Best Wishes To Sen. Johnson And His Family

The WaPo reports on Sen. Johnson's medical condition:

Sen. Tim Johnson (D-S.D.) underwent emergency surgery overnight to repair bleeding inside his brain and was "recovering without complication" this morning, according to the U.S. Capitol physician.

Johnson, 59, who is in the critical care unit at George Washington University Hospital, fell ill at the Capitol yesterday, introducing a note of uncertainty over control of the Senate just weeks before Democrats are to take over with a one-vote margin.

Johnson "was found to have had an intracerebral bleed caused by a congenital arteriovenous malformation," Adm. John Eisold, attending physician of the U.S. Capitol, said in a statement issued by the senator's office shortly after 9 a.m. today. "He underwent successful surgery to evacuate the blood and stabilize the malformation." Eisold said it was too early to offer a long-term prognosis.

*IF* Johnson is unable to serve, a replacement will be selected by the Republican Governor of South Dakota.  Doesn't this mean that the Senate will be 50-50, with Dick Cheney putting the Reps back in power?  Not so fast:

The only time that partisan control of the Senate changed in mid-session, historians say, was in 2001. Republicans began the year controlling the 50-50 chamber with Cheney's tie-breaking vote. But Democrats, mindful of the recent sudden death of Sen. Paul Coverdell (R-Ga.), were aware they could be a heartbeat away from the majority.

In order to adopt new rules organizing the Senate, the two parties must reach nearly unanimous agreement. Democrats in 2001 blocked the naming of committee chairmen and members, demanding concessions before agreeing to the rules. Among those concessions: Should the numerical advantage change, all committee assignments and chairmanships would be nullified, and a new organization would have to be submitted.

That's what happened, not because of a death but because disgruntled moderate Republican Sen. James M. Jeffords (Vt.) decided to caucus with the Democrats, giving them a 51-49 edge and the powers of the majority. Senate Republican sources said yesterday that their party is likely to press for similar concessions when negotiating the operating rules for the next Congress. But even if Johnson were incapacitated, Democratic aides say, they would resist.

A different scenario unfolded in 1954, after the deaths and replacements of several senators over two years. Republicans remained the majority party even though Democrats eventually outnumbered them, 48 to 47, with one independent. Democratic leader Lyndon B. Johnson did not challenge the GOP's control, in part, historians said, because the independent, Wayne L. Morse of Oregon, warned that he would caucus with the Republicans if need be. That would have led to a 48-48 chamber, and Vice President Richard M. Nixon would have broken the tie in Republicans' favor.

The fact that the only other time time was so recently suggests that turnabout is fair play and the 2001 rules will be picked up again. My guess is that Dems hads been hoping to drop the 2001 rules in order to assure that Joe Lieberman could not hold the party hostage past the reorganization votes in Jan 2007.  Now the Johnson situation gives added urgency to re-writing the rules in their favor.

As to this report that "even if Johnson were incapacitated, Democratic aides say, they would resist", well, resistance is futile.  Maybe.

If I had to pick a side, I suppose that Dems actually have a slightly better argument for a deal which would allow them to keep control.  Unlike the aftermath of the ghastly Florida 2000 election, the vox populi seemed to be fairly clear last November.  And as I recall, various commentators have pointed out that, by total population represented, the 50 remaining Democratic Senators have a much larger constituency than their 50 Republican counterparts (Johnson, coming from South Dakota, hardly affects that calculation).  Well, with any luck Johnson will recover nicely and this will not be an issue.

Meanwhile, we rely on the Huffers and DUmpsters to suggest that doctors check Johnson for traces of polonium 210.  Cui bono?

UPDATE:  The DU administrators are battling it out with insurgents:

A message from the DU admins: Please stop posting baseless conspiracy stuff about Senator Johnson.

I have instructed the mods to lock or delete any threads that engage in baseless conspiracy speculation about Senator Johnson.

In anticipation of the most likely complaint, here is my reply: If at any point in the future some reliable evidence of foul play were to come to light, then you of course would be permitted to discuss it. But unless that happens, you're just making stuff up, and looking silly in the process. And making the rest of us look silly.

