digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

BREAKING:Senator Johnson reportedly suffers stroke; Senate power might tip

rawstory.com — "MSNBC is currently reporting that Senator Tim Johnson (D-SD) has suffered a stroke." If he is unable to continue, a republican governor will decide who will be the next senator. This could tip the balance of power in the senate.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • mikeneilson, on 10/12/2007, -36/+205I know it is Washington D.C., where politics comes first, and understandably the balance of power in the senate is a big deal, but honestly, am I the only one who thinks that it is a bit quick (and heartless) to make this story all about the republican/democratic power struggle instead of about the life and possible death of a man? Let's worry about who controls the senate later. As this is breaking news, my first thought was certainly, "I hope he is OK, and my prayers go out to him and his family right now." He is a man first, and a senator second. It kind of sickens me.
    • RuffRidr, on 10/12/2007, -10/+78I agree. I used to live in South Dakota and Tim Johnson is a good leader that really does have the interests of his state in mind. I pray the senator has a full recovery.
    • GabrielS, on 10/12/2007, -10/+42Here Here. I was hoping that the second line wouldn't be about politics, but I had to expect it from a story about a politician.

      My Dad suffered a stroke in his late 20s. His field of vision was reduced from 180 degrees to 110 degrees. I hope the Senator's stroke is minor as well.
    • ersatzphi, on 10/12/2007, -6/+45Although I agree that we should be concerned for his health and I do wish him and his family the best, it is something that will affect a lot of people. So I do think it is worth noting the impact it will have on the Senate just as much as the impact it will have on his family.
    • hobgobbler, on 10/12/2007, -38/+56there's more at stake than one man's health. The governor of South Dakota is a religious zealot who could appoint whatever nut-bag he wants if the senator can't serve. Just pray he only had a stroke and wasn't poisoned.
    • tdaxp, on 10/12/2007, -31/+7I agree. Pray.

      http://www.tdaxp.com/archive/2006/12/13/pray-for-tim-johnson.html
    • ajb2015, on 10/12/2007, -7/+63Keep in mind this would only be temporary. A special election would be held in 90 days

      http://legis.state.sd.us/statutes/DisplayStatute.aspx?Type=Statute&Statute=12-11-1
    • snoble, on 10/12/2007, -9/+9It's clearly a fine line but it seems like it is reasonable to start exploring and discussing the implications while still hoping the individual will remain healthy. What is cruel and inhumane is to start rooting for one side or another based on partisan desires (I'm looking at you hobgobbler). The ability to discuss civics and the political implications of an event without taking sides seems to be a fairly basic trait that is completely lacking in partisans.
    • hobgobbler, on 10/12/2007, -11/+9eh, they elect a new guy in 90 days anyway, feel free to digg down my paranoia
    • Gerz1219, on 10/12/2007, -10/+26The actions of this Senate will affect the lives of 300 million Americans and 30 million Iraqis. The implications of Johnson's recovery are a lot bigger than the life of one man, so it is not petty to talk about politics, even at this early stage. I am sickened by anyone who pretends to care more about the illness of one 60 year old man.
    • dclowd9901, on 10/12/2007, -14/+8I agree, except for the prayers thing. Hopefully he'll recover just fine.
    • jbus, on 10/12/2007, -6/+8Best wishes to Senator Johnson.
    • mostlybadfly, on 10/12/2007, -10/+11@mikeneilson

      i dont see you crying about the civilians dying in iraq.

      the fact is, this man holds power... and the power is whats at stake. his life comes SECOND when talking about people that have control of an entire country.
    • altcountryman, on 10/12/2007, -8/+19check for radiation
    • pkulak, on 10/12/2007, -11/+7So why aren't you getting yourself all worked up for the hundreds or thousands of other people who are going to die today? Face it, people die, and most of the time it doesn't affect the rest of the world. This time, it may. That's why this is a big deal.
    • batmanjr, on 10/12/2007, -7/+14@hobgobbler
      "there's more at stake than one man's health. The governor of South Dakota is a religious zealot who could appoint whatever nut-bag he wants if the senator can't serve. Just pray he only had a stroke and wasn't poisoned."

      Does anyone else find this a bit strange, that you start talking about a religious nut bag and then ask people to pray?
    • dahat, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5@ajb2015

      Incorrect I am afraid, see 12-11-6: No special election if appointed senator's term expires at normal time. No special election, to fill a vacancy, may be held if the term of office of the appointed senator expires in the month of January immediately following the next general election that would occur after the vacancy.

      Source: http://legis.state.sd.us/statutes/DisplayStatute.aspx?Type=Statute&Statute=12-11-6
    • HMTKSteve, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4@ajb,

      You are incorrect.

