Considering the SENATORS running for PREZ 08, Who's gonna mind our store?

[FrenchieCat]

Let's see, we've got the following rumored to "gonna maybe run"....:

Biden, who will also to be the Chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee and sits on the Judiciary Committee.

Obama , Intelligence Committee; Foreign Relations Committee; Veterans Affairs.


Hillary, Armed Services Committee; Committee on Environment & Public Works and
Committee on Health, Education, Labor & Pensions, and the Senate Special Committee on Aging.

Kerry , Senate Small Business Committee; Commerce, Science, and Transportation committee; Finance Committee; Foreign Relations Committee.

Dodd , Banking, Housing, and Urban committee; Foreign Relations Committee; Education Committee; Rules and Administration; Judiciary; Committee on Health, Education, Labor & Pensions

Feingold, Budget Committee; Foreign Relations Committee and the Judiciary Committee.

Bayh, Senate Armed Services Committee and the Senate Small Business Committee.

So in the two short years that we have our work cut out for us, how "helpful" will these senators be in Keeping a Democratic majority if they all choose to run?

I hope that they all "give up" some of these, cause otherwise I'm not sure how this is all gonna turn out!

And if you note the membership of the Foreign Relations Committee of no less than Kerry, Todd, Feingold, Obama, and Chairman Biden....who in the fuck is left on the committee during a time of war and havoc???

Aren't these supposed to be our best and brightest. If they are all gonna be hitting the campaign trail, who's gonna be running the New Democratic Show that's just getting to town?

Just asking! :shrug:

[Ignacio Upton]

1. I hope none of the above get nominated

You are right in that we need to mine the store, as well as preserve our majority.

[question everything]

8. Plus, the last time a Senator won the Presidency was 1960.

There are different qualifications for being a legislator and an executive.

This is why we have been selecting governors and generals as our chief executives.

While a person in command can show a track record of accomplishments, of planning and implementing goals, using resources effectively, legislators have a track record of debate, where, on each issue, one should be able to find opposing quotes. And then they would be called "flip flop" or someone who cannot make up his mind.

Let's look at governors, at CEOs, at generals, at mayors, head of school boards - any places where leadership has been demonstrated.

[Ignacio Upton]

21. In fairness Senators can win in open elections with no incumbent

The only two times in the 20 century where a sitting Senator got elected were in 1920 (Warren Harding) and 1960 with Kennedy. Both times the incumbent Presidents (Wilson and Eisenhower) did not run (or couldn't run in Ike's case because of the constitutional amendment.) Each time a Senator got crushed it was against an incumbent, and the Senator was either an ideologue candidate (Goldwater and McGovern) or milque-toast (Bob Dole and John Kerry.)

[JI7]

2. with Democrats controlling the Senate they can schedule

things according to when they will be there and avoid republican dirty tricks of canceling votes when certain senators show up and holding them when they know they will be gone.

[FrenchieCat]

6. Oh....OK.....

Yep...but if everyone is sidetracked, will that really do it....be able to "schedule" the votes I mean? Guess they'd have to get started at least around January '07 when the new congress gets sworn in.

Sorry, but sounds like a full plate to me, let alone the pressures of running for the highest office in the land, meaning Raising money, meeting folks, and strategizing!

[beaconess]

16. Great point!

[Alexander]

3. Senator "Todd"? Do you mean Chris Dodd?

[FrenchieCat]

4. Ooops! Correcting now!

Thanks! :hi:

[angry_chuck]

5. review their records and

see that Obama is about gov transparency and accountability, as well as making deals among divided politicians. Some people let their liberal views go so far as to make reasonable claims seem far fetched (not as bad as conservs like pat robertson, billy graham, etc...) but Obama is about compromise. What more could we ask for in a Prez after the secretive wedge-to-arse application of bush/cheney/rove to the American people/constitution/environment/all that is good and decent? Obama makes deals and specializes in working with foreign leaders (sounds even better after bush 6+ years of chest-bumps and bible-thumps!), hopefully to foster re-acceptance of Americans as good people (not fascists) in the eyes of the world community. Most of those other candis are silver spoon babies who are just as in-the-pocket of big business as the rest of the swine at America's trough. Numbers don't lie; people's voting prefs in the past usually reflect their votes in the future. Maybe we should elect some do-gooder grad student, just no one from Yale pleeeease.

