Courtesy of TPM via RealClearPolitics.com, here’s an update on the ongoing saga with Joe Lieberman, the prodigal son no one wants to wecome home:

The full Democratic caucus will vote on whether Joe Lieberman is allowed to keep his chairmanship of the Homeland Security committee at its caucus meeting next week, a leadership aide confirms to us.

Previously, Reid’s office had held this possibility out but hadn’t made a final decision on whether to throw Lieberman’s fate to the full Dem caucus for a vote.

Ah. A vote.

The medical term for this phenomenon is passingthebuckitis: “Well, Joe, I’d really like for you to keep your chairmanship, but you see, these senators here ...”

It was surprising to me that Reid has set the vote for next week—well before the runoff of the Georgia Senate race and way ahead of any resolution in the Minnesota grudge match between Norm Coleman and Al Franken. I did notice, though, that Reid did not signal either that A) the vote would be binding, or B) when the result, if it was binding, would take effect.

So he’s leaving his options open.

Also, Blake Dvorak tells us that the president-elect has basically washed his hands of the matter:

Somewhat complicating matters are comments from Obama spokeswoman Stephanie Cutter who told TPM that Obama doesn’t “hold any grudges” and that the president-elect would be “happy to have Sen. Lieberman caucus with the Democrats.” Well, the issue is Lieberman’s committee chairmanship, not his caucusing preferences.

Washington Post assistant managing editor for politics Bill Hamilton apparently thinks a lot more of his reporters’ abilities this week than he has over the past 21 months.

He’s finally letting them focus on issues.

The Post reports that nearly 50 advisers to President-elect Barack Obama have been working for months to identify areas in which he could use executive orders to make an immediate impact upon moving in to the White House on Jan. 20.

One anonymous source (Gee! Another anonymous source! Now there’s something new!) says that the advisers are consulting with liberal advocacy groups, Capitol Hill staffers and potential agency chiefs to prioritize those they regard as the “most onerous or ideologically offensive.”

Oh boy: Liberal advocacy groups identifying policies they regard as ideologically offensive? Sounds like more of that much-ballyhooed “bipartisanship” is on the way.

Obama is reportedly planning executive orders to reverse Bush Administration policies on federal funding for stem cell research, oil and gas drilling, carbon dioxide emissions and federal funding for international family planning groups that provide information on abortion.

Barack Obama might not have ever been in the Oval Office before Monday, but that doesn’t mean he isn’t familiar with the more shadowy aspects of the job.

Obama said earlier this year that he because he respects the Constitution, “We’re not going to use signing statements as a way of doing an end-run around Congress.”

Signing statements have been used to “modify the meaning of laws,” whereas executive orders have been used to “(move) existing laws away from their original mandates.”

Isn’t that the same thing?

Where executive orders have been abused, Obama can invalidate them. But he doesn’t have to continue the trend by enacting his own abusive executive orders to reverse existing abusive executive orders.

In other words, getting rid of the policies that are “ideologically offensive” to certain groups of Americans doesn’t require instituting other policies that are ideologically offensive to other groups of Americans. Sure, to the victor go the spoils. But I thought Obama’s election was supposed to usher in an era in which we were above all that.

Obama has an opportunity with the executive orders issue to demonstrate that he’s interested in governing from the center. He can send a signal that he intends to leave the finer points of onerous policy to Congress—where they belong.

Will he?

Round up the GOP’s biggest egos ... It’s time for the annual conference of the Republican Governors Association!

(OK, so maybe Newt Gingrich is working on something else and won’t be there. But all the other biggest GOP egos will be.)

The RGA will convene this morning in Miami. Its annual conference is usually a hobnob-fest where those who fancy themselves president rub shoulders with one another. Occasionally, they’ll get together on a policy issue and give Congress a nudge, but it’s mostly just an opportunity for the executives to size each other up.

There will be several discussion sessions and a few presentations from notable conservatives like Bill Bennett. But the event drawing most of the attention is Thursday morning’s session on “The GOP in Transition.”

SIDEBAR: I guess that’s the going euphemism for, “Regrouping from getting our fannies handed to us last week.” END SIDEBAR

I will say that U.S. Rep. Mike Pence (R-Ind.) is a good pick for this particular session. Pence has made a name for himself by forging a bold path—not necessarily the path of the rest of the GOP—in Congress. Most notably, he’s broken with his leadership and with the president on a federal shield law for journalists. This is an important issue and one that Pence has pursued with equal parts passion and proficiency. (The bill passed the House, but Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has failed to move on the bill on his side of the Capitol. Now that President-elect Obama is on deck, maybe he can convince Reid to play ball.) In any event, Pence is a fresh face (I hate that term, by the way) who can speak with authority about the need for new ideas and new leadership within the Republican Party.

And when it comes to the GOP’s future, expect to hear lots of talk about reaching out to voters who aren’t old, white men in the South. Why? Out of the RGA’s 35 members and VIPs (page 4), only two are women.

That’s a problem.

SIDEBAR: Pet peeve alert!! You know, while the RGA is boning up on new ideas for running the country and outreach efforts to broaden its base, maybe it can brush up on its punctuation. Look at this statement. The spokesman’s name has an apostrophe in it, for Heaven’s sake: “...said RGA Executive Director Nick Ayer’s.” AAARRRRGH!! END SIDEBAR

The RGA’s slogan is “Good politics. Good policy.” Half and half. Not a bad split, especially for an organization of so many ambitious politicians, right?

But it doesn’t appear—at least, from the schedule, anyway—that any policy will be on tap at the RGA this week. The GOP bigwigs will hear about a breakdown of the 2008 election cycle (wait—that’s exactly what happened! Break down!); conservative pundits will lecture them about how they strayed from their roots and that’s what cost them with voters; pollster Frank Luntz will even regale them with his numbers (no word on whether he’ll bring those annoying dial-o-meters for the governors to assess his performance).

It’s going to be all politics, all the time—and that’s why the focus is on four or five attendees, in particular: Florida’s Charlie Crist, Louisiana’s Bobby Jindal, Minnesota’s Tim Pawlenty, South Carolina’s Mark Sanford ... and a certain lady governor from outside the Lower 48.

That’s right. Don’t put away your Sarah Palin suit just yet, Tina Fey. The woman who makes moose chili on the weekends may not be able to see Russia from her house, but she’s definitely keeping an eye on Washington.

More on Palin later today. But keep in mind that when the Republican Party considers its future, these governors are the GOP’s Fab Five.

Get ready for your close-ups, governors ... It’s only 24 months before the presidential madness starts all over again.