Cheney tenure in danger

[Mplssoxfan]

If the President nominated Condi, she'd sail in easily. Too many other battles for Congress to fight.

[FlaSoxxJim]

So says the far left

 

She would be voted in. It is unlikely Al Franken , or whoever your first choice is to be VP is, has any shot at being nominated by a Republican president.

 

She might well be voted in. Rex merely made the assertion that there are plenty of legitimate reasons for her not to be, and I agree with that assertion. The Al Franken bit seemed to come out of nowhere, but, no I I don't think President Bush is about to give Al the nomination. Only slightly less realistic would be Franken actually accepting the nomination.

 

I was taking a cheap shot at FlaSoxxJim. Unless 'FlaSoxxJim' is Robert Novak's soxtalk handle, i wasn't saying Novak is far left.

 

All will be revealed. . .

 

our old buddy Pootie has all but declared a new cold war against the United States

 

So, whadya know? Condi is relevant again for the first time in the last decade-and-a-half.

Edited March 7, 2007 by FlaSoxxJim

[Texsox]

The last thing the Dems will allow to pass is someone that would make a strong Pres candidiate in'08. I'm thinking someone like an old, career politician who is about out of gas. Someone to get them through the next couple years. If they still had both houses, they would try and build a strong Pres candidate.

[whitesoxfan101]

You could easily deny any of Bush's cronies (Condi included) the VP spot since they are almost all like Bush (aka have done a bad job).

[kapkomet]

This thread symbolizes what's wrong with people today. Bush and his people suck, therefore, do not give any of those people a chance.

 

You really want a pick? How about Joe L.??

[FlaSoxxJim]

This thread symbolizes what's wrong with people today. Bush and his people suck, therefore, do not give any of those people a chance.

 

You really want a pick? How about Joe L.??

 

Jomentum!!

 

It would be convenient enough to just skip down the hall at the White House to steal a kiss or two from the Prez at any rate.

[kapkomet]

I knew those two were having an affair! Scrumptious!

[Texsox]

I'd like to offer Senator Ted Stevens of Alaska. I think he'd be a nice, solid pick.

[Gregory Pratt]

I'd like to offer Senator Ted Stevens of Alaska. I think he'd be a nice, solid pick.

 

Except for being one of the sleazier men in government.

[Texsox]

Except for being one of the sleazier men in government.

 

Nice going away present. He's got to be close to retirement. Would never be a Pres candidate. Everyone will pray President Bush remains healthy.

 

 

And I think Condi would be an interesting pick, for all the reasons Jim mentioned. Not much to do as Veep. Get's us a new Secretary. Could be a win-win.

[NorthSideSox72]

1. Whatever this turns out to be health-wise for Cheney, I hope it gets better and this becomes a non-issue. I despise Cheney for a lot of things, but I don't believe him to be an evil person. I hope he gets better.

 

2. If this does happen, I doubt Bush picks a Prez candidate. For Bush, it looks like the beginning of another power play precedent. For the candidate, they get all their negatives exposed early and often, while not being able to achieve anything materially positive. I don't see the gain there, unless they were a marginal candidate to begin with (and therefore need the attention).

 

3. Condi Rice is not ready to be a President. Therefore, I dealy hope she doesn't get a job one heart beat away from the Presidency.

[Texsox]

1. Whatever this turns out to be health-wise for Cheney, I hope it gets better and this becomes a non-issue. I despise Cheney for a lot of things, but I don't believe him to be an evil person. I hope he gets better.

 

2. If this does happen, I doubt Bush picks a Prez candidate. For Bush, it looks like the beginning of another power play precedent. For the candidate, they get all their negatives exposed early and often, while not being able to achieve anything materially positive. I don't see the gain there, unless they were a marginal candidate to begin with (and therefore need the attention).

 

3. Condi Rice is not ready to be a President. Therefore, I dealy hope she doesn't get a job one heart beat away from the Presidency.

