Those of us in the environmental community have been fighting Sen. Stevens for years or even decades. But this might've been the tipping point when America realized it was time for Sen. Stevens to be sent into retirement:

VA, NM, CO, NH, OR, NC, MN, and AK.

The GA seat would be the next sweetest, although I am also favorable to getting rid of that miserable excuse for a human being from Kentucky. Win two of three of the GA/KY/MS troika, and we can have a filibuster-proof minority AND boot Joe Lieberman.

Dare I dream?

...it's hard to believe Alaskans would send a convicted felon back to Washington.

Why is that so hard to believe?  Do you think that the voters in Alaska are any smarter than the constituents of Marion "The Bitch Set Me Up" Berry in DC?  After all, how else can you explain Gov. Palin?

While Mark Begich appears to be a real reformer in Alaska, as opposed to merely being a 'maverick' who wants to soak the oil companies with taxes, I wouldn't count on the voters of Alaska turning on Uncle Ted.  They love the taste of pork up there.

Barry at least had the decency to not seek re-election during his trial. Can't say that about Series of Tubes Ted.

And let's not make it seem like DC voters are the only ones to overlook a criminal background. I'll put former Providence Mayor Buddy Cianci's rap sheet up against anyone's.

They're discussing Stevens' conviction on Hardball now, and Charlie Cook had to admit the Dems' chances of having 60 Dems in the next Senate are higher, but he threw cold water on the importance, because of Dems that might abandon their caucus, like Lieberman, Nelson of Nebraska, and Hagan of NC (assuming she beats Dole).  Chris Matthews pointed out that the Dems would be under pressure to accomplish what previous Sen majorities couldn't.  One thing that even moderate and conservative Dems could join their fellow Dems on would be ending the Senate rule itself that causes a 60-vote supermajority on certain votes for passage.  Maybe even some moderate Republicans (and maybe even some conservative Republicans who like to talk-the-talk on "strict construction" of the Constitution) would join in such a vote to end the rule.  I say they should end the rule and call Reid's bluff on being unhappy about Republican "obstructionism."

Cloture is provided for in Senate Rule 22.  It allows the Senate to limit debate on a measure to an additional 30 hours when there is a majority vote of 60 or more.  If this rule were repealed, then a filibuster would allow unlimited debate to stall Senate business indefinitly.

The progative of each individual Senator in a variety of matters, such as the power of any Senator to place a "hold" on any Senate confirmation, is so ingrained in the culture of the body that it was difficult to pass Rule 22 in the first place.  Don't count on either a Democratic or Republican led Senate to repeal or modify Rule 22.  

If we "counted" on the eventual election of an African-American, instead of struggling for it, we wouldn't be at the precipice we're at.  Presumed-President Obama will need the continued support of all us to push the next Congress to enact the New New Deal we need.

Or as Republicans termed it: the nuclear option.  The new Congress may change the rules if it so pleases them.  It's not like these rules in the Senate have remained unchanged since the first Congress.  And they already have the master of changing the rules on their side: Senator Byrd.  

Though I agree with you on probability of change.  I doubt either side is really interested in changing them at this point.  It took forever to change the cloture rule to get it down to a three-fifths vote.  Doubtful that they are going to make it simple majority or institute a new set of debate limiting rules.

I bet though Republicans are glad that they didn't eliminate it on judicial appointments.  There are a lot of seats to fill across the country including our own 4th Circuit.  

Politicians go turncoat when things are even or they're in the minority.  It's crazy to willingly join the minority, unless you be kingmaker like Jeffords.  What you may actually see, if we end up in the 58-59 range, is some Republican moderates possibly switching sides, like Olympia Snow or Sue Collins.

Will Palin (or any other top Republican) call for Stevens to end his re-election bid?

Right after Nancy Pelosi calls on William "Cold Cash" Jefferson to end his re-election bid.

You see, in Congress the only real crime is getting caught.  As a group, they have absolutely no shame, Republicans or Democrats.

:)

Currenty on trial for mutliple counts of wire fraud etc.  Soon to join the list of Congressmen taking an iron vacation.

Anyone taking bets on how long it'll take Dubya to give Stevens a full pardon?   We're quickly moving into the season where the outgoing President pardons anyone and everyone, and this looks like a good pick to me.

So that means Stevens could simply continue on his merry way in the Senate, having no official conviction on his record.  Better hope the Alaskans think better of reelecting him.

Bleh.  Just some rancid food for thought.  Hope I'm wrong.

Stevens could certainly seek or receive a pardon. But a pardon would not clear his record:

While a presidential pardon will restore various rights lost as a result of the pardoned offense and should lessen to some extent the stigma arising from a conviction, it will not erase or expunge the record of your conviction. Therefore, even if you are granted a pardon, you must still disclose your conviction on any form where such information is required, although you may also disclose the fact that you received a pardon.