GOP senators may boot Alaska Sen. Stevens from committee posts
Published Tuesday, November 11, 2008
Digg
delicious
Facebook
Mixx
Reddit
Stumble It!WASHINGTON -- Sen. Ted Stevens, the Alaska Republican convicted of seven felony counts last month, faces a vote by his Republican colleagues next week on whether to kick him out of the Senate's GOP conference and strip him of plum committee assignments.
Sen. Jim DeMint, R-S.C., has served notice that he'll seek to expel Stevens from the GOP conference at a Nov. 18 meeting to elect party leaders for the session that begins in January.
Stevens is leading narrowly in his re-election bid but has not officially been declared the winner of a seventh full Senate term, but faces potential expulsion proceedings after being found guilty in federal court of seven counts of lying on his financial disclosure reports to conceal more than $250,000 in free home renovations and other gifts from a wealthy oil contractor.
Sen. Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the GOP leader, has called on Stevens to resign and says he'll support expelling him if his convictions stand. But McConnell has also suggested it would be appropriate to permit Stevens to appeal his case before ousting him from the full Senate. Stevens has said he plans to appeal.
McConnell spokesman Don Stewart deferred comment, saying he had not discussed the issue with his boss.
Senators can only be expelled after the Ethics Committee investigates and recommends it. It takes a two-thirds tally, but most senators facing expulsion resign before a vote.
Removing Stevens from the GOP conference is a far lesser penalty than expelling him from the Senate. Stevens would still have full floor rights but would lose his slots on the Appropriations and Commerce committees next year, if re-elected.
Stevens already has been removed as top Republican on the Commerce panel and his ranking position on the powerful subcommittee responsible for the defense budget.
"Most of our leadership has called on Sen. Stevens to resign from the Senate. They should take the lead on removing him from the GOP conference as a convicted felon and taking away his committee assignments," DeMint spokesman Wesley Denton said Tuesday. "We should clean our own house first."
Community Discussion
Newsminer.com doesn't necessarily condone the comments here, nor does it review every post. Read our full user's agreement.
I sure hope all his "buddies" in the Senate have their secrets well hidden and Ted doesn't know any of them. Lots of kettles in the sea of pots.
Whatever one's personal views of Steven's guilt or innocence, it looks like he's being stripped of his power to advocate for Alaskans, even if he wins his appeal and is allowed to stay in the Senate. Assuming, of course, that he wins last week's election.
If he resigns, or is forced out, how will this state conduct the special election to replace him? Will it be an election only republicans can vote in, or, would there only be republican candidates to vote for?
I'm not sure how to frame this question, but if we have to replace Stevens, what would serve Alaska's interests best - a moderate who might fit in better with a democrat controlled house and senate, or a conservative who might fit in better within the GOP structure in DC?
Queen Palin will pick for us, if she gets her way.
No, draco, she can't. Not after Alaskans voted to take away that privilege from the governor after Murkowski selected Lisa to replace him in the senate.
Get the popcorn ready. This will be interesting.
Posturing from a South Carolina Senator LOL....thats a knee slapper. Go pave some roads why don't ya Demint. Oh, and put some shoes on will ya!
If Ted is to be replaced there will be a special election and it will be between a Democrat and a Republican, and maybe some others. Interesting enough it was the Republican controlled state legislature back in the 60's who made it a law that the governor could appoint a US senator to fill a post, in this case it was Democrat Senator Bob Bartlett who was dying. Republican governor Hickel Replaced Bartlett with Ted Stevens, a Republican. After decades it was a voter initiative that stripped that power from the governor. How Ironic now that Ted could be getting replaced, not because of death, but from a dishonorable corruption conviction and this time a republican governor wont be able to replace him with a fellow GOP..
The good, honorable felon should just quietly go to prison and do his time like everybody else.
I don't know which is most entertaining: watching Stevens sweat and twist and turn after his convictions, watching his own party get ready to rip him to shreds, or watching Sarah Palin calling for his resignation.
Oh, heck...all three scenarios are great fun!!! I'm just enjoying ever so much watching the Little Runt slowly going down the tubes (Internet or otherwise) and he being too danged arrogant, stupid, or both to realize it.
On the subject of a possible special election, here is how it would play out. Once Sen. Stevens resigned, the governor would appoint a replacement within a few days. The appointment would last until the special election is held. The election would be help between 60 and 90 days after the vacancy occurs. Anyone could run regardless of party. Even the governor could run if she wanted to. The appointee could also run. Once the election is concluded, the new senator would be sworn in as soon as possible.
