Question for Republicans regarding SD situation

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

Republican

[Gabu]

Thats just how it works.

I always love it when people use this line to justify a statement.

[Keystone Phil]

Thats just how it works.

I always love it when people use this line to justify a statement.

Hey, like it or not, that's just how it works, Gabu.

[Nym90]

If I were the Democratic Governor of a state in which a Republican Senator died, I have to admit I would probably appoint a Democrat. I would try to find one that is moderate and that won't run for reelection the next time up, but it is part of the Governor's job responsibility and something that voters should be thinking about when they vote for Governor, just as Supreme Court nominees should be something voters consider when voting for President.

[Bleeding heart conservative, HTMLdon]

Thats just how it works.

I always love it when people use this line to justify a statement.

Hey, like it or not, that's just how it works, Gabu.

That's just the way it is
Some things will never change
That's just the way it is
But don't you believe them
-B.R. Hornsby

[Gabu]

Thats just how it works.

I always love it when people use this line to justify a statement.

Hey, like it or not, that's just how it works, Gabu.

I'm sorry, Phil, but that's just the way it is.

[AkSaber]

I'd appoint a Democrat, cause SD voters elected a Dem. 

[adam]

I would appoint a Republican.

Someone please explain to me as to why Gov. Rounds should give a rat's ass about the new Democratic majority? One of his power's as governor is to appoint whomever he deems qualified to the soon to be vacant US Senate seat of his state...and seeing as how it's Mike Rounds (R-SD), it should be very obvious what qualifications he is looking for.

[Emsworth]

The will of the people was a Democratic Senate. Over the last 3 elections, the 49 Democrats (not counting Sanders or Lieberman) got 4.5% more votes than the 49 Republicans.

Winning 24 of the 33 Senate seats up in 1 year is a mandate.

Sure, the Democrats may have received a greater number of votes, and won a greater number of seats, across the nation. They do have a popular mandate to govern. But, with all due respect, I don't think that the Governor of a particular state is bound by that national mandate. He has his own mandate, given to him by the people who voted him into office, and who decided not to place restrictions on his ability to fill Senate vacancies.

It is perfectly justifiable to appoint a Republican in such a scenario. However, appointing a Democrat would certainly be much more statesmanlike.

[minionofmidas]

This is a very tough situation. I obviously would want a qualified candidate, capable of handling life in the Senate. I'd look for a conservative Democrat  but if I had serious questions about whether or not they are the qualified, I would turn to a Republican. I cannot stress enough, though, that I would try my hardest to find the best Democrat.

An argument I don't like though is that the Governor should be required to appoint someone of the same party as the Senator who vacated the seat. Originally, I thought it was an excellent idea (I thought of this because of the law in Wyoming that was brought up if Craig Thomas was unable to serve his term). While it is my hope that each Governor would respectfully appoint someone of that Senator's party, it should not be required by law. In this case, yes, the people elected a Democrat but that doesn't mean that they necessarily want just any Democrat. Plus, the people elected the Governor who they have entrusted with filling a vacancy.

Bottom line is that I wouldn't want to be in Rounds' shoes. It's a very tough situation.

By the way, I was listening to talk radio on my way into school yesterday and they were talking about Johnson. Glenn Beck stated that Johnson being elected was basically meaningless as to why a Dem should be appointed to replace him because he only won by about 500 votes and "because of a drought issue." I really hate some of these people.

Very good post.

If this were just about who represents SD, I'd see absolutely nothing wrong with Rounds appointing a Republican. That is indeed "how things work". But I don't see how the Governor of SD should have the power to move loads of influence on lawmaking (and loads of money) in Washington his party's way - I don't see how that's what he was elected for.

But there's an additional problem with appointing a conservative Democrat (and one couldn't blame Rounds for appointing somebody who, at least on certain issues important to him, is closer to him than to national Dems)... he's a Republican and shouldn't be involved with the Democrats' candidate selection. And if he were to appoint a Democrat willing to run for the full term in 2008, that's exactly what he'd be doing.

So yeah, that's what I'd be doing if I were in Rounds' shoes: Appoint a Conservative Democrat, or (perhaps better yet) Independent willing to caucus with the Democrats, who will pledge not to run for a full term.

And once that's clear anyways, given SD's unique demographic situation, I would appoint a Native American.