[nicollo]

Unanimous consent is required to change the rules. A new rule would have to be invoked in order to hold another election for Speaker -- since it's already taken place.

Current rules, as CT explains to us, require unanimous consent to change the rules. What Lott did, apparently, is to move up the election of Speaker, thereby securing it before Bush could get the support to stop it from happening. That all took place before the Thurmond controversy.

Re-read the news articles. No one's saying it, but there is no scheduled election of the Speaker. It already happened. Lott's website makes that exceedingly clear. The only elections currently scheduled are for Sargeant at Arms, Secretary, and one or two other posts -- not for the Speaker.

[Chairman_December_19th_Society]

Unanimous consent is required to change the rules.

I guess I've worked in this town for far too long.

I will need to see this rule before I buy it.

[nicollo]

Oops... change "Speaker" to "Majority Leader..." (Didn't I recently complain about people who make this stupid mistake?)

[Chairman_December_19th_Society]

Re-read the news articles. No one's saying it, but there is no scheduled election of the Speaker. It already happened. Lott's website makes that exceedingly clear.

Actually, Lott's website is anything but clear on the subject because it comes from the target of the issue himself. Thus I can hardly conclude that his personal "official" website is going to contain the answer to this that can be considered definitive. Instead, what Senator Lott's website gives me is the information tha Senator Lott decides is appropriate for his webpage. Senator Lott has decided there won't be any mention of any "elections" other than those for the procedural positions of the Senate. Senator Lott has not, however, stated on his web page that there wouldn't be other votes on leadership positions.

Frankly, what I surmize from news articles is this:

The Republicans have not, on December 18th, figured out exactly what it is that they want to do. There is a growing consensus - this is the term that is used in media stories I have read today - that Lott is a liability. This would suggest movement toward a consensus, but that it hasn't been reached.

That said, you have this from Sen. Hutchison (R-TX), Conference Vice Chair:

Republican senators are working all over their states during December, and we have not had the opportunity to come together to discuss the developments on this issue. I believe the matter to be vitally important for all Republican senators to discuss as a group, and the need for a meeting is clear.

Senator Lott has apologized and is doing everything he can to make this situation right. This meeting will provide Republican senators the opportunity for a full and open discussion about Senator Lott and his ability to lead the Republican majority.

And this from Sen. Kyl (R-AZ), Chairman, Republican Policy Committee:

Put yourself in his position: You've just been humiliated by the media, your opposition and now your colleagues, but they want you to hang around to make sure they still have a majority. It's hard to make it work that way.

These are not statements of people who think the issue is foreclosed.

[Quotes sourced here]