Fifteen Guys Named Joe

With the Senate Democratic caucus just two votes shy of a filibuster-proof, 60-vote majority, Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT) no longer has the clout he once did. But Senate colleagues have taken a lesson from him. In a Senate now dominated by Democrats, Sen. Evan Bayh (D-IN) thinks Fifteen Guys Named Joe can have similar clout.

Last week Democratic Senators Bayh, Tom Carper (DE) and Blanche Lincoln (AR) took to the pages of the Washington Post to explain the raison d'être for their new Moderate Dems Working Group:

The stakes are too high for Democrats to fear a policy debate. Such debates produce better legislation. On nearly all important votes, a supermajority of 60 senators will be needed to pass legislation. Without Democratic moderates working to find common ground with reasonable Republicans, the president's agenda could well be filibustered into oblivion.

And you will help Republicans do that if you don't get what you want, is that it?

Joe Lieberman – among the fifteen Joes identified so far – used his former status as a one-man swing block when stakes were “high enough to give Lieberman leverage with both parties,” Time wrote in 2007. It wasn’t so much the chance that Lieberman would switch parties that put Senate leaders on edge, but what concessions he would extract with “the power that comes from keeping that possibility alive.”

In their Washington Post column, Bayh and his Liebermen acknowledged the blogosphere’s concern for Democrats sticking together, but forged ahead to form a block (pun intended) of senators whose political leverage in the Senate will come from threatening to do just the opposite. Just like Joe.

Pundits have speculated whether or not Democrats will – as Reagan’s budget director David Stockman and Republican majorities in the 1990s did – advance legislation using the reconciliation process to prevent filibusters by opponents. (Ed Kilgore outlined the history of reconciliation last week in The Democratic Strategist.) The process allows a bill’s passage by a simple majority vote of 51. If Bayh’s “centrist” coalition prevents major reforms from going though reconciliation, as Jason Linkins observed at The Huffington Post, “they can all pretend to vote for it whilst ensuring it gets filibustered by the GOP.”

Rachel Maddow interviewed one of the Joes - she calls them ConservaDems - Sen. Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH), last week on MSNBC:

MADDOW: How would it make it more likely for climate change legislation and health care reform legislation to pass if there is a 60-vote threshold instead of a 51-vote threshold?

SHAHEEN: I don‘t think the issue there is 60 versus 51. I think the issue is how do we get the votes to get major pieces of legislation done.

Clearly, by moving out the goalposts.

To be fair, it is at least possible that Fifteen Guys Named Joe have something more sophisticated in mind.

It is too early to say whether or not the Liebermen haven’t also drawn inspiration from Republican Sen. Arlen Specter (PA). The master of the head fake routinely made independent-sounding criticisms of Bush administration policies, only to cave when it came time to vote – the old, “I spoke out vigorously against it before I voted for it strategy.” Just enough objection to suggest independence, but not enough gumption to actually exercise any. If Specter yelled "Fire!" in a crowd these days, would anyone listen?

In 2007, Specter made noises like he might support the Employee Free Choice Act. Last week, however, he flip-flopped, predictably, and announced he would oppose EFCA. As usual, Specter spoke of the person who, in his heart of hearts, he wishes he were:

"In a highly polarized Senate, many decisive votes are left to a small group who are willing to listen, reject ideological dogmatism, disagree with the party line and make an independent judgment," he said.

To mollify conservative constituents in their barely blue states, Bayh’s Moderate Dems Working Group may be modeled after Specter - feign independence before voting with the party and the president. Barack Obama might be able to pull that off, but supporters of the new president still have to wonder if Senate Democrats can.

Views expressed on this page are those of the authors and not necessarily those of Campaign for America's Future or Institute for America's Future