      Remember the Senator who beat Ashcroft and died before the election? The Gov appointed his widowed wife and she served a full term.
    • xGORDOx, on 10/12/2007, -11/+4Sorry, but if this was a (R) Senator, 90% of you wouldn't be complaining about the politics involved.
    • dahat, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5@HMTKSteve

      When it comes to vacancies in the house and senate, the constitution leaves it to the states to decide how those vacancies will be filled. Some allow a permanent appointment, others only a temporary one to be followed by a special election.

      Don’t assume that the laws from one state exist in all others.
    • xGORDOx, on 10/12/2007, -9/+2Before you all Digg me down for ^ , this guy has already made my point...

      Chesscat -
      "I'll get more excited when the press reports that Bush has suffered a massive coronary."
    • saigumi, on 10/12/2007, -9/+6Nah, I'm surprised more Dems haven't jumped on this as a nefarious Rep plot.
    • bruenig, on 10/12/2007, -5/+2@mikeneilsen

      You are certainly correct, me and the flying spaghetti monster and the pink unicorn were almost channeling I was praying so much. If he gets better, it is because of what I said to them and their almighty power.

      In FSM's name we pray,
      RAmen.
    • DannoJyD, on 10/12/2007, -4/+1@mikeneilson: I could not have said it any better.

      Politics should not be the major consideration when a persons life is on the line. Having said that, I can now gladly report that it looks as if the Senator will be OK.
    • rebrad, on 10/12/2007, -5/+1Satan calls another Democrat home.
  • awm4, on 10/12/2007, -5/+14News networks talk up Senate implications if he were to have to step down.
    • turpenine, on 10/12/2007, -5/+15I think they would replace him with a dem just to be honest and kind.
      I mean, i can have dreams too right?
    • dahat, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2@turpenine

      Such an idea is not as far off as you'd think.

      Despite the fact that South Dakota can be called a blood of christ red state... we tend to like Democrats partially representing us in the House and Senate as they help get us money... but tend prefer republican leadership in the Whitehouse and here at home.

      *IF* we had 3 Republicans in Washington right now, you *might* see a Democrat appointed so as to make us look friendly to the new Democrat majority... but given we’ll still have Stephanie Herseth in the House, it’s pretty likely that a Republican will be appointed... and one quite possibly named Mike Rounds: http://www.digg.com/politics/Report_Senator_suffers_stroke#c4254744
    • DannoJyD, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@awm4: Reporters barely poll better than Lawyers. Can you guess why that is?
  • kkaabboomm, on 10/12/2007, -25/+31oh please oh please oh please let it be such a small stroke (or no stroke at all) that he is fine and everything is well and he is ok to serve.

    oh please oh please oh please.

    (the SD governor was the one who pushed the super anti-abortion law, FYI)
    • awm4, on 10/12/2007, -14/+14I would think that you would hope that he is ok for his and his family's sake it is in poor taste at this early junction to be bringing up his possible replacement.

      It sounds like you are more concerned with the politics of it than the reality of this poor man's current situation.

    • RaistlinMajere, on 10/12/2007, -4/+12Of course this is terrible, and we feel for the family, but you can't simply ignore the reality that there would be very real consequences if Senator Johnson is unable to serve.

      I pray that the stroke wasn't too severe, and that Senator Johnson makes a good recovery.
    • AnteChronos, on 10/12/2007, -2/+20@awm4
      "It sounds like you are more concerned with the politics of it than the reality of this poor man's current situation."

      That is, unfortunately, inevitible. People can only care so much for someone who they don't personally know. For instance, I'm almost ashamed to admit that I'd be more affected by the death of my neighbor than I am by the deaths of hundreds of children who die of malnutrition every day. Does that make me a bad person, or does it just make me human?

      In this case, I would assume that kkaabboomm is more personally affected by abortion isues than by the health of someone who is, quite frankly, a complete stranger to him. I'm not saying that it's right, and I'm not saying that it's wrong. But it is what it is, and what it is is human nature.
    • fleischner, on 10/12/2007, -15/+7@AnteChronos

      What you've written is called "the truth" or "the facts." Expect to be dugg down.

      I, personally, don't give a rat's ass about this guy specifically, just like he wouldn't care about me. But I care deeply about the Senate and the balance of power in our government. And yes, I want him to not be able to serve.
    • MiddleGirth, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1I would imagine that those consequences would be negligible in the eyes of the Senator if he were unable to function normally.

      People before politics. Always.

      That being said, I think a classy thing to do would be that whoever is appointed to take his place to step down after the Senator is healed.
  • awm4, on 10/12/2007, -21/+10 @ kkaabboomm
    You would probable be in favor of a "Weekend at Bernie's" solution, for the sake of the abortion cause.
    you sicken me.

