Update - Week of September 25th

[Mr.K]

[ QUOTE ]
Probably

[/ QUOTE ]

Agreed.

[Beastmaster]

How do we fight in the lame duck session? Does this become any less significant to Frist after the elections or is he still just worrying about Iowa prime.?

[Berge20]

Iowa primaries

[Beastmaster]

Iowa primaries...correct
It doesn't sound like Frist has a shot, will he ever think that or will he crusade for the anti gambling bill to the very end? What are the stoppers during the lame duck session that could curtail his efforts during that time?

[LearnedfromTV]

A few political capital questions for the insiders re Frist and the lame duck period/next year:

- If Republicans maintain control on the Senate, is Frist certain/likely/unlikely to be majority leader in the next Senate? (is this revisited in each congress, does the rift in the party mean he may be replaced, etc.?)

- how would Frist's likely status in the next Senate (whether b/c the Dems win control or b/c he may lose leadership, whatever) affect his ability to get what he wants in the lame duck session? How lame a duck might he be?

- Who are the other most powerful Republican Senators? If Frist has lost status in the party, who in the party benefits? (wrt the lame duck period, which senators might be pulling strings Frist can't pull as well any more? If he were to be replaced next year, by whom?)

[Jay Cohen]

My source in Washington just told me Frist is now definitely trying to attach it to the Homeland Security bill.

I am not sure how current my contact's information is.

[Nate tha\\\' Great]

[ QUOTE ]
My source in Washington just told me Frist is now definitely trying to attach it to the Homeland Security bill.

I am not sure how current my contact's information is.

[/ QUOTE ]

He might be, since Hastert is now trying to use the DHS bill for his riders too. However, CongressDaily PM reports:

" Senate Judiciary Chairman Specter is threatening to remove his signature from the FY07 Homeland Security appropriations conference report if House GOP leaders insist on adding more immigration-related legislation, possibly sinking the bill's chances for passage before the elections. He stated his intention in a letter today to House Speaker Hastert, Senate Majority Leader Frist and top GOP appropriators. Specter, a senior appropriator, signed off on the report when conferees approved it Monday night. "Operating in good faith, I was asked to sign the conference report with the understanding that the conference report was closed," Specter wrote. "I would like to state for the record my strong opposition to any changes to the agreed-upon conference report."
Hastert was holding back appropriators from filing the $34.8 billion spending bill until negotiators resolve whether to include House-passed bills on alien gang violence and court security in the spending bill or the defense authorization bill. Both House bills are within the Judiciary Committee's jurisdiction, and Specter and others have expressed opposition to the effort. Including the additional measures in the Homeland Security bill also might prompt Democratic conferees to remove their signatures. "What is this, the Soviet parliament? The leadership will make decisions behind closed doors, regardless of the rules?" asked House Appropriations ranking member David Obey, D-Wis. Hastert contended that he has received promises from Senate leaders to move the legislation one way or another."

Also of note:

"The Senate today kicked off debate on a contentious stand-alone military tribunal measure after Majority Leader Frist and Minority Leader Reid reached an agreement on a handful of amendments and limited debate. Frist said earlier today he would push the chamber to quickly wrap up debate on the legislation as early as tonight without amending the package. "I hope none of the amendments pass," Frist told reporters before announcing the deal.

[...]

Meanwhile, Frist today said he has four legislative goals to accomplish before adjourning Friday or Saturday: the military tribunal and border fence bills, as well as conference reports on FY07 Homeland Security and Defense spending measures. House and Senate Republicans have given up on enacting legislation addressing the president's domestic spying program. And the clock is ticking down on a conference report for the FY07 defense authorization bill."

Summary: the fight over non-germane riders has now moved from the defense authorization bill to DHS appropriations bill, although it is not clear if internet gabmling is a part of it. Fortunately, it looks like it may meet the same result. Other avenues for Frist are probably closed.

Left to intertial forces, this Congress will get very little done this week, and we will probably pass through to the elections unscathed. However, tidal shifts and deal-making of various kinds are certainly possible, which I will leave it to others to speculate about.

One thing's for sure -- if we make it through the year without internet gambling language being enacted, we will owe a big thank you to Senators Warner and Specter.

[Mr.K]

1.) Frist will not be a member of the Senate next year, he did not run for re-election this time, clearing the way for him to run for President.

2.) See above.

3.) Mitch McConnell will be the Republican leader in the Senate whether the GOP loses its majority or not. That's what I'm hearing anyhow, from extremely reliable sources. As always, events make this claim subject to change (see e.g. Trent Lott after the 2002 elections). The race for who will be the #2 Republican will be somewhat wide open, and will depend on whether Rick Santorum wins his PA SEN race. At present that isn't looking likely, which would open up a slot for either Trent Lott, Lamar Alexander, or someone else to try & grab the GOP Whip slot.

[jrz1972]

[ QUOTE ]
3.) Mitch McConnell will be the Republican leader in the Senate whether the GOP loses its majority or not.

[/ QUOTE ]

I didn't know that.

Wouldn't that be extremely positive for us?

[LearnedfromTV]

[ QUOTE ]
1.) Frist will not be a member of the Senate next year, he did not run for re-election this time, clearing the way for him to run for President.


[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks. I wondered about this and even looked at his website and saw that he had last run in 2000 and nothing about an election campaign, but I wasn't sure.

So if we get to next year, the landscape changes a ton, b/c right now the major threat is Frist, and he's a threat because of Leach and Iowa and the presidency.

It seems the optimstic view of the lame duck session is: If other Republican Senators have anti-Frist agendas, or just their own forward-looking agendas, he won't necessarily have the leverage to get his way (especially if his Presidential possibilities look slim).

The pessimistic view is that his only real motivation is the Presidency, and so he'll do whatever it takes to get Leach's support in Iowa, and that means internet gambling, although he'll try to avoid friction with other Republicans in the process. Is the biggest lame-duck session danger that he'll have a way to get the gambling bill passed in a similar backdoor way as he is attempting with these security bills, but this time w/o other Republicans (or Democrats) caring one way or the other?

Edit: Quick disclaimer that the things that may look like analysis in this post are more questions for Nate, K, Berge than analysis.