 

I doubt anyone is ready to be President under those circumstances. If that was truly the #1 priority, we'd be looking to Bush the older or Clinton to take over the reigns. They don't have to be taught where the coffee pot and bathrooms are.

 

But this will be about politics.

[Rex Kickass]

This thread symbolizes what's wrong with people today. Bush and his people suck, therefore, do not give any of those people a chance.

 

You really want a pick? How about Joe L.??

 

What about Robert Gates? He'd be a good pick.

 

Joe Lieberman is a pick that would seem most likely. Not only would he "appear" to be bi-partisan but it would have the added effect of moving the Senate back in the control of Republicans, since the CT Governor is GOP.

[Balta1701]

What about Robert Gates? He'd be a good pick.

 

Joe Lieberman is a pick that would seem most likely. Not only would he "appear" to be bi-partisan but it would have the added effect of moving the Senate back in the control of Republicans, since the CT Governor is GOP.

This is actually incorrect as I understand it.

 

When the Senate adopted its rules at the start of this session, the way the rules were constructed, even if 1 Senator were to flip parties or were to leave, Harry Reid would still maintain his role as majority leader and the Democrats should still maintain committee chairmanships.

 

It was different in 2000 where the Senate was actually split 50-50, and the Senate started off when Al Gore was still the VP. For about 2 weeks, the Dems had enough power that they could have actually constructed the organizing resolutions for the Senate if they had so chosen. Instead of being difficult, a deal was struck in that case where by the organizing resolution called for an even distribution of the committee chairmanship power between the 2 parties, and an additional clause was included such that the full set of majority leader and committee chair positions would flip fully to the new majority party in the event of a change of 1 seat (which wound up happening with Jeffords).

 

That same sort of language was not included in this year's organizing resolution. It's always possible a deal could be struck or the new majority could just shut down the Senate until the new minority decided to listen, but even if Joe Lieberman switched parties today, as I understand things, the Dems would still control the machinery of the Senate barring a revisiting of the organizing resolution.

Edited March 7, 2007 by Balta1701

[kapkomet]

This is actually incorrect as I understand it.

 

When the Senate adopted its rules at the start of this session, the way the rules were constructed, even if 1 Senator were to flip parties or were to leave, Harry Reid would still maintain his role as majority leader and the Democrats should still maintain committee chairmanships.

 

It was different in 2000 where the Senate was actually split 50-50, and the Senate started off when Al Gore was still the VP. For about 2 weeks, the Dems had enough power that they could have actually constructed the organizing resolutions for the Senate if they had so chosen. Instead of being difficult, a deal was struck in that case where by the organizing resolution called for an even distribution of the committee chairmanship power between the 2 parties, and an additional clause was included such that the full set of majority leader and committee chair positions would flip fully to the new majority party in the event of a change of 1 seat (which wound up happening with Jeffords).

 

That same sort of language was not included in this year's organizing resolution. It's always possible a deal could be struck or the new majority could just shut down the Senate until the new minority decided to listen, but even if Joe Lieberman switched parties today, as I understand things, the Dems would still control the machinery of the Senate barring a revisiting of the organizing resolution.

And the Republicans agreed to this? That would be a surprise.

[Balta1701]

And the Republicans agreed to this? That would be a surprise.

The Republicans actually had no choice. The party in power is the one that writes the organizing resolution. In 2007, the Democrats have a majority as long as Lieberman votes with them and Jeffords does not caucus with the Republicans.

 

I would also doubt that the Republicans would have included measures similar to 2000 when they wrote the organizing resolutions in 2004 and 2002, but I can't be certain without knowing where the hell to look for them, and I'm too busy for that anyway.

 

The case of the Jeffords switch actually being able to change things in the Senate is, as far as I can tell, a unique event, precipitated by the dual facts of a 50-50 Senate on January 3 2001 and the fact that Al Gore was still VP on that day, which would have given the Dems the power to enact the organizing resolution if they really wanted to try to.

