U.S. Senate: Burning Down the House

**Lemur** · 02-28-2009, 03:32

Senator Bunning (R-KY) threatens to quit if GOP gives him a hard time. Since Kentucky has a Dem Governor, this would put the Dems into the 60-seat supermajority that nobody thought they would ever get. Freaky.

Already in conflict with his party’s leaders, Sen. Jim Bunning has reportedly said privately that if he is hindered in raising money for his re-election campaign he is ready with a response that would be politically devastating for Senate Republicans: his resignation. [...]

The implication, they said, was that Bunning would allow Kentucky Gov. Steve Beshear, a Democrat, to appoint his replacement — a move that could give Democrats the 60 votes they need to block Republican filibusters in the Senate.

“I would get the last laugh. Don’t forget Kentucky has a Democrat governor,” one of the sources quoted Bunning as saying.

“The only logical extension of that comment is, ‘(Make me mad) … enough and I’ll resign, and then you’ve got 60 Democrats,’ ” said another source who was present at the event.

That was the clear message Bunning was sending, said a third source who heard the senator’s remarks at the fundraiser, which attracted about 15 people.

**seireikhaan** · 02-28-2009, 03:47

Wow...

I'm not sure what surprises me more: that anybody would threaten their party with such a maneuver, or that Kentucky has a Democratic governor.

**Major Robert Dump** · 02-28-2009, 04:56

Oh come on dude, not all democrats are liberal. I'd be willing to bet that Kentucky probably is like Oklahoma and is majority democrat registered voters, with conservative voting tendencies. If the guvnah wants to be re-elected he would stick with the wishes of his constituents.

I really think this guys threat is a bluff, and even if its not people are so damned paranoid.....didn't happen in new york city like the paranoids thought it would, eh? I think some Republicans wanted Caroline Kennedy to get the seat so they could have someone else to vilify, and be closer to a fillibuster-proof dem majority, that way everything that happens can be blamed soley on the dems.

It used to be about having a majority. Now its all about a fillibuster proof majoruty. It's really sad that federal level offices have degraded into this wrangling. I can't wait for Clancey-esq poisonings and call girl scandals to begin

**Xiahou** · 02-28-2009, 06:19

Originally Posted by Lemur

Senator Bunning (R-KY) threatens to quit if GOP gives him a hard time. Since Kentucky has a Dem Governor, this would put the Dems into the 60-seat supermajority that nobody thought they would ever get.

My response: Don't let the door hit you on the way out.

**Seamus Fermanagh** · 03-02-2009, 02:09

If he does opt out and the Dems get their 60, we would finally see bipartisanship calls stop. The Dems are not afraid to KATN when they have power.

**Lemur** · 03-03-2009, 19:23

It's official, Norm Coleman has asked for a do-over. I'm not convinced that Minnesota really needs two Senators. They seem to be managing with just one ...

For more than a month, Norm Coleman stressed flaws in Minnesota's election system. And on Monday, Coleman lawyer Jim Langdon wrote the three-judge panel to suggest the problems are so serious they may not be able to declare a winner.

"Some courts have held that when the number of illegal votes exceeds the margin between the candidates—and it cannot be determined for which candidate those illegal votes were cast—the most appropriate remedy is to set aside the election," Langdon wrote in a letter to the court.

**Seamus Fermanagh** · 03-03-2009, 20:44

A "do-over?" Shades of the 3rd-grade playground....sounds about the right level.

**Kralizec** · 03-03-2009, 20:48

Some courts have held that when the number of illegal votes exceeds the margin between the candidates—and it cannot be determined for which candidate those illegal votes were cast—the most appropriate remedy is to set aside the election," Langdon wrote in a letter to the court.

Actually I think that's reasonable, assuming that "illegal votes" includes ballots who weren't counted because of technicalities. What kind of mandate are we talking about when you win by a couple of votes whereas a butload of them were rejected?

**seireikhaan** · 03-03-2009, 23:39

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

A "do-over?" Shades of the 3rd-grade playground....sounds about the right level.

Indeed...

I thought we had agreed upon "no takesy-backsies".

**Lemur** · 03-25-2009, 04:39

I'm not sure when, but at some point this stopped being funny ...

Former Sen. Norm Coleman is still considering taking his election lawsuit to federal court if he’s unsuccessful in reversing Al Franken’s 225-vote lead in the Minnesota Senate recount. [...] “I’m not ruling out anything,” Coleman said. “I think Minnesotans deserve to know each and every vote was counted fairly — that there’s a uniform standard. If that can be done at a trial level, that’s great. If it takes an appellate level to do that, then, you know, we have to look at that. But I’m not looking forward. I’m looking at where we’re at today, and right now, today, we’re waiting.”

Coleman’s basic argument in the recount case is that a slew of absentee votes have not been counted and other ballots were double counted. Some of the court’s early rulings during the seven-week trial have led many legal experts to believe that Coleman’s chances of winning at the trial level are slim.

After the lunch with Coleman, Sen. John Cornyn, head of the National Republican Senatorial Committee, said he would expect the court challenge to go on for a while — potentially years.

“I know it seems it’s gone on for a long time already, but this could go on for a long time,” Cornyn said. “Appeals take months, if not years, sometimes.”