    Put politics aside at least until we find out how serious his condition is.

  • DarthBibble, on 10/12/2007, -17/+9If he can't serve in the senate, South Dakota holds another election, unlike the majority of states which have a new senator appointed. So don't worry too much yet. He has a month to recover, too.
    • hobgobbler, on 10/12/2007, -2/+23Nope: "Under South Dakota law, and in accordance with the Seventeenth Amendment, the Governor of South Dakota will appoint a replacement for a Senate vacancy, and a special election to fill the seat will not be held until the time of the next general election."
    • letdowntourist, on 10/12/2007, -4/+2RTFA
    • whereisian, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7Updated:

      "Editor's Note: An earlier version of this story indicated that the governor's appointed replacement would serve until the 2008 election. That information, reported by other news agencies as well, can not be verified. RAW STORY regrets the error."
    • hobgobbler, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4whoops I think I was wrong:

      "Special election to fill congressional vacancy--Time of election of representative. If a vacancy occurs in the office of a senator or representative in the United States Congress it shall be the duty of the Governor within ten days of the occurrence, to issue a proclamation setting the date of and calling for a special election for the purpose of filling such vacancy. If either a primary or general election is to be held within six months, an election to fill a vacancy in the office of representative in the United States Congress shall be held in conjunction with that election, otherwise the election shall be held not less than eighty nor more than ninety days after the vacancy occurs."
    • DarthBibble, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1So I was right all along!
    • dahat, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4@DarthBibble & hobgobbler

      No... you weren't:
      http://legis.state.sd.us/statutes/DisplayStatute.aspx?Type=Statute&Statute=12-11-6
  • Azur2, on 10/12/2007, -20/+23Aw *****. Couldn't the democrats have had at least a month in majority, so they could roll back at least the murder of Habeas Corpus?

    Well, there went all hope of "bipartisan solutions".

    • RuffRidr, on 10/12/2007, -30/+6Correct me if I'm wrong, but if a Republican replaced Johnson then the Senate would be 50 Republicans, 48 Democrats, and 2 Independents who are said to vote as Democrats. Effectively a 50-50 tie. It would appear to me that this would be a good recipe for "bipartisan solutions".
    • chriskzoo, on 10/12/2007, -1/+39Wrong. The VP has the deciding vote on any 50/50 votes.
    • crombenevolant, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9@RuffRidr
      In the event of a tie the president of the senate (the vice president) votes. Thus giving the Republicans the edge.
    • Muyoso, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2I dont know what everyone is all up in arms about, its not like Leiberman will vote straight Dem all the time. He is actually a good politcian and doesnt follow party lines.
    • RuffRidr, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Ah, got it. Thanks for the correction.
  • aftergodsheart, on 10/12/2007, -73/+7"I just know that this comment is going to get so buried, digg being such a liberal site and all, but whatever."

    This just goes to show that even if the American people vote foolishly, God can do what he pleases.
    • aftergodsheart, on 10/12/2007, -62/+3See, the burying has begun. Praise the Lord! Bring on the persecution!
    • Brian48216, on 10/12/2007, -4/+25I can't tell if you're being sarcastic, or genuinely an idiot.
    • Rsulliv1, on 10/12/2007, -2/+13There are so many things wrong with your comment, and possibly your outlook on the world around you.

      :)
    • OriginalLucid1, on 10/12/2007, -2/+30First off, I am a Conservative, and proud to be one. Second off, God did not smite Senator Johnson or any such nonsense as that. That is ridiculous, and shame on you for saying it. Thirdly, I hope and pray Senator Johnson and his family are fine, as I suspect that they are. God forbid the day when politics becomes a bloodsport.
    • mogus, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7I personally believe that some of the views espoused by the DNC are morally wrong, but I think it's a little presumptuous to think that a senator would be "smitten" like that. I believe that God gave us the freedom to choose, and established this government for our benefit. We may attribute the decay of social mores and the prosperity of our society as a whole to the declining interest in our adherence to heavenly laws, but I think it would be better for us to think of what the true essence of Christianity (assuming you're claiming the religion) is, and rejoicing in another man's suffering is most surely not part of the Christian doctrine I believe in.
    • GoodOlClint, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9aftergodsheart, I am a Christian as well, But being dugg down for a stupid comment is hardly persecution.
    • AnteChronos, on 10/12/2007, -3/+21"digg being such a liberal site"

