Georgia's situation is a runoff, not a recount.

Maddow:
http://crooksandliars.com/media/play/wmv/6784/24049

I've been saying this for a while. Some Democrats may join filibusters and some Republicans may not.

Moderate Republicans (and I'm thinking Specter, Collins and Snowe in particular) have been browbeaten by Cheney's office for the last eight years and have felt penned in. They have some freedom now. Of course Specter has to watch for a challenge from the right, as PA is a closed primary state and the thoughtful Republicans have gone Independent or Democrat.

I'd also look to McCain. I don't think he's a sure filibuster-er. He's wants to be seen as a bipartisan maverick, and he's ticked off at the right wing of the party (and they're ticked off at him). I don't see him mindlessly signing on to party-line filibuster votes.

I'll do my part here in Pennsylvania to pressure Specter to cross party lines. My guess is, at least on civil liberties issues, without Bush and Cheney in the White House he'll be willing to vote with the Dems.

Rachel should have put the final nail in any discussion of Lieberman's HS chairmanship yesterday.
http://tinyurl.com/5qmdrm

Keeping him in place would be political malpractice on the part of the Dems.

Call your senators.

Whether Lieberman is a conservative Democrat from a blue state, or a moderate Republican from a Blue State: does it matter?

How does the division of Dems/GOP on major committees change at 60 votes? Do we get an extra seat and vote on key committees at the 3/5th mark?

I think blue-state Republicans should be watched very closely. If the Senate Republican caucus veers hard to the wacko-right, which may very well happen, the 'center-right' Senators shouldn't be given a pass.

Ok, if you get to 59 w/Lieberman, I'd downright demand Democrats to give Snowe and/or Collins a plum chairmanship to cross lines. What can Republicans offer in return? "Being true to their voters?" They're already called RINOs anyway! Specter wouldn't move. I think the Dems that would have been upset since they're passed over would take it as they can get their projects passed without a filibuster.
Hmm, I would also then bet the next vacancy on the Supreme Court might be someone from the great state of Maine, too.

I say let them really filibuster.

If Reid wouldn't lay down at every threat of a filibuster I think it would make great press to see someone like Brownback on the news reading from a telephone book in the Senate Chamber.

Reid could just respond with "We're trying to do America's business, but this is what we're dealing with".

A milestone, and yet a millstone too.

The Democrats would be better off without 60, unless they can get 65. With 60, every time something doesn't get passed, you'll hear Republicans (and Lieberman) shouting about how the Dems can't do anything even with "complete control" of the government.

For that matter, there's no reason to believe that every Republican is necessarily going to back their party on cloture votes.

True, but at least the Republicans will have to do a little more than raise their little finger to threaten a filibuster on every frickin' issue. It does get annoying after a while.

Republicans managed to filibuster successfully the last two years because a) they had 49 votes, and only needed 41 on each issue; b) they had a White House telling them what to do; and c) they had McConnell as Senate minority leader adopting the filibuster-everything strategy.

Every one of those factors is going to be vastly different in the new Senate:

a) Holding together probably 41 out of 42 senators is always going to be really difficult (compared to getting 41 out of 49).

b) With Bush and Cheney gone, there's no clear leader of the party to tell them what to do.

c) They filibustered everything for 2 years, and then got absolutely creamed in the 2008 election. Whether or not McConnell stays as leader, I can't believe they'll try to continue the same failed tactics.

The interesting battles over the next 2 years will be between liberal Democrats (e.g. Kennedy) and centrist/conservative Democrats (e.g. Baucus). On any particular issue it won't be hard to peel off one or two of Snowe, Collins, Specter, and maybe Lugar (he's right-wing, but has worked closely with Obama and conspicuously avoided campaigning for McCain in Indiana, which ended up voting blue).

It's also interesting that even after two years of campaigning it's still a little hard to figure out where Obama is going to position himself in those liberal-vs-centrist battles. I suspect he might try to stay above the fray and act more as a referee than a combatant, using Rahm to knock heads together as necessary and make sure that *something* gets done.

