October 20, 2002
From the desk of Jane Galt:The most likely scenario, it
The most likely scenario, it seems to me, is that the Republicans keep the house and pick up one seat in the Senate. In which case, it is likely that Chafee will defect in order to keep control in Democratic hands.
But why? I mean, I understand the ideological reasons. . . kinda. It's not like he'll get anything passed as a Democrat. And for the same reason, it's not like the Republicans will get super-extreme bills passed if they get control, because they won't have a bullet-proof majority; that requires 60 seats. I guess there's the judges. But the Democrats have made it clear that they aren't going to approve judges unless they're. . . well, apparently, unless they're moderately lefty Democrats. Obviously, both sides are going to try to curtail the extremes, but as far as I can tell, Leahy isn't prepared to approve anyone to the right of Ruth Bader Ginsberg. That's not really a position even a nominal Republican can support, especially since the dearth of judges on the federal bench is going to approach crisis level if the Dems hold the Senate for another two years. Don't even THINK about Bush winning in '04; I shudder to think what our courts will look like if the Dems hold the Senate in that scenario.
On the downside, no one likes a traitor. Jeffords has found out it's not much fun to be Benedict Arnold; the Democrats don't need to treat him with kid gloves, because the Republicans wouldn't have him back. . . and the Republicans wouldn't vote for anything that helps Vermont if Jesus Christ himself came down to the Senate floor and commanded it. (Vengeance is mine, saith Trent). Once Chafee switches, he'll be in the same unenviable position. And quaking in fear lest the Republicans ever get control of the Senate again, which seems likely if Bush does well in '04, pulling a couple of candidates in behind him.
I hate to predict he won't, because I don't know what's going on in his head. But it doesn't seem like it has a whole lot of advantages for him.
Posted by Jane Galt at October 20, 2002 6:48 PM | TrackBack | Technorati inbound links