An Internet hub with domestic and international news, analysis, original reporting, and popular features from the left, center, indies, centrists, moderates, and right
Can You Say Senator Sarah Palin?
The most direct line to Washington for Sarah Palin is not being half of the terminally disastrous John McCain ticket but to appoint herself to Ted Stevens’ seat in the event that the disgraced Alaska senator is found guilty of making false financial disclosure form statements and has to resign.
Well, Stevens was just found guilty on all seven counts.
As it is, Palin could only appoint herself to Stevens’ seat if he wins a tough re-election fight against Democrat Mark Begich, by no means a sure thing for the 84 year old, the longest serving Republican senator in history.
More here.
opinions powered by SendLove.to
13 Responses to “Can You Say Senator Sarah Palin?”
Sarah Palin, Campaign Wrecker
Trouble’s a brewing! Sarah Palin has stolen John McCain’s thunder and Cindy McCain’s oxycontin prescription. And nobody is too happy about it, leading to delicious Republican cannibalism reported by Ben Smith:
Four Republicans close t…
Shaun – do you know (or does any TMV reader) if she really could do that? In general, can sitting Governors appoint themselves to a Congressional vacancy? Is there any case law, or anything in the Alaska Constitution supporting or prohibiting that?
As always,
your personal troll
It is my understanding that up to Election Day, the Alaska state Republican party can replace Stevens with a candidate of its choosing. If Stevens is re-elected — by no means a sure thing — and has to resign his seat, the governor would appoint a successor.
Palin is used to geting her way, so why not here?
Just called a friend who is a lawyer with some experience in this area and she said it would be “legally problematical” but it depends on Alaska state law.
I don't know if Palin can legally appoint herself but….
She can be an heir to a lot of folks if she appoints herself to a Senate seat and can continue in the best Republican tradtion. First, she can be heir to the corruption by Stevens. Second, she can be heir to McCain's maverickyness (isn't that the word Palin used?) Last, she can be heir to all those religious right-wing fanatics who lost their Senate seats beginning in 2006 and continuing to 2008.
Here's the problem, StockBoy. Historically it seems that you have to vacate one office before you can occupy another. Even if it's only a matter of seconds. Even in the event that McCain Palin wins the election, she is just the VP “elect” until sworn in, so she is still the Governor of Alaska and could appoint a new Senator if it comes to that. However, to appoint herself, she would have to step down from being Governor before she could be named Senator. And as soon as she steps down, she can no longer appoint a Senator. Catch 22 sort of thing, you see. But, again, it may depend on state law.
Let's further complicate things by noting that Stevens is NOT obligated to resign he seat — current or re-elected — despite his conviction.
Jazz is correct that there is a “matter of seconds” issue. That may come into play with who is Joe Biden's successor:
http://kikoshouse.blogspot.com/2008/09/biden-su…
Shaun and I both also pay scant attention to the fact that Palin, once we have four years to dig up the rest of the tons of dirt she has accumulated in less than two years, should be completely unelectable to anyone outside of the rapidly shrinking and splintering GOP base. Even from the Senate, I don't see Palin getting another shot at the big dance. Unless Obama has a disastrous first term, I don't know why anyone with a serious future would want to run against him from the GOP in 2012, but if it's anybody I'm picturing somebody like Bobby Jindal.
jazz – 2012 is an eternity away in political years. It is impossible to predict the landscape. Heck., months are an eternity. I remember clearly that it was only earlier this year that Hillary was so obviously going to be the Democratic candidate, the only reason to enter the race was to either increase your name recognition (the reason for Obama initially), or to try and snag the VP slot. Didn't quite go that way.
And as others have said, oh for the love of God, please let's not start the 2012 campaign season already.
Palin, the Outsider, the Reformer, going to Washington (admittedly, more experienced and qualified than Obama) …
What comes to my mind is if she'll follow in the post-1994 “revolutionaries'” footsteps. You know, the “reformers” who surrendered to Big Government and to corruption once they found it comfortable, reneged (reversed their position on) term limits, became lobbyists if retiring or unseated or just greedier … that's what I think about. I suspect Super D does, too, in his own way.
Jazz, yes I know. My comment was meant to indicate that I was not addressing the issue from a practical standpoint, but rather commenting on Shaun's post in the same vein as he proposed it.
It is a conundrum for Palin.
She can't appoint herself to Stevens seat. A) It would be illegal,not that that has stopped her before, and b) He's still in it. The Senate would have to vote to remove him, or he gets his head handed to him next week for him to lose it.
Get a clue before posting this garbage.
OK, while I think you are correct on the legality issue, do you have any cites to support your contentions?