Master Index of Archived Threads


Sen. Tim Johnson (D, SD)

Yancy Street Gang Dec 14 2006 09:11 AM

The Democrats' hold on the Senate might end before it even begins. Sen. Johnson of South Dakota was hospitalized last night. No official word yet on his condition. (An announcement is expected today.) The governor of South Dakota is a Republican, and he'd get to pick a replacement, if Johnson dies or has to resign. Speculation I heard on the radio says that Johnson can remain in the Senate even if he's completely incapacitated, and that there's a lot of precedent for that. We'll have to see what happens.

Farmer Ted Dec 14 2006 09:14 AM

Most of Congress is incapacitated as it is.

TheOldMole Dec 14 2006 01:39 PM

This not a unprecedented situation. Many senators, from Strom Thurmond to Karl Mundt, have been incapacitated, but did not resign.

Willets Point Dec 14 2006 01:41 PM

I still wonder if Lieberman -- who is Republican in everything but name -- will actually caucus with Democrats or try to exact some revenge and peddle some influence.

Edgy DC Dec 14 2006 01:50 PM

I'm certain that Lieberman will vote for Reid.

Yancy Street Gang Dec 14 2006 02:02 PM

He said after the election that he'd vote with the Democrats.

Yancy Street Gang Dec 14 2006 02:47 PM

="Reuters"] Sen. Johnson in critical, stable condition Thursday, December 14, 2006; 9:23 AM WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. Democratic Sen. Tim Johnson was in critical but stable condition after undergoing brain surgery, a source said on Thursday, reminding Democrats of their precarious hold on the new Senate. The party narrowly wrested control from President George W. Bush's Republicans in the U.S. Congress in last month's elections, gaining just a 51-49 majority in the Senate when it convenes on January 4. However, if Johnson were to leave office, Republicans could gain control of the Senate. The source familiar with the situation said doctors told Johnson's family that there was a cluster of blood vessels in the brain that were bleeding and it was uncertain how long it would take the senator to recover. The source quoted hospital officials as telling Johnson's family and friends that the senator is in "critical but stable condition."

seawolf17 Dec 14 2006 03:20 PM

His career hasn't been the same ever since he lied to the Blue Jays about his military service.

Yancy Street Gang Dec 14 2006 03:26 PM

I bet that even if he's comatose for the next two years, he's not going to relinquish his seat.

Vic Sage Dec 14 2006 04:17 PM

]I still wonder if Lieberman -- who is Republican in everything but name -- will actually caucus with Democrats or try to exact some revenge and peddle some influence. One of the only things he sides with the Republicans on is the war. He may be irked that his fellow Democrats closed ranks on him when the CT branch of the party ran an anti-war Democrat in his place, thats a far cry from being a "Republican in everything but name". He's a moderate Democrat, often liberal on social issues.

Nymr83 Dec 14 2006 05:36 PM

thank you Vic Sage, I was about to make the same correction. Lieberman is conservative on foreign policy and the war on terror in general, but you'd have a hard time distinguishing him from the middle of the democratic party on most other issues. as Tom Delay said yesterday, people need to stop speculating as if T. Johnson is going to die. I also thought of the Blue Jay manager as soon as i heard the story, but it turns it out this guy is a legit veteran.

Frayed Knot Dec 14 2006 11:03 PM

The other thing is that if Lieberman decided to cast his lot w/the Republicans he'd, in effect, be putting himself on the back of the line. He'd lose all his seniority and therefore his pick of committee assignments and so on.

Nymr83 Dec 15 2006 12:59 AM

i think those don't have to be (though they usually are) strictly seniority based, and if the guy switched sides you'd have to think the other republicans would have to give him whatever he wanted... i trust that he won't do it though, and even though i'm conservative i HOPE he doesnt do it because he told the voters he wouldn't and i care alot about keeping campaign promises.

sharpie Dec 15 2006 09:58 AM

Nymr is right about the seniority thing. When Jeffords switched from Republican to Democrat he kept his seniority and got hisself on some committees.

