Do you know why Democrats have committee chairs in the Alaska Senate? (not a joke)

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

This is pretty weird...

I became curious how the Palin clan can possibly claim troopergate is a Democratic witch-hunt, since Alaska is a Republican state. Surely Republicans have majorities in both houses of the state legislature!

When I looked up the senate I busted out laughing... The Alaska State Senate has 20 members; 11 Republicans and 9 Democrats. But the Democrats are the majority of the organizing voting block because the Republicans had a fight over who should be Senate majority leader and split into two groups.

Six of the pugs formed a coalition with the Dems. The other five, who must be amazing wing-nuts or something, are the non-coalition Republicans.

So the Senate ruling coalition is 9 Dems, 6 pugs. The compromise involved gives pugs the top leadership posts, but Dems have the majority of committee chairs.

But it gets better... the Senate majority leader and the Senate minority leader are both Republicans. They put our petty disunity to shame.

I don't think that has anything at all to do with troopergate, but it's sure... colorful.

An Alaskan DUer can doubtless provide comical details.

_____________________

Shortly after the 2006 November election, a bipartisan coalition was announced between all nine senate Democrats and six<1> senate Republicans. Democrats will chair the Judiciary, Health, Education, & Social Services, Labor and Commerce, Community and Regional Affairs, and Transportation Committees, as well as co-chair the powerful Finance Committee. The senate Republicans in the coalition will also have a co-chair for the Finance Committee (the minority Republicans will only be giving one seat on the committee), and chair the State Affairs, Resources, and Rules Committees<2>

Because of the Republican split, the Democrats control a majority of committee chairmanships while Republicans in the governing coalition chair the others. The majority leader is the same legislator as it was in the last session, a Republican, who has joined the bi-partisan coalition. Because of this, the minority leader is head of the five-member Republican organization. Hence, all three listed officers of the body are Republicans, as different aspects are in the majority (with the chamber-wide minority Democrats) while others are in the official minority.

The split is largely viewed as over the senate presidency. The minority leader was the Republicans' suspected, initial choice for Senate President<2> The coalition commands three-quarters of the body. A similar move was made in the 24th Legislature, on the House side. It, however, was torn apart.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/25th_Alaska_State_Legislature

[ContinentalOp]

1. LOL, what the hell is going on up there? -nt-

[NYC_SKP]

2. That's a tasty tidbit of dish.....

What a mess, look forward to an better explanation, maybe disagreement on independence?

[DB1]

3. A sign of things to come "outside"? Let us hope.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

4. That's some old-school disunity

[DB1]

5. That is about where the R's are at though, if they had not stolen 2004 ......

there was a lot of talk of a republican split who would control their party at that point. Many republicans I know are getting tired of the spend, spend, spend, lie, lie, lie, blame it on the Dems policy. imho a split of both parties would result in a very strong Democratic party. The right wing of the dems would then be toast. Many more social agendas would progress and the "corporate citizen's" voice would diminish.