It isn't really 60 if Lieberman is one of that number. We should never let them forget that Lieberman agreed with Glenn Beck when he said it would be the end of the country as we know it if Dems get to 60. I don't understand why the Senate Dems are bending over backwards for this fool, but I will be laughing my ass off every time Lieberman stabs them in the back.

Your point about cloture is well taken. History shows specifically Democrats needing at least 70 seats to ensure a once-in-the-while filibuster proof protocol.

The question this Congressional session will be who can, and will, work with President Obama to solve our economic, social and international problems, reignite an American spirit of accomplishment, and promote a wellness through policy and action - and, party notwithstanding, who will obstruct our efforts to right our American ship of state.

Who will offer obfuscation and spin for the same old vested interests; and who will promote a renewed American identity that translates into civic responsibility and accountability are the opposing questions of the hour.

For those politicians who would block common sense, consensus driven good policy, well, just think, 2010, and your re-election odds! -Kevo

If Reid wouldn't lay down at every threat of a filibuster... -fred

He'll never be anything but a coward. Just look at what his emissary, Evan Bayh, said on Rachel Maddow earlier this week. They won't stand up to Lieberman because they're afraid he might quit or be angry and vote against them.

That's no way to lead, and I think if we want to see real progress in this country, Reid has to go.

One of the problems is that if Ted Kennedy or Byrd or Johnson is sick on any given day, the Dems wouldn't be able to reach 60 without a Rep. I would love it if they at least changed the rule so that you needed 40 votes to continue debate. Isn't it fair to conclude that a person who is absent isn't going to add much to the debate anyway?

Whether or not Lieberman gets his chairmanship has very little effect on his votes for cloture. Even supposing that he would by some magic go along with every Democratic attempt to prevent fillibustering, that small advantage would not justify allowing him to attack Obama and the Democratic program from a position of power. In other words, by yanking his chairmanship we give up very little but we gain a whole lot. The decision to give the position to someone else is a no brainer.

I'd also look to McCain. I don't think he's a sure filibuster-er. He's wants to be seen as a bipartisan maverick, and he's ticked off at the right wing of the party (and they're ticked off at him). I don't see him mindlessly signing on to party-line filibuster votes.

It's going to be interesting to see how McCain conducts himself in the next two years. Hard to imagine him going back to the Senate with good grace and good humor. Despite his gentle and humble concession speech, one gets the impression that he's deeply embittered at how all this went down. When you hate both the Democratic and Republican parties, what do you do? He's furious at his partymates but doesn't want to give a hand to the guy who beat him out for prez.

Too bad Olbermann doesn't seem to feel that way. Yet he feels fully free to wave his fingers at those who allowed things like Prop. 8 passing.

Must be nice to shame others continuously for their indifference and negligence and yet refuse to vote during the most important election of our life-time.

It isn't really 60 if Lieberman is one of that number. We should never let them forget that Lieberman agreed with Glenn Beck when he said it would be the end of the country as we know it if Dems get to 60. I don't understand why the Senate Dems are bending over backwards for this fool, but I will be laughing my ass off every time Lieberman stabs them in the back.

Posted by: Shalimar on November 14, 2008 at 10:54 AM |

Precisely. Alaska, Minnesota and Georgia get Senate dems to 58, NOT 60. Adding Independent Socialist Bernie Sanders brings the dem caucus to 59.

Adding the sole member of the Connecticut for Lieberman Party to that 59 makes - still just 59.

59. Not 60. Lieberman will never, never, never vote with the dem caucus to stop a filibuster by his BFFs the repugs.

He's furious at his partymates but doesn't want to give a hand to the guy who beat him out for prez.
Posted by: shortstop on November 14, 2008 at 10:57 AM | PERMALINK

True. But you have to try to think what he's thinking.

My guess is he's asking himself "OK, McCain, you had your shot and blew it. You're 72 years old and going to finish your career in the Senate. Now...how do you want to go out? "

My guess is he wants to go out as a bipartisan guy who rose above his defeat to work across the aisle. Become the McCain of 2000 that everyone says they liked.

