Joe's Final #*@% You to Democrats?

Lost in the huge deluge of presidential coverage is a story that may seem small in significance compared with the big race, but nonetheless presents a very compelling narrative. Much has been made by political followers of Senator Joe Lieberman's drastic turn away from the Democratic Party. Since his defeat in the Democratic Senate primary in 2006, and his comeback win as an independent that November, Lieberman has almost deliberately made moves not just to distance himself from his from his party, but also to almost jab his Democratic colleagues in the eye.

Since the Democrats retook the Senate in 2006, Lieberman has been in a fairly delicious position, at least from his perspective. While he agreed to caucus with Senate Democrats as a self-labeled "Independent Democrat", and he has continued to do so up to this point, including donating a lot of money to the DSCC in its efforts to expand its Senate majority, he has also taken his time to needle his party. Lieberman knows that the Democrats need him a lot more than he needs them, because if he were to flip his allegiances, he would likely flip control of the Senate back to the Republican Party. It is with this in mind that Lieberman first endorsed GOP Sen. Susan Collins in her re-election bid (his close colleague on the Government Affairs and Homeland Security Committee, when she was chair, he was ranking minority member, and now it is the reverse). Then, Lieberman endorsed Sen. John McCain's presidential bid.

Even after these moves, Senate Democratic leadership held its fire, knowing they needed Lieberman's vote, and resisted rising calls to expel the rogue Democrat from the caucus. However, when word began leaking that Lieberman would speak at the Republican National Convention in St. Paul, that was too much for many people. Still smarting from former Democratic Sen. Zell Miller's brutal attacks at the Republican convention in 2004, Democrats -- both on the Hill and off -- were appalled when Lieberman made official that he would give a convention speech.

Still, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid gave Lieberman leeway in hopes that he would not launch any attacks on Barack Obama in his speech. For his part, Lieberman promised to be entirely positive in terms of praising John McCain. Of course, while his speech was mostly a laudatory piece of McCain, Lieberman did take a couple of shots at Obama and his ability to serve as an effective President.

After the speech, Democratic fury probably hit its boiling point, with many Democrats saying "enough is enough." Lieberman was formally excluded from Democratic Senate caucus lunches, though in fairness Lieberman had already begun skipping many of these affairs, probably sensing the cold shoulder he was getting. Nevertheless, it is a was big step, and many reports began circulating what everyone else already knew: come January, with it almost certain that Senate Democrats would make gains in the November elections, Lieberman would be ousted from the caucus and stripped of his chairmanship for his behavior.

Democrats might never get that chance. If John McCain is elected President in November, I think that there is an excellent chance that he will pluck his good friend Joe out of the Senate, and give him a top cabinet position, perhaps Secretary of Defense or Secretary of State. If this were to happen, because Connecticut's governor, Jodi Rell, is a Republican, she would appoint a Republican to Lieberman's seat, denying Democrats a seat in one of the nation's most Democratic states.

Look for Lieberman to jump ship if McCain wins

There are numerous reasons why this is likely to happen in the event of a McCain victory. First, Lieberman and McCain have been close friends for some time, and McCain clearly appreciates his close counsel. They travel together a lot, often with Senator Lindsay Graham (R-SC), McCain's other best friend in the Senate. Lieberman endorsed McCain very early in the process, something McCain acknowledged took a lot of guts and knew Lieberman would take a big hit in doing. If he wins, McCain may not owe Lieberman for his victory, but he will no doubt appreciate his friendship and loyalty a great deal, and will thus be very likely to extend him a sweet offer in the administration.

Second, Lieberman knows now, and probably knew months ago, that life in the Senate after January 3, 2009, would be very unpleasant for him. If some of his colleagues were giving him the cold shoulder before this campaign, he knows that he can expect much worse if he comes back. Speaking at the Republican convention was crossing the line and going past the point of no return, and I think Lieberman had to have known this. With Democrats likely to win at least four new Senate seats, his vote will no longer be needed to determine the balance of power, so he will be kicked out of the caucus and off his chairmanship perch. While Democrats realize a seat is a seat, there would be little difference between 56 and 55 seats, thus making Lieberman more expendable.