Thank you for your understanding.

Can the central government at DU hold or is partition inevitable?

Comments

[Rafer Hoxworth]

Wait a minute. 50-50? 51-49? Huh? I heard somebiody talkin the other day about some rube from the east. Lemme see... wazzis name? Joe. Joe sumpin. Oh yeah, Joe Lieberman.

Wouldn't that make it 50-49-1, or 49-50-1 or 48-51-1?

Can't the folks with jerneelizm degrees harken back to early Noveber?

[Slartibartfast]

And as I recall, various commentators have pointed out that, by total population represented, the 50 remaining Democratic Senators have a much larger constituency than their 50 Republican counterparts (Johnson, coming from South Dakota, hardly affects that calculation).

I hate to keep doing this, but what possible purpose could such an observation serve? Senators don't represent constituencies, they represent states.

[Don]

True Slarti-but that argument is somewhat eroded by the 17th amendment which makes them representatives of the people in those states.

[MayBee]

And as I recall, various commentators have pointed out that, by total population represented, the 50 remaining Democratic Senators have a much larger constituency than their 50 Republican counterparts

Isn't the Senate supposed to balance out the population-based representation of the House? One state two votes?

True Slarti-but that argument is somewhat eroded by the 17th amendment which makes them representatives of the people in those states.

Maybe we could get a Dem Senator with 2/3 Dem population and 1/3 Rep population to caucus with the Reps 1/3 of the time.

[Patton]

Why are we talking about 'mid-seesion'?

The Republicans are in control now and have been for years. The Democrats need Johnsons vote to take control and if he's out, they have nothing to take control with.

The new Senate doesn't exist until January
when the Senators are sworn in. I don't get the idea that somehow the Democrats are now in charge and the Republcians can't change that. The Democrats are not in charge and may not have the votes to change that fact.

The only reason Democrats got any concessions before is that the Republicans once again wimped out of a real fight.

Make Robert Byrd stand on the floor and fight it out for 8-12 days, then see how many Democrats are left.

I wish Senator Johnson well, I don't wish him his job back. He was meant to do bigger and better things and should move on!

[Patton]

"""by total population represented, the 50 remaining Democratic Senators have a much larger constituency than their 50 Republican counterparts """

That has to be by far the absolute dummest argument I have ever heard. What does that even mean?

So if you have both Senators from California you count the people twice, how silly is that. And what about states with one Democrat and one Republican in the Senate? What if the Democrats had 54 Senators and the Republicans 46, BUTT, the Republicans represented more people - WOULD THE REPUBLICANS BE GIVEN THE SENATE...I DIDN'T THINK SO. The Senators represent the States even if they are elected by the 'people'.

[Patton]

""""True Slarti-but that argument is somewhat eroded by the 17th amendment which makes them representatives of the people in those states."""

If you actually READ the 17th Amendment it says no such thing. Its says they are 'elected by the people', not that they are representatives of the people.

They is NO constitutional requirement that any Senator actual represent the views of the majority of the people in their state. Otherwise no Senator would support gay marriage.

[Sue]

True Slarti-but that argument is somewhat eroded by the 17th amendment which makes them representatives of the people in those states.

Well, no, the 17th amendment does not do that. The 17th amendment merely changed the way senators were chosen. But if you want to make the point that because of the 17th amendment, they became little more than representatives, I'll buy it.

[Sue]

YIKES!

[Patton]

Of course the liberals are already speculating that Bush or the Republicans did this to Johnson.

I guess since Bush was so willing to kill so many innocent Americans on Sept 11th, what's one more.

Perhaps the Republicans will start to learn to fight back dirty the Democrat way.

[Terrye]

Here in Indiana we have one Republican Senator: Lugar and one Democratic Senator Bayh. So how does that divvy up?

In fact in the early days of the Republic the Senate was picked by the state governments, not by direct election at all. The idea is to balance out the states. You see the founding fathers felt that the states were sovereign and as such they should have the same representation in the Senate.

[Patton]

And just WHY would the Democrats have a better argument that they should be in control?

