A temporary lapse back to political blogging
This just hit my inbox:
__________________________________
NEWS ALERT
from The Wall Street Journal
Dec. 13, 2006
Democratic Sen. Tim Johnson of South Dakota suffered a possible stroke Wednesday and was taken to a hospital, his office said. If he should be unable to continue to serve, it could impede the scheduled Democratic takeover of the Senate. Democrats won a 51-49 majority in November, but South Dakota's governor, who would appoint any temporary replacement, is a Republican.
For more information, see:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB116604516212049325.html?mod=djemalert
__________________________________
And it occurred to me that, in the unfortunate event Senator Johnson is unable to continue to serve, I'd consider it rather shitty for South Dakota Gov. Mike Rounds to appoint a Republican to the slot.
Hey, I'm all for what I consider the potentially less-damaging of the two parties controlling the Senate, but I'm more in favor of respecting the voters' wishes. And the voters elected a Democrat in 2002, so they should have a Democrat in that Senate seat until 2008.
Or am I looking at this too simplistically?
[wik] "Mr. Johnson won his 2002 bid for reelection in the predominantly Republican state by just 524 votes out of more than 334,000 votes cast." So there's that. But a win's a win, and a miss is as good as a mile.
on
| § 7
§ 7 Comments
[ You're too late, comments are closed ]
Of course it's the way it
Of course it's the way it works.
Johnson's been a pretty good senator, from all I can tell, and has served his state well without overtly hurting other states' interests.
Which causes me to think: Is it the fact he's a Democrat that's made him a good senator? The answer's probably no, and in the unfortunate event, should it occur, SD's governor can safely do whatever he thinks is best for his state, without worrying about putting my future votes for him at risk.
The underlying thing here is that of COURSE nominating a Republican would be shitty. What about politics isn't?
Happily (from my standpoint), this could be a moot point, as they've found and supposedly fixed the congenital problem that triggered his symptoms.
Of course, the FSB poisoned
Of course, the FSB poisoned him on orders from Putin, at the request of his soul mate the Bushhitler. Any recovery will only be temporary, I assure you. The RepubliKKKans aren't done stealing this election yet.
We're pretty far from
We're pretty far from replacing Johnson, but as shitty as it might seem to replace him with a Republican (and I would prefer a Democratic Senate), the governor is also an elected official, and technically, Senators serve at the behest of the State, not the Voters.
What would be a tragedy is if Gov. Rounds appoints someone a Republican who reflects the desires of the national party rather than South Dakotans. It's a Republican state, but recent elections show a shift to the left in the state legislature. Moreover, moderate Dems have a history of success. That voters rejected Rounds' project to ban abortion is probably a good guage of where politics are.
Patton - Voting for Harry
Patton - Voting for Harry Reid as Senate Majority Leader would hurt other states' interests.
Bram: Sadly, that's a vote he
Bram: Sadly, that's a vote he wouldn't even need to cast. I'm sure Olympia Snowe would vote that way in his place.
I see your point, however, I
I see your point, however, I cannot remember a Democratic governor ever appointing a Republican Congressional replacement. Just the way it works.
Why the Hell is their a
Why the Hell is their a Democratic Senator from South Dakota anyhow?