...and it could return the Senate to the Republicans. I hope he's ok.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20061213/pl_nm/usa_congress_johnson_dc

[Edited on December 13, 2006 at 5:17 PM. Reason : ]

12/13/2006 5:15:04 PM

i heard bush did it

12/13/2006 5:21:27 PM

I heard Karl Rove used his evil powers.

12/13/2006 5:23:42 PM

Quote :

"...and it could return the Senate to the Republicans. I hope he's ok."

12/13/2006 5:39:42 PM

^

12/13/2006 5:42:46 PM

Well, I'm not a liberal douche so I sincerely hope he's fine.

12/13/2006 5:44:23 PM

I guess I didn't believe you. I'm also confused as to why you think a liberal wouldn't care how he's doing.

12/13/2006 5:47:29 PM

because the guy who made this thread is the master of the us/them, good/bad mentality as it refers to the gop vs. the democrats or liberal vs. conservative.



[Edited on December 13, 2006 at 5:56 PM. Reason : .]

12/13/2006 5:55:11 PM

oh gee could it be the recent 6 year spate of liberals spewing out death wishes on every republican leader? naaaahhh!

12/13/2006 6:34:18 PM

i want the republicans to lead the senate as much as any other conservative

but not like this.


prayers to him for a speedy recovery.

12/13/2006 6:36:58 PM

^

12/13/2006 7:00:28 PM

So I'm sure if he dies or can't return to office, that the governor will install what the people elected?

Right?

12/13/2006 7:29:59 PM

Of course. The people elected a Republican governor. The Republican governor will install a Republican to the senate seat.

However, I hope he recovers. Johnson is actually a pretty good one as far as Democrats go.

12/13/2006 7:35:54 PM

do you two let each other know that the other has posted?

12/13/2006 7:38:18 PM

some news:
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20061214/D8M09O400.html

Quote :

"Johnson, who turns 60 on Dec. 28, was admitted to George Washington University Hospital with an undiagnosed illness, said a spokeswoman, Julianne Fisher. She said, however, the senator did not suffer a stroke or heart attack. His office had said earlier it was a possible stroke. Johnson became disoriented during a conference call with reporters at midday Wednesday, stuttering in response to a question. He was taken by ambulance to the hospital, where doctors were evaluating his condition."

So not a stroke or heart attack, but prognosis unknown.....at least to us.

[Edited on December 13, 2006 at 8:01 PM. Reason : ]

12/13/2006 8:01:42 PM

Quote :

"Of course. The people elected a Republican governor. The Republican governor will install a Republican to the senate seat. "

Nice one, Perry Mason. I guess you skipped Ethics at your top tier law school.

12/13/2006 8:07:15 PM

this could be really bad i mean i really wanted the dems to keep the senate....i mean they have all the plans on how to fix iraq right?

12/13/2006 8:08:30 PM

It wouldn't matter if they did. W. would just snub his nose to them just like he has every other commitee/plan that has come along. He's the Decider, right?

12/13/2006 8:20:35 PM

Hopefully the governor will pick a person of good judgment, honesty, and high moral character if it comes to that: in order words, a person not a member of either the Democratic or Republican parties.

12/13/2006 8:22:06 PM

12/13/2006 8:25:49 PM

Quote :

"Nice one, Perry Mason. I guess you skipped Ethics at your top tier law school. "

ethics?












dramatic pause

















rilly?

[Edited on December 13, 2006 at 8:47 PM. Reason : .]

12/13/2006 8:47:23 PM

Quote :

"So I'm sure if he dies or can't return to office, that the governor will install what the people elected? Right?"

Unfortunately not. It is a strange law that allows them to appoint anyone they want. Remember when people voted for a dead guy and they appointed his wife?

Its a stupid rule and it ought to be changed. If I were this governor I'd appoint a moderate democrat to fill the vacancy, should one occur.

12/13/2006 8:55:13 PM

yeah right, like that would happen

12/13/2006 11:06:48 PM

No you wouldn't. If you were a governor, you would appoint a member of your own party - particularly when control of the Senate is in the balance.

