U.S. Senate: Burning Down the House

The Rumble in Minnesota is over. No, really, it's over. I can't decide if I'll miss the abusrdity, or if I'm glad that a no-longer-funny joke is at its end.

Republican Norm Coleman ended his bruising eight-month court fight over Minnesota's U.S. Senate seat this afternoon, conceding to Democrat Al Franken after the Minnesota Supreme Court ruled in Franken's favor.

The justices ruled today that Franken won the U.S. Senate election and said he is entitled to an election certificate that would lead to him being seated in the Senate.

"Affirmed," wrote the Supreme Court, unanimously rejecting Coleman's claims that inconsistent practices by local elections officials and wrong decisions by a lower court had denied him victory.

Two hours after the decision was released, Coleman said he would "abide by the results."

Within minutes, Gov. Tim Pawlenty's office removed the last hurdle to Franken's being seated in the Senate, saying he would sign Franken's certificate of election.

"Further litigation damages the unity of our state," Coleman said during a news conference held at his St. Paul home. "The future today is that we have a new United States senator."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

Wonkette sums it up nicely:

Remember back in 1780-something, when we had actual smart people writing our founding documents in beautiful longhand when they weren’t inventing new kinds of ploughs and bifocals and ****? Now our nation’s top legislators just type away like petulant teenage girls, with their thumbs, about how the president is so awful for spending the weekend in Paris. We are all stupider for having read this.

---

Oh come on. Wonkette thrives on that very culture.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

The Rumble in Minnesota is over. No, really, it's over. I can't decide if I'll miss the abusrdity, or if I'm glad that a no-longer-funny joke is at its end.

---

Congratulations. The vast Democratic majority is now officially a joke.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

The Rumble in Minnesota is over. No, really, it's over. I can't decide if I'll miss the abusrdity, or if I'm glad that a no-longer-funny joke is at its end.

---

Some might say it's just starting. :beam:

I look forward to seeing how the Democrats solve all the country's problems with their filibuster proof majority. :sweatdrop:

I still had my hopes up for the Lizard People and their reform-minded platform.

I know, ATPG, I was rooting for the lizard people too. At least we still have Sleestax ...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xiahou

I look forward to seeing how the Democrats solve all the country's problems with their filibuster proof majority.

---

If they can involve us in two wars and pass something as ineffective and expensive as Medicare D, I will be duly impressed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

If they can involve us in two wars and pass something as ineffective and expensive as Medicare D, I will be duly impressed.

---

Well, just a few months in and we've got a $787bn+ stimulus (part D is estimated to cost less than than thru 2015) that was promised to keep unemployment under 8%, the house passed a cap and trade travesty that's reviled on both the left and right and we're looking at a healthcare reform package that's likely to call for huge new taxes in the midst of a recession. Not bad for just over 5 months- you've gotta give em time though. Franken isn't even sworn in yet.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xiahou

Well, just a few months in and we've got a $700bn+ stimulus that was promised to keep unemployment under 8%

---

Keeping in mind that most of it hasn't even hit the economy yet - I don't think you can blame rising unemployment on the stimulus package.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CountArach

Keeping in mind that most of it hasn't even hit the economy yet - I don't think you can blame rising unemployment on the stimulus package.

---

So what are you arguing? That Obama didn't claim it would keep unemployment under 8%? You just seem to be confirming what the critics have said- that the spending is too slow to make a difference.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xiahou

So what are you arguing? That Obama didn't claim it would keep unemployment under 8%? You just seem to be confirming what the critics have said- that the spending is too slow to make a difference.

---

I think that Obama's promise was irresponsible and he shouldn't have made it. But to then draw that out into an attack on the Stimulus package as a whole is wrong. I think that it will bring unemployment back into check far faster than doing nothing or tax cuts and that is all I was saying.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

The Rumble in Minnesota is over. No, really, it's over. I can't decide if I'll miss the abusrdity, or if I'm glad that a no-longer-funny joke is at its end.

---

Whew. The people of Minnesota finally have the same level of representation as the rest of the States. I'd be plenty mad if I were them, being taxed without representation and all.

Meanwhile, they still haven't fixed the disparate way their precincts count votes, which led to this debacle in the first place. If they don't get to work on that soon, and there's another close election, they'll face the same problem again, and again.

