I thought we’d get some sanity in our senators after we got rid of Santorum. WTF?

CL–

my apologies for missing that you had mentioned Thurmond. I am properly humiliated :)

Actually, it’s not really off topic (thought it is EPU’d)–the votes in the Senate are close enough, and Reid mentions it enough, and it comes up enough, that I think it’s worth clarifying this as much as possible here rather than email.

I spoke to a staffer in Senator Kennedy’s Boston office. He said that if Senator X switches party:

(a) Nothing happens

(b) The Republican’s won’t want to walk into a floor fight over the organizing resolutions having just gotten their heads handed to them in November

(c) The Dems won’t let it get to the floor even if the Republicans are too stupid to recognize (b)

(d) The Republicans know (c) reinforcing point (b)

Point (c) in particular means that Democrats truly control what happens. It is possible they would cede control, but if they do so, it would be by choice. So I’m not sure I agree that they are entitled to the chairs, but they are procedurally capable of holding onto them.

As for trying to take advantage of sickness/death of Senators, he was of the opinion the Republicans would not be so stupid as to combine consideration (b) with looking like vultures. Which, again, runs into points (c) and (d).

I did ask if my Senator had ever considered threatening to bolt in order to increase his own leverage. The staffer laughed…

nb that in the 83rd Congress, due to a rash of Senator deaths, the initial majority party ended up in the minority by 2 seats at one point, yet the organizing resolutions were never revisited. In fact, irony of ironies, Thurmond was elected to the Senate in the special election to replace a Senator who had died during that session!

Thanks for that great piece of trivia! “Thurmond was elected to the Senate in the special election to replace a Senator who had died during that session.”

Your conversation is similar to ones I’ve had w/friends who work in the leadership offices. It really gets to the practical realities vs. a mechanical application of a formula, which in inapplicable.

Practical politics control the outcome more than anything and political realities control to the exclusion of whatever language is contained in an organizing resolution.

In 2001, Jeffords did not come to work at 9:00 a.m. and switch at lunchtime. There were several weeks of negotiations regarding a myriad of issues right down to whether his GOP sponsored senate pages would be kept on Democratic sponsored pages after he switched.

Similarly, no Senator will switch until the GOP has decided how to play their hand and the two (switching Senator & GOP) have negotiated the terms of the switch. The practical reality is that Senator X would spend many hours in McConnell’s & Lott’s offices negotiating all types of details. These situations are fluid but they are also handled mostly in advance and completely behind closed doors. This does not play out or get negotiated on the floor of the Senate.

I agree that if an “untimely” befalls any of our caucus, the current political climate plays heavily into the outcome. Once again, however, this has nothing to do with the organizing resolution. It has to do with both parties playing their political hands and negotiating the terms of a switchover or as you point out, whether there is a switchover. The Democrats are in control of the negotiations, but the Senate is at a standstill until a mutually acceptable agreement is reached.

The whole idea of the organizing resolution is a bit of red herring. Every congress has them and they are the law of the land unless there is a switch in majorities at which point everything is in play. Then it is open season and the particular politics/personalities and agendas all come into play.

That is also the real lesson from 2001. Many Senators anticipated a potential switch and they started the negotiations in late Nov.-Dec. 2000 before the session even began. The idea being that the Senate might look different in December 2002 than in January 2001. They were right for the wrong reasons.

slainte,
cl

IMHO soundbyte wars are for low information voters, the kind that voted Lieberman4Lieberman into the Senate over Lamont.

my apologies for missing that you had mentioned Thurmond. I am properly humiliated :)

Actually, it’s not really off topic (thought it is EPU’d)–the votes in the Senate are close enough, and Reid mentions it enough, and it comes up enough, that I think it’s worth clarifying this as much as possible here rather than email.

I spoke to a staffer in Senator Kennedy’s Boston office. He said that if Senator X switches party:

(a) Nothing happens

(b) The Republican’s won’t want to walk into a floor fight over the organizing resolutions having just gotten their heads handed to them in November

(c) The Dems won’t let it get to the floor even if the Republicans are too stupid to recognize (b)

(d) The Republicans know (c) reinforcing point (b)

Point (c) in particular means that Democrats truly control what happens. It is possible they would cede control, but if they do so, it would be by choice. So I’m not sure I agree that they are entitled to the chairs, but they are procedurally capable of holding onto them.

As for trying to take advantage of sickness/death of Senators, he was of the opinion the Republicans would not be so stupid as to combine consideration (b) with looking like vultures. Which, again, runs into points (c) and (d).

I did ask if my Senator had ever considered threatening to bolt in order to increase his own leverage. The staffer laughed…

nb that in the 83rd Congress, due to a rash of Senator deaths, the initial majority party ended up in the minority by 2 seats at one point, yet the organizing resolutions were never revisited. In fact, irony of ironies, Thurmond was elected to the Senate in the special election to replace a Senator who had died during that session!

Quzi @ 124

Thanks LHP and Rayne on the links. I work in technology and have been very interested in this story.

Come back and give some feedback after you’ve read it, if you would, please. Thanks.

Rayne,

I will be happy to share feedback. I have a busy morning @ work, so I may not get to it until this afternoon.

Per everyone else scarecrow, thanks very much.

Per cl and others above, I appreciate the need for word-smithing around “support our troops.” I would however, humbly submit that in the soundbyte battle, we are getting our asses kicked everytime anyone calls Iraq a “war.” It’s an “occupation” and that’s all it’s ever been. IMHO, the more we hammer on the word “occupation,” everything else falls into place.

Agreed, but the point that this has always been an occupation is never going to fly in the general discourse. We invaded Iraq, even if it was based upon lies, and that’s an act of war.

It’s a better talking point, I think, to say that this has been an occupation, not a war, ever since Bush declared ‘Mission Accomplished’.

Adie @ 167

Good Morning Scarecrow, and Dawgs!

As soon as the vote was in & announced more than once so I was sure, dinner was put on hold yestidie while the cook fired off a thankyou to Ben Nelson & Chuck Hagel.

Let’s not get to effusive in praise of Nelson or Hagel. Something tells me they are both one carrot-stick-at-a-time congresscritters.

effusive? MOI??? heh heh, your concern is appreciated, but…

doncha worry. i wuz just ticklin’ their noses.
i luvs havin’ wobbly & pug congresscritters confoozed & confuddled just enuf to hep the Dems keep their edge.
please to feel rest-assured. they didn’ even get more than a tantalizing whiff ‘a that carrot. ;->