Politico is reporting that Dems are looking to find a way to "elevate" Byrd out of the Chairmanship of the Appropriations Committee, because he is finally too old to do the job effectively. Whether this happens sooner or later, it's obvious that Byrd won't be chairing that committee until 2012, when he's next up for re-election: he will have to resign the chairmanship probably sometime in 2008, and will probably not be serving as a Senator in 2011 one way or another. (Whether he resigns outright in 2008 or 2009, or carries on in the Senate until his body finally stops working, is anyone's guess.)
What I'm really wondering about though is this piece of gossip in the article:
Democratic Sens. Tom Harkin of Iowa, Barbara Mikulski of Maryland and Herb Kohl of Wisconsin are the fourth through sixth most senior members of the Appropriations Committee.
But elevating any one of them to chair may generate controversy that Democratic leaders would want to avoid, according to party insiders.
Murray could then become the odds-on favorite to replace Byrd, at least in an "acting chairwoman" capacity, according to Democratic insiders.
She is already a member of the Democratic leadership as conference secretary and has earned respect from her colleagues in recent years for her work on appropriations bills.
Three cheers for Patty Murray: she seems generally trustworthy and I'm glad to see her moving up in the caucus, especially into such powerful and typically corrupt positions as Appropriations Chair.
But what the hell is the controversy surrounding Harkin, Mikulski, and Kohl?
The last two are rumored to be gay (Mikulski somewhat more reliably than Kohl), but I don't think that alone would be enough to keep them from chairing Approps. Lindsay Graham is about to be re-elected, David Dreier chaired the Rules committee, Jim McCrery was ranking member on Ways and Means, Larry Craig, Mark Foley, Barney Frank... I have trouble believing that the power establishment of DC wouldn't respect the glass closets of these two just as they've respected everyone else's. It's possible that after Larry Craig, the glass closets have grown so thin and fragile that any further move of any kind by their occupants would shatter it, but that's a not-entirely-satisfying explanation. David Dreier hit a ceiling and found that he could rise no further and still remain officially closeted, but that's because as a Republican he had the hypocrisy charge and the opposition of his own base to deal with. Without either of those, there's no good reason for the press to cause problems for a Democrat. Alternately, Craig Foley and Frank were called out because each had a documentable and potentially criminal sexual misdeed; however, if that were the case for Mikulski or Kohl, their chairmanship of a committee shouldn't make much difference because such behavior would be publishable news regardless. Kolbe, meanwhile, was outed by hostile liberal gays in the alternative press and then chose to self-out to the mainstream press. I don't think there are any hostile liberal gays pursuing Mikulski or Kohl, and if there are hostile conservatives who now have the power to out gay Democrats even in the absence of voting-record hypocrisy OR quasi-criminal wrongdoing, that is a new development.
So in sum, I'd be a little surprised if simply being gay alone was enough to block these two.
(Is it possible that someone has evidence of wrongdoing but would only come forward if the Senator sought a promotion, and not otherwise? Weird. I assume these two chair subcommittees so they're already eminently blackmailable as is, if profit were the motive.)
I wonder even more why they wouldn't want to give Appropriations to Harkin. I know he's a liberal, but I don't think that would be sufficient to "cause controversy that Democratic leaders would want to avoid."
So what's the deal with Harkin? And is it really the lavender issue with Mikulski and Kohl, or is there something else involved with either or both of them?
And finally: Byrd is closing in on 50 years in the Senate (I think he'll make it on inauguration day, 2009). So maybe he's waiting for that. So another question: if he renounced his retirement in say August 2008, so a special election would be called to coincide with the November 2008 general election, would that specially elected Senator take office before the regularly scheduled inauguration day? If so, Byrd would have to wait until after the November 2008 election to announce his retirement, if he wanted to hit that magic 50 year mark that is.