As d-day nears for Holy Joe, will the secret ballot help or hurt him? And thanks, Dennis Shulman, for speaking out for real American values

"Although I will not be taking a seat in Congress in January, I am hopeful about our country. I am hopeful that, with a new president and with Scott Garrett’s positions becoming even more marginalized in the House, that our country will again find its way."

-- from NJ-05 candidate Dennis Shulman's DWT guest post

by Ken

It took me awhile to catch up with Dennis Shulman's remarkable guest post (see the link above), but I wanted to add my voice to the chorus of praise and thanks in the comments. He was a remarkable candidate, and his post can serve as an inspiring as well as practical manifesto for everyone else running for public office -- or, more important, to those already elected to serve.

In this election as in 2006 we saw some terrific people elected to both houses of Congress along with the all-too-predictable quantity of Emanuelite and Schumerian sludge. But we were also introduced to some remarkable people who unfortunately didn't win their races. That hardly makes them "losers." I'd prefer to think of those campaigns as our introduction to some remarkable people whose voices I hope we'll be hearing as part of the national political dialogue.

Again, thanks, Dennis Shulman.


WITH SENATE DEMS SET TO DECIDE HOLY JOE'S FATE
IN THE A.M., IT LOOKS LIKE HIS SMELLY HIDE IS SAFE

To plunge from the politically sublime to the utterly absysmal, word is that a deal has been struck to save Holy Joe's chairmanship of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee. Ken Strickland reports on MSBNC's First Read blog: "According to sources familiar with negotiations, Democrats are expected to vote in favor of letting the Connecticut senator keep his chairmanship and seniority, but give up the gavel on a subcommittee he chairs."

Why? Because, says Strickland, President-elect Obama said he wants Holy Joe to caucus with the Democrats, and Holy Joe apparently insisted he won't if he's stripped of his committee chairmanship. This is, in other words, what I said the other day -- when everyone else was telling me I was crazy, that the president-elect hadn't said anything at all about the committee chair question. As if he doesn't know what everyone else does, that Joe will never give up that chairmanship voluntarily.

According to Politico, the Senate Democratic caucus will meet in the morning. John Bresnahan reports:

Here’s how it will go down:

--Caucus secretary Patty Murray (D-Wash.) calls the roll at 9:30 a.m. Lieberman is then expected to make an address to his fellow Democrats, asking them to forego vengeance.

--Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), who has publicly expressed his displeasure with Lieberman, may speak up – or he could remain silent.

--At that point, any member could introduce a motion to remove Lieberman from the committee (Sens. Patrick Leahy, Bernie Sanders and Byron Dorgan are among the likely sponsors). Other amendments – including any plan to strip Lieberman of seats on other committees – could then be introduced.

--More speeches, should any member want to give any.

--A secret ballot.

After that, it’s on to a series of (likely) unanimous leadership votes, starting with Reid as majority leader. Democratic insiders say the caucus could then pick Chuck Schumer’s replacement as Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee chairman, almost certainly Sen. Bob Menendez (D-N.J.).

The group will then review anticipated committee changes. Daniel Inouye (D-Hawaii) will be tapped to replace Robert Byrd (D-W.Va.) as chairman of the Appropriations Committee. John Kerry (D-Mass.) is the likely choice for Joe Biden’s vacated Foreign Relations post.

Assuming that the matter hasn't already been determined, there's been an interesting controversy as to whether the secret-ballot proceeding would save Holy Joe, by shielding senators from accountability for their votes, or doom him, by relieving them of fear of reprisal from one of the pettiest, most vindictive persons on the planet. As the latter theory went, even people whose support the Joementum Man would normally take for granted might vote their conscience if they could do it in secret.

Personally, I didn't buy it.

Are there really secrets in Washington? Within minutes of any vote, everyone would know the tally, accompanied by informed guesses as to who the "nays" are. All sorts of collateral considerations would be brought into play to refine the list, which in the end would likely be fairly accurate. And that would probably frighten Holy Joe's colleagues even more than an officially tallied vote, because even if they were to vote "right," they might still have to prove the unprovable to His Holiness: "Hey, Joe, it wuzznt me!"

When it comes to wreaking vengeance, my guess is that our Joe would err on the side of inclusiveness, on the theory that it's better to screw some poor fucker who doesn't really deserve it than to let any of those #$%^&-ing SOBs go unpunished.


UPDATE: GREAT MOMENTS IN PUNDITRY -- BUT SHOULDN'T
OUR JOE PAY A PRICE FOR HIS EXECRABLE PERFORMANCE?

Filling in for Rachel Maddow tonight, Arianna Huffington talked to MSNBC analyst Lawrence O'Donnell Jr. about tomorrow morning, and got what she considered a bleak prognosis. Lawrence was careful to say that he's been surprised before by these secret-ballot affairs, but he really doesn't think Holy Joe's charimanship is in jeopardy. At most, maybe he'll lose one of his committed assignments (of which he already has more than most senators), and possibly one of his subcommittee chairmanships.

Then Arianna asked essentially the above question: Shouldn't His Holiness have to pay a price for his truly dreadful performance as committee chairman? And our Lawrence burst out laughing. I tell you, it was a hearty, all-systems-purging belly laugh. I mean, it lightened even this depressed viewer's soul, seeing him vent all that jollity. Professional that Lawrence is, he managed to contain his hilarity enough to explain that there's not a chance that Joe's fellow senators would presume to judge his performance, especially on a committee that senators don't take particularly seriously. Still, it seemed to be the very thought that senators might even contemplate evaluating one another's performance, holding committee chairs or anyone else to some kind of standard of performance-based accountability, that made his whole body shake with mirth.

Man oh man, what could we have been thinking, folks?

#