Senate in the Balance

The Democrats slimmest of majorities might is in danger.

Democrat Tim Johnson of South Dakota, as many of you know, has suffered a brain hemorrhage, undergone brain surgery, and is in critical condition. In critical condition as well is the Democratic control of the Senate. Should Johnson be unable to return to office the Governor of South Dakota would have the power to appoint a replacement until a new election could be held in 2008 (which also happens to be when Johnson's term expires).

South Dakota's Governor is a Republican. As such, he would likely replace Johnson with a fellow GOPer, which would send the Senate to a 50-50 tie, with Vice President Dick Cheney casting the tie-breaking vote. The result would be that the GOP would retain control of the Senate.

Many conservatives are very excited about this possibility. I for one am not.

Call me a compassionate conservative, but I cannot in good conscience get excited about benefiting from someone else's suffering. I cannot look at the situation at root against Senator Johnson. I can't even bring myself to dispassionately look at the circumstances and become even slightly happy about this situation.

Frankly, I don't want my party of choice to get control like this. I'd rather lose the Senate than benefit from someone else's misfortune. This may be exactly why I would not make a good politician. I can't be a cold-hearted political animal. Yes, I can be cold-hearted. But not like that.

Despite saying this, of course we have to look at the possibility of what would happen if Johnson is unable to recover. I would refer you to this post, in which I argue that the Democrats may have weakened their overall positioning for 2008 by taking the Senate. If the GOP retains control the Democrats get all the advantages they lost by winning the Senate. To recap:

Had the Democrats won the House but lost the Senate, here's what they could have done:

• Played the role of a fierce opposition, fighting the mighty Republican empire, plagued with corruption, ineptitude, and general evil.
• Laid the blame for all things Iraq at the feet of Republicans.
• Maintained the brilliant political tactic of vague and loud opposition to the war, without having to articulate any clear, unified position for what to do about it.
• Kept beating the drum of "change for the sake of change" going into the presidential election in 2008
• Continued the strategy of attack, name-call, and paint the world in the colors of negativity

Being in the minority is always easier that being in power. Majority= you are always on defense, justifying your positions and proving that you have produced results. Minority= playing offense (yell and scream about everything; say how horrible the world is).

Controlling the Senate might actually weaken the GOP position for 2008. The big benefit would be the power to control who would be on the Supreme Court, should a vacancy arise.

All that aside, our prayers and thoughts go out to Senator Johnson and his family. May he recover fully.