      Nah, it's just that reality has a well-known liberal bias.
    • riffic, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9are you trying to say that G-d is a Republican?
    • zybch, on 10/12/2007, -3/+3Its not like burning people at the stake unless they embrace jesus as their Saviour is it!
    • CanceledCzech, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6OriginalLucid1, you're name makes sense. You have me respect in the sense that you are saddened over the fact that another person has become sick, even though they have an opposing political position. There should be more people like you in the world.
    • LibertyOrDeath, on 10/12/2007, -13/+3Perhaps God just wants to make the senator more liberal, by killing off a few billion neurons.
    • aftergodsheart, on 10/12/2007, -11/+1First of all, I have absolutely nothing against Sen. Johnson and his family. I am sure that they are wonderful people and I do hope that the Senator gets well soon. My point was that God is not limited from doing his will by the people that he has created. Also, I am not at all saying that God is a "Republican". He is way too big to be put inside of a box and there are many things about the Republican party that are largely against his personality. However, one thing that he is absolutely zealous about, is his chosen people, Israel. This congress holds a widespread belief that the US and Israel can reason with our enemies, yet all it does is give them time to grow in power to annihilate the Jews and Americans (yes they want to destroy us too: remember 9/11). I'm not saying that I am speaking for God, but I am sure that his is against this idea.
    • garg, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5Comedic Genius! :D

      Down votes are persecution?
      A loving god gives people strokes but doesn't automatically stop unwanted pregnancies?
    • Brian48216, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4After seeing your latest comment, you are neither sarcastic, nor an idiot.

      You're belong in a class all by yourself which I call "People who scare me because they're allowed to vote"

      Nice job using 9/11 as a scare tactic again. It's almost as if you consider diggers mentally retarded in that we all forgot perhaps one of the most important historical moments in our life times.

      Let me guess. Retarded fish frog also?
    • basye, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4And what idiot appointed you to be God's spokesman? When you die, we'll declare God's will was done, that's for certain!
    • siszam, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4If you're truly a Christian you will compare the fruits of Bush's reign compared the fruits God says a real Christian demonstrates.

      Bush: responsible for hundreds of thousands of deaths, gives corporate welfare instead of helping Americas poor, refuses to be swayed by wise councel and instead rules with pride and arrogance.

      I'm a Christians and I know my bible. NOTHING BUSH HAS DONE IS REMOTELY CHRIST LIKE. Your support a man who murders and disables hundreds of thousands isn't either.
      Educate yourself. Stop worshiping Bush as your false idol. Repent and get back to God.

      http://www.11th-hour.info/Articles/Veiled_Christianity.html
  • Powermac, on 10/12/2007, -50/+6***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** *****
  • colincornaby, on 10/12/2007, -2/+15Inaccurate:

    "However, in the case of South Dakota, the decision falls to Rounds, whose appointment would serve as senator until a special election held between 80 and 90 days after the vacancy."

    There would be another election. The governor would only get to appoint a temporary.
  • bouche, on 10/12/2007, -18/+15i smell conspiracy. what chemicals can be injected/ingested that can cause a stroke?
    • ArchieAndrews, on 10/12/2007, -8/+33He was brought down with pre-planted demolition charges. I've seen the video.
    • bishop, on 10/12/2007, -8/+16Probably the same chemicals you ingested just before making such a stupid comment.
    • Nocturnal, on 10/12/2007, -4/+9I agree, mod him down but you never know. I smell conspiracy too. That was my first thoughts after reading the article. Sad but it could happen and there are people out there who are hungry enough for power that they'd do something stupid like this.
    • freff, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4Please. Do not start with the conspiracy theories. At least not while this guy is sick in the hospital. It just makes you look bad, as well as being in incredibly poor taste.
    • futureb, on 10/12/2007, -3/+7Polonium. 210.
    • rsmit212, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3
      My first thought was I wonder how long before the conspiracy theories started...

      Seems an hour and a half. Sad.
    • ISIfunded911, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3The fact is he is the perfect target at the right time. The Governor of his state is a crazy religious Republican, while most states that elected Democratic Senators also have Democratic Governors I guess. And at the exact right time so that a new election is not needed.
      On the other end he is a very conservative Democratic Senator and supported Bush with many of his votes.
  • sideshowRAHEEM, on 10/12/2007, -16/+4Nice job Senator Tim Johnson cant this guy have a stroke on his own time, WHAT ABOUT US!!!!!!!!!!!!
    • whereisian, on 10/12/2007, -6/+2Chill. Don't have a stroke, worry about his.
    • sideshowRAHEEM, on 10/12/2007, -4/+4i don't think people are getting my sarcasm.
    • r00ts, on 10/12/2007, -3/+7No, it's just not all that funny.
    • sideshowRAHEEM, on 10/12/2007, -4/+2oh, ok.(tear)
  • tkcom, on 10/12/2007, -11/+4Only sick-minded people would take advantage of this. What a shame.
    • whereisian, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7Only policitally-minded people will take advantage of this. That's thier job.
    • zybch, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2thats what tkcom said. "Only sick people" and you have to admit, only religious nutjobs and sick people are the ones that ever run for position of high office.
      All the good people just get on with their lives.
  • NikoKun, on 10/12/2007, -12/+9hmmm sounds shady...