Rachel asked the right question about the downside of keeping Lieberman. Thanks for the link wvng.

Many good points made that put "paid" to the idea of keeping Lieberman in his chairmanship. I believe the same arguments apply to keeping him in the caucus.

He's not going to help. Simple as that. Let's give up the wishful thinking.

Holding together probably 41 out of 42 senators is always going to be really difficult (compared to getting 41 out of 49).

The Republican party is a machine. They will get the 100% any time they want it. However, it would be a serious problem for a lot of Rep Sens since their districts aren't quite as single minded as "the party". As a result, I think the Reps actually will try to find at least small compromises, while screaming a whole lot of bloody murder. It helps that they own the airwaves.

(Also, don't put it past Obama to appoint him to run Veterans' Affairs or some other high-profile military-related position. It wouldn't surprise me at all)

The problem with reaching 60, is that it will only increase Lieberman's ransom demands. As others have noted, it's not likely we'll need 60 Dems to counter most repub mischief. I'm afraid that if they reach 59 without Lieberman, the Dems will cave to whatever he extorts from them, yet gain no additional leverage. At the same time, Lieberman is in a better position to make mischief than the entire repub caucus, and I don't trust him as far as I can throw him. 60 might be a bigger headache than it's worth.

You're Not Kidding that Every Vote Counts,

Keith thinks that not voting is something that is required to maintain journalistic integrity. A lot of old school journalists feel this way.

Agree with his justification or not, he's given far more thought to it than most people have given their right to vote (or not vote).

Consider for a moment how much Keith likely wanted to vote for Obama and take part in this historic election and what an internal struggle it must have been to decide instead to do what he feels is required to maintain his integrity as a journalist?

tom in ma:
senate committees are controlled by the majority party (currently, democrats). committee chairs are elected but, in practice, seniority is rarely bypassed. that is why, despite robert byrd's advanced age, he is only now stepping down as chair of the appropriations committee, and that's why the also-aged senator inouye of hawaii will be taking over -- he called dibs and he's got seniority.

when majority control was in republican hands, robert byrd became ranking minority member. currently, with democrats in control, thad cochran, chairman of the committee under republican majority, is currently the ranking minority member.

chairmanship/ranking minority membership by seniority lends stability to the committee operations.

i'm hoping that schumer's statement, on the question of 60 seats, that "It's possible, but unlikely," gives me a small hope that lieberman will in fact be booted.

My guess is he wants to go out as a bipartisan guy who rose above his defeat to work across the aisle. Become the McCain of 2000 that everyone says they liked.

I hope you're right, Z. Mulls. I can see it going down either that way or just the opposite. He really doesn't see his behavior in this campaign as dishonorable; he won't allow himself to. It seems just as likely that he'll be an embittered victim as it is that he'll conduct himself in his last two years (I assume he won't run again in 2010) with the maverickitude he loves to ascribe to himself.

Lieberman will never, never, never vote with the dem caucus to stop a filibuster by [Republicans].

Posted by: Yellow Dog on November 14, 2008 at 11:00 AM

I agree, at least on issues of national security, Iraq, foreign policy, etc. This is why I dont get people's fixation on the number 60.

Lieberman, for all his faults, can be credited for voting for what he believes in. However, much of what he believes in is antithetical to the beliefs of the Democratic Party. Thus, there is no logic to allowing him to have a position of power with the Democratic Party.

Keith thinks that not voting is something that is required to maintain journalistic integrity. A lot of old school journalists feel this way.

Most of them aren't partisan commentators, though. Olbermann's not an objective reporter and has never pretended to be one; he's a progressive version of Bill O'Reilly--with the difference that he's not congenitally stupid, an incessant liar or (usually) a flaming asshole.

And there's nothing wrong with that role. But it's no reason not to vote.

Having said that, the person who keeps posting these anti-Olbermann whines and reviews of The View (Jesus, get some dignity) is wearing thin.

Oh, Stalwart of the Democratic Infield, then, why is Double Talk going to Georgia to campaign for Chambliss?

