Bayh's Defense Of Lieberman Wrong, Senate Expert Says

Appearing on "The Rachel Maddow Show" earlier this week, Indiana Sen. Evan Bayh argued that Connecticut Sen. Joe Lieberman should keep his committee chairmanships, suggesting that the posts could be taken away at a later date if he misbehaves. But a Senate rules expert who spoke to the Huffington Post said this could prove more difficult than is presently assumed.

Attempting to put Democrats' fears to rest, Bayh told Maddow:

And the final thing I'd say is, if he does retain his chairmanship, we still exert oversight over him and control over him. He doesn't have the ability to just do whatever he wants. The caucus still has the right to remove him from that position at any time if he starts going off on some kind of tangent.

Bayh's rationale appeared persuasive to some Democrats, including former Clinton campaign operative Phil Singer, who wrote on his blog that the Indiana Senator's take was "not unreasonable."

But former Democratic Senate staffer Martin Paone suggested Bayh is under-educated on this matter. Paone, who became as the "secretary to the majority" in the Senate starting in 2001, notes that Republicans harbored similar desires in the past, but never executed them due to the threat of a filibuster.

"It takes a Senate resolution to change a chairmanship, and that resolution could be subject to a filibuster," Paone told the Huffington Post. Put simply, under Bayh's proposed scenario, Republicans would have every reason to filibuster a new Senate resolution taking Lieberman's chairmanship away if he was proving an effective antagonist of President Obama.

Paone noted that a similar game of political chess played out in the Senate's recent history. "We had a similar situation in the past with a Republican moderate senator, Mark Hatfield from Oregon, who voted the wrong way in the eyes of [former Sen. Rick] Santorum and others on the constitutional amendment on a balanced budget," Paone said. "There were rumblings they wanted to take his chairmanship away. But the ranking member on the committee was [Democratic] Sen. Robert Byrd, who wrote Hatfield a nice note saying, 'if they ever try to take your chairmanship away, I'll make sure we [Democrats] will filibuster such a resolution."

According to Paone, "the time to take a chairmanship away is when everybody is being appointed [at the beginning of the new Congress]. Everybody has an investment in that resolution. In order for everybody to benefit, that resolution has to pass. It's much more difficult to cherry pick in this fashion, to take one Senator's chairmanship, at a later date."

Asked if Bayh understands this complexity, Paone said "I'm sure he probably doesn't. There aren't that many people up there who do. It's not every day you want to change a chairmanship. And since the Hatfield matter never materialized, I think that shows why it's not as easy as some might think."

Comments

[Beninn]

At what cost to Americans does letting Lieberman remain as chairman of Homeland Security & Government Affairs?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jane-hamsher/obama-wants-lieberman-to_b_143299.html

[apolloguide]

beware hubris for therein darkness and uncertainty lie in wait ...I say let Lieberman slide and agree with Bayh but for different reasons:

whenever revenge is the motive you have to expect some unexpected blowback..­.like beating the ted stevens' and norm colemans' in alaska and minnesota only to have leiberman change party and snatch the super majority away from you because you had to rub it in...that is exactly what the high heeled sparking right wants... filibusters obstruct change and divide the nation.

I remember paul wellstone's and mel carnahan's fatefully "convenient" deaths and the effect which it created in the simple majority. It took jean carnahan and james jeffords to fix that one. the orcs are always willing to emerge from the shadows and postfix other elections to reverse the hard fought gains of the electorate. I say, -don't fall for it. If they want the power bad enough to kill for it we have no choice but catch them in the act. This super majority is the most important thing that is emerging out of this election and to be protected at every step of the way. It's about politics. We can't hand it to them after all of this wonderful effort.

[LisaJeanM]

I think your post is nonsense. If the Dems show they have no principal and keep Joe on, they will lose their majority status in 2010. Everyone is watching this. Everyone hates Joe.

[ErnestineBass]

What a conundrum.­..

[Kristin262]

I don't like appeasing Lieberman just to get his vote on Democratic issues. It just doesn't feel right. I would almost rather lose in a filibuster than feel like we bought Lieberman's vote. Lieberman doesn't deserve to keep his chairmanship position on these important committees. What he did was wrong and I don't trust him. It's time for him to step down from his leadership positions. He is no leader.

[LiberalBuzz]

CONTACT your congressman/woman AND senator.

Or you got nothing to complain about.

TAKE the same five to ten minutes you would spend surfing the net and tell them what you think INCLUDING who you would vote for in the next election.

[Speakupper]

Agreed. Here's a link: http://www.usa.gov/Contact/Elected.shtml

[CAPlatt]

Screw principle. Let's be pragmatic and chain the little schnauzer and use him the way he tried to use us as a vice-presidential candidate for the wrong party. How the hell did he ever pass the smell test in the first place?