    but why the heck would they put a republican in place of him? shouldn't a demacrat be replaced with a demacrat????
    • rubicante, on 10/12/2007, -10/+7typical republocan
    • colincornaby, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Oh c'mon. I got the reply above mine. I thought it was funny. Digg the reply above mine up. It's a joke people...
    • ascheinberg, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2@rubicante

      Too bad most people missed your joke. I thought it was funny.
  • jgome008, on 10/12/2007, -4/+2If the Senate disagrees with the appointment, can't they deny the appointee the seat?
    • OriginalLucid1, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6I think they could vote on it, but the Democrats would be outnumbered.
    • bronstad, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2this is kinda moot, but i just have to add my 2c...
      they wouldn't be outnumbered before the replacement is appointed ;)
  • CannedMango, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4Seems like a pretty ridiculous system... Senator voted in by the will of the people has to step down due to health reasons, so the opposing party gets to appoint a replacement?? (I know this is circumstantial since it depends on which party the governor is aligned to... but still...). I don't think it ever makes sense to overrule the people... having another vote makes much more sense. If the people, at that time, vote in a member of the opposite party, then it's their decision, not handed over to some lapdog who will pick whoever tows their party line and doesn't necessarily represent the will of the people. Bah!
    • mogus, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4It's probably a sad commentary on how divided we have become that we think that rules that that would be needed. I'm sure the founding fathers would not be too impressed with things being so crazy and voters so much like sheep that they would categorically accept or reject a candidate based on party alone.
    • snoble, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5You are aware that the governor is also in office by the will of the people, in theory because they agreed with his views and had confidence in his judgment. The rules of representation in the US were written with an emphasis on leaving power with the state. You could perhaps say that some high level democrat with in South Dakota should choose the replacement. But the choice was made that party affiliation should have no involvement in these decisions; let me emphasize 'have no involvement.' So instead, until a re-election can be held, the chief representative of the state, who has been elected by the people of the state, chooses the replacement.

      From the perspective of party politics that can seem unreasonable. But in a sense that's the point. Party politics can be seen as the enemy of local representation which is supposed to be the most important element of the US democracy.
    • Gerz1219, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4@snoble -- That's a very good argument. I think too many people here are assuming that if a special election should occur after the appointment, the people in South Dakota will automatically vote for a Democrat just because Johnson is one.

      I'll just point out that people vote very differently in local races than they do in national elections. I live in NYC, and I have no problem casting my vote for Republicans like Rudy Guiliani, George Pataki, or Mike Bloomberg, because they're not "real" Republicans subject to the whims of the national party. I don't care where they stand on Iraq, because mayors and governors don't dictate foreign policy. But if Guiliani runs in '08, I would flat out never vote for him, because I want the national Republican party out of power.

      Don't know much about South Dakota politics, but I'm sure a lot of people voted for Rounds without regard to the national political atmosphere. A governor's race is a lot more personal. His views on national issues may well not reflect those of the citizenry. But, you know, maybe we're reaching a point where everyone has to think about this kind of far-out scenario when voting.
  • diggless, on 10/12/2007, -5/+2the right thing for the governor to do would be to execute the will of the people and put it to a vote.

    to subvert the people by putting someone of the opposite party or a candidate that didn't run in office seems so illogical that its not fathomable.
    • OriginalLucid1, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6But did you feel the same way when Senator Jeffords subverted the will of the voters and put the Senate in (temporary) Democrat control? I didn't hear any Democrats crying foul on that one.
    • ravenofwinter, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2The people don't vote for the Senate as a whole, they vote for individual senators, of which Jeffords is one. If the people didn't like what he would do, they should have voted for someone else.
    • zybch, on 10/12/2007, -5/+3Original, dems might not have complained, but you can bet your last dollar the republicunts screamed and hollered till the cows came home!!
    • Gerz1219, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1The Jeffords analogy isn't really apt. He was elected as a very moderate Republican from the the blue state of Vermont. He didn't change his views on anything, he just started caucusing with the Democrats. Remember, the people are not supposed to elect a party, they're supposed to elect a person. It's not like Jeffords yanked off his conservative suit after the election and revealed the liberal underneath.

