Threat of a filibuster-proof Democratic majority or not, I find it nigh impossible to regret the defeat of Ted Stevens. Honorable service in Congress. Dishonorable ending. Good riddance.
Now if only there were a way to take Don Young out in a 2010 primary.
Posted by Eric Earling at November 18, 2008 08:35 PM | Email ThisLosing a filibuster in the Senate would be almost as disastrous as the Obama election. We needed Stevens seat, even if a month later he's replaced by someone else, a Republican.
This sort of self-immolating misplaced "purity" on the so-called right, just like the GOP house behavior at the time of the initial bailout package, is bizarre.
Posted by: DomWalk on November 18, 2008 10:37 PMYou're missing a critical point - the filibuster is a simple rule of the Senate. It's not in the Constitution. And Senate rules are set at the start of each Congress. Meaning in January, when the 111th Congress starts, the Senate - by simple majority - can change the rules regarding the filibuster.
I see it changed in one of 3 ways:
1. Completely eliminated.
2. Number needed to overcome a filibuster is dropped down to 55.
3. Filibuster requires constant presence of a majority of those supporting the filibuster (right now, you only have to declare you want one and it's on until overturned or upheld - you and your supporters do not have to be present).
My guess is the Slavery Party tries for number 2, but if they get too much flack they'll settle for number 3, which virtually breaks the filibuster.
The filibuster is gone. And that is too bad. But Stevens is gone, and that is great news. Now if we can only get the Slavery Party to clean up their own ranks with the likes of Reid (land scandals), Pelosi (billion dollar no-bid contracts to her husband's companies), Jefferson ($100K in the freezer), Rangel (tax fraud and housing fraud), and all the other criminals they have in their midst...
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on November 18, 2008 10:49 PMI haven't seen you spew anything about the ethically or legally challenged members of the democrat party that ran for re-election... so save it for your bath house buddies.
Posted by: Hinton on November 18, 2008 11:23 PMIn that way, no one could accuse Republicans (who did quite ok at the state and local levels across the US) of "hampering" any of the wonderful and fantastic plans of the Democrats to save the world.
Getting rid of all the baggage like Stevens of national level Republicans who dragged down the party and rebuilding with the new crowd of Jindal and Palin and others who are intelligent and of the 21st century and not having to carry a bunch of doofuses gives us 4 years running room to rebuild.
Posted by: John Bailo on November 19, 2008 05:28 AMThis may be somewhat out of context, but it fits in the overall theme. But, isn't it great that Obama is bringing back the old crew instead of those we greatly feared? I know I spent many nights the past few months projecting a John Kerry Secretary of State, a Bill Ayres Secretary of Defense and a Wright as Attorney General. (Or types like those)
Now, it looks like Gates will stay on, at least for a while. I can probably live with the disagreements, but at least it may not be disastrous.
Posted by: swatter on November 19, 2008 07:20 AMUnfortunately, no, the Republicans didn't take out their trash. The voters did. If the Republican's had taken out their trash in the primary and replaced Steven's with someone else for the general election, the seat would still be in Republican hands. That should be a lesson for us.
But you are right about Democrats. They love their Freezer Cash Jeffersons and Friends of Angelo Dodds.
Posted by: JMH on November 19, 2008 09:32 AMYou just can't dictate what the voters will do, in the primaries or the general election. I mean, look at the bums on the 'Rat side who keep getting re-elected, slimemolds like Jefferson, and Hastings in Florida, or the one guy back in the '60s from NYC who had to hide out in Bimini to avoid getting arrested. They all keep/kept getting elected and the 'rats never made any moves to kick them out. But the party leadership can make the decision at the caucus level to seek expulsion. The 'Rats would have to go along, of course, so it's problematic.
The 'Rats should have done that with their scumbums, Jefferson, and Klansman Robert Byrd.
Posted by: Interested Observer on November 19, 2008 10:48 AMWilliam Jefferson - crooked Democrt with bribe money in the freezer - promoted to Homaelnd Sec. Committee.
Charles Rangle - Chairman of Ways and Means - a tax cheat.
Tim Mahoney - whose predecessor resigned in the wake of a sex scandal, agreed to a $121,000 payment to a former mistress who worked on his staff and was threatening to sue him
Rats keep their crooks and promote them. Republicans take out the trash.
Posted by: pbj on November 19, 2008 10:55 AMhttp://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/results/individual/#FLH16
Posted by: T.J. on November 19, 2008 11:20 AMI'm not sure you've been reading my posts very long, because the totality of that work reveals someone who is far from a purist. Furthermore, I was critical of the House GOP's handling of the financial crisis, a subject to which you allude.
More to the point, the Republican party is a broad coalition in which many disparate voices should be welcome (example: a US Senate caucus ranging from Tom Coburn and Jim Demint to Olympia Snowe and Arlen Specter).
Stevens, however, despite his long and largely reputable service which I noted in the original post, is nonetheless a troubling double-poster child for the GOP. His "bring home the bacon" approach to the budget has played an active role in soiling the public's view of Republican fiscal stewardship. Meanwhile, his conviction for corruption - not exactly unheard of in Alaska GOP politics these days - is a glaring stain on a party still trying to get past all the damaging news of 2006 in the same genre.
And yes, we need Stevens's seat. I would have preferred that he won for that reason (and said as much either on Election Night or shortly thereafter). Yet, in the long-term he needed to go. That the voters of Alaska beat the Senate GOP caucus to the punch is not entirely a bad thing.
Posted by: Eric Earling on November 19, 2008 06:00 PMI do like how this is the only bad thing about Republicans running a convicted felon for office.
I'm not a Democrat (a phrase which seems to have as much meaning, around here, as "Governor Gregoire"), but if I did, I'd ask when and where the Democrats ran a convicted felon for an office as high as our federal Senate.
But hey, please keep humiliating yourselves with the li(n)e about how Republicans reject felons. If Republican votes were the only ones which mattered in Alaska(!), felon Stevens would serve them until our Democratically-controlled Senate sent him packing.
Posted by: tensor on November 19, 2008 11:28 PMYou are right. The Dems do not run convicted felons for high office. They only run Grand Wizards of the Ku Klux Klan (Byrd: D-WV) and drunken co-ed drowners (Kennedy, D-MA). And that 90 grand in Jefferson's (D-LA) freezer - "Why I have no idea how that got in there, officer! Must've fallen out of the box of frozen fish sticks."
But I am glad to see Stevens go. Those to whom we give the power of making the rules which we must obey must obey them themselves. The minute they don't, they become tyrants, and at the very least should be thrown from office. I would prefer adding tar and feathers, exile, or prison.
Sic Semper Tryannis.
Posted by: Steve on November 20, 2008 02:46 PMA large majority of Republican voters in Alaska just disagreed with you. They wanted him on OUR payroll until the federal agents hauled him out of OUR Senate in chains.
As for the half-century old tripe about Byrd, would one of you please tell me why past racism is bad only if the racist reforms himself? Strom Thurmond and Jesse Helms were revered as true conservatives until they died, and they were the most bitter and hateful of racists.
Again, please name the felon the Democrats ran for a Senate seat.
Posted by: tensor on November 20, 2008 07:07 PM