Specter vs Franken....

[HardWorkingDem]

Is it just me, or does it seem that the Washington, Democratic establishment is more open to Specter's party change than that of demanding Al Franken be seated?

I don't think any true Democrat trusts the motivation of Specter, but it seems odd to me that the Democratic establishment has not and is not fighting hard enough to demand Franken be seated.


Thoughts?

[Occam Bandage]

1. They cannot seat Franken now.

The Senate cannot seat anyone who has not won a state election or who has not been appointed legally by a governor as a replacement for someone who has won a state election. Candidates are not legally considered the winners of their elections until they have received from the state a certificate of election issued by the Secretary of State and signed by the governor. By law, Minnesota cannot issue that certificate until any and all legal challenges to the election are settled. And the legal challenges will not be settled until the MN Supreme Court hears the cases and gives its final ruling, assuming that they're bright enough to not leave open any Federal questions. If they do, of course, then this trial will plod all the way through the Federal court system, and up to the United States Supreme Court--but legal scholars agreed there weren't any open Federal questions in the last court decision, so that shouldn't happen.

[HardWorkingDem]

5. I realize all the legalese stuff....my point is....

To me, the Washington, established Democrats have been oddly silent on Al Franken and his race. I believe if this race was flip-flopped the Washington Republicans would be going nuts and we'd be hearing about this injustice every single night.


And if people don't think being vocal about things like this is not important, I suggest you go back and watch documentaries on Al Gore's race and re-visit how important it was for Bush to be declared the winner and it's impact on the psychology of the nation regarding Al Gore.

[Occam Bandage]

6. The Democrats are choosing not to waste capital pushing an issue

that they are all well aware they cannot speed by a single day.

[HardWorkingDem]

7. Sorry, but from the entire Franken race it's clear to me...

to the established Washington Democrats, Al Franken is the Rodney Dangerfield of the Senate.

[Occam Bandage]

9. What would they gain by spending every day talking about this

and not about actual issues? They can't advance the judicial process by one day--and all they'd accomplish by trying would be to make Franken's eventual win look tainted by political pressure. Let the Republicans be the one who play stupid politics for their stupid base. We can be the ones who actually try to fix problems.

[HardWorkingDem]

They don't have to talk about it every day, but how about just a few...

do you doubt or deny Al Franken has not been treated with respect?

And pressure could be put on Pawlenty to do the right thing when the Minn Supreme Court makes its ruling. It's called working the refs....

[Hassin Bin Sober]

17. I agree with you analysis of the political piece but couldn't The Senate, in theory, seat Franken?

If they wanted to be heavy handed?

It seems to me The Constitution gives the Senate/House broad powers to interpret their own elections. The election has taken place. Can't they judge the result and seat him if they chose?

I don't think they should take such a drastic step at this point.

[Dinger]

19. That Is An Excellent Point. Lots Od Dems Quiet On This

the pukes are louder.

[Believing Is Art]

2. The Franken issue has more potential to blow up in our face

*If* the Minnesota SC rules in Coleman's favor, the other side could use our words against us if we're too pushy. Hopefully that's a very big if, but it's best to be careful until after a decision.

[stopbush]

3. I get the feeling the Rs/Coleman want to suck the DC Dems into the Franken

issue. Don't know if they have a plan, but they want to make it an issue. The Ds aren't biting.

Franken has the patience of Job. He knows he's the winner as does everyone else.

[MADem]

4. It is the job of the STATE to send the Senators to DC.

It isn't the job of the Senate to demand that the state do what it is supposed to do to achieve representation in DC.

If a state didn't want to send anyone, they don't have to. The voters of the state might have something to say to the governor and the state secretary of state in that unlikely eventuality, but that's a separate issue.

[robinlynne]

12. In San Diego the SENATE confirmed a republican without even recounting the votes.

The Senate can do it if it wants to. the Republican Senate used that power.

[MADem]

15. What are you talking about? There's no way the US Senate will seat anyone

without a letter from the state governor or secretary of state.

Both Senators from California are DEMOCRATS. What Republican are you talking about?

Don't talk to us about the machinations of the state government as though they translate to the federal level in any way, shape or form--they don't. The only thing the Senate, at the federal government level, wants to see from a state is a certification from that state saying "This is our guy/gal." If Bozo the Clown shows up with a letter signed by Governor Pawlenty saying "This is the Senator from my state" then Bozo's ass warms the seat.

[robinlynne]

16. congress, sorry. ca-51 in 2006.

[MADem]

20. Same deal, though--the credentials are supplied by the state. The state has the authority, not the

federal government, to decide who they want warming the seat. If there's shenanigans, they are shenanigans at the state level.

The elections are conducted by the state, too. If there's a problem, it is a problem at the state level. It's not the job of the federal government to tell the states who they may or may not seat as their representatives, providing they show up with the accepted credentials from the governor or SECSTATE of the state in question.

Back in the old days, they didn't even bother with elections. The governor just sent a bunch of his pals to represent the interests of the state, in most cases.

[RomanHoliday]

8. Spector joining is more an embarssment to the GOP..

.. I don't think the Democrats would ever pass up that chance. With Al Franken, it's pretty much certain that he will be seated eventually and unless they're REALLY desperate for that extra vote, they'll just let it play out.

[HardWorkingDem]

10. Sorry, but to me...

even though it is great to get number 59, the fawning over Specter has been stomach churning. Though I imagine he will lose in his next race as a Democrat, being able to go on television and denying he said he will be a "loyal Democrat" shows just how self-serving this man has been and will be.

[robinlynne]

13. Yep. We don't need him. It will not bring any good changes for us.

Even worse we may waste Dem seats on committees which should be given to good Dems, not to a republican who changes his name only.

[RomanHoliday]

14. That's the thing.. I don't think Democrats really need him for much other than to laugh at the R's.

Yes, it's great to see a possible 60 senators but that number doesn't mean a whole lot. Will Republicans really fillibuster at their current pathetic state? Even if they do, we have a few Democrats who are hardly the most loyal and they have people like Olympia Snowe. I just don't see a case where a vote will really hinge on Specter.

[robinlynne]

11. RIGHT YOU ARE! While the other party fights ferociously not to seat him....

Damn you're right. I missed that, completely. We are all just waiting. sitting here waiting. how very wrong that is.

[lame54]

18. patience - they know it's inevitable...

they're picking their battles

[Dinger]

21. Self-Delete (Dupe)

[Dinger]

22. Which Dems Have At Least Gave This Lip Service?

I'm having trouble coming up with names. What about President Obama? Other Dem senators? Congressman?