The people of South Dakota also elected their Governor, and they chose him to choose their next Senator if one can't carry out his duties. Why is his decision - back by his elected representation of the people of the state - any less valid then the Democrats position??

[Don]

Buy it Sue b/c that's my point exactly. IMO the 17th amendment was the greatest mistake in constitutional history and was integral to the growth of big government decried by conservatives.

Advocating its repeal it is not something you hear too often, though radio host Neal Boortz did mention it once.

[Terrye]

No one did this to Johnson, it just happens. My mother had an aneurysm rupture back in 1997, she lived another three years but she required around the clock care. When the doctor did the surgery on her he found three other weak areas in vessels in her brain and had to clamp them off. They did not expect her to survive at all, but somehow she did. The doctors told us that my mother had been born with that weakness in that blood vessel and it just picked then to rupture. He said that nothing she had done had caused her stroke.

Sometimes these things just happen. In fact they happen everyday to all kinds of people.

[Terrye]

Don:

Oh yeah right, we should listen to you and ignore the founding fathers. After all what do they know?

What they knew was that they did not want a handful of states running everything. I can see it now, some big city polictical machines would control everything, screw the rest of us.

And btw, for all the crying and moaning of the lefties in the last election George Bush got more votes than any president in history. And somehow that did not make him legitimate to a lot of Democrats out there.

So please, keep your grubby paws off the structure of government.

[MayBee]

And just WHY would the Democrats have a better argument that they should be in control?

Actually, both of TM's arguments (population governed by Dems higher, voters went Dem this election) hold true whether Johnson is a Dem or a Republican. If he were Rep, would it make sense to replace him with a Dem-- you know, to go along with the will of the American people?

[Patton]

I find it terribly ironic that anyone on the left would be concerned that any Republican was burying Tim Johnson too early.

For the party of abortion, and the killing of Terry Schiavo, and one that completely overlooks people like Mary Joe Kopeckne for poltical gain to now worry that others are posturing for political gain over some other humans misfortune is rather ironic.

Much of the Democrat Party is based on the legal killing of babies in the womb, and now they so fear death??

If Tim Johnson had been aborted, they wouldn't have thought a thing about his potential life - except how many stem cells they could have harvested.

[Sue]

Advocating its repeal it is not something you hear too often

I know. My voice has been ignored on that score.

[Sue]

Actually, there are good arguments both directions. Johnson only won his seat by a little less than 600 votes. Daschle was kicked to the curb by the republican who lost to Johnson. Johnson is a very conservative democrat and the people of SD voted for the man, not necessarily the party. The governor is republican. And if this was reversed, the conversation wouldn't be happening. A democrat would do it in a heart beat and not think twice about it.

If we were talking about Mass. though, I think the argument that a democrat should be replaced by a democrat would hold more water. Republican senators do not get elected there. Not so in SD.

[Terrye]

Patton:

I don't often agree with the Democrats anymore, considering the fact that I was one for many years but....this is one of those things people need to try and be non partisan about. A stroke coming out of nowhere like this is devastating, both to person who suffers it and to their families. And it could happen to anyone. People think you have to be old or in bad health, not so.

[AST]

Don't forget the "Weekend at Bernie's" scenario where they just prop Johnson up or extend his "recovery" and refuse to declare the seat vacant. He'd have to be a vegetable not to be able to vote as he was told.

It's happened before.

[ed]

Hmmmm.

Sooooo.

Who here actually thinks the Republicans will fight over this?

Anybody remember "Memo Gate"? Where the Democrats listed how they were going to subvert the intelligence committee to partisan ends? And Orin Hatch apologised to the Democrats?

Republicans having a spine? I wouldn't hold my breath.

[Jane]

AST,

AS soon as it happened I thought the democrats would be taking a decidedly different position than they did on Schiavo.

But it is also true that Johnson could be counted on to vote with the right on certain issues, I suspect social issues, so if he stays around but doesn't actually go to work he will be missed on both sides.

And AV malformation is recoverable - according to the family cardiologist; a lot depends on where in the brain it occurred. I hope he gets well soon at any rate. I recall quite vividly when some cheered when Reagan died, and I vowed to never go quite that low politically.

