Is the State of Missouri is gonna elect a DEAD guy for US Senator!!!

The BBQ Pit
81

Ummm, have you taken a US government class? The Senators from each state represent their states’ interests at the federal level. So many laws come before Congress that aren’t really about the US as a whole but about the needs of individual states; for example, environmental law and so forth. So a Senate (or Congressional) race is a decision on who will represent the interests of the people of Missouri, Minnesota, New York, and whoever else is electing a senator.

That said, I don’t think I have any more interest in any other state’s Senate race than I do in my own. When I go to the polls next Tuesday, I’m not voting for Mel Carnahan, John Ashcroft, Hillary Clinton, Rick Lazio, or anyone but Rod Grams or Mark Dayton. If what you’re asserting were true, we’d be voting from every state that’s having a Senatorial election. As I just said, we’re not. You’re going to vote for the people on your state’s ballot, who in turn, are subject to the state’s election laws.

Robin

82

andros,

Don’t do that, you made me giggle in a Pit thread no doubt!

hehe

83

As a citizen of Missouri, I’d just like to say that I’d vote for a steaming pile of my dog’s poop before I would vote for John Asscrack. I also find it funny that Republican’s attack Jean Carnahan’s lack of experience in Washington and at the same time tout Dubya’s as a Washington outsider.

84

It’s not Dubya, it’s George W. Bush.

Well, I am sorta a Republican, and I feel that George Bush has very limited experience as well - perhaps not enough to be President, I admit. But he has at least held an elected office - a governorship.

Another way to look at this: what the Lieutenant Governor is saying is that there is no one better qualified who meets his criteria to be Governor than the wife of the late Governor. He chose her over all other State Senators/Representatives (and no, I don’t know off the top of my head if Missouri is bicameral), all other elected officials, mayors of large cities (St. Louis, KCMO, etc.), all other persons.

So, either she has very extensive and impressive qualifications, as far as he is concerned, or she fills some sort of plan he has (and this does not have to be a negative connotation here, mind you), or it’s pure political tripe.

And yes, very unqualified persons are often elected to office. Well, that’s the “will of the people”, so what can you do? Here, the Lieutenant Gov. has the choice to make. And he chooses a person who has not held political office before, who does not have to campaign, who has an unknown demeanor or personality to most, and whose views on a wide variety of vital political topics are almost completely unknown.

She may be, or turn out to be, the best damn Governor the state ever has. Who knows? But seriously now - I know this is the law, that is not in dispute. But is this the best process Missouri can come up with?

And FTR, I also did not like Sonny Bono’s wife being placed in his stead either. I don’t care if they are Republican, Democrat, or Shining Path - I simply do not agree with this process.

85

Since I usually spend my time over in GD and IMHO, I’m not accustomed to the rough and tumble of the Pit.

But I am a fucking resident of the fucking state of Missouri and I will be voting in this fucking election and that gives me a fucking right to express my fucking opinion.

Naah. Not really me.

Okay, here’s the deal. Candidate dies two weeks before the election. Not only is it too late to reprint the ballots, but absentee ballots have already been cast.

What to do? The law says the name stays on the ballot and should the dead guy get elected, the governor gets to pick a successor.

The governor, who doesn’t HAVE to say anything before the election, announces who he would pick. The widow agrees to serve if picked.

Jesus Christ people, this is the best alternative we can get at this point! At least we know who’d fill the vacancy. If someone (we won’t mention names here) feels the designated replacement is an unqualified bitch, at least he knows that before he goes into the voting booth.

And for the benefit of you non-Missourians out there. The polls had the two candidates in a dead heat (sorry, no pun intended) before the plane crash. They were in a dead heat before the new governor announced who he’d appoint to the vacancy, they were in a dead heat before the widow announced she’d accept and to be the best of my knowledge, they’re still in a dead heat.

Now get your whiny rants the hell out of here and let us go about the job of picking our senator.

86

Una,

How do you propose the placing of a replacement in office for when a Senator/Congressmember dies? Shouldn’t the governor appoint a replacement until the next election cycle?

87

Back to an example I gave earlier: what about Dwight David Eisenhower? He never held elective office. In fact, the military might be the worst place to get the appropriate temperament to be the leader of a democratic nation.

