UPDATED: GOP Senators Spending Keeps Minn. Seat Vacant

Senate Republicans appear to have developed a strategy for maintaining their ability to stall -- or, at the least, dramatically alter -- Obama administration initiatives.

Individual GOP senators are paying big bucks in what looks increasingly like an effort to keep the Senate's 100th seat -- representing Minnesota -- vacant for as long as possible.

In effect, key Republicans such as Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell are paying $10,000 a piece to maintain their power to obstruct Congress.

Consider it an investment in the short-term future.

The partisan divide in the Senate is currently 58 Democrats (56 party members and two independents who caucus with the Democrats, Connecticut's Joe Lieberman and Vermont's Bernie Sanders) versus 41 Republicans.

That 41 figure is perilously close to the number that Republicans need to threaten filibusters. It takes 60 seats to invoke cloture and force action on legislation and appointments in the tradition-bound Senate.

If Minnesota Democratic-Farmer-Labor candidate Al Franken, who state officials determined weeks ago won the Senate seat by 225 votes, is seated it would be harder to block Senate deliberations. And with Pennsylvania Senator Arlen Specter -- a moderate, labor-friendly Republican who faces a tough reelection fight in a Democratic state next year showing a willingness to deal -- GOP Senate leaders well understand the vulnerability of their position.

So Republican senators are pouring money into the dead-end recount fight of former Senator Norm Coleman.

Coleman -- now the better part of two months out of office -- continues to mount an exceptionally expensive legal battle to "win" the Minnesota seat that all evidence suggests he has lost.

Coleman's lawyers are were pleading this weel with a three-judge panel charged with conducting what was supposed to be a final review of the close result of the Coleman-Franken race to reverse a ruling that had seemed all but certain to settle the matter.

The three-judge panel rejected counting certain categories of contested absentee ballots.

Coleman's team pressed for the counting of the ballots -- most of which have been repeatedly rejected by local and state officials -- in hopes that they will help reverse Franken's narrow lead. The judges rejected this gambit -- with a terse one-sentence order -- as they have so many of the others tried in recent weeks by Coleman's legal team.

Getting the judges to reverse their ruling was always a long shot, Hamline University Law School professor David Schultz told the Minneapolis Star-Tribune.

So why were Coleman's lawyers objecting? Schultz suggested they were laying the groundwork for an appeal to the Minnesota Supreme Court that will keep this unsettled race unsettled. "This is sort of the first step if they're thinking of doing an appeal," explained the professor.

Bottom line: It looks like we will have a 99-seat Senate for a good bit longer.

That's fine by Senate Republicans, who are dead set against seating a 59th Democrat -- especially if its Franken, who has emerged as a savvy and politically-potent spokesman on economic issues -- in a chamber where they are barely clinging to their ability to filibuster Obama administration initiatives.

Texas Senator John Cornyn, who chairs the National Republican Senatorial Committee, says he is glad that Coleman understands he "owes it to the voters of Minnesota and his colleagues here" to fight on.

What exactly does Cornyn mean when he says that Coleman "owes it to... his colleagues here"? My sense from talking to folks in Washington is that there is now a reasonable level of understanding on the part of GOP leaders that Coleman cannot win, so the hope at this point is to keep the seat vacant for as long as possible. My friend Eric Black, the veteran Minnesota journalist who now writes for the MinnPost news site, thinks that Coleman's legal team -- and its Washington paymasters -- may yet believe that there are legal routes by which they could upset Franken's current advantage. (Eric argues that it was important to recognize the possibility of both motivations, rather than to simply assert that the goal of Cornyn and his compatriots is to maintain a vacancy. My wise editor's point is well taken -- as are his observations with regard to this long race and the legal wrangling associated with it-- and I have updated this post's references to Cornyn with an eye toward clarity.)

What is beyond debate at this point is that Coleman and Republican senators in Washington have agreed on raising and spending the money it takes to maintain the recount fight for "as long as it takes" -- to borrow Cornyn's phrase.

"(Coleman) realizes how important retaining that seat is to us," says Cornyn, who has been busy organizing NRSC fund-raising events at which his colleagues and special-interest donors who want to influence them -- or the congressional process -- can write checks to maintain the Coleman recount fight.

If Coleman had any doubts about how serious his fellow Republicans are about keeping the Senate's 100th seat vacant, all he has to do is look at his accounts.