      In this case, we'll have a right-wing nutjob appointing a Senator that's not just from the opposing party, but will likely hold very different views from the man elected by the people. That's the governor's right and all, it's just quite a shame that such a hard-won victory could be so easily overturned.
    • OriginalLucid1, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4You are missing the point. Jeffords identified himself as a Republican. People voted for him with the assumption that he would caucus with the Republicans. He changed his party affiliation after the election. He would not have won said election or primary election if his intentions were known. The voting public elected 50 Republican Senators, but one of them was dishonest in his declaration. My point was that no one on the left cared about any of that. They were happy to take control of the senate under less than honest terms. Gov. Rounds apparently has the "controlling legal authority" (thanks for the internet Al) to appoint whoever he wishes. He (or she) doesn't have to have the same name, be from the same town, or even be from the same party. The people voted for Senator Johnson, and there is only one of him. To the victors go the spoils, and South Dakota is run by Republicans. Thankfully, it looks like all of this speculation is moot, as the situation does seem to be as serious as first reported.
    • Gerz1219, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1@OriginalLucid1 -- You're absolutely wrong. Jeffords was elected in spite of his Republican affiliation, not because of it. Vermont is one of the most liberal states in the country. A Vermont Republican is a Democrat anywhere in the south, just like Tester and Webb are Republicans anywhere in the northeast. You're incorrectly assuming that the people in Vermont voted in a member of a party, rather than an individual whose ideas they agreed with. We don't have a parliamentary system -- our elected representatives are beholden to their constituency, not the party elite. Jeffords fooled nobody in switching party affiliation. If anything, he made a lot of people back in his home state happy.
  • sketchstudios, on 10/12/2007, -6/+1i geuss if he kicks the bucket, (i hope not) then jib jab would have to change their animation, the scene where democrats take the house. =p
  • fety, on 10/12/2007, -14/+3wah wah wah.... god shmod people! People get strokes because their blood clots because of the ***** they stuff in their mouths and lack there of. You are what you eat.
    • withincontext, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5Wow, you must be a doctor!

      Ever heard of genetics? Don't pull the whole "she deserved it because she was wearing a skirt" argument.

      I agree with many others that the focus shouldn't be on the Senate right now. Let's assume he is capable of keeping his seat. Are we going to jump out of our seats every time a Dem is in danger in the future?

      It's like owning a new car and hoping you don't get a scratch. Might as well get it over with so we don't have to worry anymore...
  • bixing, on 10/12/2007, -19/+2It wouldn't shift the balance.

    The two independents in power have already stated they would work with the dems as opposed to neocons.
    • mikeneilson, on 10/12/2007, -0/+171) In a tie (which it would be were he replaced by a republican), it comes down to the President of the Senate (in this case, Dick Cheney), so yes, it would tip the balance
      2) Learn what neocons are, and don't use the word "neocons" in place of "conservatives" unless you want to look stupid
    • OriginalLucid1, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8If it is 50/50 then Vice President Cheney gets to cast the deciding vote. Who do you think he will vote with? The leftists heads would be exploding left and......left I guess.

      @Mike.
      They like to use the word neocon because it sounds evil to them. They have no idea what it means.
    • bixing, on 10/12/2007, -10/+1It's 51/49. It's not 50/50. Who even said he's getting replaced by a neocon?

      And using "neocon" doesn't make anyone look stupid since the majority of republicans in office blindly follow Bush regardless of what's right for the country.
    • withincontext, on 10/12/2007, -7/+3Moo.
  • kanecorp, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6No one saw this one coming -
    hoping for a speedy recovery...
  • CanceledCzech, on 10/12/2007, -14/+3To quote GoatBnn on the "GOP Leaders Fail Pop Test on the Difference between Sunnis and Shiites" article:

    "*****! *****!! *****! *****!! *****! *****!! *****! *****!! *****! *****!! *****! *****!! *****! *****!! *****! *****!! *****! *****!! *****! *****!! *****! *****!! *****! *****!! *****! *****!! *****! *****!! *****! *****!! *****! *****!! *****! *****!! *****! *****!! *****! *****!! *****! *****!! *****! *****!! *****! *****!! *****! *****!! *****! *****!! *****! *****!! *****! *****!! *****! *****!! *****! *****!! *****! *****!! *****! *****!! *****! *****!! *****! *****!! *****! *****!! *****! *****!! *****! *****!! *****! *****!! *****! *****!! *****! *****!! *****! *****!! *****! *****!! *****! *****!! *****! *****!! *****! *****!! *****! *****!! *****! *****!! *****! *****!! *****! *****!! *****! *****!! *****! *****!! *****! *****!! *****! *****!! *****! *****!! *****! *****!! *****! *****!! *****! *****!! *****! *****!! *****! *****!! *****! *****!! *****! *****!! *****! *****!! *****! *****!! *****! *****!! *****! *****!! *****! *****!! *****! *****!! *****! *****!! *****! *****!! *****! *****!! *****! *****!! *****! *****!! *****! *****!! *****! *****!! *****! *****!! *****! *****!! *****! *****!! *****! *****!! *****! *****!! *****! *****!!..."
  • Shinta, on 10/12/2007, -15/+3Praise Allah for this fortuitous event.
  • rhfb, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1Nice to see that they might get to choose if he can't continue. Atleast the senator didn't become govenor and then appoint his daughter to his seat like in my state :(
  • vSanity, on 10/12/2007, -7/+3Maybe he watched the wave video that made the front page a few stories back with the description:
    "The wave is freaking huge...heart stops just watching it."