Frayed Knot Dec 15 2006 10:17 AM

Well, the lack of seniority - or, maybe better put, the lack of guaranteed seniority - is one of the reasons Lieberman himself gave for not considering jumping ship after the mainstream Dems more or less abandoned him after his primary loss. I'm sure the Republicans could do whatever they want if Senator Joe decided to caucus with them instead of his old team, but of course it would have meant passing over some of their own in order to do that so there's probably a limit on how high on the pecking order he could get any time soon. All a moot point anyway. Lieberman doesn't fit in with the Repubs despite being (somewhat) out of step on the Iraq issues. Besides, it's not like the rest of the Dems can claim anything resembling unanimity against the war.

TheOldMole Dec 15 2006 10:36 AM

Didn't Fighting Joe promise his mother he would never caucus with the Republicans?

Nymr83 Dec 15 2006 01:46 PM

Frayed Knot wrote: All a moot point anyway. Lieberman doesn't fit in with the Repubs despite being (somewhat) out of step on the Iraq issues. Besides, it's not like the rest of the Dems can claim anything resembling unanimity against the war. but the far-left picked him as their target so his pro-defense views became widely known. i'm know there were other democrats who felt like he does and i'm sure there are many who still do feel that way but say otherwise because thats the way the winds are blowing (kinda like how Mitt Romney is now trying to distance himself from his past pro-gay comments)

TheOldMole Dec 15 2006 02:51 PM

Actually, Leiberman is to the left of Lamont on most issues, so it was never a "far left" thing.

Nymr83 Dec 15 2006 05:21 PM

i think it was, because the far-left was a 1-issue group in this election.

Willets Point Jan 17 2007 01:58 PM

Apparently I'm not the only one who thinks poorly of Joe Lieberman.

Nymr83 Jan 17 2007 02:56 PM

I doubt Joe is losing any sleep over it and frankly I'd consider that blogger's hatred a compliment.

Willets Point Jan 17 2007 04:35 PM

Of course he's not losing sleep. He got CT Republicans to help him get reelected even after his own party had realized it was time to ditch him. He's sittin' pretty.

Nymr83 Jan 17 2007 08:13 PM

In other words, the majority of the people of his state still support him. Or are you suggesting that a senator needs the support of the majority of a particular political party?

Willets Point Jan 17 2007 08:52 PM

Ah, you must've been a top student in Conservative Talking Points School. You've taken the "When you don't have anything good to say rephrase what your opponent says to something that sounds un-American" lesson at heart. The issue here is not that 50% of Connecticut voters selected Lieberman to be their Senator. The issue here is that Lieberman is a weenie who has always been very conservative, does not stand for his party's values, has his tongue firmly up the President's ass, and has the potential to use his unique position as an "independent" at the pivot of the Senate for his own political gain (and it's my theory that he will since he's shown himself to dishonest before). My point here is that anyone who defines themselves as liberal (or even as Democrat) should not want Lieberman representing them.

MFS62 Jan 17 2007 09:11 PM

WP, you nailed it. I'm a registered Democrat, but would rather give birth to a flaming porcupine than vote for Joe. Later

KC Jan 17 2007 09:19 PM

WP: >>>You've taken the "When you don't have anything good to say rephrase what your opponent says to something that sounds un-American" lesson at heart.<<< And someone else took the "got tounge firmly up the presidents ass" lesson to heart. It's all the same crap, on both sides. *yawn*

Willets Point Jan 18 2007 12:46 AM

Nah, I made that one up myself. No one else deserves the blame for such disgusting imagery.

Nymr83 Jan 18 2007 05:12 AM

]The issue here is not that 50% of Connecticut voters selected Lieberman to be their Senator. The issue here is that Lieberman is a weenie who has always been very conservative, does not stand for his party's values its the liberals that i'd call "weenies." Joe Lieberman stands for what the majority of the people of Conneticut stand for. Good for him for following his conscience instead of the Democrat "party line." By the way, in order to win elections the Democrats in both the house and senate have elected plenty of people who don't share YOUR perception of what the "party's values' should be, or do you not subscribe to your party's own leaders' "big tent" stuff? if you want to talk about tongues, i suggest removing yours from the ass of some crazy liberal blogger whose idiocy you feel the need to post here. ]Ah, you must've been a top student in Conservative Talking Points School. You've taken the "When you don't have anything good to say rephrase what your opponent says to something that sounds un-American" lesson at heart. as opposed to the liberal philosophy of "answer a different question than the one that was asked"

KC Jan 18 2007 08:14 AM

WP: >>>Nah, I made that one up myself.<<< Horsehockey ... it's the first place to run these days. I'm not even sticking up for the president (I've grown rather weary of him) but you did exactly the same thing that you accused namor of doing. I've met Lieberman twice, btw ... I detected no presidential ass odor on him.

