This is the state of play. The media and Lieberman camp maintain that Sen. Reid has assured Joe of preserved seniority status, which Joe needs in order for Reid to give Joe what he covets from loyal Democrats, the chair position for the powerful Homeland Security & Governmental Affairs committees. Yes, let's make Joe the chair of the governmental affairs panel which is "primarily responsible for oversight and investigations of the executive branch." Remember all those Joe-kissing-Bush pictures and then think how much investigation Joe will allow of his kissing buddy.

The Democrats need to make a choice between kissing Joe's right-wing, ego-laced derrière or adhering to principles by telling Joe to go fly a kite.  Even if the Democrats suck up to Joe by giving him seniority and committee chair in violation of precedent, common sense and caucus rules, this will not be the end of Joe's demands for power.   Joe has made it clear that he will caucus with the Democrats, but, if at any point he does not get his way, Joe is leaving the door open to switch over to the GOP if he "starts to feel uncomfortable among Democrats."

Rewarding Joe with seniority is just wrong:

(1) Lieberman abandoned the Democratic Party when he ran as an Independent and - at best--should be deemed an Independent in the Democratic caucus but without seniority reserved for Democrats and no appointments to chair committees.

The moment when Joe filed to run as a sore-loser Independent, he not only abandoned his party and defied party leaders, but he also ceased officially being a Democrat.  Now that Joe has won election under a different party banner, he unilaterally declares that he is still a Democrat and everyone is supposed to forget who brought him to the party.  One can only speculate as to whether Joe would be seeking to rejoin the Democrats had majority control remained with the GOP.  

Connecticut law  clearly states that Joe is no longer a Democrat. In accordance with Connecticut law, prima facie evidence that a member should be expelled from the party includes "enrollment in any other political party or organization, active affiliation with any other political party or organization, knowingly being a candidate at any primary or caucus of any other party or political organization, or being a candidate for office under the designation of another party or organization." Joe can not unring this bell: When he lost in the Democratic primary, he created a new party for his Senate campaign which constituted enrollment and active affiliation with another political party as a candidate for the Senate.

It is significant that the state law classifies enrollment, active affiliation, or candidacy with another political party as "prima facie evidence."   Prima facie evidence is "evidence that is sufficient to raise a presumption of fact or to establish the fact in question unless rebutted."

In this case, the state statute mandates that enrollment, active affiliation, or candidacy with another political party "shall" be "prima facie evidence" to establish that Joe is no longer "affiliated with or in good faith a member"  of the Democratic party and does not "intend to support the principles or candidates of the party."   Once that prima facie case is established, the state Democratic registrar then has discretion to kick Joe out of the Connecticut Democratic Party.  While a petition was filed under this statute, the registrar elected to leave Joe as a member of the Democratic Party.

Regardless of the registrar's decision, the purpose and intent of this law is instructive on how to handle Joe in the Democratic caucus because it is the law that governs Joe's membership in the party.  The rationale for the Connecticut expulsion law is that if a Democratic member is a candidate for another political party, then it is reasonable to assume that the "Democrat" no longer supports Democratic Party principles, which can result in issues of disloyalty to the party and conflicts of interest. Both issues apply to Joe.

The registrar may be a Joe fan who figured she was doing him a favor. However, now Joe is claiming to be a member of 2 different political parties, which is an obvious conflict of interest.  When asked whether Joe will be counted as a "Democrat or an independent who caucuses with the majority Democrats," Joe's spokesman said Joe "will begin his new term as a Democrat."  Two days later, Joe recognized the conflict of belonging to 2 different political parties and tried to merge the two parties into one label to disguise his abandonment of the party and conflict of interest by declaring he was now an "Independent-Democrat."  However, until Joe is expelled from the Connecticut Democratic Party, it really does not matter what Joe says to call him, he is still a member of 2 different political parties.