[Sue]

I wouldn't hold my breath.

Me either. However, in this case, the republican governor is very popular. And wanted to maybe run for the seat himself in 08. Maybe he'll appoint himself?

Another thing, why would the republican governor give the democrats a leg up in SD politics by appointing another democrat who would be the imcumbent in 08? The balance of the senate is not the only issue here.

Hopefully, we are merely wasting our time speculating. I personally want Mr. Johnson to fully recover and make this all moot.

[larwyn]

Aren't you missing:

Flashback: Republican Senator Paul Coverdale Died of a *Stroke* In 2000, And The Democratic Governor Appointed A Democrat In His Place????

Flashback: Republican Senator Paul Coverdale Died of a *Stroke* In 2000, And The Democratic Governor Appointed A Democrat In His Place
—Ace
NYT link, so don't bother clicking, but trust me, it's true.

And of course Jim Jeffords jumped parties in 2002, giving the nation a Democratically controlled (well, halfsies) Senate that it had not in fact voted for.

The media, of course, was ecstatic.

But we'll be told that the very-Republican state of South Dakota has been voting the party, not the man, all these years, and so a Democrat must be appointed in Johnson's place (to honor him, even though that actually honors his party, not him), or that the South Dakota must not possibly put forward a replacement Republican because that would change the balance of power in the Senate against the wishes of the voters.

Uh-huh.

Thanks to Andy the Squirrel.

All of this is a little premature, I guess, but I suppose it's best to be ready for the screaming.

Posted by Ace at 01:54 PM | Comments (9) | New Comments Thingy | TrackBack (0)

We are at war, we cannot pass on opportunity to stop Conyers, Leahy and the whole crowd in their tracks, if we are granted it. God does work in mysterious ways. Losing the election sent word that we were not happy with what the RePubs were doing. They've gotten the msg.

Purely SNARK:
Cheney throwing Rangel out of his office!

[Patton]

Terrye,
That's all well and good, but the liberals like Joan Behar are already making claims that Johnson may have been the victim of a Republican assasination attempt, so I feel no need to think kindly of the left.

And why would any liberal think anymore of Tim Johnson the Senator, then Tim Johnson the fetus??

[MayBee]

Yes, I certainly hope Senator Johnson recovers. I can't imagine how frightening this whole thing must be for him and his family.

[Rick Ballard]

I personally want Mr. Johnson to fully recover and make this all moot.

Brava, Sue. I think I'll sit this Danse Macabre out. I hope Senator Johnson has a full recovery and is then defeated in '08.

[Sue]

is then defeated in '08.

::grin::

I cringe when people (and I am doing it too, so I include myself in this) discuss his replacement in terms of what it will do to the balance of the senate. I understand that the balance of the senate is important, but that is why we had an election. Republicans should have voted instead of staying home and then everyone could be here wishing Mr. Johnson a speedy recovery instead of wondering if this an act of God helping republicans. Which I find personally repugnant.

[Sue]

so I feel no need to think kindly of the left.

The ladies, and I use that word loosely, of The View, as Clarice put it regarding another matter, make my teeth itch. They are morons. That people actually spend time watching that show continues to amaze me.

[MayBee]

I cringe when people (and I am doing it too, so I include myself in this) discuss his replacement in terms of what it will do to the balance of the senate. I understand that the balance of the senate is important, but that is why we had an election.

Why does that make you cringe?

Republicans should have voted instead of staying home and then everyone could be here wishing Mr. Johnson a speedy recovery instead of wondering if this an act of God helping republicans. Which I find personally repugnant.

Are there republicans saying this is an act of God to help the Republicans?

I find anyone wishing him recovery or death to so that the balance of power might stay the same or change repugnant. I find the discussions that the Reps might have tried to kill him (as they did to Wellstone) repugnant.

[Rick Ballard]

"Control" of the Senate even with a 55-45 split proved rather illusory. McCain's unbounded ego in establishing "The Insignificant Seven" (less three today and good riddance) saw to that. I noted another burst of flatulence from His Vacuousness today.

