Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement

Election 2008

Make That Former Senator Ted Stevens

By John Nichols, TheNation.com. Posted November 18, 2008.


Democrat Mark Begich unseats Stevens in Alaska, bringing Dems one step closer to a filibuster-proof Senate.
Advertisement
Upcoming AlterNet stories on Digg

Felon Senator Ted Stevens has apparently lost his seat representing Alaska, and Democrats have moved one seat closer to a filibuster-proof majority in the upper chamber of the Congress.

Two weeks after the November 4 election, with all but a handful of ballots counted, the Associated Press declared that Democrat Mark Begich had defeated Stevens, the senior Senate Republican who was convicted just before the election on seven felony counts of hiding illegal gifts from an Alaska contractor.

After a long day of counting in Alaska Tuesday, Begich led by 3,724 votes. AP labeled this "an insurmountable lead with only about 2,500 overseas ballots left to be counted" and identified the Democrat as the winner.

The victory by Begich, the mayor of Anchorage, makes him the 58th member of the Senate Democratic Caucus. (That's 56 Democrats, Vermont Independent Bernie Sanders and Connecticut Independent Joe Lieberman -- who on Tuesday was effectively welcomed back into the caucus by members who allowed the backer of Republican John McCain to retain his chairmanship of the powerful Homeland Security Committee.)

Could Democrats make it to 60 seats, thus positioning the party to override Republican procedural moves to block legislation and approve Obama administration nominations?

In a word: Yes.

Democrat Al Franken is still locked in a Minnesota recount fight with Republican Senator Norm Coleman. If Franken wins, as is very possible, that would be seat 59.

Democrat Jim Martin gets another shot at Republican Senator Saxby Chambliss in Georgia. If Franken wins that uphill but doable race, that would be seat 60.

Democrats went into the 2008 competition with a 51-49 split in the Senate.

Democratic candidates took seats where Republican incumbents were stepping down in Colorado, New Mexico and Virginia. And they beat Republican incumbents in New Hampshire, North Carolina, Oregon and, now, Alaska.

The Stevens win is a sweet one for Democrats, who had expected to displace the convicted senator only to see the felon finish ahead in the count on election night. Begich pulled ahead as early votes and so-called "questioned ballots" were counted. And there is now little doubt that the Democrat will be seated. That's good news for Begich's fellow partisans and for Senate Republicans, who will now be relieved of the burden of kicking Stevens out of their caucus.


Digg!    Share on facebook   submit to reddit    Bookmark on Delicious   Stumble This  

See more stories tagged with: ted stevens, mark begich

John Nichols is The Nation's Washington correspondent.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from Election 2008! Sign up now »

Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Hahaha
Posted by: FreeAmerica on Nov 19, 2008 1:25 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Stole one right under palin's nose, eh? That is pretty funny.

This is all pretty pointless though. There are enough RINOs in the senate that the dems had the sound, filibuster proof majority well before 60 on most issues. Blue is in power with a healthy margin as it is, the 60 mark is just a notch in the guitar.

They might want to move fast though. Once the sheeple get a whiff of high energy prices coming under Barak's energy plan, they will repeat the wholesale housecleaning that they did in 94. The dems have a disproportionate number of senate seats up at risk next time, the recipe for disaster.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Trolls as fools Posted by: End The Echo
What good is "a filibuster-proof Senate"...
Posted by: ~Fiona~ on Nov 19, 2008 1:39 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
...When both the senate and the house are headed up with Spineless pieces of Crap like Reid and Pelosi?

They remind me of "George McCellan" from the Civil War... No matter how many troops that yellow bast**d had, it was still never enough...

Barak Obama had better be a LOT like Abe Lincoln to get these two cowards to actually grow a spine... I wonder who will play the part of "U.S. Grant"???

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Soooo Kegbot... Posted by: ~Fiona~
» Bono Posted by: pelican beak
A Mistake That Needs Correcting
Posted by: pbrantner on Nov 19, 2008 4:56 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"Democrat Jim Martin gets another shot at Republican Senator Saxby Chambliss in Georgia. If Franken wins that uphill but doable race, that would be seat 60."

In the second sentence, the author means "Martin," not Franken. Franken is going to have enough trouble pulling off his win in Minnesota without having to win Georgia too.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

signjay
Posted by: signjay on Nov 19, 2008 5:50 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Obviously the Dems bend-over-and-take-it acquiescience in allowing Lieberman to stay in the Club is a strategic move, a deal closed in order to hopefully gain the Magic 60 number. This is a pretty distasteful scenario. If principles mean anything, I would rather see Lieberman bounced out of the party and sent over to the Dark Side rather than let him stink up the place as a DINO. Really folks, if Obama is going to reach across the aisle, he needs to put a little more muscle in the handshake, as if to say, okay guys, lets play ball, but realize- we won this thing. Lieberman needs to be sat in the corner and wear the dunce-cap for awhile.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The Alaska vote
Posted by: westomoon on Nov 19, 2008 5:58 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I've been wondering -- if the election-day vote for the Alaska Senate seat hadn't been so close, would those other 90,000 votes ever have been counted?

You'll remember that for several days after the returns were announced, the pundits were puzzling over the unexpectedly low voter turnout in Alaska, and Alaska said nothing. Then we were suddenly discussing how the huge uncounted vote would turn out. That's right -- all those votes, nearly a third of votes cast in Alaska, had simply been ignored in the Alaska returns. Turns out voter turnout set a record high this year, once those folks were forced to acknowledge the existence of all the early, absentee, and questioned ballots.