    http://digg.com/extreme_sports/Big_Wave_Riding_Not_Your_Average_Surf_Wave
  • shadowsword232, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3I understand people are offended by the discussion of the political implications of the stroke. No one is advocating cruelty to his family, just remember that there are hundreds of other people who suffer strokes every week. The only reason this story is on the top of every major news site is because of its potential political implications.

    That being said my respect goes out to his family.
  • Urusai, on 10/12/2007, -5/+3"Doctors found traces of polonium in his system after a meeting with Republican Party officials."
  • p0s3r, on 10/12/2007, -4/+5What a dramatic difference in comments.
    http://www.digg.com/politics/Report_Senator_suffers_stroke

    In this thread you have the amoral kook diggerals, in the other, you don't.
    • freff, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1You must mean the thread were the first poster salivates about the prospect of the Republican Governor of SD stepping down, and filling Senator Johnson's seat himself?

      No thanks. Political opportunists turn my stomach.
    • dahat, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@ freff

      Salivating? Hardly.

      I was simply talking about the political atmosphere here in South Dakota and what a possible outcome was.

      For the average person familiar with South Dakota politics, anything other than Rounds getting the job is tricky as Dusty Johnson is a bit young and likely running for governor in ’10 and there aren’t that many major Republican names (with the exception of our semi-shamed, stop sign ignoring, phantom car seeing, motorcyclist killing, ex-AG, ex-governor and ex-congressmen Bill Janklow) who would be likely persons to get the appointment.

      Although... Larry Diedrich *might* be a possible contender... hum.
  • otheruser, on 10/12/2007, -4/+2http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/12/13/16275/300

    Dailykos has an interesting discussion on it.
  • nihilite, on 10/12/2007, -5/+2Am i understanding correctly, that if a leader of the most powerful country in the world dies and is replaced, the greatest concern is for his family? We are talking about a group of a few hundred people who are having a merry time starting wars and destroying the legacy of this country, and you want to focus on the personal issue. Grow the ***** up.
  • alexs4327, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3America needs him.
  • budiversonjr, on 10/12/2007, -13/+3BYE BYE PELOSI!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
    • freff, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4You're ignorant in more ways than I care to address.
    • h00paj00, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Wow. I mean... just ... Wow.

  • HammerAndBoner, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1just like prison break... except it was the president... and poison... and a heart attack... and it didn't really shift the balance... and that was a season ago... BUT STILL DEJA VU
  • MadN, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0So did they use acid; or egg white?
    Bleeding or blockage?

  • wiremonkeymommy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2hmmmm... a little young for a stroke, looks like a pretty healthy guy in the picture too...

    my sincere best to him and his family
  • chesscat, on 10/12/2007, -6/+1I'll get more excited when the press reports that Bush has suffered a massive coronary.
  • steinbeckgirl, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4Cnn's reporting that he's up walking and getting tests done. Also reporting that it wasn't a stroke or heart attack. Sorry GOP, don't put any nails in his coffin yet.
  • z23rdhsuan, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1anyone else instantly reminded of "Interface" by Neal Stephenson?
  • Equalizer, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2http://digg.com/politics/Reader_Comment_Proof_About_the_True_Nature_of_Conservatives
  • Pottersquash, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1guys.....

    If he is forced to resign, No Govenor would change control of the Senate. The GOP assuming power in such a way would have ramifactions beyond two terms, it would show them as heartless power mongers. He would pick some Dem that the Dakota Dems approved or just hold an election.

    The country would not accept handing power to GOP in such a way, be sensible, the GOP is already seen as underhanded you dont do that. Have common sense people, the political game is about more that 1 freaking election, you dont go for 2 years in power and just piss away the presidency in 2 years by making everyone think youd kill for power.
  • jellygraph, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2hmmmm _how convenient_ for the Republicans
  • ulyssesyt, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2are you ***** kidding me? "BREAKING" news? and from MSNBC, one step to the left of Fox?

    dumbasses, he did not have a stroke. it was a misquote:
    http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061214/ap_on_go_co/johnson
  • drjekelmrhyde, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2NO STROKE FOLKS
    http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061214/ap_on_go_co/johnson
  • mutz, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2nope no stroke it is polonium 210
  • otheruser, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2 Johnson, who turns 60 on Dec. 28, was admitted to George Washington University Hospital with an undiagnosed illness, said a spokeswoman, Julianne Fisher.

