Sen. Johnson (D-SD) in Critical Condition

[Gawain 0]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061214/ap_on_go_co/johnson

Sen. Tim Johnson (D-SD) is in critical condition after undergoing brain surgery last night. I wish him a speedy recovery.

Now I have a political question: If Sen. Johnson decides to leave the Senate, and SD Gov. Mike Rounds (R) appoints a republican replacement, that puts the Senate at a 50-50 power split, with VP Cheney giving the tie breaking vote. The committees would likely have equal representation from each party. However, Sen. Reid (D-NV) would no longer be the majority leader -- how would they be notated? As party leaders? As there would be no majority for either party to speak of?

If Sen. Johnson were to stay in Congress, that is not without precendent. Sen. Thomas (R-WY) was diagnosed with leukemia, but he's back at work.

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[kallend 1,647]

Quote

Now I have a political question: If Sen. Johnson decides to leave the Senate, and SD Gov. Mike Rounds (R) appoints a republican replacement, .

That would be pissing in the faces of the voters of SD in particular, and the entire USA in general. I hope he's smarter than that.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Gawain 0]

Quote

Quote

Now I have a political question: If Sen. Johnson decides to leave the Senate, and SD Gov. Mike Rounds (R) appoints a republican replacement, .

That would be pissing in the faces of the voters of SD in particular, and the entire USA in general. I hope he's smarter than that.

Thanks for (not) answering my question.

To counter your point, Sen. Johnson wasn't up for re-election this year. Sen. Daschle was voted out in favor of a republican (Sen. Thune) two years ago, and Gov. Rounds was elected in 2002. Given the voting record of the South Dakotans over the recent past, I submit that it would not "piss" in the face of the voters, as South Dakota is not a liberal state politically. Even Sen. Johnson was a centrist (almost a DINO).

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[Michele 1]

Quote

Sen. Thomas (R-WY) was diagnosed with leukemia, but he's back at work.

Leukemia is not brain surgery...which is what Sen. Johnson has just gone through. Lots of people work through cancer. Not so many work through brain surgery, you know?

Not sure what will happen, but my prayers are with Sen. Johnson for a full, speedy, full recovery.

Ciels-
Michele

~Do Angels keep the dreams we seek
While our hearts lie bleeding?~

[kallend 1,647]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Now I have a political question: If Sen. Johnson decides to leave the Senate, and SD Gov. Mike Rounds (R) appoints a republican replacement, .

That would be pissing in the faces of the voters of SD in particular, and the entire USA in general. I hope he's smarter than that.

Thanks for (not) answering my question.

To counter your point, Sen. Johnson wasn't up for re-election this year. Sen. Daschle was voted out in favor of a republican (Sen. Thune) two years ago, and Gov. Rounds was elected in 2002. Given the voting record of the South Dakotans over the recent past, I submit that it would not "piss" in the face of the voters, as South Dakota is not a liberal state politically. Even Sen. Johnson was a centrist (almost a DINO).

I guess you slept through November 2006.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Gawain 0]

That was just the most recent example. Sen. Biden (D-DE) was out for several months due to surgery, but I don't know what he was suffering.

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[Gawain 0]

I'll just restate my question to dilute to souring attempts: If a 50-50 balance is restored, due to the Vice President having the tie breaking vote, does that give the GOP a majority per se (where the VP may not need to render a tie-breaking vote), even though there would likely be equal representation in the committees?

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[matthewcline 0]

Disclaimer: I don't like ANY party, IMO career politicians are all crooks supported by BLIND followers with out sense, but with money.

Since the Senator only won by ~500 votes and the second place guy is a R (and the guy being discussed to be appointed) then it would make sense. This would be the next "majority" in the state.

Kind of like a beauty pageant, first runner up is next in line.

