Don't worry, I'm sure the Republican's won't take advantage of this and use it to take control of the Senate.

How many Democratic Senators are from states with Republican governors? There's California, and South Dakota, and who else? Anyone know?

Until January, Massachusetts has two Democrats in the Senate, Kerry and Kennedy, and a Republican governor, Romney.

The state (well Commonwealth, actually) has had Republican governors for the last 16 years. Happily they fixed that last month by rejecting a Republican non-entity.

Actually, if the senator is relieved of office for medical reasons, or passes away (unfortunate events I wouldn't wish on anyone, Republican, Democrat, elected official or mundane taxpayer) South Dakota law requires a special election be held to replace the senator. Who controls the statehouse is irrelevant.

I hope they investigate this. The timing is too perfect for the GOP. It's fishy. Think JFK Jr., Mel Carnahan, Paul Wellstone. You think that kind of cynical crap only happens in other countries? Think again.

Maybe Bush is taking a page out of Putin's play book.

I wouldn't bet on any sort of comity between the governor and the Democratic Party of the state. After all, this was the governor that signed the bill to outlaw most abortions in early 2006.

I'm sure the Rounds' office has already gotten several phone calls from Rove's people. The only thing that could keep him from appointing a Republican would be that the elections are so fresh that it would look like a slap in the face to the will of the people, which wouldn't bode well. It would also make Rounds look rather nasty considering what's happened to Johnson.

I'm sure Ms. Nancy is very, VERY concerned at this moment. If the Senate ends up flipping back to the dreaded 50-50 split, look for Carville's anger toward Dean to spread and spike.

(Do we know for SURE that it was a stroke? Oops! Not even going there!)

As Reason notes, South Dakota law does appear to require a special election to fill a senator's term should he or she become incapacitated. However, I believe the date of the special election is that of the next general election (according to S.D.'s codified laws, see Chapter 12-11 on Special Elections), and the Governor would indeed appoint an interim senator until that special election takes place. I'm no expert on S.D. law, though, so I'd be happy to hear further clarification.

Oops! Should have said that Mr. Harry is surely very, VERY worried at this moment.

Infinite war and trillion dollar tax cuts for the rich. Oh well.

Current list of most hazardous occupations:

1) Democratic U.S. Senator/Democratic Senator-elect-to-be

2) Mining

3) Meatpacking

4) Fishing

5) Farming

In fact, being a Dem in this age of a closely divided U.S. Senate has become so very hazardous, that it's fortunate there aren't more of them.

said that there will be a KKKommuKKKRAT majority in both houses.

The GOD OF STROKE says "maybe so, and maybe not"!

Lick my stroke, KKKommuKKKRATs!!!!!111

There is no rule or law that would force him to vacate the office even if incapacitated by a stroke. He would have to resign to vacate his office. He could serve his term in a coma, and his office staff would basically be "acting" senator. However, if he were to die in office, there would be a vacancy that the Republican Governor would definitely fill with a republican.

include Arkansas, Colorado, Connecticut (one Democratic senator; one hermaphrodatic senator who says he will caucus with the Democrats), Florida, Hawaii, Indiana, Maryland (until January), Massachusetts (until January), Minnesota, Nebraska, Nevada, New York (until January), North Dakota, Rhode Island, and Vermont.

Missouri has a Republican governor and a Democratic senator-elect.

Isn't it strange how when the vote in the senate seems so close democrats seem to have have a higher mortality rate?

As in Paul Wellstone. And Mel Carnahan. Maybe we should pay less attention to Russian intrgue and take a closer look at our own affairs.

He was riding high as a huge swing vote. The Democrat-in-power-only would be far less tolerable if his party affiliation didn't matter.

First I wish Senator Johnson a speedy and full recovery for himself and his family. If only for that, I hope every fellow liberal is currently sacrificing goats and praying before false idols, or whatever we liberals worship, for his health.

That being said, consider for a moment that, assuming S.D. law is like many state laws including South Carolina, where a senator can be a walking corpse or comatose and still serve in the senate. Now assume for the sake of argument that Sen. Johnson falls into a "persistent vegetative state." Yeah, like THAT persistent vegetative state; too incapacitated to recover or resign, and his guardian won't resign for him. Now imagine the GOP suing to remove his feeding tube, while the Dems fighting to keep it in; even hiring Dr. Frist to give a diagnosis from his home in Tennessee.

I hope Sen. Johnson is up and about next week, but that scenario would be even more crazy than Kenny needing to die to save heaven from Satan's army.

I'm not sure I understand why the Democrats are 'in control' in the first place. By my count, it's 49-49-2. Meaning the republicans are in control (with Cheney's vote the one that gets them in control) and the republicans with the job of convincing the independents that their course is right. The whole concept of independent is just being ignored here, with the democrats being set up for a fall. before all this happened, their so-called majority was tenuous, since Senator Joe is a hawk and thus would never go for anything anti-war anyway.

Enough of that. We're talking about man who is ill, and hopefully he's okay. Still, not being in control of *this* senate is probably good.

The Democrats are said to have control because the independants, Joe Lieberman and Bernie Sanders, caucus with the Democrats when it comes to leadership and committees.

Has a democratic governor as of January 1.