Lieberman as next Attorney General?
That's what Marjorie Cohn is saying on The Thom Hartmann Show. The talk started a few hours ago, from what they're saying. (not that it didn't occur to any of us earlier, but it's going around now) Per Cohn:
- It would stop the Senate investigations dead in their tracks.
- It would guarantee a Senate confirmation.
- It would change the balance of power in the Senate, in favor of the Republicans.
- And it smells of Karl Rove.
CLIFF NOTE: On the bright side, if I am correct in my understanding of CT law, if this were to occur the GOP Governor gets to put in a placeholder Republican until 2008. Then there is a special election, and no GOPer is winning in CT with one year as an incumbent (expecially considering their choices).
We will get a real progressive like, I don't know, some guy named Lamont. And the Senate organizing arrangement does not change, so the miscreants do not take over. And Lieberman is then irrelevant forever. Just food for thought.
GOTTALAFF UPDATE: This came up much later in the show. The next scary thought, after Lieberman's new AG status, was that Cheney would resign from the VPresidency (health issues, of course) at some point, and Lieberman would be brought in. That would set him up for a run for President.
Yes it's far-fetched, as Hartmann acknowledged. But we've all been floored by every other seemingly impossible scenario that this insane bunch has brought to fruition.
posted by GottaLaff @ 12:23 PM
24 comments
24 Comments:
She called the move "brilliant". This very real possibility worried Thom, which freaked me out.
He's a good barometer of just about everything.
control of the senate would not change if lieberman were appointed. it is true that who controls the senate is decided by how many senators caucus with each party, so when lieberman decided to caucus with the dems, it gave them a 51 vote majority and thus control of the senate.
however, at the beginning of each congress, after control of the senate is determined, the leadership reduces the arrangement in writing and that writing is what decides any shift in control for the remainder of that congressional term. because the margin was so narrow, the dems made sure to put in a provision guaranteeing their control until 2008.
that's why when whats-his-name had a stroke earlier this year, effectively incapacitating him and rendering him unable to vote for continued dem control, control didn't switch. the dems learned a lesson from the jeffords switch in 2001 and made sure it wouldn't happen to them. even if lieberman switches parties the dems can maintain control of the senate.
for that reason, lieberman as AG would be an incredibly stupid move. for it wouldn't deliver the senate to the republicans and it would give the dems the chance to get a real dem (one who actually votes with the party) in that connecticut seat. it would also effectively end the publical career of joe lieberman. bush only has a year and a half left. after that, lieberman won't have a senate seat to go back to.
upyernoz,
Thanks for such a thoughtful response. It was reassuring, and hopefully, as accurate as it was well-written.
no, control did not switch when senator Johnson became incapacitated because he held his seat. So yes, the senate could in fact flip...and Joe Lieberman has been threatening to do just that by becoming a Repub since he became an independent.
In the instance that Joe Lieberman were to resign his senate seat to become the A.G., the Repub. Gov here in CT, Jodie Rell, would appoint someone to serve in Lieberman's seat until a special election could happen in 2008. Then the winner of the special election would serve out the remainder of Lieberman's term until 2012.
In the event that This scenario plays out likely replacements could be former U.S. Reps Rob Simmons, Nancy Johnson who just lost their seats to democrats in the 06 election...or current U.S. Rep Chris Shays or perhaps the House Minority Leader Lawrence Cafero.
Just a couple of ideas...
And before Lieberman was a senator he was the A.G. of Connecticut
Thebpp,
That's more in line with what I was hearing. That's what freaked me out.
Come on. Cheney ain't resigning.
OhDave,
No, most likely not. I was reiterating what I was hearing, and passing it on.
As I posted, it's far-fetched. It's just that this group does so many things that we never thought anyone would do, it's beyond belief.
So, intelligent people (Hartmann et al) are looking at all possibilities now.
Lieberman is a career opportunist. He knows that taking this job would be the end of him in Washington as he would get replaced, the next President most likely would not keep him on and you think the Baptists have a problem voting for a Mormon? No way in Hell do the GOP run a Jewish candidate. Kind of a shame since I would vote for Jesus.
My head hurts.
Kirsten, is Canada a circus like we are down here or is it just moose and Molson?
It is not just moose and Molsen. You forgot the hockey, the curling, the pot laws, the gay marriages, and an increasingly divided electorate.
No, we aren't the circus you are, but we're getting there. Thanks to the Liberals and the Tories. Both parties can bite me. Jack Layton for Prime Minister!
K,
No biting.
Unless it's with Keith. Then you can bite all you want. Wink wink.
Sigh. Keith...
oh snap. what a brilliant move by bush. immediately castrate schumer et al with their fishing nonsense AND deliver the senate to republicans AND give joe a chance to give the finger to the dems without explicitly doing so?
and lest we forget the real purpose of an AG nomination, we actually get a very, very sharp AG that has America's best interest at heart? i can't think of a single reason to oppose a lieberman nomination.
Try as I might, I can't think of a single reason Lieberman would accept the nomination.
D,
That's what I'm hearing. Fine with me.
"And the Senate organizing arrangement does not change"
Why not? It changed when Jeffords defected. Is it because Dems aren't "insane" "miscreants?"
OK, I can think of one circumstance where Joe *might* do it.
Bush nominates Michael J. Sullivan. He prosecuted Richard Ried (shoebomber) and several other terror cases, so he has a track record that Bush can accept. But he's head of ATF, the NRA hates him, and he went after drug companies in a big way, so he should be acceptable to liberals.
But suppose Democrats, wanting to bloody Bush at every opportunity, do a show trial hearing and then refuse to give him a vote out of committee.
THEN, Lieberman might be pissed off enough to take the nomination, and dare the party to filibuster him.
But probably not.
I wish Joe had run for Pres in '04. I prefer him to Bush.
Kerry? - No way.
Ummm... He did run for Pres in 04. He just didn't get the nomination.
He couldn't have beaten Bush in 04, he'd have lost the Naderite wing. But I'd prefer him to Bush, too.
Leiberman "irrelevant forever." Dream on dreamer.
Uhmmm , no. As far as the Republicans are concerned, for the long term, Liberman is better right where he is. Game wise a big confimation fight over a conservative appointment, just before and during the run up for 2008 election, is considered a good thing for charging up the base and painting the Democrats as partisan obstructionists. From the Republican point of view it is also good that Liberman is in the Senate when the Pretaus report is delivered. Another factor is that while Liberman pro WOT is not viewed as conservative on domestic issues that the AG's office handles or influences. Look for a red meat AG candidate to be offered and then a recess appointment.
Being from CT and observing Gov. Rell for quite a few years, I would not be surprised if she appointed a democrat to replace Joe.
Post a Comment
<< Home