Four years ago, he, harshly, criticized the smear ad by Chicken Hawk "Oh, my football knee" Chambliss against Senator Cleland.

DT still blows and twists in the wind.

z. mulls:

what a brilliant idea! remove lieberman from the senate completely by giving him a shiny toy to play with over in the corner!

the only way he'd take it though would be if he thought his career in the senate is over. lieberman is up for reelection in 2012. i can remember that long and will be contributing to his opponent if he runs again.

Anybody notice that Olympia Snowe's name has appeared on several speculation lists for cabinet offices? I suggest Barack name her to the cabinet an offer Holy Joe the Health and Human Services cabinet seat... then we're talking a majority.

Oh, Stalwart of the Democratic Infield, then, why is Double Talk going to Georgia to campaign for Chambliss?

That's true (and I was amused by the poll that said Georgia independents would be less likely to vote for Chambliss if McCain showed up). Hell, I don't know what McCain's going to do. Going to be fun to watch, though.

I think it boils down to how many senators are beholden to large corporations. The major issues pit the middle class against big business. Now that the democrats are in control expect more of them to get their pockets lined with corporate dollars. It will be up to Reid to work the phones and broker deals to get legislation through.

Along these line, Lieberman is given way too much credit for helping liberal causes. He is perfectly happy to do the will of his corporate masters. It does not matter which caucus he is in; he will do what he is told. There is no way he should chair a democratic committee.

I'd like to know how many journalists didn't vote in this election. I'll bet precious few.

Journalists, like Steve Benen here are also human. They have opinions. They are American citizens and those with "integrity" fully appreciate their precious coveted privilege to vote. Journalists can and do separate their opinions from their right to vote. They DO have that ability. They discuss their opinions with us, with their friends, with their family--careful at times to qualify them when necessary.

In any case, Olbermann is not an old school journalist trying to 'preserve integrity'--if you buy that, I've got a bridge to no-where for you.

Olbermann is as "out there" as you can get, espousing his liberal minded outrages daily. Even more significantly, Keith clearly revels in shaming conservatives and apathetic citizens for their lack of responsibility, for their lack of respect and attention to what he says matters (like Prop.8).

How could issuing a private, confidential vote compromise his work? What a joke!

It's negligence AND arrogance to the extreme for someone like Olbermann to not vote.

shortstop,

Well, I wouldn't call Keith partisan because he's progressive. He gives to Democrats who transgress as good as he gives to Republicans who transgress (the later just offers much more material).

On the whole, I don't agree that not voting is required to maintain journalistic integrity, but he certainly does, and I think he deserves some understanding because it's something he obviously has put considerable thought into.

There's a canyon of difference between someone who doesn't vote because they believe that it would compromise their ability to adequately do their job and someone who is just too lazy to care and get up off their bum.

How come the Democratic Party needs 60 when the Republican Party pushed loads of legislation through with less. I really wish we could get a fighter in there to at least threaten a real live filibuster. Obama can be the good cop and Congress can be the bad cop.

Seems like I remember a "The Nuclear Option". People haven't forgotten why have out politicians ?

How could issuing a private, confidential vote compromise his work? What a joke!

It's negligence AND arrogance to the extreme for someone like Olbermann to not vote.
Posted by: Olbermann not voting is both negligence and arrogance extreme on November 14, 2008 at 11:40 AM

How dare he talk against my candidate and not even vote blah blah blah worst outrage ever blah blah blah I'm stunned by how horrible he is blah blah blah.

As someone who grew up in a family of newspaper editors, I don't find anything unusual about his reasoning even though I don't agree with the mindset. Who cares whether Olbermann voted or not? How does that affect us in any way? You'll find a new worst outrage ever by mid-afternoon, it's the one thing Republicans seem to be best at. This one is pretty pathetic even by Republican talk radio outrage standards.

I'd like to know how many journalists didn't vote in this election. I'll bet precious few. -pick a handle already

I would like to see more journalists with the integrity and skill of Keith Olbermann. If exercising his choice not to vote throughout his career has helped him in anyway become one of the few people on television who deal in the realm of facts and truth, then I applaud it. We need more journalists like Keith.