McConnell, R-Kentucky, has given the maximum allowed amount of money to keep Coleman in court -- $10,000 -- as has House Minority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio. Idaho Senator Mike Crapo slipped Coleman another $10,000, as have Georgia Senator Johnny Isakson and Tennessee Senator Lamar Alexander.

Oklahoma Senator James Inhofe is in for $5,000, as is Iowan Charles Grassley.

Maine Senator Susan Collins, the champion of faux bipartisanship who used her "swing" position to extract massive amounts of job-creation money from the stimulus package, added $2,000 to the Coleman kitty.

Eric Schultz, a Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee aide, tells Politico that, "It's clear that national Republicans see the vacancy in Minnesota as one of the few arrows in their quiver to obstruct Democrats in the Senate from getting real change passed."

Actually, they don't just see it that way.

Senate Republicans are willing to pay to keep it that way.

Comments (40)

1. They're basically stalling for time for 2010....also HOPING that things go even further south on the economy.

   Otherwise, you'll have guys like Richard Burr in NC (which Obama won) or Vitter in Louisiana...are going down hard and it wouldn't matter if Franken was seated or not.

   Posted by Mask at 02/17/2009 @ 3:50pm

2. I think it is good that they count every vote.

   Posted by YourJomamma at 02/17/2009 @ 3:52pm

3. Good for the GOP. Maybe they can get this thing reduced to having a revote in a special election. That would be the fair way to do it.

   Posted by pyeatte at 02/17/2009 @ 4:22pm

4. Good for the GOP. Maybe they can get this thing reduced to having a revote in a special election. That would be the fair way to do it.---Posted by pyeatte at 02/17/2009 @ 4:22pm

   Sounds good....can we go back in time to November 2000 and try that?

   Posted by Mask at 02/17/2009 @ 4:49pm

5. >> Coleman -- now the better part of two months out of office -- continues to mount an exceptionally expensive legal battle to "win" the Minnesota seat that all evidence suggests he has lost. <<

   Who are you kidding, Nichols? You don't think the Dems have spent just as much if not more in these legal battles, which for a long time gave Coleman the edge?

   With just 225 votes deciding this contest it is certainly worth battling to the end, especially as a filibuster proof Senate hangs in the balance.

   What the Republicans are angling for, I think, is to convince the judges that fairness requires a new election. Coleman would have a good chance in a contest not distorted by the national ticket and Franken would have little to laugh about.

   Posted by Hugo_Pirovano at 02/17/2009 @ 5:30pm

6. Who's paying Franken's legal bills?

   Posted by richcarl at 02/17/2009 @ 5:41pm

7. You neocon Republicans who have posted comments are delusional. And I must say in regards to neocons reading the Nation and posting comments- how pathetic. Can't stand the company of your own? Franken won. Coleman lost. It was a fair and transparent recount, as opposed to Florida 2000. Quote Coleman "If I lose the recount I will concede." Unquote Coleman. How typically hypocritcal. I think the Dems should attempt to seat him after this appeal. Sure the pathetic neocon senators will filibuster it, but that will make it a little more difficult to filibuster Obama and the Dem's priorities. These actons have made Coleman less popular in Minnesota, and make the Republican party appear ever the more obstructionist, anti-workingclass, very childish sore losers, and (there's that word again) pathetic. I don't know what the neocons think they are going to accomplish with this. They are just making themselves less popular. Maybe they think they deserve this penance for the atrocities of the Bush years, but I suspect they are doing their big business special interest contributors' bidding. But wake up and smell the coffee Republic party. Franken WILL eventually be seated, and the Dems will get to 60 in the Senate in 2010. Write it down. You can't beat back the tide with a broom.

   Posted by likeitis7 at 02/17/2009 @ 6:28pm

8. I think the price is cheap compared to the potential further damage that a leftist Congress and White House could impose.

   We're already on the verge of bankruptcy and they are dreaming of ways to spend even more.

   As Krugman says, there will be another "stimulus" bill around April that will be at least as big as this one.

   the deficit should climb to around 2 Trillion by the end of summer.

   Posted by antisocialist at 02/17/2009 @ 6:58pm

9. The GOP-a-saurus hind brain just hasn't gotten the message yet. It's over.

   Posted by Maricaibo at 02/17/2009 @ 7:16pm

10. Count every vote!

    Posted by abell12ct at 02/17/2009 @ 7:24pm

11. What will be the next Joke in Congress??

    Al Franken was not very funny on SNL

    Posted by gerald4 at 02/17/2009 @ 8:03pm

12. I think Al Franken is a brillian comedienne. He also (of course) is a great liberal voice.

    I think he'll make a fine Senator.

