Sen. Tim Johnson (D., S.D.) was hospitalized Wednesday with stroke-like symptoms, according to published reports.

 

Johnson, 59, became ill this morning when speaking to an Associated Press reporter, according to The Washington Post's Web site. He was taken to George Washington Hospital in the capital for evaluation.

 

Johnson's condition takes on added political significance in that if he is unable to serve, South Dakota's Republican governor would get to appoint a replacement. The Democrats took 51-49 seat control of the Senate in the November elections.

 

 

Full Story

Talk about unfortunate! I have to feel sorry for the guy, he has a stroke AND can potentially cost his party control. However, as a Republican, I would rather have Democrats in power in both the Senate and the House instead of just one. I would like to see him recover for his own sake most certainly as well as for party controls sake.

Talk about unfortunate! I have to feel sorry for the guy, he has a stroke AND can potentially cost his party control. However, as a Republican, I would rather have Democrats in power in both the Senate and the House instead of just one. I would like to see him recover for his own sake most certainly as well as for party controls sake.

 

Explain to me why a Republican would want the Democrats to have control of the Senate...:confused:

Republicans have become complacent as of late and have not done a particularly thrilling job, having Democrats in control will be a solid kick in the pants for them in the future. Next, Democrats have the ability to pass legislation and have some authority in Washington. The reason I want to see this is that they will have to stop blaming Bush for every other thing and get things done. In 2008 if they have failed to do anything meaningful, it will bode well for Republicans. If they do a good job, the country will be going in a better direction, and thats the most important objective, right? However, I think we have a more conservative electorate, as many of the Democrats who picked up seats were very conservative for their party. If Democrats spend their time passing more liberal legislation, I doubt they will keep control in '08. Bottom line: stop complaining and take action (good for country), or keep complaining/pass overly liberal legislation (less complacent Republicans take over again). If Republicans keep power of the Senate, Democrats can still say they didn't have a chance to do anything meaningful as Republicans still had authority, giving Democrats a considerable edge in '08.

 

Update: Spokesman saying Senator did not have stroke or heart attack.

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20061214/D8M09O400.html

So you're saying that Vladamir Putin is a Republican?

I've never liked having the Governor fill a vacant seat. It just doesn't seem right to have a seat lost like that. If the people elected a democrat I feel that the seat should be filled by a democrat. Let's hope this is all a mute point anyway and he recovers.

Explain to me why a Republican would want the Democrats to have control of the Senate...:confused:

 

Sounds like we have one reasonable Republican after all.

If you have a split Senate nothing, I repeat NOTHING at all gets accomplished!

If he is unable to fulfill his duties, the Gov. in South Dakota is in a catch 22. He can replace him with a Republican and swing the Senate into his party's hands.

 

But if that strategy fails and gridlock happens, the GOP will take a big PR hit from the public with the cry of "dirty dealings" because they "usurped the will of the people."

 

I'm not saying that's right, I am saying that's the risk factor on this scenario.

 

On the other hand, he could name a Dem and if things go south they could say, we are the party that believes in fairness and the people and swing some towards the GOP in the long run.

 

Tough Call.

Just curious to see how this gets spinned as a Karl Rove plot.

Johnson will be fine and, if not, he will never resign. If an opening occurs, which it won't, the governor should appoint a Republican. That is how it works and, after all, the Democrats set a precedent when they coaxed Jumpin' Jim Jefferds to make a change. If the Republican governor failed to follow party lines, it would be further proof that Republicans, like the lion in Wizard of Oz, have no courage.

 

Actually, I look for Chucky Schumer to hold a press conference at a local bar (so Teddy can attend) and announce that Johnson's problem is Bush's fault because of cuts in funding for medical research.

Sounds like we have one reasonable Republican after all.

If you have a split Senate nothing, I repeat NOTHING at all gets accomplished!

The Senate is never split. One party always has control. If its tied 50-50, the VP gets to vote.

 

If Johnson resigns or is incapacitated, the Governor has no choice but to appoint a Republican to the seat. Anything else would be political suicide.

 

I really dislike the Governor appointing open seats. Too often, its a way to return a political favor to someone who doesn't belong in the position. And I reallly hate when they appoint the spouse of the incumbent!

 

I think a Governor's appointment should be for no longer than 180 days. Otherwise, you must have either a popular special election, or the appointee should be selected by the legislature.

The Senate is never split. One party always has control. If its tied 50-50, the VP gets to vote.

 

If Johnson resigns or is incapacitated, the Governor has no choice but to appoint a Republican to the seat. Anything else would be political suicide.

 

I really dislike the Governor appointing open seats. Too often, its a way to return a political favor to someone who doesn't belong in the position. And I reallly hate when they appoint the spouse of the incumbent!

 

I think a Governor's appointment should be for no longer than 180 days. Otherwise, you must have either a popular special election, or the appointee should be selected by the legislature.

:thumb: I hate the governor appointing the replacements, the people should get to vote if a politician is incapacitated and unable to perform his duties.

Just had a thought - if he is incapacitated, would that automatically move him into the top 10% of the Senate, in terms of intellectual prowess?

 

 

 

Frances

Just had a thought - if he is incapacitated, would that automatically move him into the top 10% of the Senate, in terms of intellectual prowess?

 

 

 

Frances

 

I don't know...Jim Bunning and Robert Byrd are as close to incapacitated a breathing person can be, which would make them top 20%, maybe...:scared:

I don't know...Jim Bunning and Robert Byrd are as close to incapacitated a breathing person can be, which would make them top 20%, maybe...:scared:

Man, that's a bad hit:lol:

 

15 yard penalty and loss of down.