That being said, I think (as a Democrat), he did a fine job. Why is elective office considered necessary experience? I thought the great movement in this country among Republicans was term limitations. If that movement ever wins, we’re going to have a lot more “unqualified” candidates.

Sua

88

I usually lurk over in GQ and the places where there’s, you know, actual learnin’ and stuff going on, :wink: but as a Missourian I figured I’d weigh in on this one, even though the fine posts by Kunilou and others above do a pretty good job of covering the bases.

I’ve been watching this whole Carnahan/Ashcroft thing unfold with interest, but I didn’t have a firm idea which way I was going to vote. Until today.

I happened to be home on lunch and caught a bit of a CNN show on this very race. And the two Republican National Committee flacks in the studio spent several minutes making the point that techically, the U.S. Senate has the final say on who it admits to its ranks as a senator. They then furthermore proceeded to make ominous noises about how the Senate has the power to reject people who have been elected to the Senate from a given state, for whatever reason, with the unspoken but definite implication that they might try it if MO sends Jean Carnahan to D.C.

WHAT THE FUCK?

The OP had his panties in a bundle about us sending an incompetent person to the Senate, but to me the thought of the rest of the nation’s senators barring OUR democratically elected* senator from office because they don’t like Missouri’s pick seems like a WAY more egregious offense. Not to mention partisan politics at its basest, most disgusting form.

Undecided no more…I’m voting for Carnahan. There’s no way I can support a candidate whose party would even suggest that they might try to overrule our choice as a state through technicalities, should he lose the election.
*Okay, so technically she’ll be appointed by the governor. But considering that it’s been made abundantly clear that a vote for Mel Carnahan == a vote for Jean Carnahan, it’s basically the same thing as if she WERE democratically elected. (I sincerely doubt that either Gov. Wilson or Jean Carnahan are going to either back off their publicly stated positions or try a bait-and-switch with another candidate after election day, should Carnahan win.)

89

I know that is the way it is supposed to happen. But, it really seems to me that in all fairness a new election should be called.

That having been said, in the US we don’t seem too partial to having elections held out of sequence. And there is a considerable cost involved in it as well. But the need for doing so is (thankfully) not that common, really.

I don’t know if holding another election is a better idea than appointment. It seems that way to me, although I acknowledge there are drawbacks.

90

Sua,

You make a very good point. I could argue that being a general and commander of an army for so many years like Eisenhower was would count as a pretty good qualification.

It is my mistake for stressing the term “held elected office” earlier. I admit there are many avenues by which one could demonstrate some experience with politics, administration, organization, and leadership. Such as being a CEO of a successful company, or being the head of the Red Cross, or being a Bishop in a church.

As I just posted in a response to Monfort - I would rather that a new election be held, out of sequence. But I also acknowledge that there is a cost and a few disadvantages involved with this approach. Still, it certinly seems more fair in the spirit of a Democratic Republic to do it this way.

91

I would have to agree with you here. Although I do feel reservations about this impending potential appointment, I think if those Senators you heard were not taken out of context, then they have a serious personal problem of some sort. By whatever means, so long as it is not contrary to the Constitution of the US as provides for the election of Senators, Missourians should be able to decide who their representatives in Washington are.

92

But … a new election will be called. They have to have this one next Tuesday (the U.S. Constitution requires it). The new election just won’t be until 2002. Seems fair enough to give Mrs. Carnahan a chance to prove her mettle as a Senator until then, eh?

Well, obviously, we all favour a democratic process of placing our members of Congress. It’s the whole basis of representational government. The US is not a pure democracy – and there’s a good reason why. Just watch CSPAN for ten minutes to understand why we need representatives.

Bitching and moaning about it is useless, as is most bitching and moaning. I know you don’t live in Missouri, so I won’t implore you to vote for Ashcroft. Let Missouri choose its next Senator. If it happens to be a man who is dead, and thus unable to serve, let Missouri law determine what to do – have the Governor appoint a replacement. The only unusual thing is that the Governor did a smart thing and already named the replacement.

Anyway, we’re veering out of the Pit and into GD territory. I was having too much fun flaming Origato last night, and sadly, he’s resigned from his own thread. I’m not really in the mood to flame you about this, since you’re rather informed and, well, you’re not flaming either.

(BTW, I saw your post to Anniz in the “where would you like to have sex?” thread in MPSIMS. Verrrrrrrry cute.)

