Not repeating the same old news
Here are the Republican Senators who will be up for election in 2010:
Alabama Shelby, Richard
Alaska Murkowski, Lisa
Arizona McCain, John
Florida Martinez, Mel*
Georgia Isakson, Johnny
Idaho Crapo, Mike
Kentucky Bunning, Jim
Louisiana Vitter, David
Missouri Bond, Kit
New Hampshire Gregg, Judd*
North Carolina Burr, Richard*
Ohio Voinovich, George*
Oklahoma Coburn, Tom
Pennsylvania Specter, Arlen*
South Carolina DeMint, Jim
South Dakota Thune, John
Utah Bennett, Robert
Iowa Grassley, Chuck*
Kansas Brownback, Sam
As a good Democrat, I would like to expel some of the repulsive ones like Sam Brownback or David Vitter. But, in the real world, we need to break the filibuster. I have placed asterisks by the six Republican Senators who are from states won by Obama. Martinez has already said he is resigning, so we should focus on winning the seat, but there is little we can do to presure him away from filibusters. Based strictly on Obama's margin of victory, the three most vulnerable are Grassley, Specter, and Judd. We need to raise money and take them on *now,* not in two years. Every filibuster vote should receive a response. Time for action.
Alabama Shelby, Richard
Alaska Murkowski, Lisa
Arizona McCain, John
Florida Martinez, Mel*
Georgia Isakson, Johnny
Idaho Crapo, Mike
Kentucky Bunning, Jim
Louisiana Vitter, David
Missouri Bond, Kit
New Hampshire Gregg, Judd*
North Carolina Burr, Richard*
Ohio Voinovich, George*
Oklahoma Coburn, Tom
Pennsylvania Specter, Arlen*
South Carolina DeMint, Jim
South Dakota Thune, John
Utah Bennett, Robert
Iowa Grassley, Chuck*
Kansas Brownback, Sam
As a good Democrat, I would like to expel some of the repulsive ones like Sam Brownback or David Vitter. But, in the real world, we need to break the filibuster. I have placed asterisks by the six Republican Senators who are from states won by Obama. Martinez has already said he is resigning, so we should focus on winning the seat, but there is little we can do to presure him away from filibusters. Based strictly on Obama's margin of victory, the three most vulnerable are Grassley, Specter, and Judd. We need to raise money and take them on *now,* not in two years. Every filibuster vote should receive a response. Time for action.
Advertisement
Yeah, I was going to look for this info this week. You saved me the trouble.
Bunning is such a butthead. He almost makes guys like Feith look like part of the intellectual elite.
I would call Bunning crapo, but it looks like Idaho already has one.
But if there are limited funds in the national Democratic treasury, you may well have presented a better strategy.
January 4, 2009 3:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nice jingle... Bunning the Butthead
January 4, 2009 4:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
A little more info. The third column is the Obama percent of vote.
Pennsylvania Specter, Arlen 54.7%
New Hampshire Gregg, Judd 54.1%
Iowa Grassley, Chuck 53.9%
Ohio Voinovich, G. 51.5%
Florida Martinez, Mel 51.0%
North Carolina Burr, Richard 49.7%
Missouri Bond, Kit 49.3%
Georgia Isakson, Johnny 47.0%
Arizona McCain, John 45.1%
South Carolina DeMint, Jim 44.9%
South Dakota Thune, John 44.7%
Kansas Brownback, Sam 41.7%
Kentucky Bunning, Jim 41.2%
Louisiana Vitter, David 39.9%
Alabama Shelby, Richard 38.7%
Alaska Murkowski, Lisa 37.9%
Idaho Crapo, Mike 36.1%
Utah Bennett, Robert 34.4%
Oklahoma Coburn, Tom 34.4%
And here, the 3rd column is the Obama (or McCain) margin of victory (McCain is in negative #s)
Pennsylvania Specter, Arlen 10.3%
Iowa Grassley, Chuck 9.5%
New Hampshire Gregg, Judd 9.6%
Ohio Voinovich, George 4.5%
Florida Martinez, Mel 2.8%
North Carolina Burr, Richard 0.3%
Missouri Bond, Kit -0.1%
Georgia Isakson, Johnny -5.2%
South Dakota Thune, John -8.4%
Arizona McCain, John -8.5%
South Carolina DeMint, Jim -9.0%
Kansas Brownback, Sam -15.0%
Kentucky Bunning, Jim -16.2%
Louisiana Vitter, David -18.6%
Alaska Murkowski, Lisa -21.5%
Alabama Shelby, Richard -21.6%
Idaho Crapo, Mike -25.4%
Utah Bennett, Robert -28.2%
Oklahoma Coburn, Tom -31.3%
January 4, 2009 5:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Great Marq. Handy lists.
January 4, 2009 7:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Let's throw these bums out (as many as possible) and pump up the Dem majority! I will certainly work to unseat Burr here in NC. He's not quite as repulsive as Elizabeth Dole was, but is still a reactionary and conservative choirboy.
January 4, 2009 5:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Classic.
