Firstly, I think they need to make Leiberman a fair but hard deal.
They certainly, definitely need to remove Leiberman from Homeland Security. At the same time, it shouldn't be taken from him without immediately offering him another substantial chairmanship. Any chairmanship in an area that he's in full agreement with most Democrats would be fine. He should be offered no chair having anything to do with national defense. He should be offered almost any chair in social areas.
If Leiberman goes postal, bring in Susan Collins and Olympia Snow. Tell them that the first to switch parties will get top level committees. The President has a few ways to sweeten such deals. He could offer the Senator a few politically insignificant but luxurious ambassadorships for whomever they like. Monaco, Luxembourg, Fiji.
Given the political winds, I suspect one of them would switch. If neither took the bait, then a Republican Senator or two could probably be peeled off for simple cloture on most votes, perhaps even McCain.
]]>If McCain is promising something substantial in exchange for his friend's pardon, it will carry more weight if he does it in person.
It may have nothing to do with Lieberman. Personally, I think it's likely that McSame will be willing to do a LOT for Obama in order to scrape some of the scum from his heavily tarnished brand.
If so, he might approach Obama with plans to head up a bi-partisan immigration reform bill. Alternatively, it could be health care reform or a Gitmo closure. I suspect it's not health Care as he and Obama differed so substantially on the issue. Neither is it likely Gitmo as Obama probably doesn't need his help to simply move some prisoners around, an executive order would likely cover it.
Who can really say how far McCain is willing to go to redeem himself. At this point he's got nothing to lose and everything to gain. I tend to think McShill campaigned at odds with a lot of his core beliefs. I wouldn't be shocked to see him agree to head bi-partisan efforts on any number of issues.
Though I don't know if a single Republican vote favoring a Democratic bill makes it technically "bi-partisan". Perhaps McCain could drag two or three Republican along with him, probably no more than that. Those two or three votes mean a lot when the Democratic Senate is so close to 60.
]]>Palin as much as admitted to Wolf Blitzer today that she wants Stevens' Senate seat. Until today it wasn't clear if Palin wanted the seat. With that question answered, the rest is fated. If Stevens were to win, he would be ejected and Palin would stand a exceedingly good chance of winning a special election in February or March.
Stevens victor = Senator Palin.
The pending Begich victory puts a huge crimp in Palin's plans for world domination. She obviously wants the hell out of a Alaska, now she's got to stick it out in the hinterlands. A Senator can spend a huge amount of time out of state without taking a hit, a Governor can't.
Two big blows in a little more than a week. Sucks to be Palin, hehe.
]]>All he has to do is switch to the Democratic party come January. If (as I suspect) we win 2 of the 3 still-unresolved Senate races, it will be 59 to 41. A Specter switch would give Senate Dems the 60th vote. It would give Specter:
A. Serious committee chairmanships (Homeland Security anyone?)
B. It would nearly guarantee his re-election.
C. It would put him in the party with a filibusterer proof majority. Senators get a lot more of what they want when they're in the majority party, they get even more when they've got a filibuster proof majority. While those in a filibuster-less minority often get nothing.
Another motivation for Specter is that if he doesn't jump, Susan Collins or Olympia Snow just might beat him to the mark. If the Dems are at 59, they'll play Specter against Snow and Collins, and give the first to switch plum committees.
If Specter's smart, he'll wait until January then switch. For him it would be a win-win-win.
]]>My earlier guess was that the jury had already started to vote on counts, and that they stress they reported to the judge was caused by a deadlock.
Given this new information, that certainly does not seem to be the case. Considering the jury's requests for clarification about the financial disclosure forms, it seems clear they have not yet gone over the evidence for each of the counts, let alone gotten to the point of a deadlocked jury.
So why is this single juror so angry? It would appear as though this single juror is having violent tirades at the simple prospect of discussing the evidence.
This suggests to me that this juror has had enough and wants to Go Home NOW. Perhaps wondering what the hell the rest are messing about with when the evidence is so clear. For whatever reason, this juror is decided on the counts, is in a bad mental place, and suffering from a very strong case of go-home-itis.
The rest of the jury wants to take the responsible course and review each charge. A slow process, one that with each passing minute further and further fuels the ire of the fed up juror who just wants to go home.
My take is that this is Not good news for Stevens. Given that she's a bookkeeper, given that she's from the District, she probably wants to convict.
Well, that's my guess. Anyone else?
Stress means disagreement.
While I don't have any personal jury experience, from what I've seen and read, stressful disagreement in a jury room doesn't typically come from simple discussions of the evidence, it's usually related to non-unanimous votes to convict or acquit.
My guess is that they've taken a vote on at least some, perhaps all of the counts, and are currently deadlocked.
Does this suggest a mostly even split or has a single juror gone against the majority and firmly decided to convict or acquit?
Based on the very strong evidence against Stevens, my complete and total guess would be that the majority wants to convict on most counts, but a single juror wants to acquit because of the prosecutor's screw ups. I could be totally wrong, but that would be my guess.
Then again, maybe they all just wanted the afternoon off.