Willets Point Jan 18 2007 12:38 PM

Nymr83 wrote: as opposed to the liberal philosophy of "answer a different question than the one that was asked" You asked: ]Or are you suggesting that a senator needs the support of the majority of a particular political party? I replied: ]The issue here is not that 50% of Connecticut voters selected Lieberman to be their Senator. In other words I was suggesting nothing of the sort and see your question as an attempt to obfuscate the real issue under discussion. I don't see how I could have answered the question more clearly. ]Joe Lieberman stands for what the majority of the people of Connecticut stand for. Good for him for following his conscience instead of the Democrat "party line." I'm in agreement with spirit of this statement. My idealized America has no political parties and no party lines. Instead all elected representatives would legislate based on balance of the desires of their constituency and their own conscience. I don't see that Lieberman is doing this though. In the realpolitik of the US when you run as a candidate for a political party you are stating that you represent that party's basic beliefs and values. Since Lieberman historically has expressed views and behaviors opposed to the traditional Democratic values it is dishonest for him to run as a Democrat. Perhaps if he started as a Republican and took on Lowell Weicker in a primary or ran as an independent in 1988 things would be different, but he found it politically expedient to run as a Democrat. For these reasons progressive independents such as myself have to be wary of supporting the Democratic party or being all too happy that the Democratic party has taken control of Congress. When the Democrats include Lieberman and people of his ilk (and put him up as a VP candidate) they can no longer honestly be considered the "liberal party" they once were. And that is why I and the blogger and others have to "call out" Lieberman so that others who may be under informed know that he does not represent our values and cannot be trusted. Finally, I don't think 50% of the vote is true majority especially since a large block of support for Lieberman were Republicans who voted for him as "lesser of two evils" choice not because they thought of him as man of great conscience. ]Horsehockey ... it's the first place to run these days. I'm not even sticking up for the president (I've grown rather weary of him) but you did exactly the same thing that you accused namor of doing KC, someone with an equally disturbed mind as my own must have come up with that metaphor independently, because I've never seen it before.

TheOldMole Jan 18 2007 01:12 PM

]Joe Lieberman stands for what the majority of the people of Connecticut stand for. Good for him for following his conscience instead of the Democrat "party line." What is the "Democrat party line" (or the "Republican party line," and how many elected officials vote it instead of their conscience?

Nymr83 Jan 18 2007 01:17 PM

]I'm in agreement with spirit of this statement. My idealized America has no political parties and no party lines. Instead all elected representatives would legislate based on balance of the desires of their constituency and their own conscience well I'm glad we agree on that. ] I don't see that Lieberman is doing this though. In the realpolitik of the US when you run as a candidate for a political party you are stating that you represent that party's basic beliefs and values. Since Lieberman historically has expressed views and behaviors opposed to the traditional Democratic values it is dishonest for him to run as a Democrat I don't agree with you however that a) Lieberman doesn't represent Democrat values b) Democrat values are what you say they are in the nationwide sense c) a candidate needs to represent the values of a party But before i get into the deeper issues of what a candidate should represent, I'd like to ask you what "traditional Democratic values" (and pleas notice the plural) Lieberman has opposed? I can think of two, and one (the war) is a "value" that was not universal to Democrats until recently. Let me also ask you a seperate but somewhat related question, you say that a candidate should represent his party's views, does that mean that Lincoln Chafee was wrong for not supporting some of the Republican agenda (he was a key committee member that blocked important Republican legislation from even getting out of committee) or does your policy only apply to Democrats?