Although the Dems have a 60-seat supermajority in theory, the reality may be a bit more squishy:

First, even if Franken is seated, he will not make for a particularly crisp #60. Though no one wants to say it, it is not clear that Sen. Ted Kennedy will ever vote again in the Senate, given his medical condition. Massachusetts lawmakers are already quietly jockeying for his seat. A replacement senator in Massachusetts needs to be chosen by the electorate (the governor has no role), which could mean weeks, even months, for primary and general election campaigns to be conducted. Meanwhile, after a month in the hospital, Sen. Robert Byrd was released today to continue his recovery at home, but the 91-year-old remains in delicate health.

Even if senators always voted party-line, which they don’t, it takes 60 senators present and voting to vote cloture. Democrats aren’t there yet.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

Although the Dems have a 60-seat supermajority in theory, the reality may be a bit more squishy:

First, even if Franken is seated, he will not make for a particularly crisp #60. Though no one wants to say it, it is not clear that Sen. Ted Kennedy will ever vote again in the Senate, given his medical condition. Massachusetts lawmakers are already quietly jockeying for his seat. A replacement senator in Massachusetts needs to be chosen by the electorate (the governor has no role), which could mean weeks, even months, for primary and general election campaigns to be conducted. Meanwhile, after a month in the hospital, Sen. Robert Byrd was released today to continue his recovery at home, but the 91-year-old remains in delicate health.

Even if senators always voted party-line, which they don’t, it takes 60 senators present and voting to vote cloture. Democrats aren’t there yet.

---

Good reminder. All due respect to both Senators Kennedy and Byrd, but it would be best for their respective constituencies if both gentlemen were to resign as of X date in the not-to-distant future so that their states might get the appropriate wheels turning. I do not say this for partisan purposes -- both would be replaced by fairly like-minded "noobs" in all likelihood -- but they are leaving their states as under-represented as was Minnesota until recently.

I think Franken's a putz, but he should have been seated in January -- the numbers were never on Coleman's side albeit by a thin margin -- Minnesotans deserve the representation they chose.

On the other hand, I think the direct election of Senators (17th ammendment) has had profoundly negative effects on the United States as a whole and that however well-intentioned, the unintended consequences are horrific and we should revert to the previous set-up. But what do I know....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

It seems that the Sleestax will, in fact, battle the Mummy King in the PA Dem primary.

---

So, as I see this, one of two things is happening...

1) The Obama is going back on a promise to see to it that Specter would not be opposed in the PA Democratic primary. I consider this the most likely scenario.... get Specter crapping his pants and make CERTAIN that Specter always stands with the herd on cloture votes.

2) Sestak is going to run, even in light of Obama's opposition. Highly unlikely. Obama is the GOD of political pull right now. Him showing up for a single Specter "get out the vote" rally would guarantee Sestak's demise not only in the primary, but in Democratic political circles forever. He cannot be that stupid or blindly ambitious.

So, if Democrats don't keep promises to themselves, what can the rest of us expect?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Corleone

Obama is going back on a promise to see to it that Specter would not be opposed in the PA Democratic primary. I consider this the most likely scenario....

---

Pretty sure POTUS has no say in who can run in a state primary. Even a popular President does not have that power.

Also, don't forget one of the defining characteristics of the Democratic Party: anarchy. Thia ain't the GOP we're talking about, it's the Dems. If Sleestax wants to defy Obama and run against Specter, he'll do so. About the only thing Obama can do to oppose him is direct DNC funds toward the Mummy King.

Remember, Don, no matter how many magazine covers a politician graces, we're not talking about royalty here. We're still a Republic. If Obama promised Specter he would run unpposed (and I've never seen that documented, so I'd love a linkie), the the Obammesiah was writing checks he can't cash.

What? Nothing on the Dems losing Teddy's seat? I'm appalled....
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/the...l?hpid=topnews

Health care is probably toast. To the Dems with their inability to govern, Nelson Muntz has something to say...

Overall, I'm not sure how I feel about this. If it means the death of Obamacare, I guess it's a good thing. But, I don't think the GOP has spent enough time in the wilderness yet to have learned from the mistakes that got them out of power in the first place.....

Also, with 60 votes in the Senate, Democrats had noone to blame but themselves for their inability to accomplish anything besides pork and kickbacks. Now they'll have GOP filibusters to blame for not being able to pass their unpopular policies.