In the last special election (after Rep. Nick Begich beat Don Young in the general election even though his plane disappeared a few weeks earlier), Young was able to beat the Democratic replacement, Emil Notti. Since Young already had a statewide campaign organization in place, he was able to mobilize his forces against Notti, who had to start from scratch or borrow pieces of Nick Begich's campaign organization. I can see something similar happening here, if Ted Stevens holds on to win the election and then resigns or is expelled from the Senate. Mark Begich (son of Nick) already has a statewide campaign organization mobilized, so he would have a clear advantage over any Republican replacement candidate in a special election, even Sarah Palin.
Stevens had already been rotated off some commissions where he had some stroke before the trial came down.
If Ted officially loses the election, Begich goes. If Ted wins, then loses his appeal, then the seat will be up for grabs. AS 15.40.140 was updated in response to Frankie-boy appointing his daughter when he was governor.
http://uspolitics.about.com/b/2008/11/07...
Unfortunately, I'm going to have to disagree with you there, cbingham. I think a viable Republican candidate like Palin would probably beat Begich, though if it were a weak Republican Begich could probably win. Let's just hope the absentee votes swing the general election in Begich's favor...
Sooo . . . . I did a little research - something you boys and girls evidently didn't do. The 17th Amendment, Clause 2 to the U.S. Constitution provides that: "When vacancies happen in the representation of any State in the Senate, the executive authority (Governor in this case) of each State shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies: Provided that the legislature of any State may empower the executive thereof to make temporary appointments until the people fill the vacancies by election at the legislature may direct."
The initiative is not the legislature. Therefore, the initiative passed a couple years ago cannot alter the statute that existed prior to the initiative.
The Governor can appoint the replacement - who then serves until the end of the term for the vacancy.
Check it out.
Thanks to all of you who responded after I posted my comment, but especially to akbearable and cbingham.
You both covered my first question well. Thank you.
As to the second question, it was of a more rhetorical nature. No one has addressed this yet. And as Alaskans, all of us, it is a question we definitely need to be asking of ourselves at this juncture in time, because there's a very real prospect that we will soon be faced with making a very important decision about our state, and a decision with long-term consequences.
What would be in the best interests of Alaska . . . someone who can blend in well with the new balance of power in Congress, or someone who can work well with the GOP machine in DC?
Senator Ted Stevens has served the interests of Alaska most honorably within these last few decades. There's no denying that. To be honest, his felony convictions don't mean squat to me. So he messed up on some numbers and paperwork. Who among us can honestly say we haven't done the same, intentionally or not? I mean, it's not like he's been convicted of treason or serial murder, also felonies. And I also mean, it's not like a person at his level of power and influence isn't *daily* bombarded with this . . . this kind of temptation to be corrupted by power. This is my train of thought when I am being as generous as I can be towards Stevens.
And on days when I'm not being generous at all, yepperdoo, he's guilty of all 7 counts of felony convictions.
But his AGE, people, consider his age. 84. Being a convicted felon is a tragic way to end what so many of his constituents have deemed to be many, many valuable years of public service. But because of his age alone . . . felony convictions or no, we would have *absolutely* ended up right where we are here, and now.
Who should/could replace Senator Stevens?
What should be the criteria of the person who will eventually replace him? A liberal, a moderate, a conservative?
Who will do the best job of representing our interests, as Alaskans, in lieu of Senator Stevens?
By death or decree, his seat in the senate will be empty. In all probability, soon.
Whom shall we have represent us, in his place?
Indeed, LadyNYC. If Stevens is kicked out of the Senate, Alaska will be left without proper represenation until a special election can be held.
This is just insane! I pray that Stevens is able to get his conviction overturned very soon. He has been our strongest advocate for decades now and any sane Alaskan shouldn't want to lose him (I speak aside from if you believe him to be guilty or not).
As to my second question, I just want folks to know that I have no friggin' clue as to how to answer it.
Which is why I brought up the question. For my own benefit, I'm seeking well-reasoned and differing opinions to consider and take to heart when, according to akbearable, I might just have a voice in this upcoming special election.
At times, I agree with some of my knucklewalker friends here. Harry Reid is an idiot too. He called for Ted's resignation? What is wrong with him roadtrip?
Assuming that Ted holds on after the votes are all counted, a big if, but if he does; nothing could be better than allowing him to poison the GOP for the next year or so while his appeal is being run through the courts. If resigns or is booted, a special election is held; it'll be a GOP almost for sure and it could be the imbecile from Wasilla. She is just a joke, not poison like Ted. So what is wrong with Reid, roadtrip?
dog
My understanding, darkhorse, is that in Alaska, the citizens carry the same authority as the legislature by virtue of the initiative process. At least that's what I believe was discussed way back when, in poli sci at UAF. Maybe I need to request either a refund or some alzheimers meds at this point.