Rudy needs to go goose hunting with Scalia and come back with a "Tony's just the kind of justice we need." quote afterward.

[Sue]

Maybee,

Why does that make you cringe?

Because it feels morbid to me.

Are there republicans saying this is an act of God to help the Republicans?

I hope this post is the only one out there...

God does work in mysterious ways. Losing the election sent word that we were not happy with what the RePubs were doing. They've gotten the msg.

I don't know though.

I find the discussions that the Reps might have tried to kill him (as they did to Wellstone) repugnant.

I mostly find people on the left repugnant, no matter what they are discussing. As they do me too, I'm sure. ::grin::

[richard mcenroe]

"And as I recall, various commentators have pointed out that, by total population represented, the 50 remaining Democratic Senators have a much larger constituency than their 50 Republican counterparts (Johnson, coming from South Dakota, hardly affects that calculation)."

That is precisely the point of both the bicameral Congress and the Electoral College, to prevent larger and more populous states from effectively disenfranchising smaller ones...

[MayBee]

Why does that make you cringe?
Because it feels morbid to me.

Do you mean talking about a replacement at all feels morbid, or talking about how a replacement changes a balance of power feels morbid?

I read it as the second, and I don't think that's morbid. That's politics and power. The King is dead, long live the King and all that.
But if it's the first, yeah I can see what you're saying.

[Patton]

Going by NORMAL liberal standards. We should not be wishing Mr. Johnson a recovery (although I personaly do). But the left would NORMALLY be asking other questions, like:

1. Shouldn't we take into account the quality of his life after a stroke? Is it a life worth living? Would he not be better off if we just ended his life?

2. Is it any of our business really? Shouldn't the family, with input from their doctor decide whether they are mature enough, financial stable enough to take care of him or terminate him?

3. Who knows, his wife could be working her way through college and can't be burdened with a 'child" like adult to take care of..better to just abort him.

4. Maybe he promised he would use protection and never have a stroke, thus lying to the women who agreed to be with him, you can't really blame her for wanting to terminate him after being lied to.

Normally, liberals can give us hundreds of reasons off the tops of their heads why it is good to terminate a life...now, they just can't seem to think of one.....

[Rick Ballard]

MayBee,

The King ain't dead though, so it's still Long Live the King. Otherwise we could have threads concerning the results from potential lightning strikes in New York suburbs.

The possibility will probably exist for the next two years.

[Sue]

But if it's the first, yeah I can see what you're saying.

Yes. I don't know how to explain it other than the way I did. Well, Rick's description seemed to fit...Danse Macabre.

[MayBee]

The King ain't dead though, so it's still Long Live the King.

True, but the Princes and wives always gathered around the sickbed, did they not, jockeying for position. The King is sick, who will be King?
It comes with having power, this curiousity about what may happen to your power when you become seriously ill and may die. It isn't personal.

After all, Bush knows everyday who will take his place upon his death. Is it macabre to say Pelosi is only 3 steps away from the Presidency?

[Sue]

Is it macabre to say Pelosi is only 3 steps away from the Presidency?

No. But I think the difference is Bush isn't in the hospital fighting for his life, or at the very least, fighting to retain the way his life was before.

[Rick Ballard]

MayBee,

No, that's not macabre - that falls under the Lasciate ogni speranza, voi ch'entrate clause.

It's just that with 8-10 Democratic Senators in the same position this is a situation (51-49) that one slip on the "Great Banana Peel" can bring into being on any given day. It won't change much for the next two years.

[MayBee]

Yes. I don't know how to explain it other than the way I did. Well, Rick's description seemed to fit...Danse Macabre.

I just misunderstood. I thought you meant discussing the balance of power was morbid (but the replacement part not), but I think I understand now it is discussing replacement while the man is (hopefully) recovering that seems morbid to you.

[MayBee]

No. But I think the difference is Bush isn't in the hospital fighting for his life, or at the very least, fighting to retain the way his life was before.

I understand, although if Bush were in the hospital fighting for his life, I've no doubt talk would start up about who Cheney would choose as VP, and whether it would be someone with Presidential aspirations, etc. And that wouldn't be wrong.

