Stevens quandry

Well if Sen. Stevens hangs onto his lead and is pronounced the winner of the seat he currently holds it will create somewhat of a quandry.

Sen. Stevens has been convicted of several felony counts by a Federal Court Jury.

However, the citizens of Alaska, knowing of the convictions, have apparently re-elected him anyway.

The Senate has the option of expelling him by a 2/3 vote, but the question is should they?

There is apparently no prohibition against a convicted felon being elected or serving in the Senate.

So why should the Senate take it upon themselves to overturn the expressed will of the people of Alaska?

Personally, I dont think he should have been re-elected.

But if he was, that's none of my business.

It's up to the citizens of Alaska if they want to send him back.

So what do others think?

I think that they should boot Stevens the same day that they boot Willie "Cold Cash" Jefferson (D-LA).

Armon Ayers wrote:I think that they should boot Stevens the same day that they boot Willie "Cold Cash" Jefferson (D-LA).

It's not about quid pro quo, it's about whether convicted felons should be able to serve in either house of Congress. If and when Jefferson is convicted he should either resign or be booted out of the House of Representatives. Stevens has already been convicted (seven times over, in fact), and so should not be allowed to serve in the Senate -- no matter how stupid the voters of Alaska are.

Armon Ayers wrote:I think that they should boot Stevens the same day that they boot Willie "Cold Cash" Jefferson (D-LA).

What was Jefferson convicted of?

Alaska's voters may not be as stupid as I thought...


Latest tally: Begich leads Stevens by 3 votes

ziggy wrote:

Armon Ayers wrote:I think that they should boot Stevens the same day that they boot Willie "Cold Cash" Jefferson (D-LA).

What was Jefferson convicted of?

What was Tom DeLay convicted of before his resignation? The allegations/indictment were sufficient to call for his resignation. Why are the wheels of justice so much slower for a Democrat?

They must maintain high ethical standards? You're joking, right?

Armon Ayers wrote:

ziggy wrote:

Armon Ayers wrote:I think that they should boot Stevens the same day that they boot Willie "Cold Cash" Jefferson (D-LA).

What was Jefferson convicted of?

What was Tom DeLay convicted of before his resignation? The allegations/indictment were sufficient to call for his resignation. Why are the wheels of justice so much slower for a Democrat?

In 2005, a Texas grand jury indicted DeLay on criminal charges that he had conspired to violate campaign finance laws during that period. DeLay denied the charges and pleaded not guilty, saying they were politically motivated and the law he was indicted under did not apply until later, but Republican Conference rules forced him to resign temporarily from his position as Majority Leader. He is still awaiting trial. In January 2006, under pressure from fellow Republicans, DeLay announced that he would not seek to return to the position. In the months before and after this decision, two of his former aides were convicted in the Jack Abramoff scandal. DeLay ran for re-election in 2006, and won the Republican primary election in March 2006, but, citing the possibility of losing the general election, he announced in April 2006 that he would withdraw from the race and resign his seat in Congress. He resigned on June 9, 2006, and sought to remove his name from the ballot. The court battle that followed forced him to remain on the ballot, despite having withdrawn from the race.[emphasis added]

Ah, so it isn't that the wheels of justice are slower for Democrats. It's just that the Democrats don't share the high ethical standards of their Republican colleagues. I see....

Stephanie wrote:Ah, so it isn't that the wheels of justice are slower for Democrats. It's just that the Democrats don't share the high ethical standards of their Republican colleagues. I see....

That's one way to look at it. However, I think it more likely that Delay was such an SOB to even his fellow GOPsters that they jumped at the excuse to get rid of him.

bmd wrote:Alaska's voters may not be as stupid as I thought...


Latest tally: Begich leads Stevens by 3 votes

Well it seems to be breaking pretty hard toward Begich.

I just checked your link and he is up by several hundred now.

It seems they had not counted the early votes, which are tending to be heavy Democrat.

(but they still have several thousand yet to count.)

On the one hand, if Stevens loses it will take away a major issue for the Dems. His presence would be like a Damoclean sword over the Republicans' head the next two years.

On the other hand, he could give the Dems the magic # of 60 so they can bust a filibuster.

(provided they dont kick Lieberman out.)

Also there is still a reasonable chance Al Franken can win in Minnesota.

In which case the Dems could kick Lieberman out and still have 60.

http://www.dailykos.com/

Well according to this it is looking even better for Begich.

They say there are 38K votes still out, but they come from areas expected to be for Begich.

The question now is whether he can win by more than 0.5 % in order to avoid an automatic recount.