Sure, he would immediately be accepted into the GOP caucus and probably given some nice committee slots, but it would not be the same. It would be a tough thing to face his Democratic colleagues every single day, many of whom loathe him. Perhaps more importantly, besides the Iraq issue, Lieberman himself is in disagreement with just about the entire Senate GOP caucus on every other issue. How would Lieberman feel voting along with Republicans only a slew of rightwing judicial appointments, for example? It would be tough, even for the now-Independent Democrat.

Third, Lieberman would probably delight in being able to give one last bleep-you to his former colleagues. Nearly all the bridges have been burned, albeit mostly by Joe himself, and there may be no going back. Being able to deliver a Senate seat in deep blue Connecticut to the Republicans for at least two years -- any appointment would be filled for two years until a special election could be held in 2010 to fill the final two years of Lieberman's term -- would certainly be a big blow to Democrats, and given Lieberman's attitude the last couple of years, I doubt he would feel much reluctance to do it. Senate Democrats would be completely powerless to stop him.

Gov. Rell would appoint a Republican, perhaps Chris Shays

While Jodi Rell is a very moderate Republican, I find it hard to believe that she would not appoint a fellow Republican to the seat. Being bipartisan with such an important slot is simply not done in modern politics anymore, whether fortunate or unfortunate. As to who she might pick, one name that I think really stands is out is current Rep. Chris Shays. Shays is the last Republican member of Congress from the northeastern states, and has managed to barely survive in his liberal district cycle after cycle. While I think Shays is going to survive again this cycle -- after another close call in 2006 -- I think he would be a strong bet for the pick, win or lose this year.

Should Shays lose in November, then he could be tapped and the GOP would not have to give up a House seat (having already lost it). If he wins, I still think Shays would jump at the position. While he is apparently slated to become the ranking Republican on the partisan House Oversight Committee in lieu of his seniority, Shays knows that given the liberal bent of his district (at D+5, Obama should win it heavily this year), he may never have an easy race. Being able to jump up to the upper chamber would likely be an easy decision for him. Despite being an able GOP partisan (as evidenced by what I think was a shameful performance at the infamous Roger Clemens hearing), Shays is from one of the wealthiest districts in the country, he is an able fundraiser, and he has carved out a moderate path as a rare northeastern Republican in a caucus dominated by conservatives and southerners.

Of course this is all pure speculation, but I think the point is that Gov. Rell could give Lieberman's seat to a Republican who would be tough to dislodge. Yes, given Connecticut's politics, it is hard to see any Republican holding a Senate there seat now. But someone like Shays would have two years to build his seniority and raise money, and perhaps he could survive in 2010 against someone like Rep. Rosa DeLauro or state Attorney General Richard Blumenthal.

A state fix is also unlikely

The only other option for Democrats would be to remove the governor's power to make a Senate replacement. In other words, the Connecticut state legislature could pass a law stripping Rell of her appointment power in any of several ways.

This is not unprecedented. In Wyoming, the overwhelmingly GOP legislature, wary of Wyoming's proclivity towards electing Democratic governors, restricted the governor's appointment power by passing a law stipulating that should a Senator leave office in the middle of his term, the governor could pick a replacement from a list of three names proffered by the party of the leaving Senator. Because Wyoming has not elected a Democratic Senator since 1972, the intent behind this law is clear, and it came in handy when GOP Sen. Craig Thomas passed away last year, as it forced Democratic Gov. Dave Freudenthal to pick a GOPer from a list given to him by the Wyoming Republican Party.

Similarly, when John Kerry was running for President in 2004, Massachusetts Democrats were concerned that were he to win, Gov. Mitt Romney, a Republican, would replace him with a Republican. Therefore, the legislature passed a law -- over Romney's veto --stripping the appointment power from the governor, and requiring a special election to fill any open U.S. Senate seat within 180 days of the vacancy occurring.