Brownback has already stated he is not running for re-election.
But, as has always been my point here: the left is really no different than the right in terms of dealing with reality. In this case, they are fighting yesterday's war.
By the way, just to file things appropriate: Brownback co-sponsored an immigration bill with Ted Kennedy.
Please, people, there are 64 colors in a Crayola box. You can try to use the other 62 of them. And try not to let dogma cloud your keeping up with events.
January 4, 2009 9:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
CT, look. Bunning is an idiot. I have listened to the man. I do not care what party he is with. He is still an idiot. No matter what happens he will sign on with whatever filibustering procedures the Reps come up with.
Two parties are a fact of life. Ever so often there are breaches, and that is usually a good thing. But there have been more hold ups by the Reps in this Senate than in the entire history of the Senate.
January 4, 2009 10:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
I have no issue with people being labeled an idiot. I just dislike it when people insist the only idiots are in the opposition party.
The fact is that Dems should love having 59 Senators -- and not a Senator more.
Here is the reason:
With 59 Senators, there will be incredible pressure for the Dems to finally line up as a unit -- something we haven't seen since my lifetime. With more than 59 Senators, there will be squabbling among them as they jockey with their party leader for things to ensure their "loyalty".
Conversely, the GOP is under serious pressure with a 59 Dem majority -- any one GOP can bolt and allow the 60 vote filibuster. This creates tremendous mayhem on the other side of the aisle.
People here don't see how the game of politics is played. I suspect it's because they see their elected officials as something other than a politician.
And in all likelihood, the filibuster threat is exaggerated. There are very serious issues with the country at the moment and if a single party is painted as stonewalling -- especially when there are just enough concessions to make things palatable as we are seeing with invocations, sizes of tax cuts, etc. -- those GOP leaders will be seen as obstructionist.
If Obama is as skilled with the bully pulpit as he was with the campaign, there will be tremendous pressure on the GOP -- much like how Reagan was able to sit on a Democratic Congress. Obama can always go directly to the people.
I would certainly back a move to rid Congress of all idiots -- naturally, that includes Democrats too, and that is where I tend to differ with the dogmatic status quo here at TPM. (Under that guise, I am very happy to be rid of Dingle's influence in the House...)
January 5, 2009 12:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
Other than stupidity, do you have anything to offer?
January 5, 2009 10:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
Marquis, for starters, I offered a factual correction to your blog. You are very welcome.
January 5, 2009 12:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
"People here don't see how the game is politics is played..." Really? What an odd statement to make on a political blog.
I will agree we don't all describe what see the same way or come to the same conclusions, but I would hazard we are the most aware constituency in America no matter what our personal political beliefs.
If we aren't, then America is truly screwed.
January 5, 2009 10:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
Maybe not so odd, JEM. Many of the posts here are typically about minutia, where the "well-informed" reader means he's plowed through the NY Times, Real Clear Politics, TPM, etc. that morning.
However, this is generally a lack of understanding how politics -- especially Congressional politics -- works. I'm not saying everyone has this issue, but most do and so the discussions tend to often miss the point.
And yes, I do weep for this country. The reactions I see here -- which, I will agree are some of the more informed political citizens -- to topics of peak oil and overpopulation amount to sticking one's head in the sand. And that is from the more informed people. Is it any wonder that GWB was elected to a second term?
January 5, 2009 12:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Shorter CT: me so smart and sensitive. You guys? Naive.
January 5, 2009 1:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
You have it 1/2 correct. I never said I was so smart. I have said, as you correctly state, that many here are naive. I would welcome an actual debate on the position I put forth. However, despite people's strong feelings on me, I never see one. There is plenty to pick at what I wrote -- yet you preferred a FNC-like sound-bite dismissal.
January 5, 2009 1:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
I am quite sure most of us understand the enormous clusterfuck that is the United States Congress in particular and Washington DC in general - the place where good ideas go to die.
January 5, 2009 1:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Only until you understand why Congress is the "clusterf*ck" it is can you begin to make things work in it.
We haven't much time left.
January 5, 2009 1:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
It is the the way it is because we don't vote regularly enough to make them behave. It is the way ti is because 96% of incumbents are re-elected without a credible challenge. It is the way it is because we only average 18% turnout for primary elections. The results of Congressional idiocy are legion.
January 5, 2009 2:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
CT, why not just dismiss yourself to start. Most of us are Democrats here, and not afraid to say so. The Republicans have made it clear that they will act like asses with the filibuster... I am proposing to make it uncomfortable for 5 of them, so uncomfortable that they cannot do it.
January 4, 2009 11:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why should I dismiss myself?
You were the one that made a mistake.
January 4, 2009 11:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
What has his retirement have to do with expelling him?
Perhaps you should reread the OP.
January 5, 2009 12:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
You should do the re-reading, worker. You can't defeat him in 2010 because he won't be running.
January 5, 2009 12:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
The OP is about defeating filibusters, Lord Proprietor.
