Seating Franken
Its time for the D's to play hard ball.
As I understand it the Seated Senators vote to accept and/or reject the newly elected, and re-elected, Senators to be seated.
This mean that with 36 Existing D votes, minus Obama's seat, and 27 existing R's with 2 Independents ( Sanders and Lierman) that if the R's want to play hard ball by refusing to seat Franken the D's should respond by refusing to seat McConnell. If they wish to continue to play games the D's could refuse to seat Cornyn.
An interesting fact of this election is that where the R's leadership has just gotten re elected ( McConnell, Cornyn, Graham) and are thus vulnerable to challenge the D's leadership ( such as such spineless being can be called) are already seated. Thus the R's are more vulnerable to losing their first team until they see reason and since they are southern rethuglicans that is unlikely to happen.
Considering that the rethug's have already shown that they are going to be as obstructionist and partisan as possible the idea that such an action would damage the comity of the senate is moot. The only thing it would do is show that the D's will no longer be passive punching bags.
It's time the D's have the votes use them.
Advertisement
I like it. Both Cornyn (who, we might recall, rationalized assassination of members of the judiciary he did not agree with) and Miss McConnell, for no other reason than his very smarminess, need to be obstructed.
January 4, 2009 3:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
I am lost in your number system. Eventually, if Franken gets in we would have 57 Dems, 2 independents and there would be 41 Reps.
That is assuming Colorado, New York and Illinois are straightened out.
But any way the dems can piss off republicans, it is ok with me.
January 4, 2009 8:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
"I am lost in your number system. Eventually, if Franken gets in we would have 57 Dems, 2 independents and there would be 41 Reps."
Those numbers are after the "new" 35 + plus appointments are seated. My numbers are before they are seated.
The Senators who did not have to run this cycle are the ones who, I believe, vote to accept those who just won an election or were newly appointed. so 100 - (35+Ill+Co+NY).
January 4, 2009 8:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
I get it. I figured it was something like that. Please, I know that you are not an idiot.
Thanks for clearing that up.
January 4, 2009 9:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wouldn't it be easier if we just mark all the place-settings at the adult table "Democrat" and then mark all the place-settings at the kiddie table "Other"?
Heh heh...
Frankly, I just want Franken seated.
January 5, 2009 12:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
Any way we can do all this while deseating Lieberman? Hey, a guy can dream.
January 5, 2009 1:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry. In order to "play hardball," the Dems would have to HAVE some balls.
January 5, 2009 2:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
You are correct. By disposition or by conviction, the Dems lack or refuse to use "political balls". However, is this bad? We are just coming out of an 8 years administration that "balls" is all it had. I believe that we do for a while without political testosterone.
January 5, 2009 12:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Isn't true that brains always lose to thugs. Unless that kid in 2d grade beat me up for another reason...? We need more thuggish brains. In my history, all the kids that were too smart to fit in with the rest of the football team turned out to be potheads. Hum. They must be all engineers now, i.e., social recluses, having gotten fed up with the rest of us brains and thugs.
January 5, 2009 1:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
OK, I feel bad for resorting to the vocabulary of testosterone . . . the macho-complex in politics definitely is part of the problem in many ways. I would mean the same thing by simply saying, Reid and the Dem leadership lack the courage and the political smarts to know when and how to take a stand.
I apologize for not avoiding the charged vocabulary of "balls" and "nads" and "grow a pair."
And. with that kind of silly rhetoric subtracted, i believe I do have a valid point about our deficient leadership.
January 5, 2009 1:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hey, at least you didn't do the "pu$$y" or "pink tutu" route. Could have been worse! Although Crazy Joe would look good in tights.
January 5, 2009 1:17 PM | Reply | Permalink