GOP Enjoying Benefits Of Vacant Minnesota Senate Seat
The Hill reports that there might just be something to a meme that's been floating around about the Minnesota Senate race: That the Republican Party quite likes the situation of Norm Coleman's lawsuit keeping the Democrats one vote short of what they would otherwise have.
GOP aides told the paper that there is not a specific desire to wage the lawsuit as a stalling maneuver on Franken's seating. But one anonymous leadership aide did say that "It's better for us to have one less member." The same person also admitted this about Franken: "He's got a very good shot at winning."
And Ron Bonjean, a former Senate Republican aide who now runs a public-relations firm, had this to say: "If Franken was going to vote on the stimulus package, they wouldn't necessarily need one of the Republicans. So yeah, it matters."
Even if the lawsuit isn't specifically being done as a stall tactic, the delaying effect does appear to be a nice fringe benefit.
Josh
Matt
Eric
Brian
In other news, water is wet and the sun is expected to set in the west today.
February 12, 2009 1:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Not when it's cold--then water's pretty darn dry.
http://www.esa.int/SPECIALS/Mars_Express/SEMGKA808BE_0.html
February 12, 2009 1:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Minnesota, are you paying attention? Change the frickin' law, so future Colemans won't have the same incentive to drag things out.
February 12, 2009 1:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
I can't speak for every Minnesotan but I will be contacting my elected officials, absolutely. A provisional seating should take place during the appeals process.
February 12, 2009 1:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hey, there are still some folks here who can't understand why we're so anxious to get Franken seated, since he's just, you know, "a stand up."
February 12, 2009 2:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Always nice to hear from the Barkley voter. :) I find it interesting to hear from people who rail against "professional politicians" and then when their guy loses denounce the winner as "inexperienced".
February 12, 2009 2:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
On a second read I might have jumped the gun on your position. If so, I apologize. I guess I'm spending too much time reading comments on the StarTrib site of people saying "to hell with both of 'em".
February 12, 2009 2:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, you totally missed the sarcasm and snark in my post. Are you sure you're a Franken supporter???? LOL!
February 12, 2009 2:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ummm...we're doing fine here in Minnesota. Some of our elections laws are being examined to aid in the process in the future, but it's rather moot as the law cannot be modified retroactively. So in the interim we're stuck with the process we have. It sucks that Coleman can drag it out with his nonsense, but I know that if it had been the other way around I'd like Franken to have a chance to get his day in court.
On that same note, it is beyond ridiculous that Coleman's been allowed to make his specious and contradictory claims without the judges stepping in to put a halt to it. I guess we have to take it on faith that the judges know what they're doing and that, in the end, Franken will prevail and Coleman's eventual appeal will be denied.
February 12, 2009 2:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
The blame for this inexcusable delay rests exclusively with the court that is hearing Coleman's suit. They are treating this as if it's an ordinary lawsuit, instead of something along the lines of a temporary restraining order against seating Franken.
This court should have made fair, reasonable restrictions on the number of claims to be adjudicated and the amount and type of evidence to be admitted.
Coleman has utterly failed to show that there has been counting errors or inconsistencies beyond random errors inherent in the process given the number of votes involved. His lawsuit should have been dismissed with prejudice weeks ago.
If these judges are subject to elections, Democrats should fight to elect replacements when the judges run again. They are either too biased or too incompetent to carry out their responsibilities effectively.
February 12, 2009 2:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Today's hearing appears to be the judges' first attempt to regain control and impose some kind of order on these proceedings. Better late than never, I guess, but given their apparent terror of giving any grounds for appeal, I'll wait and see if they actually place any restrictions on Coleman's filibuster.
February 12, 2009 3:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
I can not emphasize enough how Solis and Franken are connected- this has everything to do with the EFCA.
We'll see if there is a mysterious hold on Solis when here confirmation vote comes up.
February 12, 2009 1:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't think there's much danger Solis won't be confirmed. However, when EFCA comes up, look out. If there's one thing that gets Republicans more worked up than taxes it's unions.
February 12, 2009 1:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
EFCA is gonna be like friggin' Armageddon.
Not only the wingnut Republicans, but the moderates and probably more than a few Blue Dogs, not to mention every single business lobby that usually supports wingnuts but keeps them at arm's length...
Oh, and if the corporate media was hard on the stimulus, that's a walk in the park compared to how they'll be on card check.
It's going to make the fight over Clinton's health care bill look like patty-cake.
February 12, 2009 2:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
February 12, 2009 1:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
How much longer?
February 12, 2009 1:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
I suspect until at least April- that's when Coleman faces his corruption lawsuit in TX. That's my theory and I'm stickin' to it.
Unless, the MN-SC comes through. C'mon!
February 12, 2009 1:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
If you can figure that one out, i'll give five million dollars because I want to know that answer as well.
February 12, 2009 1:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Of course it is. I don't know who's done the cost/benefit analysis, but someone in the RNC has done it.
February 12, 2009 1:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't think it was the plan from the beginning because even in their wildest dreams I don't think they could have imagined the court would give Coleman this much latitude. At this point, however, it's an unexpected boon for them, so they're going to play it for all it's worth. There's a real possibility of a stalemate here.
February 12, 2009 1:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
I wonder if repugs donating time, money and so forth would be a violation of Senate ethics? Seems they're interfering with a state function to drag it out for party political reasons not the states'.
February 12, 2009 1:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obvious from the start Eric
February 12, 2009 1:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obvious from the start Eric
Maybe so, but there's value to getting it from the horse's ass^H^H^Hmouth.
February 13, 2009 12:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
If they have to stoop to stall tactics, then that right there is an admission they have nothing to offer! Nothing to offer but tripping people and stalling and traffic jams - in addition to war mongering and torturing and stealing the future of our young people through lack of regulation leading to such a financial melt-down.
I'm glad I don't believe in purgatory. But I might want to start believing in Hell!
February 12, 2009 1:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
The Republicans like having one less Democrat in the Senate?!?!
Holy Crap! Stop the presses!
February 12, 2009 1:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
What I don;t understand is that with 99 senators seated, why is the cloture number still 60, shouldn't it be 59.5 or something. And then with Gregg recusing himself, that essentially means there is only 98 votes on any matters, meaning it should be 59 votes (60% of the seated Senate) necessary for cloture.
Senate should change this rule, so parties can't use the courts to be obstructionist for political reasons.
February 12, 2009 3:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
It requires a 3/5 vote of the body, not of those voting. Senators abstaining or recusing themselves don't alter the number of votes required. 3/5 of 99 is 59.6, so it still requires 60.
February 12, 2009 4:06 PM | Reply | Permalink