The American Spectator

home
ADVERTISEMENT

The Spectacle Blog

RE: Leavin' Lieberman

It's true, given the absence of anything like the Lott-Daschle deal when this Senate was organized, that there wouldn't be an automatic shift in control as there was following Jim Jeffords's party switch. It's also possible that the Democrats would, through the filibuster and other tactics, succeed in blocking any change in control entirely.

But if Lieberman switched, the Republicans almost certainly would advance a new slate of committee chairs to try to take back control. At least in theory they could prevail. A major reason the Senate didn't change control during the 83rd Congress was that there was an independent voting with the Republicans to organize the Senate plus Richard Nixon's tie-breaking vote. Deaths continued to shift the partisan balance, but by that time LBJ had gained effective control of the legislative agenda as minority leader. Senate "Majority" Leader William Knowland's biggest accomplishment during that period was the confirmation of Earl Warren.

I am very skeptical that Lieberman will actually switch, so I don't expect that my theory is going to be tested anytime soon.

About the Author

W. James Antle, III is associate editor of The American Spectator. You can follow him on Twitter at http://Twitter.com/Jimantle.

http://spectator.org/blog/2007/02/23/re-leavin-lieberman

ADVERTISEMENT

SPONSORED LINKS

Special Feature

Better that we become a nation of choosers rather than beggars. Our symposium on choice from the May, 2012 issue:

A Time for Choosing

James Piereson

The Road from Serfdom

Stephen Moore and Peter Ferrara

FLASHBACK TO: 1984

Clip of the Day

ADVERTISEMENT