Skip to main content

View Diary: Could Johnson's absence throw the Senate into chaos? (141 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Actually I think the GOP wins (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    moosely2006

    This is how:

    If the GOP lets the dems have control of the senate, then investigations fire up and subpoenas begin flying.  The Bush white house could be publicly humiliated, and with approval already hovering at Nixonian lows, impeachment is not unlikely.

    However, if the GOP assumes control via hardball tactics, then they suffer briefly in the eyes of the public, but the media will push everyone to "move on" because we're at war.  The public will respect the GOP for their toughness, especially since we're at war.  2008 is two years away, so anything that happens now will be erased in the memory hole by the time voters can hold the GOP accountable.

    We know the Bush administration will do anything to avoid investigations, so I guess it comes down to whether the party will stand behind their fearless leader, or try to dissociate themselves from him.  As authoritarians, it is against GOP nature to send Bush to walk the plank, but at some point maybe self-preservation overrides their drive to follow The Leader.

    "When I was an alien, cultures weren't opinions" ~ Kurt Cobain, Territorial Pissings

    by Subterranean on Fri Dec 15, 2006 at 12:13:26 PM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  They CAN'T stop investigations (4+ / 0-)

      They might conceivably be able to stop them in the Senate, but that just means that the focus would be entirely on the House of Representatives.

      "Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither liberty nor security." -Ben Franklin

      by leevank on Fri Dec 15, 2006 at 12:29:11 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  But limiting them to the House (0+ / 0-)

        is better than having them in both houses, no?

        "When I was an alien, cultures weren't opinions" ~ Kurt Cobain, Territorial Pissings

        by Subterranean on Fri Dec 15, 2006 at 12:48:17 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  It would be. (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Buckeye Terry

          But what I was saying was that I don't think their gambit can work, if somebody raises a constitutional objection to a GOP filibuster. They don't have the votes to overturn an adverse (i.e., correct) ruling, nor the votes to sustain a favorable (i.e., incorrect) one.

        •  I'm not so sure (0+ / 0-)

          There's much less of a tradition of bipartisanship in the House, and if the GOP went to these lengths to prevent hearings in the Senate, I think it might just focus more attention on the House hearings.  I think the only practical effects of Senate control are which matters reach the floor (which is a very important one, for sure), and how much staff the Senate Republicans and Senate Democrats get to have (which is also nothing to ignore).

          "Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither liberty nor security." -Ben Franklin

          by leevank on Fri Dec 15, 2006 at 01:48:44 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

    •  Time is their greatest weapon (0+ / 0-)

      You're right.  The public would come to accept it over time if we couldn't get control back quickly.  It would be like "learned helplessness".  All the republicans would have to do is wait it out.  How far can they push the envelope before there are riots in the streets?  Well, with the ICE roundup and the Military Commissions Act, I'm thinking a pretty long time.  People wouldn't like it one bit but no one wants to get shipped to Gitmo.  So, after a few months, and some egregious parlimentary procedures, the senate would stay in GOP hands.  Could they?  Sure.  
      Would they?  Time will tell...

      -3.63, -4.46 "Choose something like a star to stay your mind on- and be staid"

      by goldberry on Fri Dec 15, 2006 at 12:51:15 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  While Iraq continues to go down the shitter (0+ / 0-)

        And the House is trying to actually get things done, you really think this would be a winning tactic?  Time is not on the GOP's side in the least.  

        In Britain they admit to having royalty. In the United States we pretend we don't have any, and then we elect them president.

        by Asak on Fri Dec 15, 2006 at 12:55:07 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  You'd be surprised (0+ / 0-)

          at what people are willing to tolerate.  Thomas Jefferson says it himself in the Declaration of Independence:

          "Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed."

          I'm not advocating full scale rebellion but if the GOP tried to thwart the will of the people by preventing the Democrats to take charge, I can't think of anything short of a full scale rebellion that would get them to back off.  Can you?  

          -3.63, -4.46 "Choose something like a star to stay your mind on- and be staid"

          by goldberry on Fri Dec 15, 2006 at 01:26:07 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

    •  Did you watch the last elections? (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      liberal atheist, Buckeye Terry

      The Republican party would practically cease to exist in 2008 if they did this.  Saying we should move on because we're at war doesn't work when the public is angry because we're at war.  

      In Britain they admit to having royalty. In the United States we pretend we don't have any, and then we elect them president.

      by Asak on Fri Dec 15, 2006 at 12:54:07 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site