With Tim Johnson still in the hospital, could/would the repubes block the reorganization vote?

[SoCalDem]

Could they claim they "want to wait and see if Johnson can return"..and in the meantime, keep things as they are now (R-controlled with Dick as the tie breaker?)

Could they stall until South Dakota's legislature pulls something?

This has me worried..

We all know how they love the dirty tricks.

[MonkeyFunk]

1. Fear not

they can't do shit.

Without Johnson, the Dems still win the organizing vote 50-49.

[ashling]

2. I recall seeing a statement by Harry Reid

that he was told that they would give him all the time he needed. ... or something to that effect.

[MonkeyFunk]

3. No one has to give him anything

there is no provision for removing an incapacitated Senator. He can serve as Senator until the end of his term, even from a hospital bed, in a coma.

[ashling]

4. That's not what I meant

I meant as far as having the organizing vote. I believe it was set for the 4th, and there was some concern that he would not be back by then.

Nobody said anything about replacing anybody.

[MonkeyFunk]

5. No worries...

my point is that Johnson's presence or absence will have no bearing on the outcome of the organizing vote.

Johnson will most definitely NOT be there for that vote, but the Dems will win anyway.

Sorry for any misunderstanding. I just wanted to point out that the vote will occur as scheduled, and Harry Reid will be elected.

[ashling]

6. 50 - 49 with Lieberman

I am certainly in no mood to place all my bets on his word.

[MonkeyFunk]

7. well

the Johnson situation has no bearing on Lieberman. If you think he would violate his pledge to vote with the Dems, then his switch would have had the same result without Johnson being taken ill.

With a 51-49 Senate, if Lieberman switched, it would be 49-51 (for the Republicans). With Johnson not voting, it would be 50-49 vs. 49-50 (for the Republicans).

So Johnson's infirmity is irrelevant. If Lieberman were to switch (which he won't), the outcome would be the same.

[ashling]

8. You are right

I understand, I just don't trust Leiberman and I worry that with Johnson on the sidelines for a time, would Leiberman switch. I just don't trust him.

[MonkeyFunk]

9. I guess I don't understand your concern...

If you think Lieberman will switch, Johnson has nothing to do with it.

The switch would give control to Republicans.

However, I think your worry is misplaced. Lieberman is not a Republican - he's a moderate Democrat. Moderates used to rule the Senate - from both parties. Today, not so much. But Lieberman has given no indication whatsoever that he will switch parties.

[ashling]

10. I know I am paranoid - I know this ...

If Lieberman was going to switch anyway, no it wouldn't have made a difference.

But what if Johnson's illness was an impetus for him to switch. I don't know if it would be - who knows why people do things sometimes, things like run as an independant after loosing the primary and getting elected by Republicans. I just don't trust the guy.

[MonkeyFunk]

11. Then

I would respectfully suggest you take some time out and chill.

Imagining insane political scenarios that MIGHT come true and then feeling the need to present them as actual concerns is probably not healthy.

I've seen people here post that elections would be canceled, a land invasion of Iran is about to occur, that Bush won't leave office in 2008...

All those concerns are the product of a paranoid imagination. Or, it's the result of a mind-set that thinks imagining and expressing the worst possible scenario helps demonstrate how much one hates the opposition, and therefore makes one a more "credentialed" liberal.

I think it's a silly pursuit. The most extreme "worriers" are never proven right. Our constitutional Republic is still alive and well.

[ashling]

12. Why do you keep trying to draw me out on this

I just made a simple reply to another's post (not yours) and suddenly I'm having to explain to you why I have what I readily conceeded is an irrational concern.

But as to your contention, imagining, who would have imagined any of this (apart from the use of airplanes - LOL) Yes, I've seen a lot of conspiracy theorists, etc., on these boards, and I have been her a while. But to label my concerns insane shows a bit of snobbery on your part.

I respectfully suggest you take some time and stuff it !

[MonkeyFunk]

13. I have tried

respectfully, to show that your concern is invalid. And I have tried to understand WHY such a mathematically-impossible concern should arise.

But, it seems I've offended you, so I'll go stuff myself with my basic arithmetical superiority.

Happy New Year!

[retread]

14. You are correct in your conclusion. However, I need some assistance in

understanding your "basic arithmetic." If it is a 51 -49 senate and 1 switches from the majority isn't it now 50 - 50 not 49 - 51? The creep breaks the tie so the outcome is the same.

[MonkeyFunk]

15. Yes

I was wrong in my argument. I'm sorry.

Lieberman could switch parties and tie the Senate, giving Cheney the tie-breaking vote.

But Lieberman switching parties would have the same effect whether Johnson is capable of voting or not.

[karynnj]

18. True and there is plenty of precedent on both sides

of the aisle of Senators incapacitated for months or years. (The most analogous situation - and I hope this works out as well is that Biden was out for, I think, 9 months with a brain aneurysm.

[KharmaTrain]

16. They Have To Remove Johnson First...

Tain't an easy thing to do. In fact, IRC, South Dakota tried it in the past with another Senator and couldn't do it. As long as Johnson is alive and appears to be competent, the only way the Repugnicans could hold up an organizational vote would be to fillibuster and then hope the South Dakota legislature can remove Johnson...a process that appears highly, highly unlikely.

As long as Johnson can press a button to vote, he's golden.

[Vinca]

17. As long as Tim Johnson has a heartbeat, the Republicans are out of luck.

Love the kitties in the sink.:loveya: