Search






Jeff's Amazon.com Wish List

Archive Calendar

November 2024
M T W T F S S
 123
45678910
11121314151617
18192021222324
252627282930  

Archives

Draining the swamp [updated]

That’s what the Democrats will do. Yup.

Illinois Republican Mark Kirk won’t be seated in the U.S. Senate in time for the start of the lame duck session of Congress this month — unlike two other newly elected senators.

The session begins Nov. 15. But state officials say the paperwork officially declaring Kirk the winner of the Senate race won’t be delivered until Nov. 29.

That should still allow Kirk to participate in two weeks of the session in December. He argued strongly during the campaign that voters needed to send him to the Senate quickly so he could help block spending and tax increases.

Two Democrats are expected to be sworn in at the start of the lame duck session. Chris Coons of Delaware will fill the remainder of Vice President Joe Biden’s term, and Joe Manchin of West Virginia replaces the late Robert Byrd.

I’m not a huge fan of Kirk, a self-described “maverick” who is already making overtures toward more mavericky checks on free speech, but the idea that the Senate will seat the two Democrats for the lame duck session while refusing to seat the Republican — particularly when the question of extending Bush’s tax cuts is most immediately pressing — just further points to the left’s utter disdain for the American electorate, provided they don’t vote “correctly.”

Ggah.

****
update: From the Washington Examiner:

Illinois law requires that Kirk assume his office immediately following the election, but unnamed state officials say Kirk can’t be sworn in until Nov. 29 due to “paperwork” delays. Kirk, who replaces Democratic appointee Roland Burris, won his election after promising to be a Republican vote against any attempts by Democrats to pass radical legislation during the lame duck session of Congress. The lame duck session that opens Nov. 15 gives shellacked Democrats two final weeks to pass legislation they failed to approve before the election. Burris will still sit with Senate Democrats if Kirk is not sworn in until Nov. 29.

The seeming inability of unnamed Illinois officials to complete “paperwork” as required by law in a timely manner contrasts mightily with West Virginia and Delaware, where no such delays will delay seating Joe Manchin and Chris Coons, respectively, who will take office on the first day of the lame duck session. That both are Democrats replacing Democrats and thus won’t change the Senate’s partisan balance of power is probably not coincidental. Let’s not forget, either, that the Democratic political machine holding up Kirk’s appointment may be the most corrupt since Tammany Hall.

[…]

Republicans, who have 41 members of the lame duck Senate, should promise to filibuster everything until Kirk takes his rightful place in the upper chamber. National Democrats won’t enjoy having to defend the chicanery of their Illinois brethren and will likely exert pressure on them to stop the funny business. By thus promising to filibuster — and carrying through with the threat if necessary — Republicans will make clear their determination to end business as usual in the Democratic Senate.

66 Replies to “Draining the swamp [updated]”

  1. Joe says:

    In a way, they keep drawing in the rope and wrapping it around their necks. But hey Kos says big things might happen in 2012. Like a few score of Democrats coming up for re-election in the Senate.

    Catch the wave. The sequel is coming in 2012. The more games Dems play in the interim the bigger it would be.

  2. The Dems could hold their horses if they wanted to, as they have in the past. But maybe they feel their moment slipping away…

  3. sdferr says:

    Not sure about this, but it seemed to me we saw — back when Brown was waiting — that the US Senate has the discretion here, i.e., they can seat Kirk if they choose to do without waiting for “paperwork” from Illinois to show up. I may be wrong about that though, since I haven’t looked up the details and may be misremembering now.

  4. JD says:

    Didn’t the clowns in MA try this with Brown too?

  5. happyfeet says:

    McConnell needs to shut those bitches down until Kirk is seated

    filibuster everything until he’s there.

  6. Kirk should show up and demand to be seated while CSPAN2 cameras roll. He should insist that any vote cast by Burris after the election is null and void, and demand a roll-call vote of the Senate on the question of seating him.

    Every Senator that votes against seating Kirk should have his voters reminded what he thinks about election results when he’s up for re-election.

  7. Bob Reed says:

    THE CHICAGO WAY!

  8. Squid says:

    I think if you look at the timeline for our recount in Minnesota you’ll note that our Canvassing Board doesn’t meet ’til the 23rd, either. The argument can be made that in a special election such as this, the IL Canvassing Board should meet sooner (and the counties elections officials should count faster), but I’m not sure that this case is partisan in nature.

    The Dems could hold their horses if they wanted to, as they have in the past.

    If I were a Dem consultant, this is exactly what I’d be recommending right now. Any bad-faith moves they plan to make in their lame-duck session are bad enough; pushing the issues up to get them on the floor before the Thanksgiving break just to keep Kirk out of the mix would pour even more gasoline on the fire.

    If Reid wants to have any chance of being recognized as a responsible grownup in 2012, this is where he should start. We’ll see.

  9. Barney Frank says:

    I have a seat for him.

  10. alppuccino says:

    good one Barney!

  11. Alec Leamas says:

    I think the Democrats seem in search of a different and better electorate to rule.

  12. uhuru says:

    Looks as if Kirk has tribbles for at least one episode.

  13. Ric Locke says:

    OT, as I haven’t kept up: Who the H*l is Brian Kitely, and why should I give a s*t?

    Regards,
    Ric

  14. Jeff G. says:

    See here, Ric.

  15. Ric Locke says:

    Ah. I’m sorry. That was going on when I was having some … issues … and I’d forgotten it completely. It may very well be part of my general deterioration (now where are the keys to the damn Buick!? I need to sell the wreck).

    There is nothing I can say on the subject beyond that you have my support, for whatever (very little) that may be worth. Me, I’m already at the bottom of Kitely’s status hierarchy; there is nothing I can do to make him find me more contemptible, though it might be worth trying.

    Regards,
    Ric

  16. winston smith says:

    It’s very Brechtian ‘dissolve the people, elect another in it’s place

  17. Nolanimrod says:

    This is consistent. Remember how long they kept Roland Burris from being seated.

  18. happyfeet says:

    is this the magnitude of staunch we can expect from our new Team R senators?

    Kirk wouldn’t discuss the situation Friday. His campaign said he was getting some rest, and released a statement saying: “The Senator-elect looks forward to being seated as soon as possible to ensure fiscal conservatives have another vote to hold the line on spending and keep taxes low.”*

    pussy thy name is Mark Kirk

  19. newrouter says:

    it is the funny john stossel tonight took oreally to task for saying “african-americans” instead of “black”. me: i like the spanish negros ’cause i be multiculti that way

  20. newrouter says:

    don’t forget that bill’s suits are tailored by harry reid: undertaker.

  21. splitting hairs says:

    john stossel likes it simple, like “mustachios” instead of hirsute-americans.

  22. geoffb says:

    This may not pull the plug, but should at least start putting some stress on the chain. BTW I like that painting in the first link.

  23. Kevin says:

    I think Jeff G. should change his name to something cool. It’s just too plain. Make it something awesome. You know, like Darleen Click, Caroline Glick, or Radley Balko. How about Jeffrey Gobsmacker? James Gunhedder? Joe Gazpacho? No, that one sounds cold and unapproachable. Jeff Goldberg? Yeah, how about that one? It’s like an iceberg, but made of gold! And if he added a radley, it would be just that much better, Jeff Radley Goldberg.

  24. JD says:

    WTF was that?

  25. Big Bang Hunter says:

    – Kevin is a moby. Just trying to take more time in coming out.

  26. Big Bang Hunter says:

    – You might think of him as a fake but accurate sockpuppet.

  27. Joe says:

    I agree with #6, Kirk should just show up.

    But #12 is good.

  28. Joe says:

    OT: Is this BS or real? Hell, it is something happy might have said if he was president.

  29. Akatsukami says:

    This is consistent. Remember how long they kept Roland Burris from being seated.

    That was Dingy Harry’s racism; this is Dick Daley’s partisanship. Completely different.

  30. Kevin says:

    What’s a moby? Pretty sure I got insulted, but I’m unsure to what extent :(

  31. Carin says:

    First rule of being a moby: deny knowledge of what a moby is.

    Ok, I just made that up.

  32. Slartibartfast says:

    I think this is an Illinois issue, not a US Senate issue.

    Burris was seated because he was an interim appointee, and his seating didn’t have to wait for certified election results. Still, Burris had to wait 9 days for the legal niceties to get sorted out.

  33. I don’t like Mavericks.

    because they’re dangerous

  34. geoffb says:

    China says Obama is the one with junk in the trunk.

  35. Kevin says:

    “What’s a moby?

    See first definition.”

    ACK! No, I’m not a moby. I’m just a goofball. Ultra fiscally right-winged. Thanks for the definition, McGehee.

    Hey, I got yelled at just a week ago on this blog for saying that Darleen Click should marry a guy named Rick and make him take her last name. I know it was a dumb joke, but not in any way mean spirited or insulting. Now I get called a moby for God knows why. What’s going on around here? What am I missing?

  36. JD says:

    Maybe you should ease in to the gibberish and nonsense, not lead with it.

    Barcky sucks.

  37. sdferr says:

    “What am I missing?”

    Playing with names is something most all of us were inclined to do back in our elementary school days, certainly. The temptation to use that sort of play as a means to ridicule political opponents is often too great to pass up still, so we may indulge the easy pass at humor there. Making this sort of play with the names of our hosts, I’d guess, doesn’t even occur to the preponderant majority of the folks who comment here, let alone stand as something they’d actually do in print. Maybe that’s what you’re missing?

  38. McGehee says:

    FWIW, I’ve seen Kevin’s comments in the past and have considered him a more or less typical PW semi-regular — though the goofing on people’s names does sound a lot like some of the shit that actual trolls do every so often, which would help explain the reactions.

    Furthermore, a blog commenter who hasn’t previously encountered the term “moby” often enough previously to know what it means, may be just a bit of a newb and might be well advised to, as JD suggests, ease into the shtick.

  39. geoffb says:

    Another OT: This could get interesting. Allen West chooses a talk radio host as chief of staff.

  40. ThomasD says:

    Everyone needs time to find their inner voice.

    Or voices…

  41. Kevin says:

    Thanks all for the comments. I see now that my childish jokes will not play well on this blog. Unfortunately, that locks out 90% of my repertoire, so I’ll stick to serious comments from now on or go back to lurker status. It is certainly not my intention to annoy anyone (on the right, at least).

    For the record, I DO think that Darleen Click and Radley Balko (from Reason) have the coolest names on the internet, bar none. I wasn’t making fun of them.

  42. Carin says:

    Thanks all for the comments. I see now that my childish jokes will not play well on this blog. Unfortunately, that locks out 90% of my repertoire, so I’ll stick to serious comments from now on or go back to lurker status. It is certainly not my intention to annoy anyone (on the right, at least).

    Oh, childish jokes are OK (or am I thinking of the Hostages?) – it’s only that until folks know where you’re coming from, the jokes may be misinterpreted.

    No harm, no foul.

  43. JD says:

    I have hard edges.

  44. happyfeet says:

    Team R senators are pushing back harder against the earmark moratorium than they are against begin robbed of a vote at this crucial time in our little country’s struggle against socialisms

  45. McGehee says:

    Everyone needs time to find their inner voice.

    Or voices…

    I was up to 17 at one point, but one of them has disappeared.

  46. McGehee says:

    I think one of the other 16 killed it.

  47. Slartibartfast says:

    Slart: some more info.

    I completely believe that Illinois state elections officials are dragging their feet to the degree permitted by law. Or even past that point, to the extent that they can do so without exposing anyone to jail time.

  48. geoffb says:

    to the extent that they can do so without exposing anyone to jail time.

    Obama DOJ gives that a lot of leeway.

  49. Slartibartfast says:

    Obama DOJ gives that a lot of leeway.

    Again, I think this is Illinois state law that decides.

  50. Joe says:

    Kirk needs to go to Washington D.C. and push the issue into the news.

  51. cranky-d says:

    Kevin, start with serious comments, and then devolve at will. Once you’re established as the real deal, you’ll get the benefit of the doubt. It’s the starting with it being personal that doesn’t work well.

  52. Squid says:

    That Examiner op-ed is just more assertion of bad faith without evidence. The IL Canvassing Board meets on the 23rd, same as ours in Minnesota. That’s the date on the books, and while I may be hopelessly naive in giving them the benefit of the doubt, I honestly believe that the 23rd would be the date regardless of who won that election. To paraphrase the old adage: Don’t attribute to malfeasance that which may be explained by bureaucracy.

    The IL Secy of State could tell the various County election officials to count faster, and tell the Canvassing Board to meet earlier, but somehow I doubt that Cook County would be able to get their final county ready before the statutory due date, regardless of consequences. And I doubt there would be any real consequences, since anything the State might threaten would get tied up in endless legal maneuverings as the County fell back on the statutory language for its defense.

    I do think the State of Illinois should try to hurry things up, but I really doubt it’s practical. I do think the Senate should sit on its hands until the new Senator is seated, and I really think that is practical. (Of course, I’d be happy if the Senate say on its hands until after the next election, so I may be biased.)

  53. Rob Crawford says:

    That Examiner op-ed is just more assertion of bad faith without evidence.

    Objection: the history of Illinois provide ample evidence of bad faith when it comes to honest elections and governance.

  54. McGehee says:

    54. Comment by cranky-d on 11/10 @ 10:14 am

    I’ll just reiterate, Kevin’s comment in this thread isn’t a “start,” or wouldn’t be if he commented here more regularly. He’s been around a while but I suppose the only reason I know it is I tend to notice commenters who have the same last name as me.

  55. McGehee says:

    I do think the Senate should sit on its hands until the new Senator is seated

    Or at least not let the statutory former Senator from Illinois continue to hold that seat and potentially cast votes.

  56. McGehee says:

    I tend to notice commenters who have the same FIRST name as me.

    Jeez. I need more caffeine.

  57. Bob Reed says:

    Hmmmmm. Daniels/Barbour, an interesting old fashioned regional mix for 2012. Worth considering.

  58. cranky-d says:

    I know that Kevin has commented here before, but he’s so sporadic that he’s almost unknown.

    Are you saying I don’t pay attention? Huh, are ya, punk?

    Hulk Smash!!

  59. Jeffersonian says:

    Drain the swamp? They ARE the fucking swamp.

  60. Squid says:

    Who’d have thought there’d be TWO Kevin McG’s around here?

  61. McGehee says:

    If his last name isn’t McGehee, he should change it, since I happen to think my name is the coolest on the internet.

  62. happyfeet says:

    wow. bumblefuck’s deficit commission was a spectacular FAIL beyond anyone’s anticipation… this made me giggle…

    The plan would also raise the regular Social Security retirement age to 68 in about 2050 and to 69 in 2075. The full retirement age for those retiring now is 66. For those born in 1960 of after, the full retirement age is now 67.*

    baby steps.

    They just don’t fucking get it.

  63. Spiny Norman says:

    McGehee on 11/10 @ 6:55 am #

    What’s a moby?

    See first definition.

    Interestingly, that definition is lifted verbatim from Zombie’s now-deleted LGF Dictionary. The phrase “fact-checking minions” is a giveaway.

Comments are closed.