The Joey problem

Joe Lieberman, asked by Fox's Sean Hannity whether he could see himself supporting a Republican presidential candidate in 2008: "I definitely could, Sean. I mean, I've got to tell you, just to be a -- talk straight to you and those who are listening, so far in all of the debates and public statements, it is certainly the Republican -- the leading Republican candidates for the presidential nomination that I am much more in -- consistent with on the defining issue of our time."

Isn't it odd that the Democrats still let Joey hang out in their club house?

WASHINGTON -- Senator Joseph I. Lieberman of Connecticut said yesterday that he will caucus with Senate Democrats in the new Congress, but he would not rule out switching to the Republican caucus if he starts to feel uncomfortable among Democrats.

Benedict Lieberman has the Democrats on the ropes. He's that whiny kid with the bully brothers, who kicks your dog and spits on your ice cream cone. You can't get rid of him, or his brothers will beat you up and take your club house. But you can't live with him either; he ruins every ball game by deliberately striking out or hitting into a double play, then laughing like a hyena in your face.

I sometimes think Joe's entire job in life is to make the Democrats' life a living hell.

I've often wondered what would have happened had Gore had been elected allowed to take office, with this neocon as his Vice. Rove and Cheney, hedging their bets? Win-win, either way?

Tim Grieve from the Salon:

Lieberman singled out John McCain and Rudy Giuliani for praise, and he went out of way of his way to knock John Edwards for saying that the "war on terror" was just a "bumper-sticker slogan." "The Arabs and the Israelis [know] that the war on terror is not a bumper sticker slogan for politics," Lieberman said. "It is a reality that they live with every day. And of course, we should, too."

And when Lieberman says that we should "live with it," he seems to mean that we should "live with it" even more than we already have: In an appearance on "Face the Nation" Sunday, Lieberman said that the United States should take military action against Iran if that country does not end its nuclear program.

Do they really have to put up with this crap?

Well, not if they are willing to risk having Cheney as a tie-breaking vote:

With Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT) publicly stating he'd consider becoming a Republican if Democrats block new funding for the Iraq War, many Democrats worry that control of the Senate hangs in the balance. However, their fears are unfounded. Many think back to 2001 when former Sen. Jim Jeffords (I-VT) began caucusing with Democrats instead of Republicans, taking control of the Senate out of GOP hands. However, the two situations - though outwardly similar - contain one important difference.

If Lieberman were to caucus with the Republicans, they would still not take full control of the Senate, despite Vice President Dick Cheney's ability to break 50-50 ties. This is because of a little-known Senate organizing resolution, passed in January, which gives Democrats control of the Senate and committee chairmanships until the beginning of the 111th Congress.

What's the difference between now and 2001? A small but important distinction. When the 107th Congress was convened on January 3, 2001, Al Gore was still the Vice President and would be for another two-and-a-half weeks. Therefore, because of the Senate's 50-50 tie, Democrats had nominal control of the chamber when the organizing resolution came to a vote. With Dick Cheney soon to come in, however, Democrats allowed Republicans to control the Senate in return for a provision on the organizing resolution that allowed for a reorganization of the chamber if any member should switch parties, which Jeffords did five months later. There was no such clause in the current Senate's organizing resolution.

Considering how Joey has been voting these days, honestly, what's the difference? Toss Joey from the playhouse and let the chips fall where they may.