It seems logical that Connecticut would try a similar maneuver. After all, like Wyoming and Massachusetts, it is strongly aligned with one party -- the Democrats -- and therefore, the legislature is heavily Democratic. When I first considered the possibility of a Lieberman switch, I immediately figured that the Connecticut legislature was so largely Democratic, it had either already stripped Rell of the appointment power, or would at least do so if McCain were to win. Indeed, because Connecticut has had a Republican governor for years, I assumed this had been done a while ago.

I was wrong on two counts. First, while the Connecticut legislature is indeed overwhelmingly Democratic, it is still not a veto-proof majority. They control the state house 107-44, or 71 percent. In the Senate, their hold is 23-13 -- one vote shy of the two-thirds majority necessary to override a gubernatorial veto. In other words, were the state legislature to pass a law stripping the governor of the power to make an appointment to an open U.S. Senate seat, a Rell veto would be almost certain. Unless Democrats would be able to flip one Republican in the Senate to vote to override the veto, they would not be able to pass the change into law.

Incidentally, some Democrats are stupid

Second, I foolishly overlooked the lack of will, foresight, and political intelligence of state legislators. A quote from a story on in yesterday's The Hill, well-proves my point. Asked about changing Connecticut state law to deny Rell the appointment power in the eventuality that Lieberman's seat opens, a spokesman for Democratic state house speaker Jim Amann said the following:

“[T]here’s not going to be any will or effort to change it in time for” a Lieberman vacancy or if Sen. Chris Dodd (D-Conn.) is appointed to a Democratic administration.

“If one of them do get a job with the new president, and the governor is able to appoint her choice, at that point everyone may be willing to change the process — after the fact, for the next time this happens,” he said.

Clearly, protecting Lieberman's U.S. Senate seat for the national party is not a priority for the state Democrats in the legislature. This illustrates the general disconnect between the goals and methods of the state and national parties that you will often see if you follow politics closely. While a Senate seat is a big deal to someone like Chuck Schumer, it is not so important to Jim Amann, who has his own different priorities in Hartford.

Without getting too deep into this issue, let me just say that this quote illustrates how stupid and short-sighted many Democrats are, even ones at high levels of power in state and federal government. Losing a Senate is a big deal to either party, especially in a state which leans very heavily to one side, and it should be treated as such.

This comment reminds of the expressed reluctance on the part of the Illinois state house speaker Richard Madigan and New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson to re-draw their state lines in the middle of the decade to eliminate Republican congressional seats in order to counter Tom DeLay's 2004 map which ousted several Texas Democrats. Like Richardson and Madigan, Amann just does not have a full appreciation of the value of seats in the House of Representatives or the Senate. These seats cost millions and millions of dollars to win and hold! More broadly it shows, once again, the Democrats simply are not as ruthless as their Republican counterparts in doing whatever it takes to win.

Losing a Senate seat for two years or perhaps more to someone like Chris Shays in blue Connecticut should elicit a little more energetic response than "maybe we will consider it down the road." How stupid is that? What are people like Amann doing in politics, when they clearly don't grasp the simplest things of doing what it takes to win and understanding the significance of a United States Senate seat?

Therefore, my Idiot of the Month Award goes to Connecticut House Speaker Jim Amann, as well as to the leadership of the Connecticut Democratic Party political apparatus, who are apparently doing nothing to guard against this dangerous eventuality for the party.

On the bright side, Democrats would get McCain's Senate seat

If there is one silver lining to this scenario, it is that were McCain to go to the White House, the governor of Arizona, Janet Napolitano, is a Democrat, and she would be able to appoint a Democrat to McCain's Senate seat, thereby making the Lieberman GOP replacement a wash. The popular Napolitano is term-limited in 2010, and she would be a good favorite to win the seat should she decide to run for it. Still, even with this gain, a Lieberman loss would be a tough pill to swallow, not just because it would Joe's final %$@#%$ you to Democrats, but because Connecticut is still Connecticut, and politically, it is not Wyoming, Utah, or even Arizona.

Maybe my opinion of Joe Lieberman is biased these days, but I find it hard to believe that he is not actively considering many of these possibilities, hoping to get the chance to give one last kick to the groin of his colleagues before he heads out the door.