Slog: News & Arts

RSS icon Comments on Guilty


That ol' bastard won't drop out but it will be much easier to expel him from the Senate if he should happen to win.

Posted by heywhatsit | October 27, 2008 1:31 PM


Posted by Paul Constant | October 27, 2008 1:32 PM

I doubt that Uncle Ted is the kind of guy who'd let a little thing like a felony conviction get in the way of his campaign. I hope he goes down hard.

Posted by Greg | October 27, 2008 1:35 PM

Although, apparently, there is nothing constitutionally to prevent Stevens from serving in the Senate should he win, even with a felony charge on his record.

Evidently, the Senate could kick him out on a 2/3 vote, but that might still be hard to swing, even with a solid majority. After all, the Repubs are going to fight to keep every seat they can possibly hold onto, regardless of whether or not it's held by a convicted criminal.

Posted by COMTE | October 27, 2008 1:36 PM

he'll be reelected - lots of spite voters in AK.

Posted by max solomon | October 27, 2008 1:36 PM


But if they kicked him out, wouldn't the governor of Alaska get to choose his replacement? That would hardly lose the Republicans a Senate seat.

Posted by keshmeshi | October 27, 2008 1:37 PM

A lot of Alaskans are still going to vote for him. It takes a 2/3 majority to expel a Senator. I wonder if enough Republicans will vote against him should he win re-election? After all, they did not vote to expel Larry Craig and let's face it, there is a lot more prejudice against guys who give blow jobs in public toilets than there is agaionst guys who accept home-improvement freebies.

Posted by inkweary | October 27, 2008 1:40 PM

Maybe this is a stupid question, but don't people who are convicted of felonies usually have to go to prison?

Posted by Greg | October 27, 2008 1:44 PM

@8: Not necessarily. But they do generally lose their voting rights. Haw!

Posted by flamingbanjo | October 27, 2008 1:50 PM

@8 Wait... since convicted felons lose their voting rights, does that mean he couldn't vote on issues before the Senate? Possible bright side?

Posted by lily | October 27, 2008 1:53 PM

Stevens was losing in polling before this news came out. He's almost certainly a goner now.

Here are the current close senate races that were held by Republicans. We need 9 of these to get the supermajority and it looks like we have 6-8 of these locked up.

1) Alaska - Democrat win :)
2) Colorado - Democrat win
3) New Hampshire - Democrat win
4) New Mexico - Democrat win
5) North Carolina - Democrat win
6) Virginia - Democrat win
7) Minnesota - Democrat win (close)
8) Oregon - Democrat win (close)
9?) Georgia - Martin (D) trailing by 2 points
9?) Kentucky - Lunsford (D) trailing by a few points
9?) Mississippi - Musgrove (D) trailing by 1-2 points

If Oregon puts a Republican in the Senate, we're no longer on speaking terms.

Posted by jrrrl | October 27, 2008 2:03 PM

"HA-HA" - Nelson

Posted by Original Monique | October 27, 2008 2:08 PM

I thought there was some sort of rule that members of Congress who were under indictment had to give up certain committee posts. What about convicted felons? Especially one convicted about lying on matters directly related to his Senate seat?

Ted might get re-elected, but he'd be a toothless Senator, literally & figuratively. Voting him out might earn the GOPers some brownie points. Sarah Palin would get to appoint his successor, which would probably be Todd Palin, if her "Track" record holds true.

Posted by Sir Vic | October 27, 2008 2:15 PM

Begich will be better than Stevens, but will be very moderate compared to most Dems, so I'm not sure he'll always go with the party to vote down filibusters. And remember, the last Democratic senator from Alaska was Mike Gravel.

Posted by asteria | October 27, 2008 2:18 PM

I would like to thank Karl Rove and his politcal crookedness for making this Blue Wave sweep America. Seriously, without you Rove, this never could have happened!!

Posted by Cato the Younger Younger | October 27, 2008 2:18 PM

How can a convicted felon be legally allowed to run for any office when he or she could not vote in that same (or any other) election? This makes no sense, so I suppose it must be true. . .

Posted by E | October 27, 2008 2:24 PM

I'm not that surprised.

No, really, it's kind of a given with the Red Socialists that put an (R) after their name.

Posted by GUILTY! GUILTY! GUILTY! | October 27, 2008 2:45 PM


The governor can't appoint a replacement in Alaska, there has to be a special election if he wins the election and his cronies vote 2/3 to lose the felon.

Posted by Wolf | October 27, 2008 4:16 PM

But again, when is his sentencing, and will he do time?

Posted by Greg | October 27, 2008 4:57 PM

I wonder which candidate he is planning to vote for in the general election. Oops! I forgot he was a felon! Ha ha!

Posted by bzishi | October 27, 2008 10:08 PM

alaskans are stupid. They will still re elect him because they are afraid of not getting more pork barrel money . The guilty indictment only fuels the rednecks here. Sad but true which sucks because Begich is a step in the right direction.

Posted by jaded | October 27, 2008 10:56 PM

It's a win-win for the Democrats.

Either Begich wins, or the GOP becomes the party of felons.

Posted by Brandon Burt | October 27, 2008 11:47 PM

Comments Closed

Comments are closed on this post.