I haven't heard anyone discuss the way the vote count was conducted -- or reported. And I've been wondering ever since that huge chunk of the Alaska vote was belatedly revealed -- if Stevens had won the election-day vote by a comfy margin, would we ever have known about those other 90,000 votes?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: The Alaska vote Posted by: Drume
» RE: The Alaska vote Posted by: westomoon
» RE: The Alaska vote Posted by: Drume
» Full Circle Posted by: westomoon
Oh, puleeze ! Back in 1964, the Democrats had 68 out of 100 seats and yet
Posted by: maxpayne on Nov 19, 2008 6:02 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
LBJ still had to reach out to the Republicans in the North to counter the Dixiecrats in the south. Besides, there are "conservative" Democrats in the Senate too such as Mark Warner and some of these folks will be insane enough to join the GOP in filibustering. The Senate will always fail to be fully filibuster proof no matter the makeup.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Get ready for two more years of flakey excuses
Posted by: lynmarenjensen on Nov 19, 2008 11:01 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If the Democrats are counting the two Independents to get to sixty, then the Democrats don't have a "filibuster-proof majority." A combination of 58 Democrats and 2 Independents is not a filibuster-proof majority, especially when one of those "Independents" is Joe Lieberman, who is more and more showing himself to be a (just barely) closeted Republican, and the Democrats continue to sit and take it from him like a bunch of battered wives. Lastly, the whole argument about a "filibuster-proof majority" is a myth, since no majority is filibuster-proof. Democrats (or Republicans) have no binding obligation to vote on party lines to end (or not end) a filibuster. What's going to be fun is hearing the next two years of flakey excuses from Democrats about why a Democratic-controlled Senate, with a Democratic president, isn't getting out of Iraq and Afghanistan, protecting the Constitution, or stopping global warming. Maybe the Senate Democratic leadership can be the new Dubya's, all you have to do is play a sound bite of them opening their mouths and you've got a laugh.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

reality bites...
Posted by: gunboat diplomat on Nov 19, 2008 3:18 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I would guess that the last thing the Senate Democratic leadership wants is a filibuster-proof majority.

Then, what excuse would they have for stalling legislation that the public very much wants, but that their corporate sponsors very much don't?

Will the Democrats actually force the Republicans to filibuster, or will they wilt at the mere threat?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Correction to the title
Posted by: factbased on Nov 19, 2008 3:21 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I believe the accepted phrase is "disgraced former Senator."

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Keeping Our Democratic Leaders Closest
Posted by: jimswanson on Nov 20, 2008 4:39 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
James A. Swanson, Los Altos, CA
www.bushleagueofnations.com [For FREE download of entire book]

Seeing felon Stevens get kicked out of office is a joy. Thank you Alaskans! I now have something nice to say about just slightly more than half of you.

The rest of you “Palin comparison to” thoughtful homo sapiens. (Hey, lighten up, that’s a joke!)

Two serious comments:

(1) Yes, 58 is better than 57, and 60 would be even better, but 60 is not an ironclad insurance policy.

The Republican wing of the Democratic Party—DINOs or Blue Dog Democrats you may prefer—can be counted on for regressive mischief.

In any case, whether 60 votes can be rounded up for a particular cloture vote in the Senate will depend heavily on the particular legislation in question.

(2) But here’s the really important question: Will the 58 or 59 or 60 “good guys” actually fight for “us” and America and push legislation that is truly transforming and progressive?

Real progressive transformation of our nation must be driven from the grassroots up, not from the “top down” by business-as-usual career politicians.

I’m alarmed that Obama is appointing so many business-as-usual politicians. Time will tell if he has the strength—and the will—to withstand their toxic influence.

Also, Big Oil, Big Insurance, Big Pharma—the list goes on—and their lobbyists have not left town.

Electing Obama was the easy part. The real work begins today … and again tomorrow … and every day thereafter.

We must stay engaged, take names, kick butt, and never give up. Let’s redouble our efforts.

We have the advantage of knowing what to expect from Neanderthals in the Republican Party. They are thus “reliable.” As for our Democratic leaders, we trust them at our peril.

We must keep our friends close, our enemy closer, and our Democratic leaders closest.

Jim Swanson, Los Altos, CA
www.bushleagueofnations.com

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

If we want and need the 60 to ensure smooth sailing...
Posted by: snowdude38 on Nov 21, 2008 9:41 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
why is Obama continuing to raid the Senate rosters to fill his cabinet positions? Stop with the shooting your own foot stuff Barrack!! Come on man, America voted in record numbers to get these people elected/reelected to ensure some form of success in passage of regulations to pull Americans out of the bush-legacy depression!!
Stop taking Democrats out of the Senate please, we need them in the jobs we voted them into already!!!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Why Stevens Lost
Posted by: steveconn on Nov 21, 2008 9:49 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Stevens lost 1.because Alaska Natives decided he could no longer help them deal with the crisis of high fuel costs which is driving them out of the villages and 2. because a third party candidate garnered 13,000 votes on a pro-life, anti-war platform on a $28,000 budget. Had Stevens not been embroiled in his D.C. Trial, he might have noticed this guy who was kept out of the statewide tv debate.Stevens did a great deal for Alaska.I never realized how many
liberal ditto heads needed MSNBC and liberal bloggerss to tell them what to think, the precise equivalent of the mindless Limbaugh listeners. Pathetic parrots on both sides.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]