[Beninn]

Can't use him once he becomes the chairman of the Homeland Security & Governmental Affair committee. He blocked investigations and hearings into Bush's handling over Hurricane Katrina -- That should have been when ( if Bayh thinks you can remove a chairman) he should have been removed.

Keeping Lieberman in the caucus is a power play by the DLC. Bayh's showing up on Rachel Maddow is both good and bad news to the liberal base-leftwing blogosphere. It means that the campaign to dump Lieberman is working. The DLC is trying to sell this "Lieberman as controllable" story on a venue where the left can be found. I predict that if people keep up the effort, Lieberman will be gone from the caucus. It's now just a matter of staying power.

[LisaJeanM]

I'm not so sure. These Senators are not really beholden to you and me--they're working for their corporate sponsors first and foremost--so a flood of phonecalls and emails may not work. On the other hand, if we really keep up the blogs and postings along with it, it might.

So it's worth an effort.

[ChicagoSuz]

McCain's more likely to vote with the Dems than Lieberman is. Can't stand his voice, not to mention what comes out of his mouth.

[Leota2]

Here's hoping the leadership will wait and see if they get the 60 majority. If one of the three Dem Senatorial candidates lose in the tight races--then they can kick Lieberman's ass out of his chairmanship of his committees as he'd be superfluous then anyway.

[emmalee]

I dont understand why Lieberman is still wanted to remain in the Democratic Senate Seat? Loyalty and Integrity are two crucial characteristics of leaderhips, and this man showed what little he had of both when he sided with McCain/Palin. Get rid of him. He cannot be trusted! He has already proven that. You cannot fix this kind of behavior..­.. GET RID OF HIM!

[BaileyWo]

Look, the Israel Lobby is currently in full mobilization on behalf of Lieberman. This is about Democrates getting reelected and not "disappointing" their lobbyists.

The real solution involves a promise Obama has already broken; that is, we must limit the influence of lobbies if we ever expect to have a democratic republic that represents the people rather than special interests and corporatists.

[eden4barack08]

Dear Cowardly Democratic Senators,

if you won't listen to us, mere voters, who put you there, and will not re-elect you next time, I urge you to at least seriously remember KATRINA. Don't we deserve a better Chairman in that committee?
Please, do the right thing next week: VOTE JUDAS OUT!

[psmarc93]

Rachel Maddow had a sober commentary on the Liebermann question last night. Basically, 1) as head of oversight in his Senate committee Liebermann did nothing, especially he gave Katrina investigations a pass, while the Congress investigated the Justice Dept., Gitmo, etc. 2) Do the Dems really want to wait to expell him only AFTER he foils a vote on a vital bill?-- how will that revenge play out with the public? 3) If he resigns and a new Republican Senator comes in -- at least the newbie will have little power 4) if he stays and becomes committee-less republican, he gets to run for re-election on a Republican ticket in New England -- that should close the book on his career. In short, his presence in the Dem caucus has not been valuable, even damaging. His continued presence would probably not be of much value, but possibly damaging. His absence would be neglible.
What's the downside here? Cut him loose!

[BaileyWo]

Well, he's apparently the most powerful member of the Senate enjoying the backing of the most powerful lobby in the country. He's become the Sandra Day O'Conner of the Legislative Branch -- the swing vote who gets to be the new "decider" all the while making under the table bargains for his support in return for their votes reinforcing his dual loyalties.

[BillMelater]

I have to ask... couldn't a Senator filibuster his own chairmanship removal resolution as long as he got the floor and retained enough support not to override his filibuster?

And, I agree. Leiberman should be removed at the beginning of the congress. This very important chairmanship should be in the hands of a real geniune true blue and well deserving Democrat. Especially, since Leiberman has let Bush get away with murder on Homeland Security and has refused to hold hearings on Katrina, etc.

If Leiberman wants to caucus with the Republicans and vote with the Republicans, that will be the end of his Senate career - he will never be re-elected by the great blue state of CT.

It really is a no brainer.

http://billmel8er.wordpress.com

[Ouroboros]

How is Evan Bayh so completely ignorant about the Senate procedures that he could suggest such a thing? He also suggested that we'd better reward Lieberman for his inability to do his job while behaving like a complete child with this very important, serious position, or else Lieberman will act like a baby and put petty revenge before principle with his Senate votes. What? Does everyone in Indiana spell it Potatoe?

[faith]

Let's stand on principle. That means Lieberman loses his committee chairmanship.

[Gib]

Principle? Principle?? Do you realize what you're saying?

[BaileyWo]

The irony was almost overwhelming, wasn't it?