As I said above, it's not that I agree with him. I think a journalist can vote and maintain their integrity, but clearly, he doesn't, and ultimately the choice to vote is his personal choice to make, just as it was yours.

I do not think that he is thus curtailed in the ability to do his job and is some how an arrogant hypocrite because of it. That's the same boneheaded logic that dictates one cannot speak out against drugs if they haven't previously done drugs.

Please, do us all a favor, and chose a handle. It makes discussions much easier to follow, and quite frankly, repeating your topic as your chosen name only makes you look like a troll.

One interesting issue is the auto company bailout. Tennessee is the third largest auto manufacturing state. Saturn and Bridgestone have their headquarters here. So, even though we have two Republican senators, Alexander and Corker, they will have a lot of back home pressure to not fillibuster. Remember their base is in the rural counties where a lot of the suppliers reside.

And Mitch McConnell has the Corvette plant in Kentucky.

I don't know id anyone has said this already, but to my mind, the importance of 60 right now is that it would mean no more Hon. Sens. Stevens, Coleman and Chamblis.

Catfish,

How are the health plans covered at those plants in Tennessee and Kentucky?
Of course, Corvette's top test driver, Robert Novack, is covered by Medicare.

Whether the caucus has 57 seats, 60, or somewhere in between, matters

No, it doesn't. Whether there are more or less than 60 votes for cloture on a particular bill matters, but the only number that matters for the caucus is whether or not it has a majority.

It certainly matters how many reliable votes there are on particular issues, and while that has some loose relationship with the size of the caucus (so Dems winning or losing the remaining undecided elections matter), it isn't directly related to it, such that whether a particular independent senator were to caucus with the Democrats or not is of very little materiality if it doesn't make a difference between a Democratic majority and the lack of such a majority.

Lieberman will never, never, never vote with the dem caucus to stop a filibuster by his BFFs the repugs.

Given that he's publicly agreed with Glenn Beck that Republicans retaining enough votes to filibuster Democratic bills is essential to the survival of the nation, I'd have to say that that is a reasonable conclusion.

shortstop,
good points. But I think several people, yourself included seem to be concerned about Olbermann.

Um..and what's this about "The View"?

It looks like several people mentioned that show.

I think that's how I found out Keith O. didn't vote--someone posted about it the other day.

What information do you have that would make you assert it's all coming from the same person? That's kinda weird...and weird that you are even keeping track.

Maybe you need to fill your time with other things as you suggest.

Well, "skeptical," when someone posts the same things nearly verbatim several dozen times in an identical style and tone, it rather jumps out at anyone who's paying mild attention. No deep analysis or investment of time is required...that would wrongly imply some subtlety or skill on the part of that silly poster, wouldn't it?

And Mitch McConnell has the Corvette plant in Kentucky. Posted by: Catfish

And he's welcome to keep it as long as GM strikes a deal with the people behind the Tesla sports coupe to use their battery powered engine from now on. Otherwise, Corvettes, like big PUs and big SUVs, need to go the way of the dodo.

I wish we had a senate full of Leahys. From TPM.

11.14.08 -- 1:54PM // link | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (1)
Out in the Open

Pat Leahy demands Joe Lieberman's ouster as chairman of Homeland Security Committee.

--David Kurtz

How often have the Republicans had 60 senators? It never seemed to stop them. I wonder why that is.

Yeah, but '60' would be including Traitor Joe, and that guy already said he favors filibuster as a means to control the Senate. So, the Dems would need sixty-ONE seats to have a filibuster-proof Senate.

Again, it isn't just Joe that would be the balance of power if the Dems win both remaining Senate seats.

It would be possible defections from Joe and all the other blue-dog Democrats vs pick-ups from 4 or 5 moderate and vulnerable Republicans.

The count and exact mix would vary from one vote to the next.

So once again, don't just kick Joe out of the caucus altogether but don't give him anything important just to save that 60th vote.