93

Being Canadian, I just wish I could elect my senators, period.

(I’m speaking hypothetically here, and I will happily defer to those Missouri Dopers who know the personalities better.)

Special elections can backfire.

IIRC, there was a similar situation in Texas after Lyndon Johnson was elected Vice-President in 1960. He’d won re-election to the Senate at the same time, and Democrat John Connally was elected Governor of Texas.

Instead of appointing a Democrat to hold the seat until 1962, a special Texas election for Senator was held in the spring of 1961, which Republican John Tower won.

(Thinking in a Machiavellian way…I wonder if the Missouri Democrats may fear that Ashcroft would win a quick special election next spring.)

Is there anything in Missouri law which would preclude a special election in the spring of 2001?

(Comment: If I were Ashcroft, I would be exasperated. How can he run hard to win against the dead governor’s wife without seeming like an unfeeling asshole? )

94

Can I just say, is it just me, or does Origato make RosieWolf seem dainty and ladylike?

95

Well, that’s not really my point at all, but I’m not going to argue on that. I would prefer the special election be much sooner.

I don’t think you really meant to say this in this context, right?

Well, I’ve said all along it’s the law of the land. I have an opinion that it should be different. I don’t know why you would even think of flaming me on that principle, except that maybe this is the Pit, so it is expected.

You’re supposed to put a smiley after that if you are amused. Assuming you are…well, how about it? You two minks can’t go flaunting yourselves all over the boards and expect to leave everyone high and dry, now can you?

Do you need help with the video equipment? :smiley:

96

This is what I meant to quote from above.

We have a simple difference of opinion on the best process for replacement of candidates during an election year, should one candidiate die or become incapacitated. Neither one of us is denying the facts, or making grandiose statements of propaganda. Therefore, there is not only no reason for me to flame you or you to flame me, but it would not change anything if we did. Except to make the flamer look silly and ignorant.

97

Well, this really is straying away from the pit.

I understand your point(s) Anthracite regarding the process not being exactly as democratic as we would all like it to be. I think the two year waiting period is a historical artifact in that when the state constitution was written things moved much slower. It would have take a week or more for the news that a Senator in office died to reach Missouri back then. Yes, we could probably deal with the logistics much easier and faster now. In this case though since the late Governor died before being elected to office we have a clear choice between Jean Carnahan and John Ashcroft. Everyone knows that if they vote for Mel Carnahan that they are really voting for Jean Carnahan. In the case of a Senator passing while in office I think your concerns are much more valid.

btw - There are some Republicans here who are trying to split the Carnahan vote by suggesting that people write in Jean Carnahan. These votes would not be counted towards Mel Carnahan and therefore we could end up with the two Carnahan’s (who are really one in the same sense one is dead) having more votes than Asscrack and Asscrack still wins. I really liked our Governor and I really wish he wasn’t dead. I think he would have won the election and been a fantastic voice for the people of Missouri. Fortunately though, his widow is committed to the same causes and has the same principals as he did.

98

I imagine it is, but surely no one will object nearly as much as to a GD thread straying towards the Pit, yes?

BTW - the rest of your post has very good points, and I pretty much agree with you.

Now that’s just dirty pool IMO. If Republicans are doing that as a deliberate political stunt, they should be ashamed of themselves.

99

Absolutely nothing in this conversation is Pit-worthy now, since I believe Una and I agree to disagree, or at least we’re debating matters of nit-picking quality. In other words, this should be in GD.

But, then there’s this…

Okay, here’s my smiley: :rolleyes:

Really, Una, I had no idea you were interested in seeing a man have sex. But, in the interest of giving way too much information, there just may be pictures taken. We both have digital cameras, and I know I at least have a slight exhibitionist streak.

So, yeah, e-mail me if you want to see us going at it. We’ll be more than happy to let you see what comes of my trip to Sweden. However, I really don’t think anyone else cares, since no one replied to your post in MPSIMS (if anyone had, I would’ve brought this up there, not here).

If anyone does care, feel free to let me know, and we’ll put you on the list, too. (Only Una gets to see them without consideration – I kinda like the idea of a lesbian being jealous of me. :p)

100

Una,

We don’t agree on much, I’ve noticed lately. But, I’m 100% in agreement with this.