Will Fellow GOPers Try To Knife Stevens In The Back?
Although Sen. Ted Stevens (R-AK) might possibly have just been re-elected in the wake of his felony convictions, he could soon find himself with a lot less clout in Washington, thanks to a potential vote by Senate GOPers to expel him from their caucus.
Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC) is calling for the motion to eject Stevens from the caucus, a move that would strip him of his committee assignments and the ability to vote in Senate GOP decisions like leadership elections.
But Stevens would still be a U.S. Senator with the ability to vote on the floor, as it would require a two-thirds vote of the whole chamber to expel him, just in case it turns out he was re-elected -- though an expulsion vote is quite possible, too. Votes are still being counted in Stevens' race and he has a lead of a little over 3,000 votes with 90,000 ballots left to be processed.
The GOP caucus could potentially debate this at their meeting next week, then DeMint formally brings up the motion.
One thing to remember is that if Stevens was re-elected, anything that happens next wouldn't have any real effect on the Dem/GOP balance of the chamber. The state would hold a special election if Steven is expelled or resigns, and the Republicans would be heavily favored to keep the seat. Another wrinkle is one particular name on the list of potential candidates for this hypothetical scenario: Sarah Palin, who might want to have a national stage from which to build a campaign for president.
Hmmm. What do you suppose are the odds that Stevens would do the decent thing and abstain from any vote in which he has a clear conflict of interest? I'm guessing that there are two chances of that: slim and fat.
November 11, 2008 10:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
Alaska has 90,000 ballots left to count? Hmmm....I don't think I can second guess anything Alaska politicians might be up to. I think Alaska may become the new Kansas, as in "What the hell is the matter with Kansas."
November 11, 2008 10:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
Based on how it handles election, I would call Alaska a banana republic, though given its arctic climes, maybe cabbage republic would be more appropriate.
I think we need the Carter Center up there.
November 11, 2008 10:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
Lichen Republic, maybe?
November 11, 2008 12:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hmmm. Perhaps totalitarian tundra.
November 11, 2008 2:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Most Alaskans could care less what the lower 48 thinks of them, but thanks to Palin and Stevens, any remake of Deliverance would be shot in Alaska this time around.
November 11, 2008 10:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm torn between wanting Palin in the senate and having her stay in Alaska.
Down here in the lower 48, she would be showing us her ignorance and wackiness more often, plus
possibly have ongoing legal problems in Alaska.
On the other hand, she may have a steep learning curve, and end up as seeming to be a reasonably competent competitor down the road.
November 11, 2008 10:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
I don't want her anywhere near the lower 48. Her continued proximity will lower the already coarsened tenor of American political debate. As with anything radioactive, continued exposure to the LCD can only have a deleterious effect -- hasn't 8 years of Bush taught us anything?!
November 11, 2008 10:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
Stevens is creating the same effect as a turd floating in a public pool.
November 11, 2008 10:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
Dogs are swimming to it just to get a sniff?
November 11, 2008 12:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Didn't anyone learn a lesson from the Bush experience? He never should have made it through the primary elections, never mind get the nomination and run against Gore. He should have been dispatched before all that happened. Now, with Palin, leave her in Alaska. Don't let her get in the Senate with its national platform and resume enhancing exposure to issues. Don't give her any legitimacy as a presidential candidate. Don't give her a voice now.
November 11, 2008 11:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
Didn't anyone learn a lesson from the Bush experience?
Ugh ... what a thought! I've been operating on the assumption that Palin could never ... EVER ... command more than 28% of the vote - but that 28% of the whole would be enough to win the nomination, guaranteeing a Republican loss in the general. But this Bush analogy of yours is very disturbing.
On the other hand, the combination of Bush followed by Obama should be enough to convince even the dreaded 28% that being an adult is an absolute prerequisite for the presidency. The US couldn't be stupid enough to elect Palin ... could it?
All right ... keep her out of the Senate!
The good news is that we've got an increasingly strong chance of 6 years of Begich. Given the pre-election polls and the missing 90K votes, I'd say it's a very strong chance.
November 11, 2008 12:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Danger Will Robinson! It's a trap! It's a trap!
We aren't even sure that Ted Stevens is still a Senator at this point. By allowing the Republicans to vote on whether or not Stevens should be kicked out, we're preempting the final vote count in Alaska that contains something like 40,000 uncounted absentee votes in a race that Stevens is winning by about 3000 votes.
Possession is 9/10's of the law in politics. It was true in 2000 when the Florida recount was shut down, and it would be true now. If this vote is allowed to go forward it creates a legal mess, it implies that the U.S. Senate certified that Stevens was still the Senator from Alaska by voting on kicking him out. The Republican stacked Supreme Court may well decide that counts as finalizing the Alaskan Senate race results.
Do NOT let this vote go forward until Alaska certifies the election results.
November 11, 2008 12:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is an internal procedural vote of Republicans about their caucus, it implies nothing about the full Senate. Nobody but Senate Republicans are involved, and no one outside of those forty or so can do anything to "stop it."
November 11, 2008 12:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, we are. He's a senator until Jan. 3. That's when the winner of last week's election takes office.
I think the GOP will be holding its Senate caucus next week. Any GOP vote on Stevens's committee assignments will be by secret ballot. Any Senate vote to expel him will need a 2/3 on-the-record vote during this lame-duck session.
BTW, there promises to be a whopping big load of ballot-counting results from AK tomorrow.
November 11, 2008 1:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Move over Tom Bradley. Now we have the "Stephens Effect", which is the tendency of voters to vote for a convicted felon after telling pollsters they would vote for his opponent!
November 11, 2008 12:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
At one point I thought the AK Repubs were thinking several moves ahead, realizing that they could have a different Republican instead of 6 years of Begich if they voted for Stevens - and nevertheless being too embarrassed to tell pollsters they were voting for a felon.
However, Occam's Razor says that 90,000 votes is more than enough to reconcile the polling data.
November 11, 2008 12:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Knifing Stevens in the back"?????
That isn't what I'd call it if and when the republicans clean their own house of convicted felons.
November 11, 2008 1:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Listen to my story about a man named Ted,
the poor Senator could barely keep his family fed,
Then one day he was lobbying for Crude,
and the oil companies built a new house for this Dude.
Illegal payments that is, from Black Gold.
The first thing you know Old Ted's a millionaire,
with paybacks and cars and a new massage chair,
Family said, "the Senate is the Place you oughtta be, you can trade favors for cash, and it's all Free!"
THE ALASKA HILLBILLIES!
(insert banjo music here)
November 11, 2008 7:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
The Senate brainiacs are faced with a quandary: affirm the constitutional principles embodied in the right of appeal, or jettison them. Under the Senate rules, they have the option of splitting the baby: recognize that the senator may prevail on appeal -- a possibility that would be at least awkward if they expel Stevens precipitously; or, they can seat him if he wins the election, but strip him of his seniority and committee standing until his appeal runs its course. The former is not beyond the pale, considering the Justice Department's handling of the case. The latter is a legitimate exercise of discretionary power, particularly under the circumstances.
Finally, of course, Stevens could do the unexpected (and, unlikely, considering his temperament and ethical bent): he could do the honorable and dignified thing by resigning, rather than bring shame to the body he has served in for so long.
. . . . Nah!
November 11, 2008 9:14 PM | Reply | Permalink