Alt Senate Republican Leadership 2008

Let's say Mitch McConnell loses his seat in 2008 (for reasons peculiar to him; hot mike incident about filthy coal miners the day before election day, or whatever it takes).

Let's also say that Jon Kyl is still planning on retiring when his term is up in four years.

1) Does Jon Kyl agree to take the reigns on the condition that he's leaving in 2012, or does he remain whip and give someone else a chance?

2) If Kyl remains as whip, who is the new Minority Leader?

3) If Kyl accedes to Minority Leader, who replaces him as whip (basically guaranteeing them the Leader position come 2012)?
 
So you think Cornyn for Minority Leader and Kyl stays as whip? That's kind of what I was thinking.

Sure; I see no reason why not. Alexander is a possibility, too; he was too moderate in 2011, but probably not for 2009. Maybe Barrasso as Whip after Kyl steps down.
 
I would think that Senator Jeff Sessions might be a better possible Candidate. Lamar Alexander would be as bad as having Mitch McConnell
 
The best part of this is the filibuster proof Democratic majority all the way from January 2009 to January 2011. The Dream Act passes in 2010.
 
I think Kyl would take over as minority leader for four years, giving Cornyn more seniority. Leader after one term in the Senate would make him the most junior leader chosen since another Texan decades before.
 
The best part of this is the filibuster proof Democratic majority all the way from January 2009 to January 2011. The Dream Act passes in 2010.

I'd say public option, but it took ~2 years for Obama to realize he couldn't deal with the GOP (yes, feel free to point and laugh at his idiocy). So honestly I think it changes nothing barring a few minor improvements to healthcare and stimulus and maybe the DREAM act. Keep in mind that Kennedy was sick and Brown replaced him, that Al Franken was in court and not seated for a long time, etc...
 
I'd say public option, but it took ~2 years for Obama to realize he couldn't deal with the GOP (yes, feel free to point and laugh at his idiocy). So honestly I think it changes nothing barring a few minor improvements to healthcare and stimulus and maybe the DREAM act. Keep in mind that Kennedy was sick and Brown replaced him, that Al Franken was in court and not seated for a long time, etc...
The Democrat in Kentucky would give them a filibuster proof majority of 61, so they would have 60 votes before Franken got sworn in and after Brown got elected.

But a public option isn't coming. Baucus, Lieberman, Lincoln, Landrieu, Nelson, Pryor... too much opposition within the Democratic caucus.
 
But a public option isn't coming. Baucus, Lieberman, Lincoln, Landrieu, Nelson, Pryor... too much opposition within the Democratic caucus.

Obama pressures Reid on filibuster reform, bill passes with public option and 50 Senators. But as I said he'd have to update his thinking 2 years faster than OTL and be willing to fight super-hard for liberal ideas which he absolutely wasn't IOTL.

If the only change is one extra Dem Senator then yes as I mentioned minor improvements to various things. Your list leaves out other problems they had re: 60 votes though, Kennedy/Brown and Franken were just the most obvious. My bad on not being clearer though :).
 
Obama pressures Reid on filibuster reform, bill passes with public option and 50 Senators. But as I said he'd have to update his thinking 2 years faster than OTL and be willing to fight super-hard for liberal ideas which he absolutely wasn't IOTL.

If the only change is one extra Dem Senator then yes as I mentioned minor improvements to various things. Your list leaves out other problems they had re: 60 votes though, Kennedy/Brown and Franken were just the most obvious. My bad on not being clearer though :).
I don't think Obama is going to be able to ram through filibuster reform on legislation over the Public Option. I think at least 11 Democratic Senators would oppose:

Baucus
Lieberman
Landrieu
Nelson
Pryor
Bayh
Johnson
Levin
Carper
The other Nelson
Hagan
Conrad
Dorgan

Even if Obama fights for it, it's not happening. Not unless there are filibuster attempts on the bail-out or stimulus or something vital like that.
 
The Republicans could put forward their own positive agenda.

Okay, beyond the immediate bailout in response to the financial institution crisis, versions of which were supported by both Presidents Bush and Obama, do the Republicans support:

using Sherman Anti-Trust to break up the big boy banks and get away from this whole business of banks supposedly 'too big to fail'?

a better version of Dodd-Frank?
 
The Republicans could put forward their own positive agenda.