    And of course, the more votes for our side, the better.

    Posted by FDR43 at 02/17/2009 @ 8:06pm

13. Al Franken is a brilliant communicator and dedicated to representing the best interests of the American people. Republicans are obviously terrified of him. After all, his seat being filled won't give the Democrats that magical 60th seat in the Senate. It is Franken they fear!

    Posted by ed_f at 02/17/2009 @ 8:32pm

14. The vote of every American should be counted; they are practicing voter disenfranchisement; they are stealing the elections; the voting machines are rigged; etc. etc. etc.!

    Funny how that is the cry when Undemocratic candidates are losing an election! However, when a Republican candidate insist the letter of the law be followed and the Undemocrat candidate is rushing to VOID a states election laws....well that is just okay with leftist! Such hypocrisy in action!

    Posted by comancheamerican at 02/17/2009 @ 10:30pm

15. "Texas Senator John Cornyn, who chairs the National Republican Senatorial Committee, says he is glad that Coleman understands he 'owes it to... his colleagues here' to keep the seat vacant.

    'He realizes how important retaining that seat is to us,' says Cornyn, who has been busy organizing NRSC fund-raising events at which his colleagues and special-interest donors who want to influence them -- or the congressional process -- can write checks to maintain the Coleman recount fight."

    This is shocking language, even from a ethics-impaired mouthpiece like Cornyn. He's stating flat out that this isn't about what's good for Minnesota, but what's good for the GOP, narrowly defined as "his colleagues here" and "us." Wow.

    I always knew that Coleman, Cornyn and Kay Bailey Hutchinson were the GOP Senate's Larry, Daryl and Daryl act -- Three Right Wing Lawyers Who'll Say Anything for a Buck -- but this Minnesota recount stuff is beyond the limit. I mean, you'd think with a ready replacement for Coleman waiting in the wings -- Tim "Alaska is the Closest State to Russia So She Knows What's At Stake" Pawlenty -- they'd have a back up plan for losing Coleman. But I guess the back up plan is to have all these GOPers ante up tens of thousands of dollars -- and to let Coleman see if he can make it to the Roberts/Alito court on some theory or other. Sad little party.

    Posted by RLawrence at 02/17/2009 @ 10:31pm

16. Mask: Of course we cannot go back to 2000. So what is your point? We are talking now.

    Posted by pyeatte at 02/17/2009 @ 10:53pm

17. Posted by RLawrence at 02/17/2009 @ 10:31pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    So the "rule of law" liberals DON'T want to follow election LAW in Minnesota (or anywhere else for that matter), how is that different!?!?

    Posted by comancheamerican at 02/17/2009 @ 11:14pm

18. What can be done to get the Minnesota court to end this farce and bring this case to a conclusion? Minnesota is starting to make Bush v. Gore look good by comparison. At least, the US Supreme Court didn't allow that case to drag on forever. They reached a decision and the office was filled.

    Please visit my Blog: "Conservatives Are America's Real Terrorists" http://conservativesarecommunistss.blogspot.com/

    Posted by CJP at 02/18/2009 @ 12:53am

19. Republicans are begining to look & sound more like the American-wing of the Taliban.

    Why don't we just include them in that "war on terror"?

    Posted by ZombieNation at 02/18/2009 @ 01:08am

20. Why aren't the Democrats eliminating the filibuster, an undemocratic roadblock that can be removed with a majority vote? Too bold for them? How about changing the rule to 55 instead of 60? (It used to be 2/3 of the Senate!)

    Posted by fragen at 02/18/2009 @ 07:12am

21. I am pleased that Norm Coleman's legal challenges to the Minnesota recount presently have the effect of possibly enfranchising some voters whose votes were discounted, perhaps erroneously.

    However, it is laughable to suggest that Coleman either favors voter enfranchisement generally or is a defender of Minnesota law specifically. While the recount was proceeding, Coleman was all for disqualifying as many ballots as he could, and his challenges to ballots, many of them duly and lawfully cast, usually outnumbered Franken's.

    As a Minnesotan, I hope that our judges DO count every unambiguous vote that is cast by a voter whose identity is duly verified according to Minnesota law. However, I do not believe this procedure will necessarily hand Coleman a victory.