Disloyalty flows from this conflict of interest of belonging to 2 different political parties at the same time.  Prior to filing as an Independent candidate, Joe endorsed 3 Democrats who were needed to regain control of the House. After Joe became an Independent, he no longer considered himself a true Democrat, even though he still remained a member of the Connecticut Democratic Party. Joe then refused to continue to endorse these 3 House Democrats, saying he was a "noncombant." In other words, Joe was admitting that his new party affiliation of Independent created a conflict of interest with his concurrent party affiliation of Democrats, which was now his "opponent:"

"It's a little awkward for me now" to endorse the Democratic candidates in the general election, he said, "since they all endorsed my opponent," Democratic primary winner Ned Lamont.

Joe's refusal to endorse Democratic candidates shows that Joe no longer considers himself a member in good standing who owes loyalty and allegiance to the Democratic Party.  This raises the issue of whether the Democratic Caucus, which discusses political strategy and legislative agendas, can trust Joe. Will Joe keep conversations and plans confidential or leak them to Bush Team and the GOP? Trust is very important, not just to the caucus, but also Democratic consultants, who refused to work for his campaign because they did not "want to cross party lines."

Finally, this is not an issue of simply extending the caucus to include Independents. The Democratic caucus included the recently retired, former GOP Jim Jeffords, and may include Bernie Sanders (an Independent). However, Sanders was a GOP "defector" who provided control over the Senate to the Democrats, who rewarded him with a committee chair position. Joe is not an Independent because of political philosophy but merely because it was the only sore-loser avenue for him to keep his seat. And, it was not Joe who placed control of the Senate with the Democrats, but Webb and Tester.

(2) Democratic Caucus Rules provide that if a Senator leaves the caucus, then the Senator loses any prior seniority if that Senator later returns to the caucus because a new seniority clock starts ticking.

Joe says he is this new critter called Independent-Democrat.  Question is what type of seniority is Joe entitled to under the caucus rules?

Generally, seniority is counted based on a member's tenure with the party in the Congress.  For example, before the midterms, Joe "was the ranking Democrat" but he lost that seniority when he filed as an Independent, leaving Carl Levin as the most senior member "elected as a Democrat" for one committee.

Under Rule E of the GOP rules, seniority is based on the "date from the constitutional time of the convening of Congress, January 3rd."   This indicates that Joe's seniority as an Independent member of the Senate Democratic caucus should commence from Jan. 3, 2007, and not be backdated to include his prior terms as a Democrat.

(Note:  A google search did not yield the rules governing the Democratic Caucus, which apparently are "not publicly available." However, the Democratic caucus rules are sometimes similar to the Senate Republican Conference Rules, which are posted online.)

The Democratic Caucus rules apparently provide that if a Democrat leaves the Senate Democratic Caucus to take another government position or to retire, and then returns to the Senate Democratic Caucus as a Democratic Senator, the former Senator loses that prior seniority when resuming a Senate career.  Joe's case is very similar because Joe left the Democratic caucus when he filed as an Independent, and now seeks to resume a Senate career as an Independent in the Democratic Caucus.

Reid informed Lieberman that if an "unexpected challenge is made against him for the chairman's post," he would be recognized as the "senior Democrat" on the committee and that seniority will "facilitate Lieberman's move into the post." If the regular seniority rules are followed, there could be an expected challenge from Levin, who is now the ranking Democrat on one committee desired by Joe. If Reid preserves Joe's prior seniority, there could be an expected challenge from Sen. Frank Lautenberg as well.

Sen. Lautenberg may seek to have seniority restored to him that he lost 4 years ago.  Sen. Lautenberg served for 18 years in the Senate before he retired in 2000.  In 2002, a month before the elections, Lautenberg stepped in as a candidate to replace the former Sen. Bob Torricelli, who resigned his seat after being rebuked for ethical violations. Lautenberg was a good Democratic soldier who on short notice stepped up to the plate to win a seat that the GOP had a "good chance of capturing because of Torricelli's ethical troubles" and Lautenberg also had to spend $1.5 million of his own money to run such a last minute campaign.

Apparently in compliance with caucus rules, Lautenberg was rewarded for his loyalty by stripping him of his prior seniority of 18 years that he had accrued before he retired in 2000. Thus, in 2002, the seniority clock started anew, and now 4 years later, Lautenberg has only 4 years of recognized seniority.  Lautenberg was not the first to be hit with this caucus rule. "When Minnesota Sen. Hubert Humphrey (D) returned to the Senate after serving as vice-president under President Lyndon Johnson, he lost all the seniority he accrued before leaving for the White House."

