Aren’t the Committee Chairs specified by name in this Senate’s organizing resolution, or operating agreement? This was the reason why the Democrats got a “no-redo” clause if the majority changed.

Which means that even if Senate Dems throw RGJoe outta their caucus he remains chairman of his tea-party. That alternate Dem/GOP seating rearrangement is the absolutely perfect metaphor for the banality of Lieberman’s evil.

oh, and A-fuckin-MEN!!

I got EPU’d the other day when I tried to reply to your comment pointing out my ignorance of these Senate Rules. With all due respect to your superior knowledge, I think that if the laws of the United States aren’t worth the paper they’re printed on to these Rethugs and RGJoe, then why on earth would a Senate rule stand in their way? Who would prevent them from taking over the Senate? Abu? The Supreme Court? You see my point.

February 22, 2007
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.

What’s the difference between now and 2001? 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 Jeffords did five months later. There was no such clause in the current Senate’s organizing resolution.

I’m still trying to understand yesterday’s vote. The bill was not in danger of being defeated, so even senators who believed in the bill could do themselves a favor by siding with the American People and voting against this unpopular president and his unpopular war. But they didn’t avail themselves of this free opportunity. Why???

Obviously, they are afraid of something and it’s not the voters. And I believe that even the press would have treated them kindly. So, what is it? What force has sufficient clout to make 40 Democratic senators snivel and vote against the expressed will of their constituents? Whom do they serve?

Wigwam – Excellent question. My suspicion (in line with Jim @ 58’s coded message) is growing that the A*P*C Likud Lobby is very much a force here. Lieberman’s not the only one in the Senate and House dancing to their tune.

Pelosi and Obey voted against the stay-in-Iraq bill, after apparently feeling forced to bring it to the floor. Reid and Levin and Durbin voted for it in the Senate. Levin had already been offering to capitulate to Bush by offering a bill with a voluntary drawdown timeline before the final negotiations and subsequent capitulation even took place. It seems pretty likely that the Senate leadership ended up calling most of the shots in conference.

The final conference report included Levin’s pal (and Armed Services colleague) John Warner’s “weak tea” amendment language, which almost makes me think that Warner was covering for Levin (and A*P*C), because Levin pulled his own voluntary timeline amendment the day the Warner amendment materialized.

I think it’s more than a happenstance that Jim Webb went out of his way to mention Lieberman by name in his statement, after making clear that Webb’s efforts to include binding language in the conference report were resisted and rejected by the “leadership.” Webb may be giving us a loud hint. [And if the Senate “leadership” can’t or won’t take seriously Jim Webb’s advice on a topic like this, something is very wrong in Denmark…]

If the leaders of the Senate are in fact following A*P*C’s orders, they’d far prefer that we think them cowards and fools (or that it’s all Lieberman’s fault), than that we recognize them for what they are actually effectively being: foreign agents acting against the best interests of the United States…

Here’s Carl Levin on the Senate floor yesterday (in part):

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I continue to believe that Congress must act to change course in Iraq because the Bush administration will not. Congress needs to force the Iraqi political leaders to accept responsibility for their country’s future. Four years of painful history have shown that the only way to accomplish that goal is to write into law a requirement that we reduce the number of U.S. troops in Iraq beginning in 120 days. That amount of time would give the Iraqi leaders the time to make the political settlements that are the only hope of ending the sectarian fighting.

Setting that beginning point would also force the Iraqi leaders to face the reality that we will not be their endless security blanket. That approach got 51 votes in the Senate on March 29. It was sent to the President. The President vetoed it. But pressure continues to build for a change in course, even in the President’s party.

We will renew the effort to force a change in course in June when we take up the Defense authorization bill currently scheduled for late June. The way we will do that is we will make and renew the effort to require the President to begin reducing American troops in Iraq within 120 days.

I voted against the authorization to attack Iraq 4 years ago, and I will continue to fight for a bill that forces the President to do the one thing which will successfully change course in Iraq. Reducing our presence starting in 120 days is a way of telling the Iraqi leaders that we cannot save them from themselves and that only they can make the decision as to whether they want an all-out civil war or they want a nation.

That’s the “explanation” for the quagmire in Iraq from the Chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee. For a different perspective that makes Levin’s remarks look beyond foolish and misleading, I can’t recommend this article about Iraq enough:

http://www.alternet.org/story/52135/

Got an email from Boxer’s server earlier today, “Why I voted No”. (because ending the war is so important). So, Ms. Boxer, let me explain to you the consequences of what you did in CT… and why I don’t trust you…

Ding!

Lieberman is an irrelevant lame duck blowhard no matter how you slice it.

emptywheel has landed.

The trouble starts now….

GO EMPTYWHEEL GO!!! [big grin]

Bob in HI

ThinkProgress: Bush Ignored Senate’s Pre-War Intelligence Warning of Post-War Fiasco

Link to Senate’s Select Committee’s Intelligence Report: http://www.intelligence.senate.gov/prewar.pdf

(229 page .pdf file)

Thanks! There sure hasn’t been much news about this. And did they release it today for a reason? Is this just a rehash of stuff already known?

Bob in HI