Remember when Reagan temporarily transfered his power to then-VP Bush while he had surgery?
I think the personal and political are separate.
I do wish Senator Johnson all the best. I hope he recovers fully.

[Greg F]

An aneurysm is not an AVM (arteriovenous malformation), they are fundamentally quite different. I know this because my daughter was diagnosed with an AVM when she was 17 (now 23). Surgery on an AVM is the only chosen as a last resort due to the risk of stroke and neurological damage. The bleeding must have been very severe for the doctors to choose this coarse of action.

[ben]

IF I had to pick a side, I suppose that Dems actually have a slightly better argument for a deal which would allow them to keep control. Unlike the aftermath of the ghastly Florida 2000 election, the vox populi seemed to be fairly clear last November.

What BS!!! Jon Tester won by less that 3k votes, Webb by less than 7k, Talent by 30k..considering the dead democrats and illegals that voted its closer than that...there is no great mandate for Senate Democrats...vox populi my a...

[ben]

I meant Talent lost by 30k not won...

[Sue]

I don't think the balance of the senate should be a consideration to begin with, if it comes down to having to deal with this. It is what is in the best interest of the state the senator represents that should be the only factor considered. Each state should be on a state-by-state basis. As I stated earlier, if the state in question was Mass., I don't think a republican should be appointed. However, in SD, the other senator is a republican, the governor is a republican, and if I heard correctly, the state houses are republican. What the rest of the country wants should not even be a consideration, IMO.

[MayBee]

I don't think what the rest of the country wants should be a consideration, so I absolutely agree with you there. But I think the political party of the one making the appointment will always be a consideration. As long as that person has the legitimate power to make an appointment, he'd be a fool to use that power to give his opponent more power.

[Daddy]

I say 54-40 or fight!

[Patton]

""As I stated earlier, if the state in question was Mass., I don't think a republican should be appointed.""

WHY? They elected a Republican Governor.

Or you could always appoint a liberal Republican.....if your stoopid.

[Patton]

The idea that the person has to be from one party is ridiculous.

Its no different then the press telling us for years and years that no Republican could win statewide in California, it was impossible, it would never happen..etc.etc.etc.

Then came Guhvenor Ahhnold and all their idiotic predictions went up in smoke.

[Patton]

Here's an interesting thought.

What if after this ordeal, Senator Johnson declares he can no longer be in the party of death and decides to switch parties and caucus with the Republicans.

Is he no longer fit to represent the people of his state?

How quickly would Senator Reid and the rest of the left be calling him all kind of dirty names and telling us what a scumbag he is??

[Jane]

f the state in question was Mass., I don't think a republican should be appointed.

Hush! If Ted Kennedy drops dead today, Mitt Romney damn well better appoint a republican. My Goodness, hold your tongue.

Besides, here in the Bay State, republicans are just more responsible democrats. Anyone remember Ed Brooke?

[Sue]

he'd be a fool to use that power to give his opponent more power.

Which is why I think the governor of SD will appoint a republican...IF...it comes to that.

My Goodness, hold your tongue.

::grin:: Sorry. I'll keep that thought to myself.

[garytheyoung]

Frankly, I consider the vox populi to be anything but clear and the argument that Democratic senators represent a greater number of constituents ridiculous.

Best wishes to Senator Johnson for a full recovery and speedy return to the Senate.

[SunnyDay]

How quickly would Senator Reid and the rest of the left be calling him all kind of dirty names and telling us what a scumbag he is??

They would probably have him declared incompetent. ;-)

[jam]

Given the amazing and well deserved unpopularity of BushCo and his War this whole discussion is moot. There is no way in hell that ANY governor would choose to appoint a republican to this seat thereby usurping the will of the South Dakotans and supporting the most incompetent president ever.

Dream on. The S.D. gov is not suicidal.

[jam]

"What if after this ordeal, Senator Johnson declares he can no longer be in the party of death and decides to switch parties and caucus with the Republicans."

Patton

That would only prove that repugs are suffering from brain damage. Your time would be better spent addressing the question: "What if monkeys fly out of my butt?".