This will be a short diary, but I wanted to float a possible explanation as to what was behind the vote to allow Lieberman to keep his Chairmanship of the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.
Last week, we heard that Sen. Lieberman and Sen. Reid met, and Reid threatened to strip Lieberman of the charimanship, but to remain in the caucus and to oversee some subcommittees. Lieberman balked at this, and we are left to assume that he threatened to not caucus with the Democrats in return.
The sense here, across the board, is that this was another case of Reid and the Dems laying down, yet again. My theory as to why the other members in the Senate is quite simple- self-interest, and more committee seats.
Take the Appropriations Committee, for instance- there are 29 seats in total. Currently, the breakdown is 15-14 (D-R). This gives a proportion of 0.517. Assume, for the moment, that Franken wins the recount in MN, that Begich wins in AK (which seems to have happened), and that Martin loses in GA. Putting Lieberman in the Republican caucus gives a breakdown of 58-42, or a proportion of 0.58. Applying this proportion to the Appropriations Committee would mean there would be 16 Democratic seats, to 13 Republicans. If Lieberman were to stay, then the proportion would be 0.59. This would mean an additional seat on that committee (17/29 = 0.5862069). A similar exercise can be done for the other Committees with fewer members.
This in no way means constitutes an apology for placating Lieberman, but I think there is more going on behind the scenes than we are aware, and it also means getting additional committee seats across the board.
Any thoughts?