Dodd for Senate Majority Leader?
T.A. Barnhart
Digby, someone I don't read as often as I should, has this to say following Reid's capitulation to Dodd, Wyden et al
During the last election, when Governor Dean's campaign sputtered, I immediately thought that it was great idea to promote him for Democratic Chair. It had long been nothing more than a big donor fund raising machine and needed to become something with at least some attachment to actual Democratic voters if the Democratic party was going to function as an actual ... party. The Dean campaign and his subsequent election to chair the party was the first real sign of the new progressive movement "crashing the gates," and it was an extremely important one.I think the same thing is true for this moment with Chris Dodd. He ran for minority leader some years back and lost to Tom Daschle by one vote. He has the ambition and the ability, clearly, and has received the support of many of his peers in the past. It makes much more sense to have the leadership hail from solid blue states so that they aren't constantly having to look over their own shoulders as they try to shepherd (or obstruct) legislation. So I agree with many others in the blogosphere that Chris Dodd would be an excellent majority leader and his election to that spot would send a very strong message....
You can read and comment at Hullabaloo.
Or just have your say here. Harry Reid has to go, and perhaps Chris Dodd will be willing and able to do so. We need someone committed to progressive goals leading the Senate as we try to elect a Democratic president. I'm too worried that Reid will undermine Obama's, I mean, the candidate's efforts.
 |
More Recent Posts | |
Albert Kaufman |
|
Guest Column |
|
Kari Chisholm |
|
Kari Chisholm |
Final pre-census estimate: Oregon's getting a sixth congressional seat |
Albert Kaufman |
Polluted by Money - How corporate cash corrupted one of the greenest states in America |
Guest Column |
|
Albert Kaufman |
Our Democrat Representatives in Action - What's on your wish list? |
Kari Chisholm |
|
Guest Column |
|
Kari Chisholm |
|
connect with blueoregon
1:21 p.m.
Dec 18, '07
I agree with the idea, but I would have to double check with parliamentarian rules to make sure this would not open a major can of worms with reorganizational vote in the Senate. Something we do NOT want to do with Lieberman being the 51st vote seeing as he announced his endorsement of McCain for POTUS yesterday.
Not saying it would open that can, but would need to make doubly sure it didn't.
2:27 p.m.
Dec 18, '07
A similar thread going on over at Daily Kos Perhaps there's a way to hold a no confidence vote within the Seante. Tricky part would be getting a majority who would vote to make things better (ie elect Dodd or other Progressive Patriot) and not fall victim to the Joe Leiberman effect. And I would worry that Reid might not play nice at all if he were demoted. Hmmm... Progressive Pariot. Sounds like a good name for a leftie blog!
Dec 18, '07
I agree that Reid has got to go. I find it greatly ironic that it was Wyden who helped put down the FISA bill, considering Reid stabbed Wyden in the back recently.
Dec 18, '07
This is a great idea for 2009 with the new Congress, but pointless now as the Democrats do not have an effective majority and that won't change with Dodd in there.
Plus, I think it would do real harm to the Democratic Congress to have a divisive battle over leadership during the run-up to an election, with nothing to gain from it but weakening Democrats in the process (especially Reid, who is up for re-election in 2010).
4:02 p.m.
Dec 18, '07
Mitch is spot-on.
Less than ideal as I think we'd all agree that the current is, losing the majority would be worse by any measure that I can think of.
4:04 p.m.
Dec 18, '07
I'm too worried that Reid will undermine Obama's, I mean, the candidate's efforts.
Take Reid out now or later (if he can be taken out at all) is a real toughie. As for Obama, if he wants to avoid being undermined, he might consider showing up and taking a stand on some of the real important stuff.
I get it that the next couple of months are really rough for all of 'em, but the primary game's likely to be over with by the night of February 5th. Obama and Clinton will each have to decide if missing key votes on civil liberties and the rule of law, works for them or against them in the primairies.
Dec 18, '07
I remember Tom Daschele's tenure as the Majority Leader was a sad time! The man ran the Senate like a man with cement shoes, clumsy, and in the end a tool for the Buch Administration after 9/11.
Harry has not lived up to his billing, and has been, in the end, a tool for the Administration. Unwilling to fight, unwilling to even risk a fight.
He let them sneak out the barn with all the livestock, while he stood and watched. Patriot Act, Homeland Securtiy, and letting them run with their rhetoric about Iraq while they let Bin Laden go in Tora Bora.
I would love to see a Chris Dodd pushing the Democrats to saving what is left of our civil liberties, and helping a Democratic President, and Senate restore American governance, honor, and credibility.
Happy Thoughts;
Dan Grady
6:26 p.m.
Dec 18, '07
yes, Pat, given Obama's long history of standing on the sidelines these past 20-plus years, he really ought to undermine his chance to become president to cast the 11th vote on a bill that's a done-deal. especially since he's never given the slightest indication on where he stands regarding civil rights, etc.
damn, where's my sarcasm button?
every moment in Iowa counts. if he had been the 40th vote for cloture, he would have been there. but the 11th? given him some credit for doing the math right and not using this vote for grandstanding (not what Dodd did, btw, given he's got zero chance of winning the nomination).
9:22 p.m.
Dec 18, '07
As for Obama, if he wants to avoid being undermined, he might consider showing up and taking a stand on some of the real important stuff. and including Clinton, as you mention...
Isn't THAT the truth!
Dec 18, '07
If Congressional Democrats are afraid of the consequences of firing Harry Reid as majority leader, they probably should relax and let the voters do the job for them. I don't think there is any chance for Democrats to redeem themselves at this point. Let the Republicans take back Congress. That may be the only way the Democrats get the message that they are doing a poor job - although most likely that they still wont get it.
Hopefully, the next time the Democrats find themselves with a majority they will take it to mean that voters want something different than what they were getting from the Republicans.
3:22 a.m.
Dec 19, '07
LOL... nice try. Seems RedState or NW Republican is missing one of its village idiots.
Dec 19, '07
absolutely! have wanted reid gone long ago; at the same time admire dodd hugely and for a long time. a pragmatic and passionate citizen. question: how can we actually make this happen? i mean, i've been to searchlight, nev; harry should spend much more time there! alex race.
11:04 p.m.
Dec 19, '07
This is a great idea for 2009 with the new Congress, but pointless now as the Democrats do not have an effective majority and that won't change with Dodd in there. Um, don't you think having someone who is more thoughtful about which bills come to the floor, and when to respect a hold and when to press forward, would make a significant difference in what legislation was sent to Bush? At least we could force the Texas Twit to veto popular stuff instead of Congress caving in at every turn. I say 2009 is way too late, and next week is barely soon enough. What can be done to replace Reid (and Pelosi) within their own Houses? It's all about the leadership standing up to the Bushies and making smart choices, and a progressive Statesperson at the helm of both houses would really change the winds. Harry and Nancy don't have the spine, they should step down before they lose their seats completely. As for former dem voter (if you really were one) thanks for supporting the team. Were you a whig before that? Glen
<hr/>