Notice the assumption that a Republican governor would

[vanlassie]

necessarily name another Republican to fill a recently re-elected Democrat's position? That's a big middle finger to the voters of his state, in my opinion. That's what Republicans are fond of calling "playing politics."

The voters should rise up and make their power felt. I just don't appreciate the automatic assumption here, even if we ARE trying to be reality based.

Vanlassie

[villager]

1. you know Republicans who would behave differently?

hmm... which parallel earth on they on?

[dflprincess]

2. Since when do Republicans care about the voters?

I'm sure the pressure the RNC and White House would bring to bear on the governor would result in a Republican being appointed (not to mention what rewards would be promised).

[vanlassie]

3. haha- point taken, but.....

don't they like to think of themselves as ethical and moral?
OK I know- ROFL....

Still........replacing the Dem with a Dem would be the "right thing to do" to a person who respects the Democratic Process, no?

[DRoseDARs]

4. Wouldn't matter. SD law requires a special election within 90 days of a vacancy. n/t

[Flubadubya]

6. So why doesn't MSM mention this?

In fact, I heard one of the talking heads say that an appointment by the governor would be good for two years, not subject to change until the election in 2008. I hope you're right and they are wrong, but that is not what I just heard this evening, unfortunately. :shrug:

[DRoseDARs]

10. Because doing some basic background investigation is passe. n/t

[ContraBass Black]

11. Because, in order to know things, they have to look them up.

They just don't do that kind of thing.

[originalpckelly]

15. Well, someone from DU posted the actual part of the SD Constitution...

which said there had to be a special election.

[rodeodance]

5. good point yet the stakes are hight the Repug Party would shower the

gov with promices, .etc etc .
i do not doubt for a minute that the gov would appoint a Repug.

[MGKrebs]

7. I'm not sure when the precedent was first broken, but I can say

that when Sen. Paul Coverdell (R-GA) died, a Dem Governor appointed a Dem (OK, maybe a DINO- Zell Miller) to fulfill the term.

[Renew Deal]

8. Duly noted

So what.

[EstimatedProphet]

9. HUH?!

That is beyond absurd. Of course they would.

[lumberjack_jeff]

12. Politics ain't a sport...

...it's power.

I would expect a Democratic governor to appoint a Democrat to any vacant senate seat. The importance of the issues transcend any individual, or unmerited notions of "fair play".

Of course he'd do it. The fact that we entertain ideas that we wouldn't if we were in his shoes suggests to me that we haven't learned the right lessons in the last six years. Our opponents aren't shy about walking over graves to enrich themselves at our expense.

In the current political climate, it might be prudent for the SD governor to appoint a moderate Republican, but he'd appoint a Republican.

[alittlelark]

13. History repeats itself.

[northofdenali]

14. Are we talking about the same Republic Party

who supported my recently-elected Governor in appointed his OWN DAUGHTER to his vacated Senate seat?

Never, ever trust them. Never. At least not until they once again become the true REPUBLICAN party. They, before being Religiously Right hijacked, were mostly fair. Not balanced, but fair.