It would not be pissing in the face of the Country. The State voted on these two, not the Country. Looking at the current alignment and trend in that state they are pretty much right down the moderate middle (as this country did during the last vote, when you look at ALL the various levels of elections). To paraphrase a TN voter, The Dem's are no better than the Repub's, but maybe a change in power will help, but it is probably like replacing one mob boss with another, business as usual.

Max has a good question, I hope we can find an answer, as it is not a one sided issue.

Matt

An Instructors first concern is student safety.
So, start being safe, first!!!

[idrankwhat 0]

Quote

I'll just restate my question to dilute to souring attempts: If a 50-50 balance is restored, due to the Vice President having the tie breaking vote, does that give the GOP a majority per se (where the VP may not need to render a tie-breaking vote), even though there would likely be equal representation in the committees?

GOP would have the majority with Cheney's vote. I believe that the R's would also hold the committee chairmen seats. Basically, we'd return to absolute gridlock an no hope of any check on the executive branch. As for "compromised" legislators still holding their positions, Biden's was in the 80's, can't remember why but you need to look no further than Strom Thrumond as the king of compromise in that dept.

[sundevil777 94]

Quote

Quote

Now I have a political question: If Sen. Johnson decides to leave the Senate, and SD Gov. Mike Rounds (R) appoints a republican replacement, .

That would be pissing in the faces of the voters of SD in particular, and the entire USA in general. I hope he's smarter than that.

Governors have been in such a position to appoint a replacement before, and I thought that they always appoint someone of their own party. For the governor to do otherwise would be "pissing in the faces" of the voters that put him in office. Why would you expect the governor to appoint a Dem? That is just not how it works.

People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am

[idrankwhat 0]

Quote

Why would you expect the governor to appoint a Dem? That is just not how it works.

Because the voters chose one. Not that it will happen but it would represent his states's choice. Republican leadership would not likely stand by and let him do it so the point is really moot.

[rehmwa 2]

I like the idea of a mixed congress (reps own the senate, dems own the house) so on first blush this would be good politically.

but this wouldn't do it correctly as the VP is the executive branch and it still wouldn't separate the legislative from the exec enough. Still better than a fully partisan legislative branch, though.

the senate would need this SD appointment AND they'd need to woo over someone like Lieberman so the Senate is Republican without needing the VP tie breaker. That would split the House from the Senate in a more balanced fashion making anything but the most critical legislation able to clear both houses.

also, losing a more centrist dem, after having lost the more centrist reps isn't a good thing either, we needed to maintain the centrist types and lose the party extremes - which was absolutely NOT the result of the 2006 elections. So although congress as a whole might be more balanced, the senate itself would just continue to be more partisan. At least the people of SD and their governor would likely pick someone republican, but more centrist that another state would.

Whatever happens, the SD governor will likely make a good choice. We need to split up congress. And we've seen in the last couple decades, an entire congress controlled by one party and the same as the exec branch is fatal. Even an entire congress controlled by one party and with an opposing pres isn't great either. Give me a split congress anytime. The legislature is a ton more dangerous than any executive lineup.

but first, there's a sick man out there. that's first, politics might not matter as much right now to his family and his 'real' friends.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

Because the voters chose one. Not that it will happen but it would represent his states's choice.

nonsense, the law of SD is clear - this is the same nonsense from the right when what's his name changed party affiliation

people vote for a person, not a party - when they vote for a party, that's what screws us up in washington

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[crwtom 0]

Quote

I'll just restate my question to dilute to souring attempts: If a 50-50 balance is restored, due to the Vice President having the tie breaking vote, does that give the GOP a majority per se (where the VP may not need to render a tie-breaking vote), even though there would likely be equal representation in the committees?

the 2000 senate was 50-50. Indeed Repub's were simply defined as
majority due to Cheney's tie breaking vote. Majority leader was Lott.