    She said, however, the senator did not suffer a stroke or heart attack. His office had said earlier it was a possible stroke.
  • otheruser, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2HE'S RECOVERING, YAY!
  • t3hBuddha, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0It's a little disheartening. I'd assume that most of us don't know much about Timothy Johnson or his political record. I understand that its inevitable that this news article, or the comments made about this article will undoubtedly turn to the politics behind the event. Isn't it unfortunate that this article doesn't seem to stop and reflect on the man the senate might be losing? I don't think the Senate is even in session this week. I believe they are off for the holidays. Is the political balance all that pressing? Its too bad, though perhaps a little true, that commonly we see the Congress as filled with politicians rather than our elected representatives. Wish the best for Sen. Johnson and his family.
  • one321, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7I've lived in South Dakota my entire life. I can tell you all that Tim Johnson is well liked here. He's a very down-to-earth guy. He spoke at my graduation ceremony this past May. Afterwords, I was in Sioux Falls and saw him shopping in Best Buy. He's just a normal guy that happens to be a senator. People would walk up to him and tell him that he's doing a good job, and he would just humbly tell them "thank you" and shake their hands. As people would walk away, I could see them telling their kids about him with big grins on their faces.

    From what I've heard, Tim Johnson will still be senator until he makes the decision to step down, or if he passes away, but I'm hopeful that that won't happen. Governor Rounds cannot appoint someone until their is a vacancy... even if that means Tim Johnson's family helping out in the office while he's recovering. As long as he doesn't retire, no one can replace him.

    Governor Mike Rounds is a good guy. I trust his decisions even though I and the majority of South Dakota voted against the radical South Dakota abortion ban I'm sure you all heard of. What I was getting at is that Rounds would take his time to appoint the best person for the job if he did have to find a replacement for Johnson. I'm guessing it would be a Republican, but if anyone would consider choosing a well qualified person from the other party, it would be Rounds.

    Best wishes, Tim Johnson!

    *I just read the article. I thought it was the same as all of them. Now they are saying that he didn't suffer stroke. That's great news!!!
    • RuffRidr, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Very well put. I lived in South Dakota until recently and I can confirm everything that you say here. All these conspiracy theories and Governor Round bashing is just crazy. Its evident that most people on this board don't understand the politics of our small state. Its very nonpartisan up there. People generally vote for who they think is the best person and who has the best interests of the state in mind. Daschle got the boot a couple years back because he didn't pay enough attention to the latter point of that sentence.
    • amightywind, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1@one321
      "I'm guessing it would be a Republican, but if anyone would consider choosing a well qualified person from the other party, it would be Rounds."

      Ya think? Rounds will be under *enormous* pressure to appoint a solid Republican. This is a huge turn of events given the health status of Supreme Court Justices Ginsberg and Stevens. Bush may have 2 new appointments and can nominate Scalia instead of a Souter and still get him confirmed, not to mention the backlog of appellate nominees. Senator Reid, please hand the gavel to Vice President Cheney. (Grin)
  • subwaysnacker, on 10/12/2007, -9/+1dick-sucking lips
  • gab00n, on 10/12/2007, -5/+3Cheney did it.
    • freff, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Cheney only controls the price of gasoline and the weather. Karl Rove is still in charge of voter fraud and political assassinations.



      What do you mean, "too soon"?
  • neolarthytep, on 10/12/2007, -4/+0Start the cries from the dems... " It was a attack by the republicans" don't tell me you don't believe they are coming.

    This has got to be the best news I've heard in a while I can't wait to see Pelosi's face if he cannot keep his senate job MUHAHAHAH ::evil republican laugh::
    • freff, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1And explain to me just *what* Nancy Pelosi has to do with the Senate again?

      Oh, forget it. I don't even know why I'm asking you.
    • muddhb, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1This has got to be the best news I've heard in a while I can't wait to see Pelosi's face if he cannot keep his senate job MUHAHAHAH ::evil republican laugh::.....

      Nancy Pelosi is a woman, and it would be a crime for the balance of power to shift as a result of something like this. The lack of checks on the executive branch is what got the country in this mess in the first place.

      Absolute power corrupts absolutely, checks and balances prevent everybody from getting too comfortable and making mistakes that could get themselves into trouble.
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 52 of 52 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.