Lieberman's latest remark...
Connecticut's Indepednent U.S. Sen. Joseph Lieberman is once again raising hte ire of Democrats, this time suggesting that he might consider caucusing with Republicans if Democrats are successful in blocking the funding for the Iraq War.
However, it appears that if he did switch, it won't have any impact on the leadership in the Senate. This according to Goddard's Political Wire...
"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 (the last time a senator switch parties)? 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 Vermont Senator Jim Jeffords did five months later. There was no such clause in the current Senate's organizing resolution.
Update: This from AP - Lieberman dismisses speculation on party switch:
"I have no desire or intention to leave the Democratic Party or the Democratic caucus," Lieberman said Friday while in Hartford to host an education forum. "I hope and believe we'll never get to that point, so I believe this latest flurry is much ado about nothing."
However, it appears that if he did switch, it won't have any impact on the leadership in the Senate. This according to Goddard's Political Wire...
"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 (the last time a senator switch parties)? 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 Vermont Senator Jim Jeffords did five months later. There was no such clause in the current Senate's organizing resolution.
Update: This from AP - Lieberman dismisses speculation on party switch:
"I have no desire or intention to leave the Democratic Party or the Democratic caucus," Lieberman said Friday while in Hartford to host an education forum. "I hope and believe we'll never get to that point, so I believe this latest flurry is much ado about nothing."
posted by Ray Hackett at 2:54 PM
1 Comments:
I told you I read it so I'll comment.
I think Joe is just enjoying twisting the knife in his detractors. At his age this should be his last term anyway. After these scenes no doubt it will be. He's going to get some recreation out of this deal.
You actually make a point about the organizing resolution that I didn't know. Excellent piece of information there.
I think it'll be a long year or two before his primary rebuke rolls off his back. Anytime he craves attention we'll be hearing about a disagreements with democratic leadership lending itself to speculation (leaked from Lieberman's office no doubt) that he's changing affiliation. C'est la vie.
Post a Comment
<< Home