Wednesday, November 19, 2008

Good News/Bad News

Yesterday, the liberal voters who worked hard to get Democrats elected got some good news and some bad news. Good news: Mark Begich has defeated incumbent Ted Stevens in Alaska. Bad news: Democratic senators voted to allow Traitor Joe Lieberman to keep his committee chairmanship, proving once again that the Senate is an exclusive club which takes care of its own under every conceivable scenario. Our euphoria last just two weeks.

Well, back to work, folks. In 2010, a number of Senate seats currently being held by Democrats come up for election. Here's the list, with pertinent notes (as supplied by Wikipedia):

Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas

Barbara Boxer of California

Ken Salazar of Colorado (may be under consideration for a cabinet post)

Christopher Dodd of Connecticut (announced to the Federal Election Commission in 2007 that he would not be seeking re-election, presumably to facilitate transferring campaign contributions to his presidential campaign)

Joe Biden of Delaware (he will shortly resign his Senate seat to assume the Vice Presidency and the Democratic governor will appoint his replacement who will hold the seat until the 2010 election)

Daniel Inouye of Hawaii

Barack Obama of Illinois (he has resigned his Senate seat to serve as President of the United States and the Democratic governor will appoint his replacement to who will hold the seat until the 2010 election).

Evan Bayh of Indiana

Barbara Mikulski of Maryland

Harry Reid of Nevada

Chuck Schumer of New York

Byron Dorgan of North Dakota

Ron Wyden of Oregon

Patrick Leahy of Vermont

Patty Murray of Washington

Russ Feingold of Wisconsin

Now, I'm not suggesting we dump all of these people. Patrick Leahy, Russ Feingold, and Barbara Boxer usually come through for us, but the rest of them continue to forget we exist the day after their elections are certified. I suggest that we start looking now for the alternatives, and that we let them know we are doing so and the reasons why.


Labels: ,


Anonymous Anonymous said...

There's another reason 2010 is vitally important, and it has nothing to do with national races at all, at least not immediately.

2010 is a Census year. Which means a Redistricting year. Which means that our attention needs to be on state lege races as much as national ones. No effect on the Senate obviously but our best chance to just monkeywrench the shit out of the US House.

We can do both. We are many. :)

5:56 AM  
Blogger shrimplate said...

Arizona's Congressional District 2 isn't even contiguous. There's an "island" of it complately surrounded by the huge but sparsely-populated District 1.

7:30 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The named political parties bear almost no resemblance ot their stated mission, values, agendas and constituencies. I took a stab (link at my name) at placing the actors, agendas and constituencies where they actually belong. Progressives, many independent and much of the netroots constitute an actual opposition party. It might benefit them to formalize a party apparatus, marshal resources (especially important in light of xan's census and redistricting comment and timeframe) and move the progressive agenda forward.

7:47 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home