[UPDATE BELOW] 11/13/06
Elections are over and we all know the Democratic Party has the majority in the house.
Technically the senate too, but here is the interesting thing about that. I mentioned earlier that I had seen a few interviews this morning on television. Dean, Schiff and Lieberman. Read here for that.
Long story short, Dean wants a withdrawal from Iraq and Schiff says we cannot withdraw and Lieberman says there cannot be a withdrawal and joins McCain in calling for more troops in iraq.
What exactly does all this mean? Well, let me tell you!
Joe Lieberman is a wildcard. He supports the war in Iraq and the reason this is important is because although he may vote with the Democratic caucus on certain issues, he is on the opposite side of the aisle when it comes to Iraq.
The reason THIS is important: If Lieberman votes with the Republicans in the Senate on the issue of Iraq, he puts the issue right back into Republican hands....the party that understands national security.
Again, technically the dems are in control of the senate, UNTIL Jolting Joe decides to vote differently on any given issue, like Iraq. THEN that puts Cheney as having the "break the tie" vote.
Captain Ed explains it perfectly here:
This underscores the importance of Lieberman to the control of the Senate. If he switches parties, he delivers control of the Senate to the GOP for the next two years, and makes Dick Cheney a very busy man. It forces the Democrats to carefully consider Lieberman when determining policy, especially on the war. It might force the Democrats to escalate efforts to get a Republican to cross the aisle, which would neutralize Lieberman. After the loss of Chafee, though, the pickings would be slim. Democratic leadership also has to consider Jim Webb, the Buchananite that ran as a Democrat, on everything else but the war.
This is starting to look very interesting.
Also, Lieberman refuses to completely rule out switching parties.
HARTFORD, Conn. --Sen. Joe Lieberman on Sunday repeated his pledge to caucus with Senate Democrats when the 110th Congress convenes in January, but refused to slam the door on possibly moving to the Republican side of the aisle.
Asked on NBC's "Meet the Press" if he might follow the example of Sen. Jim Jeffords of Vermont, who left the Republicans in 2001 and became an independent, ending Republican control of the U.S. Senate, Lieberman refused to discount the possibility.
"I'm not ruling it out but I hope I don't get to that point," he said. "And I must say -- and with all respect to the Republicans who supported me in Connecticut -- nobody ever said, 'We're doing this because we want you to switch over. We want you to do what you think is right and good for our state and country,' and I appreciate that."
The Democrats won control of the Senate with 51 seats. Lieberman and newly elected Bernie Sanders of Vermont are the Senate's only Independents.A switch to the Republicans would bring the Senate to a 50-50 division, giving Republican Vice President Dick Cheney opportunities to break tie votes.
Interesting indeed. He doesn't even have to switch parties though, all he needs to do is vote the way he wishes on Iraq and in that area, then senate is not so much in democratic control.
All in all, it looks like the Democrats will be walking on eggshells on the Iraq issue, because the senate is theirs, in name only. Isn't it the votes that count?
Lets not forget one very important word...... VETO
I am beginning to feel safer again.
[UPDATE] 11/13/06- Due to some very misinformed comments to this post, seems some people need reminding of the "good" we have accomplished in Iraq. This is for you. This is for the people that are so busy watching CNN and believing they knowmore about what goes on in Iraq than our own soldiers with their boots on the ground.
Stop the ACLU with "Pelosi and Murtha."
Wapo on the panel Bush will be talking with.
Check out American Thinker.
OPEN TRACKBACKS ALL WEEKEND
Tracked back by:
Lieberman Watch: Could He Really Switch Parties? from Pajamas Media...
