Campaign Diaries

For the past four days, Democrats have been desperately looking for 60 votes to pass the stimulus bill , and it looks like the Senate has finally cut a deal that at least three Republicans are comfortable voting for. Yet, the situation is close enough that we are still tracking where individual members are leaning on the overall bill, and key amendments proposed have already fallen one or two votes short; the most high profile failure was perhaps that of Murray Amendment that would have increased the frustratingly low funding reserved for mass transit.

Everyone has been talking about how Minnesota’s vacant seat is hurting Democrats: If Franken had been in the Senate, they would have one extra vote to work with (59 Senators instead of 58). Yet, there has been much less talk about the other crucial vote that Democrats are missing: Ted Kennedy’s.

Only starting last night do news reports seem to have noticed Kennedy’s absence, with a number of stories pointing out that, to pass the stimulus bill, Democrats might need the vote of the Massachusetts Senator who has been sidelined by sickness for much of the past nine months.

Kennedy’s absence means that Democrats have been working with 57 Senators rather than the 58 they should have at their disposal. According to Senate rules, for someone not to participate on votes that require the support of 60 Senators amounts to a “no” vote, so Kennedy’s absence helped Republicans defeat key amendments - and it is now helping them block the stimulus bill by forcing Democrats to find three GOPers to cross-over rather than only two. And even though Kennedy might now show up for the final vote, Democrats cannot rely on that fact and need to compromise enough to ensure passage as if they did not have Kennedy’s vote.

It is difficult to fault a Senator for being sick, so it is understandable that Democrats are far more focused on seating Franken than on getting Kennedy to resign. Unfortunately, perhaps we should be a bit less delicate when it comes to the future of the country and the passage of important bills. This is the Senate, after all, so is it fair for a Senator to choose to stay in the chamber when he will be unable to participate for the foreseeable future and thus cost his party a crucial vote?

Kennedy has been holding on to his Senate seat for 47 years, and he is now 77 years old. He is one of many Senators who are entrenched enough that they will never face a serious re-election challenge and thus choose to never retire, even as they get old and even as their health declines. Senators like Kennedy or Byrd are certainly not as capable to exercise their function as they once were - and not as capable as others could be if they deigned to retire.

This is not to say that Senators should have to leave their seat as soon as they face a health problem. South Dakota Senator Tim Johnson, for instance, suffered a dramatic brain hemorrhage in late 2006 that kept him sidelined for much of 2007, but he was back in the Senate by the end of the year. Yet, some Senators give the impression that they are so attached to their power that they will never agree leave it, even if it hurts their party’s caucus and even if it deprives their state of representation.

What will it take for Senators like Byrd and Kennedy to decide they should leave the Senate? Will they wait as long as Storm Thurmond did - retiring past 100 and after 47 years in the Senate? (That’s as many as Kennedy and less than Byrd.) That Kennedy let it be known that he would like his wife to succeed him if he were to die while in office or the fact  that he was probably behind his niece Caroline’s disastrous bid for New York’s Senate seat worsens the impression that Kennedy is unable to let go of power.

Naturally, this is currently impacting many areas other than the stimulus. Take health care, for instance: Kennedy is the go-to person for that debate in the Senate, and most Democrats would not dare try to take action on the issue as long as Kennedy does not give them the green light; Kennedy’s absence thus dramatically slows down any attempt to reform health care. It also is a blow to liberals, since leaves the issue in the hands of Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus, one of the most conservative Senate Democrats who is already out with the outlines of his own reform.

These circumstances should make us think about the viability of imposing term limits on Senators. I understand that the Senate functions along seniority rules, but I am not talking about a limit of 2 terms (12 years) , like the one most Governors are subjected to. But what about a limit of 5 terms (30 years) - or even 6 (36 years)? It might sound ridiculous, but it could be one way to keep some type of mobility in the Senate, avoid Senators holding on to power and allow politicians from states like Massachusetts to rise through the ranks.