Stroking Senators and slaying Saddam

Hope the title doesn't mislead you. This thread has nothing to do with Mark Foley.

Ok, I wasn't even TRYING to be funny...I already wrote this blog out earlier, and then I went to post it and had to come up with a name for it. Seemed like an appropro title until I typed it...anyhow, to the story:

First up to the plate is the stroked-out Senator Johnson situation. Then we'll gloss over some strange requests coming from Iraq. I'm taking my first day on this job easy.

So today my dad and I were driving from a job and he told me about this Senator that had a stroke. Pretty soon it came on the radio and they were talking about him. Here's the highlights:

S.D. Sen. Johnson in critical condition

Democratic Sen. Tim Johnson of South Dakota was in critical but stable condition Thursday after emergency brain surgery, creating political drama over whether Democrats will control the new Senate next month if he is unable to continue in office.
Democrats hold a fragile 51-49 margin in the new Senate that convenes Jan. 4. If Johnson leaves the Senate, the Republican governor of South Dakota could appoint a Republican to fill the remaining two years of Johnson's term — keeping the Senate in GOP hands with Vice President Dick Cheney's tie-breaking power.
Apart from the risk to his health, Johnson's illness carried political ramifications, coming so soon after the Democrats won control of the Senate. If he were forced to relinquish his seat, a replacement would be named by South Dakota's GOP Gov. Mike Rounds.
A Republican appointee would create a 50-50 tie, and allow the GOP to retain Senate control.
Johnson, a centrist Democrat, was first elected to the Senate in 1996 after serving 10 years in the House. He narrowly defeated Republican John Thune in his 2002 re-election bid. Thune defeated Sen. Tom Daschle, the former Senate Democratic leader, two years later.

So, that's basically the deal. An interesting tangent is that this seat apparently isn't the most healthy seat in the Senate. In the early 70's, this same thing happened to a Senator...who held the SAME EXACT SEAT that Johnson now does.

First, a disclaimer: Maybe you haven't heard from me enough to figure this out yet, but I'm a pretty...I don't want to say staunch or die-hard, but I'm a conservative. I tend to think of myself as more of a progressive conservative, though (doesn't everyone consider themselves that?). If I think something is stupid, it's stupid. Not because Trent Lott or Nancy Pelosi, Tom Daschle or Newt Gingrich or whoever my party leader is says it's stupid, just because it's stupid.

My first thought on this situation is that this is just wrong. I would love nothing more than to see the Senate shifted to the middle or Republicans (that is, besides Senator Johnson recovering, of course), but if this is the way it happens, that's just messed up. I think a few things about this. Mainly, I think it would be a big cheap shot and be more trouble than it's worth to regain the house by the Republican governor appointing a Republican Senator (provided Senator Johnson is unable to regain his health sufficiently). But the people voted for the person, not the party. This is true. But if they didn't like what he believed in or what party he was in, the vast majority of constituents wouldn't have voted for him. They most certainly didn't vote for the Republican party, that's for sure.

One thing I think that should be taken into account is Johnson's tenure. He's been in the Senate for 10 years and in the House for a good while before that. If he had just been elected this year, then that would make this situation different. But obviously, with 20 years of serving South Dakota, he has a proven track record and the people like the way he does things.

Certainly, the people voted (over and over again) for the man, not the party. But if the man is not available, I think the second best thing - the party - should be used. Maybe his party only agreed with him 50% of the time, but that would be better than appointing someone diametrically opposed to the values and views of Senator Johnson and the people of South Dakota.

So, what should Governor Rounds do? Well, he has a few options. The most obvious would be to have a revote. However, the time and money to pull this off probably wouldn't make it a viable option.

Choice number two: look at the recent election results. If this last election was close (within 15%), appoint his opponent. If it wasn't very close, look at the Democratic primaries and see how close that was. If it was close, appoint his Democratic opponent. If not close, then scrap option two.

Option numero tres: appoint someone in his place. This should be delayed as long as possible and only used as a last resort, so as to give the people a chance to call the Governor's staffers and let their voice be heard about who they want Governor Rounds to appoint. How to decide who gets appointed? Rather than appointing the most radical Republican you can find, I would suggest basing the decision largely upon Senator Johnson's opinion and advice and also rely heavily upon the people who let their voices be heard. The only fair appointment is one that adheres to the ideals and spirit of the voters and Senator Johnson.

While I would like to see a Republican/split Senate, I don't think this end justifies those means. And my final solution to this problem in the future: require South Dakotan politicians to undergo physicals before they are allowed to run for office.

In other 5-second radio blurbs:
The Iraqi government has had hundreds of requests for the job of Saddam’s executioner. He hasn’t been sentenced to death yet and there is no posting for the job of executioner (they just hire from the general public at random?!?!), and hundreds of government officials and Iraqi citizens have requested to be the ones to pull the lever that hangs Saddam.

That’s kinda funny, I think. File that under ‘things that make ya go hmmm...'

I’ll do it. I’m going to go write them a letter, now. Heck, I'll even offer to pay my own airfare. See y’all later!