better.

Posted by Jinchi | May 9, 2008 3:21 PM

I think after he pulls a Zell Miller with an appearance at the Republican National Convention this year...he won't have much pull, and they won't want to give him any.

Posted by McL | May 9, 2008 3:21 PM

Lieberman will be of no help on health care issues. He is the Senator from Connecticut, the headquarters of a disproportionate amount of the insurance companies. "Don't jeoporadize universal health care reform" seems to be becoming the refuge of the worst sorts of Democratic machine hacks.

Posted by Ed | May 9, 2008 3:33 PM

Look, it's simply a question of mutual necessity.

The Democratic Party leadership needs to keep the money flowing in from AIPAC. And AIPAC needs to have Leiberman strategically located where he is so as to keep the Democrats and Republicans in line on policy for Israel.

That's a deal made to last. And any attempt to break it would cause havoc on both sides.

Posted by Justin X | May 9, 2008 3:49 PM

The reason is this (as much as I loathe him at this point) 56 or 57 seats is nice but it ain't 60, and the GOP has shown they are willing to fillibuster anything and everything they don't like. So Joe is potentially one less GOP moderate they have to sweet talk.

The deal is this: Joe get's to keep his chairmanship and seniority, promise not to use it to stick it to Obama and agrees to always vote party line on cloture. After that he can vote however he pleases. Othwerwise Reid kicks him out of the caucus.

That's what I would do if I were Harry Reid.

Posted by DP | May 9, 2008 3:55 PM

The logic of the argument is that Lieberman votes the way he does on the environment, health care, education etc because he gets to be a committee chairman. Hmm. I say, let's think long term. Take away the chairmanship, let him become a Republican and get a 0 from the ADA and a 100% conservative rating and then we'll surely get a new senator in 2012. Invest now for the payoff down the road.

Posted by santamonicamr | May 9, 2008 5:03 PM

THIS IS EXCELLENT NEWS!! FOR HILLARY!!!

Posted by idiotic | May 9, 2008 5:06 PM

There is great logic to buying him off - at the right price.

Since the Dems are unlikely to have the 60 votes for cloture, but are likely to have a majority, there's one thing Lieberman can deliver in exchange for keeping his seniority that has value: a hard commitment to vote with the leadership on cloture. After that, he can vote whichever way he wants.

Nothing else makes sense.

Posted by Ivan | May 9, 2008 5:17 PM

Is Lieberman a super delegate to the Democratic National Convention in Denver? How is this going to be handled?

Posted by Howard | May 9, 2008 5:35 PM

If Dems win the White House and a few extra Senate seats it's a no brainer to ditch him. Once the Iraq War begins to end, Leiberman won't have any friends left in the Republican party since that's the only issue they agree with him. The Dems have the power, he's not a Democrat, make him work for it if he wants it back.

Posted by tom.a | May 9, 2008 6:15 PM

By all means, boot Lieberman out of the party!

Why should the Republicans have a monopoly on party destruction for the sake of ideological purity? Everybody knows monopolies are bad....

Posted by wj | May 9, 2008 6:21 PM

Is Lieberman a super delegate to the Democratic National Convention in Denver? How is this going to be handled?

IIRC Holy Joe was stripped of his SuperD status when he endorsed St. John.

.

Posted by spork_incident | May 9, 2008 7:47 PM

I think the same logic applies to Hillary Clinton, after the debacle of her campaign.

She isn't a Democrat and clearly doesn't give a rat's ass about the Party when it conflicts with her desire for power.

She hangs out with right wing Republicans in a right wing Republican Christian organization, praises McCain and other right wingers, and votes for right wing Republican issues like Iraq and Iran. This is a Democrat?

If the Democrats have any brains at all (okay, questionable premise at best, I know), they will get her kicked out of her Senate seat at the next election.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | May 9, 2008 7:49 PM

Oh idiotic, that gets me every single time...

Posted by McKingford | May 9, 2008 8:26 PM

Lieberman isn't a superdelegate because he wasn't elected as a member of the Democratic Party. He caucuses with them, but he's not on the list as a member of the party. Check demconwatch.com for the list of superdelegates; he's not on the list.

Posted by Adam Villani | May 9, 2008 8:28 PM

If the Dems add a few Senate seats and Obama wins, then strip Lieberman of all leadership and power, back of the line.

He'll have no power, no influence, and he'll probably retire before his term ends.

Posted by mike | May 10, 2008 2:10 AM

"The logic of the argument is that Lieberman votes the way he does on the environment, health care, education etc because he gets to be a committee chairman. Hmm. I say, let's think long term. Take away the chairmanship, let him become a Republican and get a 0 from the ADA and a 100% conservative rating and then we'll surely get a new senator in 2012. Invest now for the payoff down the road.

Posted by santamonicamr | May 9, 2008 5:03 PM"

Very true. If he follows through on his threats, he loses in 2012. There is no reason to have to make him chairman. He can have committee appointments if he votes on cloture, but no chairmanships.

Posted by Reality Man | May 10, 2008 5:11 AM

If he follows through on his threats, he loses in 2012.

The appointment/chairmanship stuff seems a good strategy.

However, is there much of a chance he'll run and win in '12? Here in Connecticut* people don't much care for him.

*I started loathing Blowmentum before almost anyone on this site. (Wow. That does sound like bragging.)

Posted by ThresherK | May 10, 2008 6:07 AM

There is a very simple cure for the Lieberman Question. In recent administrations, there has been a token bow to bipartisanship by appointing a Cabinet member from the rival party. President Democrat-to-be-named-later should simply appoint Joe to be Secretary of Commerce or HUD (yeah, I know, HUD should be important enough to have a real person run it, but it isn't at the moment). I'd suggest appointing him Postmaster General, but he probably wouldn't go for that.

Posted by Ben | May 11, 2008 12:20 AM