November 9, 2000

7:29 AM

If Al Gore becomes the president, Mickey Kaus has a wickedly devious idea on how the Dems can stick it to the senate Repubs. It hinges on Joe Leiberman refusing the vice-presidency.
posted by nikzhowz (10 comments total)

Here's something fun: the President and Vice President are innaugurated on January 20th. The new Senate is seated on January 3rd.

On January 3rd, Lieberman can in any event still take his Senate seat (regardless of his plans elsewhere). And Gore will still be Vice President.

If Cantwell is elected in Washington State, the Senate would then stand 50-50 with Gore still holding the tie-breaking vote. The Senate then "organizes" -- appointing Daschle majority leader and all of the Democrats as Committee chairs. They also hire all-new Committee staffs, etc.

Clinton can then appoint the entire roster of Gore administration officials-designate, and they can push through confirmations with their majority from January 3rd through January 19th. Gore and Lieberman take office on January 20th with their entire administration in place, unbothered by a Republican-majority confirmation process.


posted by MattD at 8:03 AM on November 9, 2000

that is delicious.
posted by palegirl at 9:05 AM on November 9, 2000

If Gore has any aspirations of re-election in 2004, he shouldn't be thinking about "sticking it" to the senate. This is precisely the problem with modern politics, using obscure loopholes to advance agendas.
posted by dandot at 10:10 AM on November 9, 2000

Wow. And to think that I thought that the potential for surreality with this election had been pretty much tapped out.
posted by youhas at 10:36 AM on November 9, 2000

I agree gutter politics is a problem, but there's nothing modern about it. Still, I'd like to hear Al float the idea of making Clinton vice-president just to make the hard right grease their shorts.
posted by nikzhowz at 10:43 AM on November 9, 2000

Heh, nice bit of political fantasy there.

Look out, it's the mighty, flame breathing filibuster!

posted by alan at 11:25 AM on November 9, 2000

This is precisely the problem with modern politics, using obscure loopholes to advance agendas.

Actually, no: this is 18th-century politics at work. And if this is going to go down to every jot and tittle of the constitution, you might as well push it to its limits.
posted by holgate at 11:37 AM on November 9, 2000

Beth's First Rule of Game Theory: There is no such thing as "outside the system". If it can affect the system, then it is part of the system.

Reminds me of that line in the song "No New Tale to Tell" by Love & Rockets: "You cannot go against nature, because when you do go against nature, that's part of nature too". Same kind of thing.

If the political system allows the loopholes to be formed, they are part of the system. Sure, if people get fed up enough with the level of bullshit, they can tear down the system (aka revolution).

Anyway, why on earth would you expect anyone to *NOT* use every possible tool they have to their advantage?

This is, after all, an amoral age. America has no ethos - we are too big and too diverse for that.
posted by beth at 1:37 PM on November 9, 2000

Beth, that assumes they don't have a constituency to answer to. Voter perception, which would almost certainly be negative, is also part of the system.
posted by dandot at 2:43 PM on November 9, 2000

The system is. There is nothing outside of the system. Even your daydreams about things being "outside of the system" are a part of it. In fact, the notion that things can be outside of the system are fueled be the very existence of "the system".
posted by internook at 7:49 PM on November 9, 2000