Dean's World

Wouldn't it be delicious if it was Stabenow?

As of now, it looks like it's not Stabenow (or Levin).

What Martin said - beat me to it.

I wouldn't be at all surprised to see 100 denials.

Jesse, each house of Congress makes their own procedural rules. The Senate's rules in particular are big on "privilege", the power of Senators to be self-important asses. But people are looking at those privileges and their abuses a lot more in these days of a million media outlets, and Senators are finding it harder to protect each other out of the public eye. The public eye is everywhere these days.

Dean, I sent a message similar to yours to both of MN's senators, and so far all I've gotten back was a complete change-of-subject response from Mark Dayton's office.

This is great! I wonder what the senator that has placed the hold is thinking right now.

I see it's up to 84. Makes me wonder if someone is lying.

What are the odds of picking one red ball out of a bag 100 balls. After 84 picks without replacement, wouldn't the odds of getting the red ball be 84%?

The odds would be 1 in 16.

I think it's Byrd too. Also keep an eye on the "not to my knowledge" flack-deniers.

And if I were a US voter, exercizing my right to petition my government, which includes the right to know what they're up to when there's no privacy or national security concerns involved, and I found out that my Senator was lying about placing a secret hold on a bill to require the government to end its secret spending, well, I would have to spend every dollar and hour I could spare to ensure that Senator never saw office again.

There are some budetary items that should remain secret such as how much we spend on spy satillites, but those are the exception and not the rule.

I'll bet the Senate is really hating the blogosphere at this moment.

So it's Carper, then. And if it's not, let him deny it.

It will be hilarious if they get 100 denials :D

It will be hilarious if they get 100 denials

But not completely unexpected. I just hope 100 denials makes the evening news.

But Ted, that's random sampling. When you reach into the bag, the red ball isn't actively trying to hide from you. In this case, the red ball can easily hide; and at least some of the blue balls agree with you, or are at least politically driven to cry, "Pick me! Pick me!"

Arnold,
That only works when the wind is still. If the wind is blowing very strongly in one direction, the Senate completely abandons that and becomes a weathervane.

Remember the ports deal a few months ago?

So apparently more than 90% of the Senate thinks they should answer if their constituents ask a direct question.

But do they think they should answer honestly?

93 have now issued denials.

The 7 remaining:

Bond, Christopher S.- (R - MO)
Byrd, Robert C.- (D - WV)
Crapo, Mike- (R - ID)
Gregg, Judd- (R - NH)
Hatch, Orrin G.- (R - UT)
Sarbanes, Paul S.- (D - MD)
Stevens, Ted- (R - AK)

Crapo has said he specifically refuses to answer the question.

Dean, then Crapo is guilty: either of the hold, or of being an accomplice after the fact.

I can imagine a situation where an anonymous hold is legitimate and honorable. Say a Senator formerly served in military intelligence. Say that Senator saw that a bill might inadvertently compromise intelligence assets, but the Senator knew that only through his or her access to classified information in the service. And say that if that Senator publicly said, "We can't vote on this, so I'm issuing a hold," the resulting press scrutiny and maybe even delving into the Senator's background could also compromise the intelligence assets. In that case, the Senator would have a legitimate reason to go to the leadership and say, "I need to hold this, and I can't be seen to do so."

This is nothing like that. It's a bill to let the people know how their money is spent. It applies to future programs, not past. If someone is running a black op through that budget right now, there's time to move it. There's no national interest in keeping that spending secret. But there may be a personal interest in some Senator keeping the public from knowing just how much he's spending on self-enriching or self-aggrandizing projects.

Sarbanes and Bond just issued denials.

Byrd, Robert C.- (D - WV)
Crapo, Mike- (R - ID)
Gregg, Judd- (R - NH)
Hatch, Orrin G.- (R - UT)
Stevens, Ted- (R - AK)

On the other hand, Robert Bennett's denial may not be official. So that's 5 or 6 holdouts, depending on how you count.

I vote in every general and most primary elections.

Given the way so much legislation is crafted these days, that doesn't strike me as impossible--although the aide in question would almost certainly be terminated if caught, and others might be as well (basically whoever was supposed to double-check with the Senator but didn't).

Byrd is a good guess, but I wouldn't be surprised if it was Ted Stevens. He's the former Chairman of the Appropriations Committee, and the current Chair of the committe that oversees commerce and transportation. He has always been a rampant spender, and enjoys controlling who, and what, receives money.

Scott: Yup.

Dbrooks: Oh I quite agree. Stevens is one of the most shameless pork kings in all of Congress. He and Byrd probably run neck and neck on that score.

I also wouldn't be too surprised if it were Crapo, who's got one of the safest seats in the entire U.S. Congress.

Looks like you may be right. We're down to 3 and Stevens is still on the list. Byrd isn't...

Stevens would be a good guess after the bridge to nowhere fiasco.