Okay, beyond the immediate bailout in response to the financial institution crisis, versions of which were supported by both Presidents Bush and Obama, do the Republicans support:

using Sherman Anti-Trust to break up the big boy banks and get away from this whole business of banks supposedly 'too big to fail'?

a better version of Dodd-Frank?
Pretty sure both of those would be nonstarters for the Republicans. They offend important Republican supporters (for example the banks are not going to be happy about being broken up, and have lots of money to throw at both Republican and Democratic candidates to make their displeasure known; there's a reason not much was done in this respect OTL).

More to the point, the Republicans didn't do any of these things OTL, when they had actual leverage (the filibuster), they certainly won't ITTL, when they have even less to lose by railing about Obama and his "tyrannical" ways. If you criticize something, you only risk alienating its supporters; proposing something new risks not only alienating supporters of the status quo, but also people who don't like your new proposal. Much safer to be in pure opposition.
 
Wow, this turned into an actual conversation! I guess I'll try a follow-up, since I have your attention.:p

What's the likelihood of the GOP leadership adopting a different strategy, i.e. not freezing out the dems with a complete lack of compromise?

My understanding is that Boehner sold the idea to the House, but that it originated in the Senate.
 
Wow, this turned into an actual conversation! I guess I'll try a follow-up, since I have your attention.:p

What's the likelihood of the GOP leadership adopting a different strategy, i.e. not freezing out the dems with a complete lack of compromise?

My understanding is that Boehner sold the idea to the House, but that it originated in the Senate.

It is my sense that the question is more: How does the new leadership respond to the Tea Party? Regardless of whether or not the Senate leadership decides to freeze out Barack Obama, they need to decide how to respond to the Tea Party. They may decide to work with him originally, but in a few months when the Tea Party rises the question becomes: How do they respond?

Lamar Alexander and Jon Kyl are probably less likely to embrace the Tea Party elements of the Party than they are to work with the president. If either one of them is the leader, I think the idea becomes "let's find where we can work." That still means universal (save maybe Snowe, Collins) opposition to the ACA, but the DREAM Act could become a reality - especially under Kyl (plus, the Democrats have the votes anyways). You can also expect comprehensive immigration reform beyond the DREAM Act if Kyl is the leader - a guest-worker program, pathway to citizenship, beefing up border security, etc. (Similar to the Gang of 8 bill).
 
Pretty sure both of those would be nonstarters for the Republicans. They offend important Republican supporters (for example the banks are not going to be happy about being broken up, and have lots of money to throw at both Republican and Democratic candidates to make their displeasure known; there's a reason not much was done in this respect OTL).
Plus, it's expensive!

Around Sept. 30(?) is when the banking crisis went from bad to worse.

OTL: President Bush did do a bail out. You kind of have to bail out the same banks who got you in the mess in the first place.

ALT: Bush does this, but goes a couple of steps further. He instructs Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson to have a couple of people negotiating with regional banks about the possibility of them ramping up and becoming national banks. Now, you have a negotiating position to get better terms from the big boy banks.

Bush is still president till Jan. 20. However, out of courtesy and competent government, he's going to include whoever the president elect is in the loop of what he's doing.

Bonus ATL: After his presidency, George W. goes into early childhood education, demonstrating both its importance and that it's a perfectly fine occupation for a man, too. In addition, he's no longer President Bush where he gets all this great deference. To the four-year-old kids, he's just plain ol' Mr. Bush. Of course, the kids hear the word President but they don't really know what it means. And sometimes the kids listen to him and sometimes they don't.

Sometimes he comes in with a lesson plan which is all wrong and the kids basically kick his butt. Other times he comes in with a lesson plan targeted where it needs to be and is able to ad lib and it's a good class day. And it's a gift. Oh, I'd say many of us have had jobs where there's not that much connection between input and output (requiring all our best zen abilities!). It's a gift when it more happens this way.
 
I think the Republicans took a hell of a chance. As being perceived as spoil sports, as just pissing around on the sidelines, when their country needs them, when they've actually been elected to responsible office.

Alright, people perceive the 2008 banking crisis in different ways:

1) debt crisis

2) spending crisis

3) real estate bubble which reverberated through (my view)

4) bubble, plus some people actively betting on the downside and in fact pushing the downside (maybe in part),

5) the federal government telling Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae that they must lend to people unqualified (maybe in part, although when has a for-profit enterprise ever assiduously followed government regulations?)

and perhaps other views as well. Almost a Rorschach test in which people trot out their usual solutions.
 
Last edited:
Top