Cheers, T

*******************************************************************
Fear causes hesitation, and hesitation will cause your worst fears to come true

[idrankwhat 0]

Quote

people vote for a person, not a party - when they vote for a party, that's what screws us up in washington

I'll disagree vehemently with the first half of the statement and buy you a for the second half.
My inlaws are a perfect example when I asked why they voted for Bush in '04. Answer: "we've always voted Republican". The Doc in the office next to me used to vote in TX where all he had to do was throw one lever to vote straight party.

[warpedskydiver 0]

Sounds like Chicago

[wmw999 2,147]

40 years ago much of Texas was democratic like that. Now much of it's republican like that. Half the democrats became republicans when it started to shift. The term "yellow dog democrat/republican" was coined for them ("I'd vote for a yellow dog if the demolicans ran him").

My family had a long-time friend who was a republican Texas state representative in the early 60's (when it was a democratic-party state). By the time we knew him, he was as close to a straight-party democrat as I've met. So maybe what we really need is a contrarian party.

Wendy W.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[NCclimber 0]

Quote

That would be pissing in the faces of the voters of SD in particular, and the entire USA in general. I hope he's smarter than that.

Love the hyperbole.

If the laws of SD say the governor has the authority to fill vacated seats in Congress, then he can do whatever he wants.

Governors appointing replacement canditates to Congress is nothing new. Typically, they appoint someone from their own party, regardless of the previous member's affiliation.

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

Quote

people vote for a person, not a party - when they vote for a party, that's what screws us up in washington

I'll disagree vehemently with the first half of the statement

I know people that vote straight party ticket. I just think they are very irresponsible voters. And if the philosophy of SD was aligned your way, then they'd have a different law that required party parity. I think that would be a crappy law and easy to get around anyway.

In any case, the law of SD allows the gov to put in whoever he wants. He should comply with the law.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[TrophyHusband 0]

to answer your question, what's being said on the news is this: since the republicans were previously the majority, they will maintain the majority. all committees will be chaired by a republican instead of a democrat. i've heard this same info on two different news stations, one fox and one not.

"Your scrotum is quite nice" - Skymama
www.kjandmegan.com

[idrankwhat 0]

Quote

And if the philosophy of SD was aligned your way, then they'd have a different law that required party parity.

I never meant to imply that there should be a law. I think it would be the right thing to do....no actually I think the right thing to do would be to hold a special election. But with the laws as they are the Gov has the authority to make the appointment so I expect him to, and I expect him to appoint an "R" and I also expect that he'll have plenty of input from the national party to help him out...you know......simply for moral support

[Andy9o8 0]

It's really quite simple: there are a few Republican Senators from states with Democratic governors. And of course the US has the 2nd Amendment and plenty of people who know how to use it. Balance can be maintained.

[rehmwa 2]

I can live with that.

I think a special election is fine as long as it's an open election. But it has one built in problem, though, is it would need to be timely, and thus, the opposition candidate would almost always win except in VERY partisan states. Certainly he'd have the most press in recent times and would effectively be the 'runner up'.

It's nice that the governor or some other official official has the abiltiy to recognize that and maybe avoid it if the 2nd place candidate is some extremist who was just on the books as a token candidate.

In the case of SD, wasn't the senate seat a very close race between two relatively moderate candidates? Then putting up the other guy would be very in line with the people's wishes. But it would still be an R.

If we had to knee jerk to a Dem - then it would likely be someone highly partisan as there would be bitching about is he TRULY dem, or just acting the role to get the appointment, ditto if it was a clear Rep. That would certainly NOT be the wishes of the people of SD.

I bet the national party (actually both parties) will try to leverage the governors decision if it came to it. But not all governors are puppets of their parties. (This from dealing with "gov in over his head" Jesse Ventura for a few years, I can attest to it)

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[Andy9o8 0]

I have it on good authority that Johnson was poisoned with polonium by operatives of Tom DeLay. Bastards. They'll get theirs.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

So maybe what we really need is a contrarian party.

I thought that's what the "small l" libertarians were?

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706