Sen. Lautenberg

[Corodon]

Mentioned in another thread (http://www.democracyforums.com/showpost.php?p=647815&postcount=6), Lautenberg's trip to the hospital was first reported as because of a fall, later said to be for a bleeding ulcer, and now it's reported that stomach cancer has been discovered.

I've had a relative go with stomach cancer. I do not wish this on Mr. Lautenberg, whatever my opinion of his politics and New Jersey's tinkering with elections. I wish him well, and I hope medicine has made some progress since my own experience with this illness.

Mr. Lautenberg, of course, has said he will not retire, and the Democrats, of course, would keep a corpse in office before allowing the Republican NJ governor to appoint someone, or allowing an election at this point in time.

However, Mr. Lautenberg should retire.

Lautenberg's illness could hurt Senate Democrats (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100220/ap_on_go_co/us_lautenberg_senate_democrats;_ylt=AnqtdcRU2ru1zl LC5w3Dcjes0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTQyMTI2NDVwBGFzc2V0A2FwLz IwMTAwMjIwL3VzX2xhdXRlbmJlcmdfc2VuYXRlX2RlbW9jcmF0 cwRjY29kZQNtb3N0cG9wdWxhcgRjcG9zAzYEcG9zAzMEcHQDaG 9tZV9jb2tlBHNlYwN5bl9oZWFkbGluZV9saXN0BHNsawNsYXV0 ZW5iZXJnc2k-)
AP on Yahoo! News

The "concern" expressed in this report is merely that Lautenberg will miss votes during his treatment over the coming six months, and thus imperil the Democrats' ability to pass legislation. The report concludes noting the attempt (failed) to do in NJ what was done in MA:Any decline in Lautenberg's recovery would be a serious concern for Democrats in New Jersey as well.

Republicans there won control of the governor's office in November. If Lautenberg were unable to finish his term, Gov. Chris Christie would appoint an interim successor. That could give a Republican candidate the added advantage of incumbency in an already favorable environment for the GOP.

New Jersey Democrats failed to advance legislation to take the interim appointment power away from Christie. The legislation was introduced during the lame-duck session with Lautenberg in mind.

Lautenberg is not up for re-election until 2014.

Apparently those in NJ knew what was coming.

[Alonzo]

So, if they cared about what the people wanted, shouldn't the Governor appoint what the people elected, a Democrat?

[Corodon]

So, if they cared about what the people wanted, shouldn't the Governor appoint what the people elected, a Democrat?
They elected a Republican governor more recently.

[Corodon]

So, if they cared about what the people wanted, shouldn't the Governor appoint what the people elected, a Democrat?
I'd be happy to have the seat remain vacant pending a special election. That way there will be even fewer questions about 'what the people want.' :thumbsup:

[Alonzo]

They elected a Republican governor more recently.

So then, all those years MA elected GOP Governors while electing Democrats house and senate members, means what?

Who you elect for governor is not a good indicator of who you'd elect elsewhere. Despite Brown's recent win, that's clearly true in places like MA, and it seems to be true elsewhere from what I've seen.

I'd be happy to have the seat remain vacant pending a special election. That way there will be even fewer (not less) questions about "what the people want."

Better than the governor picking.

But then I'm not sure why we should risk turning a non vote into a no vote. The guys still alive, he won the seat. I doubt the democrats in New Jersey, both the party and its supporters, would rather see a Republican.

[Corodon]

So then, all those years MA elected GOP Governors while electing Democrats house and senate members, means what?

Who you elect for governor is not a good indicator of who you'd elect elsewhere. Despite Brown's recent win, that's clearly true in places like MA, and it seems to be true elsewhere from what I've seen.



Better than the governor picking.

But then I'm not sure why we should risk turning a non vote into a no vote. The guys still alive, he won the seat. I doubt the democrats in New Jersey, both the party and its supporters, would rather see a Republican.They'll have their chance to say, which I presume you would endorse. It won't be a generic vote, of course, but a real choice between (or among) actual candidates.

Much of this discussion is outside of reality. Governors will virtually never use their appointment power to empower the opposition. Fuggetaboutit.

And the MA model of appointment a lame duck makes sense, but also bucks the notion of giving your buddy a leg up as incumbent. I don't expect that very often if ever. The best bet for the Dems is to keep Lautenberg alive, or at least lying in state in his office.

Ted Kennedy chose not to retire, and arguably it cost the Dems his senate seat. Perhaps if Lautenberg retired and endorsed (and even campaigned for) a successor it might influence the outcome.

[Alonzo]

They'll have their chance to say, which I presume you would endorse. It won't be a generic vote, of course, but a real choice between (or among) actual candidates.

Only after the guy is appointed and adds a vote to the GOP, and now has the advantage of incumbency.

Much of this discussion is outside of reality. Governors will virtually never use their appointment power to empower the opposition. Fuggetaboutit.

I remember an incident happening a few years ago, but I'm not sure what the overall track record here is, especially when the person being replaced is not from the Governors party.

Ted Kennedy chose not to retire, and arguably it cost the Dems his senate seat. Perhaps if Lautenberg retired and endorsed (and even campaigned for) a successor it might influence the outcome.

Timing is what did Coakley in, that and the fact that "oh, I'm a Democrat, I don't have to do anything to win." thinking.

I think putting it off would probably be better for the Democrats here though. The economy does seem to be slowly improving, and if they do get a bill passed, that and an improving economy at least runs a good chance of boosting their chances in November, provided the GOP can't get the public to ignore it (they're very good with crafting messages, the Democrats are horrible at it now).

I think now is a poor climate for an incumbent party, and I think the smart thing to do is gamble that it will be better in November. I'm very confident that economically it will be better, but I'm not very confident that it will be better politically. But, at the same time, I think now is bad enough that it's a much smarter thing to take your chances in November than hold it asap.

Honestly, this is politics. The GOP is playing politics, the Democrats try to play it but they need to get better at it. Lautenberg obviously doesn't want to step down, and certainly doesn't want his vote to turn into a GOP vote. Neither would most of the people who elected him. It doesn't make sense for him to essentially help the GOP get the vote, especially not out of some ridiculous principled action that will never be reciprocated and would simply result in his views, things he supported on principle as well, having less of a chance of being enacted.

[Corodon]

Honestly, this is politics. The GOP is playing politics, the Democrats try to play it but they need to get better at it. Lautenberg obviously doesn't want to step down, and certainly doesn't want his vote to turn into a GOP vote. Neither would most of the people who elected him. It doesn't make sense for him to essentially help the GOP get the vote, especially not out of some ridiculous principled action that will never be reciprocated and would simply result in his views, things he supported on principle as well, having less of a chance of being enacted.Perhaps Lautenberg would see retirement as a personal surrender to cancer, I don't know.

I don't have an especially high opinion of his "principles," especially considering the way he sneaked in to replace Toricelli. Principles, indeed. But it is New Jersey. I'm also not sure his supporters care much more about Frank and his principles than they do about cosmetics.

By "pass a bill" you mean the health care "reform" -- which is tantamount at the moment to meaning the "public option" -- that is neither a sure thing, nor a guaranteed public relations success. The Wall Street Journal has a couple of short (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703983004575073863891825900.html?m od=WSJ_Opinion_AboveLEFTTop) editorials (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704804204575069821900574214.html?m od=WSJ_Opinion_AboveLEFTTop) on the subject today (think I'll post them in another thread).