Posted on 05/25/2007 1:26:11 PM PDT by Politicalmom
I don't think most voters really sway one way or another on who the "true conservative" is. Anyone who cared about that knew, and Isakson won a three-way election without a runoff.
I think you're right about "Old boy." The Country Club Republicans were behind Johnny, not out of principle but out of long-time friendships and political alliances. They wanted an R.
As a result, motivated grassroots weren't enough to overcome money and network and name recognition.
Remember, this wasn't the first time Isakson had sought statewide election. He's been in so many elections since the mid-1980s, that his name is synonymous with political office.
Many, maybe most, voters didn't give any consideration to who was the real conservative, just to which name they recognized.
Wow! I had completely forgotten that in the context of this immigration deal!
Thanks for posting this reminder.
Was this ruling on a US senator?
Honestly, I really believe that the court would view the "state official" to mean just that, but maybe it's a decision the courts would make.
But would nancy allow him to vote for that?
Each House shall be the judge of the elections, returns and qualifications of its own members, and a majority of each shall constitute a quorum to do business; but a smaller number may adjourn from day to day, and may be authorized to compel the attendance of absent members, in such manner, and under such penalties as each House may provide.
Each House may determine the rules of its proceedings, punish its members for disorderly behavior, and, with the concurrence of two thirds, expel a member.
So, each House has more authority over its members, once elected, than do the states that elected them? This interpretation sounds rather narrow to me, but I'm not an attorney, either.
Yes, it was.
68 Opinions of the Attorney General 140, 146, 148 (Wisconsin 1979): “In the foregoing discussion I have attempted neither a resolution nor a comprehensive analysis of the constitutional issue. Enough has been said, however, to show that the question of constitutionality is one that is arguable and open to debate. The Wisconsin Supreme Court has provided guidance to administrative bodies called upon to perform their ministerial duties under circumstances raising doubts as to the constitutional validity of the result. ... Accordingly, in the event petitions for the recall of a United States senator are presented to the Elections Board, you should proceed to carryput your responsibilities ... unless and until directed otherwise by a court of law.”
He is a betrayer.
That's very interesting!
I tend to believe the mechanism for removing U.S. Senators exists in the Constitution in Article I, Sec. 5, and the courts would say that's a power not granted to the people. Nevertheless, this opinion certainly offers room for argument that it's possible.
Was the opinion in response to a recall effort that failed to get the signatures or something? It'd be interesting to know the backstory.
http://lugar.senate.gov/CRS%20reports/Recall_of_Legislators_and_the_Removal_of_Members_of_Congress_from_Office.pdf
The Wisconsin ruling that I cited is listed alongside a similar ruling from Oregon, that specifically precluded the application of recall provisions to US Senators legally, but did expressly permit a recall political election to go through. That one was peculiar. But, it could be useful, a symbolic flogging in the public square of sorts.
Cain would be a walk-in. It wouldn’t be close.
Zell is wildly popular to be sure - but Barnes is a dolt. Nobody likes him but the far left libs.
I'm one of the Georgia guys who couldn't get through until some awesome FReeper posted the 800 lines from la raza (or whoever). I got through to both senators WITHOUT THE PHONE EVEN RINGING.
I know spanish... so it was fun listening. It's all in spanish until they sloooowly state what they want spanish speakers to repeat..." spanish spanish spanish spanish...."I strongly support comprehensive immigration reform. I support SB ####".spanish...spanish...spanish...
"press 1 for senator now" and voila.
RinaseaofDs - ping to post for a Ga. Freeper who called the spanish line and got through!
Principled - thanks. But please don’t be too derogatory about our Senators when you tell this story. It’s important for us to remember that Elected Officials truly are a Higher and More Important class of citizen than you or I. And therefore, they should be awarded with Priviliges that are Over and Beyond what the common man is allowed.
Health insurance far better than anything they would force upon us.
Free trips to travel the world on “fact finding” golf junkets.
Perks and payoffs from their employment that would have the IRS locking us up.
Pensions that even the most aggressive of union reps can’t produce for their members.
And, of course, the ability not to have to listen to the rantings and ravings of people who don’t Understand how Important they are and the Difficult Decisions they must make for the Good of the Country.
I'd like to agree, but the Country Club Republicans will hand the next six years back to Saxby. Cain's one of us, not one of them.
Maybe a strong grassroots movement would do it with lots of flyers showing the photo of Kennedy and Saxby and Isakson. But I don't think it would be easy.
Now that’s gonna leave a mark! OUCH!
:0)
I think it would have to be this type of movement - and I think that's what Hermann has. He has every fair tax supporter and he has their grass roots mobilized already.
If saxby remains on the senate immigration bill, he's had it.
However, something tells me saxby will get it and flop to oppose the bill. He's not stupid - just ignorant so far. JMHO FWIW
Exactly right. It's amazing to compare Cain with the two losers we actually elected. Isakson is the AJC's ideal Republican, and Saxby is a Good Old Boy in the worst possible way.
It depends on the votes in the Senate. Isakson votes for it because he's still got four years before he's up for re-election. If it passes with a "no" vote from Saxby ... or no-vote from Saxby ... he'll avoid it to try to save himself at this point.
My only question is whether or not Cain feels up to another run after the cancer. But he sounded great filling in for Boortz this morning!
And you're right about the FairTax grassroots support in Georgia. It'd be huge. And, Cain's got radio time and name recognition now that he didn't have two years ago.
Maybe it could be done. I know I'm ready!
But I've never heard of it happening. Not that that necessarily means anything, because most of my practice was in the state courts. I didn't get to federal court very much, just occasionally.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.