Why 60 is the New 50

The same coalition courting will continue with Franken there
.
Except that there will be a new loud voice with a propesity to call BS when he sees it.
His presence may have more effect than you credit.....

What is it with politicians and their refusal to give up power? A 91 year-old with a staph infection who can't look at work for 6 weeks? Dude, it is time to RESIGN. Go play some golf. You don't more important things to do with you life than to dole out pork?

Franken will be an interesting case study in the power of power to corrupt. Certainly he enters the Senate a far more principled and idealistic politician than Hillary ever was. We will see if or when Franken starts compromising, waffling, prioritizing donors, and talking out of both sides of his mouth, like everybody else.

I once ran into him in an otherwise empty Reagan International Airport. He's certainly didn't sneak up on me.

I have a feeling King Porkulus will be there until the end. I mean, if he hasn't resigned already...

You don't more important things to do with you life than to dole out pork?
.
Sorry.. can't resist . . .
.
Isn't that Mark Sanford's role right now? On the international level?

The number 60 was always a red herring. You have an entire faction of Blue Dogs who do not tow the party line with their votes. Touting the Franken win and the magic 60 number is merely a great way for Republicans to gin up donations.

Most misleading title ever, got me all riled up to mock baby boomers for nothing.

Does it surprise anyone that the head of the Lieberdems, Joe Lieberman campaigned on universal health care (and ending the Iraq War btw) when he needed to lie to his constituents to get elected, but proclaimed this morning that he was stabbing real health care reform in the face? I am too depressed to look back at what was being printed in TIME during Lieberman's 2006 primary about how awesome Lieberman was. I guarantee Joe Klein wrote something stupid.

JNS-Why don't you get Harry Reid on record concerning his failure to provide leadership of the Democrats in the Senate. I wonder if the situation was reversed and you gave Mitch McConnell Harry's numbers he have this hard of a time holding his troops together and getting things done for the GOP side.

gysgt213- yes, you are so right. And why has Harry Reid not been replaced already? Good Lord, does anyone think the GOP would be as limp were the numbers reversed?

Guys, you don't even need to ask how things would be, if the numbers were reversed. Just look at the last few years. How many times has there been a party line Democratic vote with Republican defectors in the Senate? Compare that to how often the Republicans vote monolithically with more Dem defectors than holders.
-
Fact of the matter is, Republicans have and usually will vote as a solid bloc with only maybe 3 exceptions at any one time. Dems, meanwhile, splinter enough that anything Republicans do, for the most part, gets labeled as 'bipartisan'

Compare that to how often the Republicans vote monolithically...
.
Self selection in action. The sort who are used to taking orders and marching in lockstep are the sort likely to identify as Republicans in the first place....

queencersei, there are two sides to the Republicans fundraising off of "60". Everytime we gave Harry "punch drunk" Reid crap for failing to do anything, he would whine that he needed 60 Democrats, so we should get him 60. Dems fundraised off of that. Well, we did get 60. And now Reid is saying "it's not a real 60."[http://www.lvrj.com/news/49591827.html]
I sick of hearing excuses for do-nothingism. All we are asking for is a couple real bona fide filibusters, and not the "gentleman" crap. We are not dealing with gentlemen; we are dealing with young Earth creationists like Imhofe and racists like Jeffrey Beauregard Sessions III.

No arguments from me pafro. It would be nice if the MSM would point that out occasionally though.

The sort who are used to taking orders and marching in lockstep are the sort likely to identify as Republicans in the first place....
.
I think this is why my Korean ex-relatives are so passionately Republican. Very sweet people but they mostly grew up under Park Chung Hee, a "strong-man" style President (dictator). They grew up under an almost constant war environment unti he was killed by his own bodyguards.
.
Being minorities, you'd think they would be more Dem but they're not and tend to attend a LOT of very very conservative religious colleges. I think that some of them just don't want to think about the foibles of some of their standard-bearers.

Bernie Sanders? Bernie Sanders? You have Bernie Sanders in with the absent Kennedy and Byrd and the obstructionist Lieberman why exactly?

Do you have any idea at all what you're talking about?

The Republican tendency to vote in lockstep is easily explained: they really aren't very diverse, and don't hail from very diverse districts at Senate level. Similarly, they just don't have a diverse set of opinions/concerns. That's one small bonus from seeing your numbers trimmed down steadily as Democrats have run the GOP out of the North East, with the exception of Snowe and Collins. Basically, as the GOP shrinks in on itself, the core of their party becomes harder, crazier and more partisan. I don't think McConnell has much to do with it. The guy has the charisma of a lump of dough, combined with the intellect of a very small bagel. He hasn't looked like coming up with a strategy to reverse the GOP decline - and 2010 may well get the Dems to 63 seats in the Senate. If we could only dump the Bayh/Nelson/Lieberman rabble, life would be sweet. Unfortunately, these days, we have an unelected third party - the Blue Dogs, who are zealously committed to self-promoting mediocrity. If there were a way to get the real Democrats to force the Blue Dogs to cooperate, it would be nice, but no-one has yet found a good way to punish their chronic dishonesty and selfishness. In essence, the Dems gained ground by being more diverse - but after a certain point, the ground gained wasn't worth having.

Maybe this will convince Reid to get off his rear and actually do something. Or maybe I'm being optimistic.

pafro wrote: 'Everytime we gave Harry "punch drunk" Reid crap for failing to do anything, he would whine that he needed 60 Democrats, so we should get him 60. Dems fundraised off of that. Well, we did get 60. And now Reid is saying "it's not a real 60'
.
I'm so sick of hearing excuses for inaction and capitulation. I'd rather see the dems go down in a principled fight than watch them continue to offer 'bipartisan' compromises that gain them nothing but watered-down legislation that's doomed to fail. The only aggressiveness seems to be on the side of the gopers and the goper-lite blue dogs. Even Obama has been slow to join the fight.

Tim Johnson of North Dakota on sick leave after a brain hemorrhage
.
Unless there are now two Senator Tim Johnsons, you speak of South Dakota's senator.

afguy wrote: 'I think this is why my Korean ex-relatives are so passionately Republican. Very sweet people but they mostly grew up under Park Chung Hee, a "strong-man" style President (dictator). They grew up under an almost constant war environment unti he was killed by his own bodyguards.'
.
Excuse me for drifting off topic for a moment. I also have Korean in-laws. My experience with them is that their not a monolithic group at all. I've met some that are very right-wing, as you describe. But my in-laws were participants in the student demonstrations against Park Chung Hee. They were tear-gassed and several wear scars from run-ins with the soldiers that attacked the demonstrators. They are now all naturalized American citizens, liberal, and very passionate about democracy and civil liberty.

JNS-What are the rules in the states with the Senators who may go at any moment? Do they have demo govs and do those govs have special appointment authority or is a special election required?

Gunny: from the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review:
.
Should Byrd's seat become vacant before his term ends in 2012, that would create the first non-incumbent Senate race in West Virginia since 1984 when Jay Rockefeller, a Democrat, won his seat. Democratic Gov. Joe Manchin would appoint a replacement to serve until a special election is held.
.
And HuffPo has the following on Kennedy:
.
Unlike most states, Kennedy's successor would be chosen by a special election, not the governor.
.
State law requires a special election for the seat no sooner than 145 days and no later than 160 days after a vacancy occurs. The law bans an interim appointee.
.
The law was changed in 2004, when Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry became the Democratic presidential nominee and Romney was governor. Before the change, the governor would have appointed a replacement to serve until the next general election.
.
That would have created the opportunity to install a fellow Republican in office, a move Democrats who control the state Legislature wanted to block.