What's unethical (or a violation of legal ethics) for a Republican governor to appoint a Republican Senator? Has any Democratic governor, given the opportunity appointed a Republican Senator? Of course not - Democrats appoint Democrats, Republicans appoint Republicans. What's so hard to understand about this?

Nevertheless, control of the Senate matters little, especially when it's so close. The filibuster prevents the majority from getting out of control, no matter who it is. The majority in the House is what matters, since there the majority has an absolute rule.

UPDATE: Senator Johnson is having brain surgery.

[Edited on December 14, 2006 at 1:57 AM. Reason : update]

12/14/2006 1:48:08 AM

You know, if he dies, the conspiracy loons on the left are going to go crazy!

REPUBLICANS KILLED JOHNSON!!

12/14/2006 1:56:40 AM

PLEASE LET IT BE POLONIUM

PLEASE LET IT BE POLONIUM

[Edited on December 14, 2006 at 2:23 AM. Reason : ha, i didn't even see guth had already made the polonium reference, shit]

12/14/2006 2:22:29 AM

Quote :

"What's so hard to understand about this?"

Two wrongs don't make a right. You're a Catholic, aren't you?

Political opportunism based on someone's personal misfortune is ... well, it's distasteful. If the people wanted a Republican senator, they would've elected one. Yes, they elected a Republican governor who could appoint one in such events -- but seriously, who thinks about stuff like that at the polls?

Don't bury your head too far in the sand. Granted it's your way of doing things around here.

[Edited on December 14, 2006 at 3:23 AM. Reason : foo]

12/14/2006 3:23:13 AM

Whether or not it's distasteful - why in the world do you think that a Republican governor would select a Democratic Senator, when the balance of power is at stake?

Being honest here. If this were Arlen Specter and the Democratic Governor of Pennsylvania were choosing a replacement, I really doubt most strongly if you would be arguing for him to appoint a Republican senator, ESPECIALLY not if it meant changing the balance of power in the Senate.

Of course this discussion is very premature. The Senator is still alive, praise God, and has apparently made it through his surgery.

12/14/2006 4:30:38 AM

^

Um, I am a Republican. I'm a registered Republican. I voted straight-ticket Republican in the last election.

So, thanks for your opinion on what you think I'd do. Not that you know shit.

I'm fine with the balance of power in the Senate changing. In fact, I'd be more than happy if it changed by two seats. But I don't find the Republican governor tipping the balance of power in this way particularly democratic. It's certainly beyond the expectations of the voters who elected the man (as a Democrat) to a six-year term.

Just because a loophole or technicality in the system exists, doesn't mean it should be exploited. I remember back in 2001 when the Republicans weeped and gnashed their teeth over Jeffords legitimately changing parties. Ok, that was bad -- but NOW, it's A-OK to replace an incapacitated, duly-elected senator with one from across the aisle!

12/14/2006 5:18:38 AM

It was beyond the expectations of anyone that a Senator would have such a serious health issue. The people approved the laws that give the Governor the right to appoint a Senator. The people did not approve any law requiring the Governor to name someone from the party of the deceased Senator.

12/14/2006 5:21:10 AM

I still think bandying about the term "unethical" is a stretch here

poor taste, sure

and the gov may face retribution

but unethical?

negative

12/14/2006 6:21:08 AM

Quote :

"No you wouldn't. If you were a governor, you would appoint a member of your own party - particularly when control of the Senate is in the balance. "

You have no idea what I would do.

Look, I don't want the democrats to have the senate any more than you do, but I want them to do it the correct way. Sure, this is not "unethical" per se, because it is totally legal, but it certainly isn't what the people of that state intended. If I were the governor, I would appoint a moderate democrat. Screw you if you think otherwise.

12/14/2006 7:47:05 AM

just to be clear

ethical != congruent to legal (or lack of legality)

still, the point is, you probably wouldn't be governor without it being a foregone conclusion that you would install a republican

unless you were independently wealthy

[Edited on December 14, 2006 at 8:08 AM. Reason : .]

12/14/2006 8:08:29 AM

I didn't mean to confuse ethical and legal, but I was just saying its legal backing would be one way to justify doing it.

