Gooo Begich, Beeeat Stevens!

Will Alaska's corrupt U.S. senator and pork grand-champion, Ted "Bridge to Nowhere" Stevens, be defeated in 2008? Please, lord, let it be true!

I bet his opponent, Mark Begich, is funding his campaign in part by raising a bunch of money over a series of tubes.

Comments

[I R A Darth Aggie]

And what makes you think that Begich is going to say no to pork?

[Brendan Loy]

I'm sure he won't "say no" to it, but there's a difference between "saying yes to pork" (as virtually every senator does) and jumping up and down screaming "YES! YES! YES!" at the top of your lungs, like some sort of deranged Meg Ryan clone. (Yes, I just compared Ted Stevens to a hot chick faking an orgasm. God help me.) In other words, even if Begich is a typical politician in this regard -- hell, even if he's worse than 90% of the Senate -- he'll still be an improvement over Stevens.

In any event, since when is "yeah, the incumbent sucks, but who knows, his replacement might be just as bad -- can you prove he won't be?" a good argument for not replacing the sucky incumbent? If you concede that Stevens sucks, the burden is on you to prove that a potential replacement wouldn't be better, not on me to prove that he would. Once we've established that the known quantity is terrible, it's reasonable to presume that replacing him is probably the right course of action, unless someone specifically demonstrates the contrary.

[David K.]

Yeah Stevens is just about the worst senator out there, i'll be glad to see him gone

[Andrew]

Shame on us GOPers for not knocking out the douchebag in the primary.

[yea]

what incentive do alaska voters have to oust someone who brings tons of pork to alaska? i really don't see this guy bringing tons of pork to alaska as something that rational voters should turn against him on. its a tragedy of the commons thing. while everyone wants to get rid of pork as a whole, no one wants to be in the state that gets disproportionetly screwed and likewise i think most people would rather be in a state that gets a disproportionate benefit from it.

that being said, this guy is a lunatic and a terrible senator for other reasons and that, along with the movement of the country in general toward a democratic surge, is what will result in his 2008 ouster.

[B. Minich]

Tubes!!!!

[Alasdair]

But, yea, since the Dems don't believe that surges work, Stevens will be re-elected handily, now, won't he ?

Brendan - given that Stevens is a mere amateur alongside Byrd of West Virginia, should we take it that you favour Byrd's ouster at least as fervently ?

Personally, I'd like to see the President, irrespective of party, have a line-item veto that could strike out any and all pork/earmarks in any bill that crosses his Oval Office desk ... (does this count as "nuanced" ? (grin)) ...

[David K.]

Al, there is a difference between believing a certain tactic won't work in one situation but might in another. I realize in your absolutist view of the world this is a hard concept to understand so i'll try an example for ya. In baseball there are time when one shouldn't try and steal a base, and there are situtations where oen should. Saying that its stupid to try and steal home plate but saying its ok to steal second is not hypocritical. Try and apply that logic here. Especially since, you know elections and wars are actually two very different things.

As for the line-item veto, other than it being unconstitutional, it also gives far too much power to the executive branch.

And compared to Stevens EVERYONE including Byrd is an amature. He proved that with the Bridge to Nowhere

[Alasdair]

Duh (or am I being too familiar addressing you with a contraction of your name ?)

WOW !

How did the line-item veto become unconstitutional ?

If the President has that ability, the Congress merely has to pass specific laws for the same items by a veto-proof majority, and the President can do NOTHING to stop 'em ... and that IS fully constitutional ...

When did you last look up the numbers on pork comparing Byrd and Stevens ? Not just taking your information from the NYT/LAT/WaPo ?

[Brendan Loy]

How did the line-item veto become unconstitutional ?

Via a Supreme Court ruling, Clinton v. City of New York, which was decided on June 25, 1998.

[David K.]

Alasdair, I gave you one prominent example of Stevens record on pork projects, I can give others. Its not up to me to do research on Byrd being worse or better, its up to YOU if you want to convince us your actually right about something for once.

[Alasdair]

Brendan - so it's not the Line-Item Veto that is unconstitutional, merely the specific duly-enacted version from 1996 ...

A more recent version, from 2006, apparently addresses the SCOTUS's objections ... "Bolten explained that the proposed Act would give the President the ability to single out “wasteful” spending and to put such spending on hold. While the spending line-item is on hold, the President can send legislation to Congress to rescind the particular line-item. The proposal would then be considered in both houses within ten days on an up or down basis, and could be passed by a simple majority. Additionally, such proposals could not be filibustered.

When asked how this proposed legislation was different from the 1996 Line Item Veto Act that was found unconstitutional by the United States Supreme Court, Bolten said that whereas the former act granted unilateral authority to the Executive to disallow specific spending line items, the new proposal would seek Congressional approval of such line-item vetoes. Thus, in order for the President to successfully rescind previously enacted spending, a simple majority of Congress is required to agree to specific legislation to that effect." ...

Seems that Senator Byrd, David's paragon of frugality, objected stenuously to the 2006 version ...

[Alasdair]

David - take a look here for Senator Byrd's numbers ...

$1.935 BILLION since 2000 ... can Senator Stevens come close to that ?

[Brendan Loy]

Alasdair, while the new version MIGHT ultimately be held constitutional, it's a little premature to smugly declare that it IS constitutional merely because Josh Bolten thinks it is. Josh Bolten is not on the Supreme Court. The current Law of the Land is that the line item veto is unconstitutional. There is no clear precedent indicating that the revised version will be OK.

As for Robert Byrd's objections, he apparently feels that the new version is still violative of the constitutional separation of powers. There's a reasonable argument to be made that he is correct. (There might also be a reasonable argument that he's incorrect. It's an unsettled constitutional issue. But you're portraying it as if your side of the argument is obviously right, and that isn't true at all.)

If you want to argue that the line item veto should be constitutional, or that the revised proposal to establish a different form of line item veto will probably withstand constitutional scrutiny due to the changes that have been made, then fine. But your original mocking tone, suggesting that David was just simply wrong on the question of the veto's constitutionality, was clearly misguided. YOU were just wrong, as your original position was quite clearly that the line item veto IS constitutional (not that a proposed, watered-down version thereof MIGHT be held constitutional). That you can't acknowledge that fact, and are now relying on Josh Bolten as the ultimate arbiter of constitutionality, is just sad.