    Posted by JakobFabian at 02/18/2009 @ 08:56am

22. Hell with 55. Get rid of the thing altogether. Let the House act as the filibuster, as the check on the Senate. Let the President act as the check on the Congress. Let the Supreme Court act as the check on both. Etc.

    Posted by onthehelm at 02/18/2009 @ 08:56am

23. Coleman is trying for the counting of invalid votes. Sen-elct Franken has consistently argued for counting every legal vote. Coleman has made mor flips than pancake chef during the legally mandated recount process.

    Posted by pwestre at 02/18/2009 @ 08:59am

24. The filibuster is a poor substitute for a representative Senate (or better yet, a unicameral Congress) or a truly multiparty electoral system (achievable with Instant Runoff Voting), but I'll defend the filibuster for now, because it's better than single-party rule. Remember: Sometimes, the majority party is REPUBLICAN.

    I want to empower the Congress to make laws quickly, so that it can regain the power it has recently lost to the Executive Branch, but I don't want to give the Congress more power without also making it more accurately represent the political diversity of the American people. If we had multiparty system with three or more parties, we'd never need a 40-60 filibuster rule, because generally no majority would be possible without a coalition between at least two parties. Indeed, if we had a multiparty system with three or more parties, it seems highly unlikely to me that a Congressional majority would still defend the filibuster rule.

    Posted by JakobFabian at 02/18/2009 @ 10:24am

25. If we had multiparty system with three or more parties,

    we would have coalition gov'ts. say, a coalition of an extreme religious party and repugs.

    be very careful what you wish for.

    Posted by emile duBois at 02/18/2009 @ 10:32am

26. "Maybe they can get this thing reduced to having a revote in a special election. That would be the fair way to do it."

    Posted by pyeatte at 02/17/2009 @ 4:22pm

    It takes a true, Soviet-style apparachnik to say it, but the mindless cretin PYEATTE is up to the dubious demands of the task.

    You see, for zombified rightwing feacal matter, elections are like the Soviet strategy in the 1972 Olympic basketabll title game: You either cheat by suppressing votes (like George W Loser) or, failing that, replay it until the result that Stalinist ideology necessitates is finally delivered and the embarrassing "replays" are delivered to the memory hole.

    Posted by PhilMcCrevice at 02/18/2009 @ 10:45am

27. Susan Collin is a "he"?

    Trans America goes to Washington.

    -----

    Coleman has flip flopped. This used to be a bad thing, according to the cons.

    "Count all the votes!" Refreshing change from a few years ago, no?

    Seeking judges to overturn canvassing boards, hmmm, that used to be "activism from the bench".

    So, as we can see, once again the cons, so "resolute" in their beliefs are willing to toss those firmly held beliefs overboard for political expediency. For more about this see:

    Bristol Palin and teen pregnancy

    "experience" as a requisite for VP, examples include John Edwards/Sarah Palin

    flip flopping of John Kerry vs flip flopping of John Mccain

    John Kerrys Dept of Navy awarded medals vs George Bush service in TANG. (or lack of service)

    Do we even need to get into the Ten Commandments and False Witness, Lying, killing , coveting and respect?

    Posted by crabwalk at 02/18/2009 @ 12:29pm

28. They need to settle this now! Send Katherine Harris and Kenneth Blackwell to Minn. Then have Coleman take the case to the SCOTUS an let them decide the (s)election like in 2000.

    Posted by COProgressive at 02/18/2009 @ 12:38pm

29. The Maine Senator Susan Collins is actually a SHE. Good one Nichols. HOw can you expect us to read and respect your writing if you can't edit properly?

    Posted by 12345 at 02/18/2009 @ 12:53pm

30. If we had multiparty system with three or more parties,

    we would have coalition gov'ts. say, a coalition of an extreme religious party and repugs.

    be very careful what you wish for.

    Posted by emile duBois at 02/18/2009 @ 10:32am

    Sounds like Israel.

    Posted by boing007 at 02/18/2009 @ 1:05pm

31. You can't beat back the tide with a broom.

    Posted by likeitis7 at 02/17/2009 @ 6:28pm

    That's right. You beat back the tide by simply being patient and waiting for the inevitable changing of the tide that occurs with spectacular regularity.

    Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 02/18/2009 @ 1:46pm

32. Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 02/18/2009 @ 1:46pm

    Kind of expecting that tide to turn real quick, aren't ya, DTT?