January 5, 2009 12:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
Good thinking, Marq. Josephcast has an interesting, and easier, idea in lieu of the Richardson news:
http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/blogs/demosaur/2009/01/shoulda-kept-the-beard.php#comment-3329735
Assuming Snowe would accept the appointment, the governor of Maine would get to fill the empty seat, and Joe Lieberman doesn't fuck the democrats over again, I like his idea.
January 4, 2009 10:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Except for Snowe would be a joke as sect'y of commerce, sure. It's brilliant.
I dunno, I actually kind of like Snowe, but Maine ain't exactly a haven for commerce.
January 4, 2009 10:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
I like here too. She's a real lady. I was actually hoping she'd be willing to work with the Dems quite a bit. Maine has such a tradition of strong and principled women senators.
January 4, 2009 11:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, but then I liked Lincoln Chafee in Rhode Island, too. But they voted him out simply because of the 'R' after his name
The people of Rhode Island may have voted out a senator with the highest approval rating ever. Snowe might have the same fate. She should become an Independent before it happens.
January 4, 2009 11:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
What an amazingly sexist comment. Don't believe me? Imagine what would be said here is someone promoted a person for being a man.
January 5, 2009 12:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
Goodness, CT. You haven't been taking your happy pills this weekend...
January 5, 2009 12:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
Ladies and Gentlemen:
I'll follow that up by saying that Biden is a real gentleman.
;)
January 5, 2009 12:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
TheraP, your reply is disingenuous. Had you said what you now claim to say, you would have stuck to a gender-neutral "she is a class act". I know you are very sensitive about the topics you are sensitive about. Instead you followed up your "lady" comment with "Maine has such a tradition of strong and principled women senators." so it is rather clear you were promoting someone on the basis of gender.
And for the record, classiness may or may not indicate value as a politician. I remind you that neither JFK nor Bill Clinton were "classy" in how they treated their wives (at least from what we know about while they were in office) and yet people here love both of these men as presidents. Conversely, Ronald Reagan would be considered classy (he was devoted to Nancy, always had a wonderful quip, was upbeat, mixed well with people, etc.) and people here wouldn't have wanted to see a 3rd Reagan term.
Of course, many an election is really a popularity contest (just as in High School), so I can understand your comment in that light.
January 5, 2009 12:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
wow, you really showed her.
January 5, 2009 1:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
TheraP is a sexist. Or discriminating against the uncouth like me.
January 5, 2009 2:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
From left field, I know--but does anyone know why Voinevich started crying that one time a few years ago?
Perhaps 2010 is just about the time the republican minority will stop feeling the pressure to cooperate rather than stonewall? Either way, I'm not sure that adding just one or two more votes to the Dems' side of the aisle would alleviate the confusion and pressure on the Republicans while lessening the strength of the party line for the Dems. Each side possesses a sufficient number of known traitors--although my stomach isn't strong enough to tolerate those traitors having any more power than they already do. I'm also afraid that by 2010, we will be victims of scandalarama and will be happy to just keep what we have! How confident is everyone that we're going to be in a strong position in two years? Seriously looking for peoples' answers to this one.
January 5, 2009 11:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well, if we don't *try* to toss them out, we certainly don't have much chance, do we?
January 5, 2009 11:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
Unless the next 2 years shows an astounding turn-around in the economy -- and 2009 is already pretty much a wash with the federal budget already set -- history suggests that Dems will lose a few seats in both Houses, not gain them.
I predict you are now seeing the peak of Dem membership in Congress. People in the country don't like to tip things numerically to either extreme (despite the actual positions of the politicians involved).
January 5, 2009 12:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
You may be right, CT, especially if the Dems cave quietly to the conservatives during the fight for the economy. Reid and Pelosi will need to make all kinds of noise about the lack of cooperation from the repubs, otherwise the repubs will blame the bad economy on the Dems. Sometimes I despair for my party.
January 5, 2009 3:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Kansas update;
The deck has been reshuffled recently here in Kansas, and there's a twister stirring up all that dust in the wind.
Brownback's likely running for the Goob spot, which opens his seat for Sebelius to step into very gracefully.
If per-chance she does replace Richardson on the cabinet list, then Cedar Crest will become a scrap for Brownback, Moran and Tiahrt to squabble over, now that our young Lieutenant Governor, Mark Parkinson, (former chairman of the Kansas Republican Party, who left the Republican party to run as Sebelius's second) has announced he's returning to the private sector, and will not be seeking the top office.
That leaves the Dems with fewer options, albeit some good ones,(McKinney, for instance) for the Governor's office, especially if Moran, who typically wins the Big First district, (which is the whole of western Kansas)by 80% margins, chooses that route instead of a Senate run.
Watch the Sunflower State over the next few months, and you will see events unfold that will portend future political directions, for Kansas AND the entire country.
Considering that Sebelius is literally an environmental hinge-pin, with her veto of coal-fired plants in Western Kansas upheld by a single vote in the state legislature, it would benefit the nation as a whole to invest in this election, to help make certain we stand firm against the coal-fire-breathing CEO's who want to add tons more fly-ash to the Kansas skies.
January 5, 2009 3:45 PM | Reply | Permalink