12/14/2006 8:30:32 AM

i just want to understand where McDanger comes from when he throws out the ethics factor

I think he may be applying a bit too much theoretical understanding

and not enough practical understanding

[Edited on December 14, 2006 at 8:34 AM. Reason : ps mcdanger i know you're a smart, reasonable guy...but i think you're off here]

12/14/2006 8:31:42 AM

Gee I dunno. The people there elected a Democrat. Do you think it's ethical to use this guy's stroke as an opportunity to go against that and seize power?

[Edited on December 14, 2006 at 8:34 AM. Reason : assuming he were to have a stroke etc]

12/14/2006 8:34:26 AM

last i checked that was the proscribed course of action

there's government

and then theres politics

and you're implying that you can separate one from the other, when in fact they're symbiotic, and cannot coexist without one another

12/14/2006 8:59:02 AM

I mean I know it's the obvious political choice, but that doesn't make it right.

12/14/2006 9:02:51 AM

i disagree

i think the best remedy is to change the course of action that occurs in this case if people feel it is unjust...until then, the governor is well within all boundaries to appoint whomever he wants...

thats pure democracy in action



people have this absurd retroactive expectation of "justice" when the cards dont come up their way, for either party....however we're all bound to play by all the rules we create until we decide to change them one way or another

[Edited on December 14, 2006 at 9:13 AM. Reason : .]

12/14/2006 9:12:10 AM

its not wrong it is just picking the guy who got the next most votes

12/14/2006 9:47:50 AM

^Sure, but it doesn't mean that the voters considered him the second best option. They probably would have elected another democrat first.

12/14/2006 10:00:13 AM

^^^ There's no such thing as pure democracy in America. It takes a shitstorm to have a group of citizens actually get their representatives to change anything.

[Edited on December 14, 2006 at 10:03 AM. Reason : .]

12/14/2006 10:03:38 AM

i know, it's by design

[Edited on December 14, 2006 at 10:04 AM. Reason : .]

12/14/2006 10:04:28 AM

It would not be complete out of precedence to appoint his wife. That way the governor would avoid the political and ethical debate.

^ with that said, i'm not sure there is precedence for this particlar situation (I will continue to look) with the balance of power at stake. It should be interesting.

If I was the governor, I would respect the results of the last election and appoint his wife. Considering Sen. Johnson was reelection in 2002 and ran unopposed. Not to mention he is very, very popular in SD.

[Edited on December 14, 2006 at 10:16 AM. Reason : more info]

12/14/2006 10:08:42 AM

the thing is... it makes sense to have an appointment, in most cases.

in this case, however, it's not just a senatorial appointment, it's deciding the balance of power. no one man should have that type of authority.

12/14/2006 10:09:26 AM

i don't buy your "balance of power argument"

the races ended up like they did, both sides exercised maximum effort, and we've got what we got

the circumstances are what they are

and you cant cry foul no matter what your party affilliation just because it isnt going to end up breaking your way after all

there's nothing fair or unfair about it...and it goes both ways, if the situation were reversed

12/14/2006 10:16:40 AM

^^^you can't argue emotionally to answer a debate of practicality

[Edited on December 14, 2006 at 10:18 AM. Reason : .]


ill stop posting because im repeating myself now, but we obviously view this from polar opposite perspectives

[Edited on December 14, 2006 at 10:19 AM. Reason : .]

12/14/2006 10:18:07 AM

"in this case, however, it's not just a senatorial appointment, it's deciding the balance of power. no one man should have that type of authority"

that was a very good point.

However, Ryan is right, we can't control the situation we are faced with. I'm sure our forefathers did not envision this particular scenario. Or maybe they did.

12/14/2006 10:20:06 AM

it's actually a terrible point from a perspective of the process, which is ultimately what this boils down to

you either buy into the system (which allows for change, only not always when it's convenient)

or it collapses under its own inability to have firm processes which can and should be executed upon and not subject to the whim of poltical winds having shifted. two years ago and this isnt even an issue other than a senator having a medical condition.

you have to have respect for the process or else you have nothing

12/14/2006 10:23:15 AM

I get that we should respect the process, it's just that in this case the process allows for something it wasn't really designed for (deciding the balance of power)... there ought to be some sort of check on this type of thing.

12/14/2006 10:28:24 AM