I'm hearing that Senator Tim Johnson (D-SD) has suffered a stroke. No word yet on how serious it is, and here's hoping that it's minimal, and that he recovers soon.

But if it's serious, and he dies or has to step down for health reasons, Republican Governor Mike Rounds would almost certainly appoint a Republican in his place, giving control of the Senate back to them (or rather, if it happens before new Senators are sworn in in January, allowing them to retain control, since the new leadership hasn't been elected yet).

[Evening Update]

Good news for the Senator and his family (and yes, incidentally, for the Dems)]

It appears that it wasn't a stroke. Glad to hear it, Senator. Get well soon.

[Morning update]

Not so good news. Sounds like it was an aneurysm, or some other kind of brain hemmorhage. He just had surgery, which was reportedly successful. No word on the prognosis, but right now he's in critical condition.

I hope there aren't any Conservatives cheering.

Over at Free Republic, many are offering prayers for him and his family, and for a full recovery. If the positions were reversed, of course, there'd be a ghoulish death watch and celebrations at Kos and Dem Underground.

I cringe thinking about the conscpiracy theories that will arise if this good fellow doesn't recover.

Unlike the morbid moonbat left who would be cheering like a Roman mob if the sandal were on the other foot, this is not the way I want power back.

I pray Senator Johnson has a swift and complete recovery.

I would love to see the GOP retain control of the Senate. But not like this.

Somewhat good news.

Just read the DU thread, it has 8 wishes for well being (2 obviously by republicans) the rest are mostly calculating, but that is to be expected. There was only 1 insinuation of a conspiracy theory/blame bush in how the "thugs" had been after him since bush stole office or something like that.

so far, even the DU is keeping it's head, and while 2 of the well wishings were from 'pubs they aren't completely insane.

Yet.

I was kinda amazed at how decent one of the commentors was, but hey, I have low expectations for that place.

Two thoughts occur here. First, I remember a tale from the 19th Century where an outgoing president made a couple of appointments and the Senate sat on them, hoping to get better appointments from the new president. Instead, when the new president took office, he repeated the same appointments as a courtesy to his predecessor. If Governor Rounds came from that era, he would appoint a Democrat, as that is what the people voted for. (Of course, in that era, the people would not have voted for a senator at all, but...)

Second, strategically, it works better for the Republicans if the Democrats are completely in charge of Congress come the 2008 elections. Swing voters are far less likely to vote for a Democrat president - especially a contentious one, like Ms. Clinton - if they think he/she will have a rubber-stamp Democrat Congress.

Of course, for my money, there's not a dime's worth of difference.

If I understand correctly, by ND law an appointment by the governor would only be temporary, and a special election would be held within 80-90 days:

http://legis.state.sd.us/statutes/DisplayStatute.aspx?Type=Statute&Statute=12-11-1

Only for representatives, not for senators.

The real lesson of this little episode is that at 51-49, nobody has a mandate to shove anything down anybody else's throat. It's entirely possible that control of the senate could flip back and forth over the next two years.

Everybody, be nice. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you is a good guide for behavior here.

I agree with Rand. Democrats are evil, vicious, conniving people who smell bad. In contrast, people like him are kind and upstanding and smell good.

I agree with Rand. Democrats are evil, vicious, conniving people who smell bad. In contrast, people like him are kind and upstanding and smell good.

How can you agree with something that I didn't write, and don't believe?

Oh, right. You're an idiotic troll.

"How can you agree with something that I didn't write, and don't believe?"

Don't be silly--one of your common refrains is that Democrats are shallow, vicious people who want the US to lose in Iraq, want American soldiers to die, and who have no care about all things good and just. In contrast, people who you agree with are noble and good. It's right there in your own little post, where you note that the people at Free Republic are truly concerned about this Democratic politician who could cause a power shift in the Senate, whereas you are absolutely sure that if the situation was reversed, all the evil people that you disagree with would be saying nasty things.

It's all part of your common refrain of painting people you disagree with as inferior. Yeah, the other side does it too, but how does that make you any better than them?

Don't be silly--one of your common refrains is that Democrats are shallow, vicious people who want the US to lose in Iraq, want American soldiers to die, and who have no care about all things good and just. In contrast, people who you agree with are noble and good.

This is demented nonsense. It's not only not a "common refrain," it's not something that I've ever said at all.

I said nothing about Democrats in general, or who I agree or disagree with. I was talking about the creatures who hang out at Kos and DU.

I find this kind of stupid slander ironic, considering that it's a comment to a post in which I expressed my hope that a Democrat Senator would recover soon and fully from a reported medical problem. But please, carry on with your delusions about me.

I think it comes back to the fact that we aren't allowed to just disagree--even vehemently--with each other on the positions.

No, your political opponents must be perceived as EVIL! Pure, complete "Mom and Dad! Don't touch it! It's EVIL!" evil.

This dehumanizing--which I tend to blame on multiculti frames of reference that view groups and not individuals as being the key units of society, but that's just me--leads us down the primrose path in a handbasket until no compromise can be made, and even normally agreeable positions must be rejected out of hand if the opposition claims them first.

Sigh.

Damn, they are all rushing back to DU to wish death on you.

According to the Corner, via Roll Call, the senator suffered from arteriovenous malformation (AVM) and had to have surgery to fix it. Basically its a condition where the arteries/veins/capillaries are all mis-wired in a portion of the brain. Not a good thing but it looks like he's doing okay so far.

Johnson is only 60. Here's hoping for a full and speedy recovery.

Whenever the Senate is split 51-49 or 50-50, deaths go up quite a bit.

What are you suggesting Sam?

Full recovery from surgery for AVM is possible. My current roommate had a 9-hour surgery for it 15 years ago and was back to normal in a few weeks, though he was only half Sen Johnson's age at the time and had suffered only minor seizures prior to diagnosis and treatment.

I note that Sen Thomas (R-WY) is also ill, with leukemia (but back at work), and Gov Freudenthal is a Democrat. Interesting game-theoretic aspects here ...

Thanks to Rand and others for the kind wishes, prayers and thoughts towards Sen. Johnson. I wish the same and I would only wish the same towards anyone regardless of political persuasion. That's how we really need to be towards each other.

There is recent precedent, from South Dakota even:

Karl E. Mundt

Subsequently he was reelected to the Senate in 1954, 1960 and 1966. After suffering a severe stroke in 1969, he remained in office through the end of his term on January 3, 1973, but was unable to attend sessions of Congress and was stripped him of his committee assignments by the Senate Republican Conference in 1972. He did not seek reelection in 1972. He was succeeded in the Senate by James Abourezk.

He remained in office for his full term despite being unable to attend sessions.

"The real lesson of this little episode is that at 51-49, nobody has a mandate to shove anything down anybody else's throat."

I think this is probably the most insightful comment anybody made here. Even though I'm conservative, I think I'd feel the same if it was 51-49 the other way.

Recall the single senator switching parties a few years back to throw control to the Democrats, which was followed two years later by an election giving clear control to the Republicans. The Republicans had pretty clear control from 2004-2006, but I'd say nobody has a clear mandate right now. I'll say the same if congress and the presidency end up split between the parties in 2008, no matter which party gets what.