Well, the GOP isn't out of the wilderness yet, and probably won't be in charge after the midterms, but this is a definite wakeup call to the Democrats. I'm just happy to have a speed bump in the sausage making process. Uncle Ted must be spinning pretty fast.

The irony being it was Teddy's political maneuvering designed to keep republicans out of office that led to this (Back in 04, he got the state to change the law so replacement Senators wouldn't be appointed by the governor, then Mitt Romney, and instead be elected).

:laugh4:

Also, respect for Jim Webb:

Quote:

---

Sen. Jim Webb puts out a statement that puts the notion of a quick Senate vote out of reach and pretty much makes a certification fight moot:

In many ways the campaign in Massachusetts became a referendum not only on health care reform but also on the openness and integrity of our government process. It is vital that we restore the respect of the American people in our system of government and in our leaders. To that end, I believe it would only be fair and prudent that we suspend further votes on health care legislation until Senator-elect Brown is seated.

And good luck getting Lieberman to vote for cloture this week, anyway.

---

I do hope the GOP doesn't get to big headed about this.

CR

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jim Webb

In many ways the campaign in Massachusetts became a referendum not only on health care reform but also on the openness and integrity of our government process.

---

Except that Massachusetts already has Universal Healthcare and thus would not be impacted all too heavily by this.

I'm interested in what this will mean for the Senate tactics of the Dems. Hopefully less pandering to Liebermann because 60 is pretty much out of reach.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CountArach

Except that Massachusetts already has Universal Healthcare and thus would not be impacted all too heavily by this.

I'm interested in what this will mean for the Senate tactics of the Dems. Hopefully less pandering to Liebermann because 60 is pretty much out of reach.

---

John Stewert said something about this last night, namely that the Republicans never had such as large majority when George W. Bush "did whatever the **** he wanted", and that you have to go back to the 1920's in order to find such a majority.

So, Democrats < Labour.

Were I an American, I would be upset. Obama had a clear mandate to introduce Health Care reform, and it's not just that the Republicans (Since they turned out more than Dems or Inds) of Mass. (Which has healthcare) should be able to decide whether the rest of the America has affordable healthcare or not. Republican politicians, feel ashamed of yourselves.

are you kidding yourself........

have you ever been to massachusetts the democrats have a huge nummbers advantage oover republicans. plenty of democrats who voted for obama and ted kennedy went with brown instead.


shame on democrats for losing an election in a state that even Mcgovern could win in the 60's

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Subotan

Were I an American, I would be upset. Obama had a clear mandate to introduce Health Care reform, and it's not just that the Republicans (Since they turned out more than Dems or Inds) of Mass. (Which has healthcare) should be able to decide whether the rest of the America has affordable healthcare or not. Republican politicians, feel ashamed of yourselves.

---

Gee, considering the sinking opinion of their state healthcare in Massachusetts, maybe they didn't want it nationwide. And IIRC only a minority supports the healthcare bill now - so this result is a mandate of the nation on that issue.

Quote:

---

I'm interested in what this will mean for the Senate tactics of the Dems. Hopefully less pandering to Liebermann because 60 is pretty much out of reach.

---

Does Lieberman really affect you? :inquisitive: Anyway, I found an amusing post on dailykos, which suggested they would dump Lieberman at the earliest opportunity. And I thought wow, you just lost a seat in a state so blue their ketchup is purple, and your reaction is to start targeting other Democrats and those not ideologically pure enough? :laugh4:

CR

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

And I thought wow, you just lost a seat in a state so blue their ketchup is purple, and your reaction is to start targeting other Democrats and those not ideologically pure enough?

---

Indeed, a destructive urge to purge seems to be infecting both sides of the aisle. I'd prefer not to see Dems engage in the left-wing equivalent of a RINO hunt. (I guess it would be a DINO hunt?)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Subotan

Were I an American, I would be upset. Obama had a clear mandate to introduce Health Care reform, and it's not just that the Republicans (Since they turned out more than Dems or Inds) of Mass. (Which has healthcare) should be able to decide whether the rest of the America has affordable healthcare or not. Republican politicians, feel ashamed of yourselves.

---

No, Obama did not have a clear mandate to introduce health care. He had a clear mandate to not be George W. Bush.