But if that's the case, and I believe that it is, then the vote of the People stands.
But this is obviously where 'we' find out if those who voted for Ted so that he could wield all of that political muscle were foolish or not.
At the moment, his planned appropriations that he marched before us on the television this October, in urging many to vote for him, may well be on a back burner.
And speaking of burners, I need to pull a rather large loaf of dark dill and caraway rye bread out of the oven, as it's starting to look at least as scorched as Ted does right now.
If Stevens is elected back into office, and if Stevens is given the boot by his fellow Senators, Alaskans can blame it on themselves for having lost the representation. People in this state are belligerent.
cbingham writes: "Mark Begich (son of Nick) already has a statewide campaign organization mobilized, so he would have a clear advantage over any Republican replacement candidate in a special election, even Sarah Palin."
I'm inclined to disagree. If Begich couldn't get past a convicted felon with miserable approval ratings, he isn't going to slide past Palin. He'd probably lose to Sean Parnell as well.
This is a red state. Many people who voted for Stevens know he's liable to get tossed out, but they preferred a second election for his replacement over supporting Begich. The Republicans would have to throw a serious loonball against Begich to lose a special election, and they know it. (And no, I'm not naming names for Republican loonballs, and anyway, there's plenty on the Democratic side as well. In fact, I'd argue that there's more.)
That's how things work in a state where the politics are lopsided toward one party. It goes more or less the same way in overly Democratic states. Ever follow the glorious career of California's Willie Brown?
Lady and wildrose---
Parnell? Binkley? Cuddy? Therrieult? Seekins?
How about an unknown? Uh, how about glacierles? That would work.
Never mind. I just remembered that I broke the law once.
darkhorse, the constitution says that the governor will call for an election. That's why it says the state MAY allow the governor to appoint a TEMPORARY replacement. Other states have similar laws to ours, some allow the governor to appoint.
Probably going to have to rule Stepovich out.
Binkley, Ramras, and Seekins are not in contention for me. Bunch of good ol' boy hacks. I'd send Parnell. Just my plugged nickels.
Stepovich- all I can say is 'bout time!!
600,000 people up here and no one to vote for, amazing. I know, let's find an intelligent, articulate, conservative with a fresh last name and skin like a rhino. Pedigree must include military and/or private sector success.
No lawyers.
Darkhorse, I'm noticing the language in the code you quoted. It says: "the (Governor in this case) of each State shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies: PROVIDED THAT the legislature of any State may empower the executive thereof to make temporary appointments until the people fill the vacancies by election at the legislature may direct." It looks like our state has not empowered, or rather has dis-empowered the executive to make temporary appointments, so the application of the code may be in doubt. Still looks a bit confusing to me, but that's what I'm noticing. Also, even if you interpret the language differently, it could be argued that the legislature voted to make itself unable to give an executive the power to make these appointments. It's going to be interesting, isn't it?
If Ted was looking out for Alaska, he'd step down.
He's been dejected, rejected, and can't serve us in any capacity other than being the butt of jokes. As such, if he wins, it will make us all the laughing stock of the country.
He could defend his honor and appeal the convictions WITHOUT dragging all of Alaska through the mud with him. He could bow out and allow the win to pass unchallenged to Begich, without even counting the votes, saving Alaska from further embarrassment. But does he?
That alone tells me more than enough.
Clearly NOT what the Reps of this State desire Matt. Otherwise the vote would have been considerably different don't you think? As was stated before, this is a Republican State. If the voters wanted a Democrat in office we wouldn't be waiting for the count. Even a diluted Ted has more friends and more pull than a freshman Democrat would. If 2/3 of the Senate wants him out, then we will have the opportunity to elect a new Rep and you will get your wish, and Ted will go out without his dignity. It is the risk he is taking and I am sure that he is well aware of it. He believes in his innocence, right or wrong, and it is his dice roll to make. The VOTERS said they want him still in, at this time by a majority.
And as far as what the rest of the country thinks, until Sarah came along we were just a little spot of the coast of California on the weather map, so who cares what they think now. I HOPE they think we are a bunch of backward yahoos, maybe fewer of them will come here for more than a visit and a lot of the problems we are seeing increasing will level off or dissipate.
I hear that there is an actress out there by the name of Lisa-Ann that does an even better impression of Sarah Palin than Tina Fey.
I'd vote for Parnell. In fact, I already have voted for Parnell. And if more people had voted for Parnell in the primary, we wouldn't be waiting in limbo to learn who won the House race.
Of course, that would rule him out for Senate.
what happens when sean gets elected? who runs the state when sarah goes campaigning?
Post a comment
Commenting requires registration.