These cases are instructive for two principles. One, if the seniority clock commences anew for Lautenberg and Humphrey when they returned to the Senate, it should strike anew for Lieberman when he returns to the Senate as a member of a different party. Two, if Joe regains his 18 years of seniority as a Democrat to be tacked onto his new career as an Independent, then Lautenberg should regain his 18 years as a Democrat. That would make Lautenberg the senior Democrat with 22 years as compared to Joe's 18 years, which has repercussions for who should chair committees:

"If Lautenberg retrieves seniority accrued during 18 years of Senate service before retiring in 2000, he could leapfrog Lieberman to lead the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee or the Environment and Public Works Committee."

For his part, Joe issued another threat to join the GOP if he is stripped of seniority:

"Lieberman said he would keep his senior position in the caucus, even though he lost Connecticut's Democratic primary, and is running against Democratic nominee Ned Lamont, whom the Senate Democratic leadership has endorsed.

"That's what I've been told," said Lieberman in an interview Friday, before Congress recessed for the election. "Caucuses like to keep as many members as they can, not discourage membership," implying that leaders risk his defection to the GOP if they strip him of seniority.

Lieberman assumes that this promised retention of seniority means that "he would continue to serve as the top Democrat on the governmental affairs panel. It would also allow him to become the most senior Democrat on the Environment and Public Works Committee." Joe's goal is to become the chair of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee.

Prior service plays some role in committee assignments. GOP conference Rule H provides that newly-elected Senators have a choice over their committee assignments in which the order of choice is ranked based on prior service in the Senate, House or as state Governor. If no such prior service, the order of choice is determined by drawing. If the Democrats have a similar rule, then Joe's prior Senate service may assure that he would be able to sit on a committee he desires.  Joe's prior service would give him higher seniority than other Senators in his class entering the Senate in 2007 but it would not leapfrog Joe over the seniority rights of the existing Democratic committee members.

There is no reason to give special rights to Joe that discriminate against members of the Democratic Caucus in good standing and loyal to our party. For these reasons, Lieberman should be stripped of his prior seniority if he is permitted to caucus with the Democrats.

(3) Democratic Caucus Rules provide that Democrats who assist a non-Democrat in a partisan election can be denied committee seats and kicked out of the caucus.

House Democratic Caucus rules "prohibit members from helping a non-Democrat in a partisan election." After Traficant "voted with Republicans to make Illinois Rep. Dennis Hastert speaker of the House," he was "kicked out of the House Democratic caucus and stripped of his committee assignments." The reasoning behind this rule is clear: A Democrat is "no longer a member in good standing" when the member helps non-Democrats in a partisan election.

The Traficant case is very similar to Joe in several respects. Traficant had 16 years of seniority when he was kicked out of the caucus. After he voted for GOP Hastert for the speaker position, the Democratic caucus stripped Traficant of his seat on a committee where he was the top ranked Democrat. Traficant believed that he owed his vote to the GOP, which had supported him in the past and he wanted to act more as an Independent because both parties needed to work together in a bipartisan manner for the good of the people. At the time, a spokesperson for the Ohio Democratic Party said that Traficant "campaigns for Republicans. He votes for Republicans. He says he's a Democrat, but he sure doesn't sound like one." When asked why he did not just join the GOP, Traficant responded that on many issues, he is a Republican.

Similar to Traficant, Joe probably voted for a non-Democrat in a partisan election. Joe abandoned the Democratic Party to run a campaign to oppose the Democratic candidate selected by the voters. It's not likely that Joe voted for Lamont, which means that Joe may have voted for Joe, which means that Joe voted for a non-Democrat.  