Then why did John McCain (Or Ron Paul hehe) not win?

Because Obama was able to successfully deliver the (untrue) message of McCain == Bush.

Sarah Palin didn't help either.

So, regardless of what Obama's policies were, he would have got elected?

Pretty much. I can say with a fair degree of certainty that without President George W. Bush there would have been no President Barack Hussein Obama.

People had had enough of the republicans and elected democrats instead is what you're saying?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro

People had had enough of the republicans and elected democrats instead is what you're saying?

---

No, not what he's saying. Obviously George W. Bush was seen as a sub-prime President by a large majority of the United States. I believe the final polling of his administration had something like a 25% approval rating, and I'm pretty sure his admin holds the U.S. record for highest disapproval rating for the longest period of time. That's no small thing.

So it's not unfair to say that the '08 election was a very specific rejection of the Bush admin, not republicans in general.

I don't know that all the senators and representatives rode on obama's wings though. Some of them did for sure. Or that McCain lost because he was "just like bush", aka also republican. But then I missed the point of the argument in the first place, so...

You only have a clear mandate if it's the right thing to do, no matter if everyone who voted for you wants you to do it. Otherwise all the congressman have a clear mandate to hand out as much pork as they can, which is what was being complained about with the health care bill.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

Does Lieberman really affect you? :inquisitive: Anyway, I found an amusing post on dailykos, which suggested they would dump Lieberman at the earliest opportunity. And I thought wow, you just lost a seat in a state so blue their ketchup is purple, and your reaction is to start targeting other Democrats and those not ideologically pure enough? :laugh4:

CR

---

He doesn't affect me directly (well not on domestic issues at least), but in the interests of International solidarity, he does. He isn't a Democrat either, he ditched the party because he wasn't ideologically pure enough to win the primary.

http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/02/...ex.html?hpt=T1
Sen. Evan Bayh (D-Indiana) decides not to run for reelection, citing disgust with the Senate and Congress in general. Is he trying to get the stink off for a 2012 challenge to Obama? Now the Dems have to pay for another campaign to keep the seat.

What's with everybody who's supposed to challenge Obama in 2012? Rush has been banging the drum that it's Hillary, now it's Bayh? As I've said before, I cannot think of an example of a sitting President being unseated in a primary. Why would savvy politicians stake their careers on such an unlikely outcome?

That Hillary rumor first came up last month when she mentioned that she only wanted to serve one term as Sec. of State. Many Dems that are looking for re-election this year fear they will lose, and some aren't even going to run, choosing to "retire" instead. All those lost jobs aren't coming back anytime soon, and anti-incumbency fervor is as high as I ever remember it. Compared to Obama's policies the Republicans look like the anti-big guvmint party and Hillary looks like a conservative. Perceptions are reality in politics.

It probably depends on who the Republican candidate is going to be, but if Democrats feel Hillary or whoever has a better chance to hold the presidency...it could happen. Especially if Obama can't turn things around.

The quad-trillion dollar question is who will the Republicans run for President? Palin, Condi Rice, Colin Powell, ????

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

What's with everybody who's supposed to challenge Obama in 2012? Rush has been banging the drum that it's Hillary, now it's Bayh? As I've said before, I cannot think of an example of a sitting President being unseated in a primary. Why would savvy politicians stake their careers on such an unlikely outcome?

---

None was passed over during the primary era unless they opted out (Johnson 1968). The only time a sitting President who was eligible was not nominated was Franklin Pierce in 1856. We ended up with that most amazing of Presidents, Buchannan.

Quote:

---

The only time a sitting President who was eligible was not nominated was Franklin Pierce in 1856.

---

I didnt even know he existed until last year in my ap us history class, most worthless president therefore in my book.

So why do you guys think this Bayh actually drop from the senate? Is it really "fear"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Centurion1

I didnt even know he existed until last year in my ap us history class, most worthless president therefore in my book.

So why do you guys think this Bayh actually drop from the senate? Is it really "fear"

---

I don't really think so. He had a pretty good chance at getting reelected.

I think any potential Democratic candidates for nominee are going to wait until very near when the primaries begin before they commit to running.

CR

cant argue with you there.

any takes on the multi show argument between biden and cheney.

i doo find it a little outrageous for obama-biden to claim any of the credit for iraq for themselves.