[kapkomet]

The Republicans actually had no choice. The party in power is the one that writes the organizing resolution. In 2007, the Democrats have a majority as long as Lieberman votes with them and Jeffords does not caucus with the Republicans.

 

I would also doubt that the Republicans would have included measures similar to 2000 when they wrote the organizing resolutions in 2004 and 2002, but I can't be certain without knowing where the hell to look for them, and I'm too busy for that anyway.

 

The case of the Jeffords switch actually being able to change things in the Senate is, as far as I can tell, a unique event, precipitated by the dual facts of a 50-50 Senate on January 3 2001 and the fact that Al Gore was still VP on that day, which would have given the Dems the power to enact the organizing resolution if they really wanted to try to.

I know that this is all procedural and parliamentary rules, but I would think that if the Republicans wanted to block this, they could have.

 

It really doesn't matter in the grand scheme of things, it's just interesting.

[Texsox]

I am certain that both parties have attorneys whose job is to research these "little interesting" opportunities.

[Balta1701]

I know that this is all procedural and parliamentary rules, but I would think that if the Republicans wanted to block this, they could have.

 

It really doesn't matter in the grand scheme of things, it's just interesting.

The cute little thing about that resolution is...all of the procedural and parliamentary rules that allow the minority to put the brakes on legislation in the Senate are actually contained within that organizing resolution. If I understand the system correctly, without it being passed, any rules not written into the Constitution don't really exist. In other words, the filibuster, for example, doesn't actually exist until an organizing resolution is passed specifying the rules for cloture. It is possible to edit these rules afterwards, but it requires either a 2/3 majority vote (according to the rules resolution) or something along the lines of the nuclear option.

 

The only power the Republicans had at the start of the Senate before the Rules resolution was adopted was the fact that they still held the gavels in all of the committees. The one thing they could have done was refuse to hand over the gavels until they got a better deal in the rules resolution. I'm not exactly sure how this works, and my memory is a bit fuzzy over the last time it happened (2003 when the Dems held onto the gavels for an extra day because of something they were unhappy about in the rules resolution). I'm fairly certain that since the last Senate didn't pass any of the required budgetary resolutions last year, and the Dems had to quickly enact legislation extending the 2005 budget resolutions when they took power, taking that step would have shut down the government.

[longshot7]

1. As for Cheney, I'll believe it when I see it.

 

2. As a left-leaning independent, I have no problem with Condi.

 

3. If this happens, I wouldn't be surprised if we have a Ford redux. Don't forget about the curse.

[Rex Kickass]

The Republicans actually had no choice. The party in power is the one that writes the organizing resolution. In 2007, the Democrats have a majority as long as Lieberman votes with them and Jeffords does not caucus with the Republicans.

 

I would also doubt that the Republicans would have included measures similar to 2000 when they wrote the organizing resolutions in 2004 and 2002, but I can't be certain without knowing where the hell to look for them, and I'm too busy for that anyway.

 

The case of the Jeffords switch actually being able to change things in the Senate is, as far as I can tell, a unique event, precipitated by the dual facts of a 50-50 Senate on January 3 2001 and the fact that Al Gore was still VP on that day, which would have given the Dems the power to enact the organizing resolution if they really wanted to try to.

 

The GOP now controlling 50+1 seats of the Senate though could filibuster for new organizing resolutions. There are outs for the GOP that enable a flipping of Senate control. Although unlikely, it is a possibility.

[Texsox]

My feeling is the GOP should be able to appoint anyone who isn't under indictment. IMHO the person can be as far right wing as Bush wants to nominate and that should not effect the confirmation. I've said the same thing with Judges, etc.

[Rex Kickass]

My feeling is the party shouldnt get to nominate anyone. The President should.

[whitesoxfan101]

My feeling is the party shouldnt get to nominate anyone. The President should.

 

I think most anybody would agree with that, but that's not how it works nowadays. The parties themselves run everything, which IMO is the biggest problem in politics today in this country, by far.