Joe has committed other acts that demonstrate that his allegiance is to the GOP and the Joe Party first and, if it suits his needs, Joe may then do what is right for the Democratic Party.  During Joe's campaign for the midterms, Joe refused to endorse 3 Democratic candidates crucial to regaining control of the House because they were now the opposing party. And, Joe received campaign money from GOP Sen. Susan Collins, who also campaigned with Joe and now Collins will become the GOP ranking member of the Homeland Security committee that Joe wants to chair. This means that if Joe becomes the chair he is already "indebted to the Republican ranking member:"

"After all, how many prospective Dem committee leaders campaigned alongside their Republican rivals this year? How would Republicans feel if a possible committee chair started campaign[ing] with the ranking Dem on the committee the Republican expected to lead? Indeed, just yesterday, Lieberman said he hadn't returned Harry Reid's phone call, but he did return Collins'."

The potential future conflicts are real:

"The two apparently have a good working relationship. Fine. But imagine the situation come January, when Lieberman is supposed to advocate on behalf of the Senate Dem caucus for an agenda that runs counter to what Susan Collins and her party want on the committee. How effective can we expect Lieberman to be after he's campaigned alongside the rival he's supposed to stand up to?"

Where does Joe's loyalty lie? Joe wants to caucus with the Democrats solely to maintain his 18 years of seniority in the Senate and could not tell reporters any "philosophical reason for organizing with the Senate Democrats."

Joe has also boldly admitted that he will not be loyal to Democrats:

"My mission now is really an independent mission," Lieberman said Wednesday, calling his win a mandate to "be beholden to no one except the voters of Connecticut and my own conscience."

Well, if Joe plans to act in the Senate based on the mandate he obtained from the voters, exit polls show that Joe's mandate is from more than 2/3 Republicans and only 1/3 Democrats.

(4) Meet Joe, the new Junior Decider for our Congress.

The problem is that Joe is setting himself up as the new Decider for Congress or  the "swing" voter who decides important issues dividing our Congress.   Given that the Democrats have a 51-49 controlling majority in the Senate, all it takes is one Senator to render a 50/50 vote that triggers the Cheney tie-breaker vote.  It could be any Senator, but Joe is setting himself up as THE Senator who both parties should fight over in order to gain control.

The result is that Democrats are dependent upon the whims of Joe, who has already demonstrated that His interests trump party interests. And, similar to Justice Kennedy as a swing vote on the US Supreme Court, Joe's goal is to become the swing vote in Congress:

"In the Senate, for example, it is easy to imagine a scenario in which former Democrat, and now Independent, Senator Joe Lieberman plays much the same role Kennedy plays on the Court.

Even assuming the Democrats, as currently seems likely, win both the Virginia and Montana Senate races, their majority in the Senate will hinge entirely on the acquiescence of Lieberman; without him, the Senate will likely be deadlocked, 50-50, with the tiebreaking vote cast by Vice-President Cheney. ...

Lieberman's policy views will often be at odds with those of the significantly more liberal democratic leadership; indeed, just such differences led some Democrats to support Lamont. Accordingly, it seems altogether plausible that the legislative initiatives emerging from the Senate will lurch from left to right politically, depending in large part (if not solely) on what one Senator - Lieberman - thinks about the issue in question. And that sounds an awful lot like what happens with Kennedy at the Supreme Court."

Joe has even threatened to join the GOP and place them in control should he not get his way:

Instead, Mr. Lieberman seemed to be relishing his renewed independence and seniority in a Senate where, regardless of the outcome in Virginia, either party's razor-thin majority will make it vital for Democrats and Republicans to form coalitions.

"This is not so much to threaten anybody, but, look, this is going to be a closely divided Senate however it works out," he said. "And I'm just going to feel empowered and in some sense directed by the voters of Connecticut, issue by issue."

There is one easy solution to prevent Joe from becoming the unitary Decider of our legislative branch of government.  Both parties should simply agree to not make Joe part of their coalition.  No lawmaker can relish the idea of one Senator wielding such power over their ability to serve their constituents. And, neither party will be able to exert true control over the Senate - with or without Joe - because a "party generally needs a 10-seat majority for effective control, and US senators are notoriously independent."

At some point, principles should trump politics.  If both parties can not agree to leave Joe out in the cold, then let Joe join the GOP conference. A Reid spokesman stated that "the whole caucus would have to vote for Lieberman to maintain his leadership positions on the Homeland Security and other committees." My hope is that the public and bloggers will inundate Reid's office with emails and faxes to just say no to Joe.

Patriot Daily: News of the day, just a click away!