    "Let's see one pickup in the month after the election so by the 2010 election (24 months from now) there will be an additional 24 Republicans in the House and 24 fewer Democrats. And by the time Obama runs for re-election there'll be 48 more republicans in the house and 48 fewer Dems. By then, Republicans will have regained control of the House."--------Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 12/08/2008 @ 5:48pm

    Posted by Mask at 02/18/2009 @ 3:04pm

33. Why do the Democrats continue to use the excuse of a filibuster for not taking control of the Senate with their majority? The filibuster is an archaic and anti-democratic rule of the Senate which only serves to give power to an obstructionist minority. Four years ago the Republicans, then in control of the Senate, threatened the "nuclear option," a parliamentary procedure which gets around the filibuster. This forced the Democrats to retreat and accept federal court nominees they did not want to confirm. Their threat is detailed below:

    1. The Senate moves to vote on a controversial nominee.

    2. At least 41 Senatorrs call for a filibuster.

    3. The Senate majority leader raises a point of order, saying debate has gone on long enough and that a vote must be taken within a certain time frame. At this point Senated rules require a cloture vote.

    4. The Vice President -- President of the Senate -- sustains the point of order.

    5. A Democratic Senator appeals the decision.

    6. A Republican Senator moves to table the motion on the floor (the appeal).

    7. This vote to table the appeal, is procedural and cannot be subjected to a filibuster; it requires only amajority vote.

    8. With debate ended, the Senate would vote on the issue at hand this vote requires only a majority of those voting.

    This was the Republican plan, reverse the roles for the Dems to use it. Credit the Republicans with a great idea and make them irrelevant. This parliamentary tactic will suffice until the filibuster rule is eliminated from Senate rules and placed in the archives of Senate history. We the people deserve a more democratic institution.

    Posted by wpjk at 02/18/2009 @ 3:05pm

34. McConnell, R-Kentucky, has given the maximum allowed amount of money to keep the Coleman recount fight going -- $10,000 -- as has House Minority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio. Idaho Senator Mike Crapo slipped Coleman another $10,000, as have Georgia Senator Johnny Isakson and Tennessee Senator Lamar Alexander.

    Crapo? I hope that's pronounced Cray-po, like Maypo.

    That's a lot of dough.

    As Warren Zevon sang, "Money Changes Everything."

    The money would be better spent on the Jack Wells survival fund. :-0

    Posted by jackwells at 02/18/2009 @ 4:58pm

35. Anybody know what it'd take to turn Specter into a Democrat? After all, the conservative Republicans -- with their short-sighted RINO idea -- are likely to stupidly challenge him in 2010.

    I know he's probably more Republican that Democratic, but he's probably closer ideologically to more Senate Democrats than Senate Republicans.

    Posted by georgewfan at 02/18/2009 @ 5:22pm

36. "Senator Franken." Has a nice ring to it, doesn't it.

    Posted by FDR43 at 02/18/2009 @ 5:47pm

37. "Maine Senator Susan Collins, the champion of faux bipartisanship who used his "swing" position"

    a Typo here?

    Posted by shoebeacon at 02/18/2009 @ 6:22pm

38. "My wise editor's point is well taken -- as are his observations with regard to this long race and the legal wrangling associated with it-- and I have updated this post's references to Cornyn with an eye toward clarity.)"

    Toward charity as well as clarity, I'd say, as the full quote makes Cornyn sound merely awful instead of beyond the pale. Although, as we know, he is indeed beyond the pale.

    Posted by RLawrence at 02/18/2009 @ 10:08pm

39. The U.S. does not even QUALIFY for scrutiny under the guidelines of the Carter Foundation.... our elections are SO F-ed up that they won't even look at them to see if they might be valid. Nevertheless, this one is likely correct and we should seat Al a.s.a.p. OR, do another election that IS overseeable by the Carter Foundation.... your choice, result, the same. AL WINS!!!!!!!!! Seat the lame ass (for not speaking up for 9/11 Truth) http://www.ae911truth.org http://www.stj911.org http://www.patriotsquestion911.com

    GOOGLE 9/11 Truth you morons....

    Posted by truthmiracle at 02/19/2009 @ 12:49am

40. The real losers here are the people of Minnesota who are not being represented. Coleman has lost the election, and if he doesn't want to lose is dignity, he ought to admit defeat and move on.

    Posted by gme at 02/19/2009 @ 09:59am