[Sensitivity]

11. Obama has no national record of significance. Not fatal, but Let's not pretend.

[thatsrightimirish]

7. I think

nominating a senator would be a huge mistake. I know Biden isn't going to run now because he is a chairman. The Republican governor will appoint someone to replace Bayh if he wins. And we might as well write off our seats in the south if Hillary is the nominee. The only senator that I think can run is Obama because a lot of people like him and he has no record. But a good choice will be someone not in Washington

[lapfog_1]

9. for the last 46 years

the only people to win the presidency have had either the job of Veep or Governor. That's for both parties. Clearly, for whatever reason, the voters prefer this resume over that of Senator or Congressperson (or dog catcher for that matter). We should not ignore this preference.

[bluem]

10. Feingold

Is also on the Intelligence Committee

[WA98296]

12. If they do nothing about the crimes against the country, I'll be looking for a 3rd party.

[TayTay]

13. Or you could take the opposite tack and argue that they all should run

because this is an amazing collection of knowledge about our government, how it works and where it doesn't work and what should and shouldn't happen.

This could make for some incredible debates as all sides of the Democratic argument on jobs, wages, trade law, foreign affairs, judicial activism or lack thereof and so forth come out into the light of day and are discussed.

Don't fear an informed debate. Instead, you should welcome it. I would like to know who supports rescinding the taxes on those who make over $1 mil a year. I would like to hear a fully informed debate on the Environment and what we should do to reduce our dependency on foreign sources of energy.

And so forth.

I hope every single one of them runs. And particpates in open debates. And brings their best arguments with them. That way, the people win.

[FrenchieCat]

14. So you don't mind if our senate chambers are missing 7 Dem folks

starting January? :wow:

It ain't about "open debates" for me, it's about some choosing to be MIA when they chose to work for us yet feel that they will be able to rationalize working for themselves instead.

We have a very short window of opportunity. I hope we don't blow it!

[TayTay]

15. No, that doesn't bother me at all.

Particularly since most of the debates and such don't begin until April.

We need to have a full debate. We need to air the Democratic positions and show the range of what the Democrats have to offer.

Why do you think that the Democrats are so weak that they can't walk and chew gum at the same time? These people will have even bigger Senatorial staff to manage hearings and the business of the Senate. There won't be any loss of attention on Capitol Hill.

I don't get what has you quacking in your boots about open debate in a democracy. Let every voice be heard. We need more, not less, people running. We don't need the people with strategies and back-room manipulations choosing our candidates for us.

Hell yes, let them all run and let the voters sort it out. We the People will be the winners in that scenario.

[skipos]

17. 1 more reasons I hope that we have some governors (preferably from flippable red states)

running for the nomination. And Clark too.

[geek tragedy]

18. Wes Clark will be our nominee, so the question is moot. eom

[FrenchieCat]

20. Wish I could say......"True, dat!"

But unless Hillary forks over her coveted dough, Clark will need much more than the right qualifications at the right time, it appears.

Ironic how the GOP gets War Hero POW McCain and 9/11 Famed Giuliani touted as No. 1&2.....and We get the last Dem President's wife and Barack Hussein Obama, a young, vibrant but inexperienced 2 year Senator who happens to also be African-American. In the age of War on terror, wonder why that is? :sarcasm:

D.C. Conventional Wisdom, Wes ain't. HOpe that changes, but you know how the pundits try hard to steer the public in the opposite direction......

[Orsino]

19. Personally, I would hate a senator...

...that swore to serve my state for six years, then bolted for a more exciting job after two or four. Smells too much like *.