Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
 

vi5

(13,305 posts)
Wed Nov 14, 2012, 02:31 PM Nov 2012

So which Senate Dems do we still need to worry about?

The good news is that wretch's like Lieberman and Blanche Lincoln and a few others are gone. Are there any left who we have to worry about? Luckily we've got more offset with someone like Warren now in the Senate. But are there any others left who are going to stomp their feet and act like babies if the president and other Senate Dems show them how much they love and appreciate them? Any others likely to take every opportunity to get their mugs on Fox News or Morning Joe?

8 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
So which Senate Dems do we still need to worry about? (Original Post) vi5 Nov 2012 OP
It will depend to some extent on the issues and if they're going to seek reelection Anthony McCarthy Nov 2012 #1
Blue Dogs? KharmaTrain Nov 2012 #2
Donnelly just replaced Lugar. sadbear Nov 2012 #4
You know what? JustAnotherGen Nov 2012 #3
They're my Senators as well.... vi5 Nov 2012 #8
It seems to shift a lot, which is part of the game by the corporate faction: woo me with science Nov 2012 #5
+1 leftstreet Nov 2012 #7
Baucus is still there. Pryor is still there. Both Nelsons are still there. Landrieu is still there. Egalitarian Thug Nov 2012 #6
 

Anthony McCarthy

(507 posts)
1. It will depend to some extent on the issues and if they're going to seek reelection
Wed Nov 14, 2012, 02:37 PM
Nov 2012

it will be a developing issue.

KharmaTrain

(31,706 posts)
2. Blue Dogs?
Wed Nov 14, 2012, 02:41 PM
Nov 2012

Manchin from W. Va and Donnelly from Indiana come to mind. Hopefully the won't be as obstructionist as a Ben Nelson was but a lot depends on how the filibuster rules are revised. Hopefully their votes won't matter often.

JustAnotherGen

(31,924 posts)
3. You know what?
Wed Nov 14, 2012, 02:42 PM
Nov 2012

I don't know that I want my Senators (Menendez and Lautenberg) worrying about that - or if those people can lose their seat the next go round. I want them to vote NJ Progressive without ANY regard for some Senator somewhere else losing their job.

Here's the thing - the Senate has a mandate - and it is to offset nonsense from the House. And if the house gives them something worth passing - pass it.

We've got to get off the election junkie crack and get down to rebuilding America.

 

vi5

(13,305 posts)
8. They're my Senators as well....
Thu Nov 15, 2012, 07:30 AM
Nov 2012

They've each disappointed me a couple of times. But overall I'm happy with their votes and being from NJ means that with the exception of some high profile corporatist bills they can by and large vote progressively.

Also, I hope this election proves to Dems that they can and should vote progressive liberal values and not only won't be punished but will be rewarded and supported.

woo me with science

(32,139 posts)
5. It seems to shift a lot, which is part of the game by the corporate faction:
Wed Nov 14, 2012, 02:50 PM
Nov 2012
http://www.salon.com/2010/02/23/democrats_34/

Tuesday, Feb 23, 2010 11:24 AM UTC
The Democratic Party’s deceitful game
They are willing to bravely support any progressive bill as long as there's no chance it can pass
By Glenn Greenwald

....
This is what the Democratic Party does...They’re willing to feign support for anything their voters want just as long as there’s no chance that they can pass it. They won control of Congress in the 2006 midterm elections by pretending they wanted to compel an end to the Iraq War and Bush surveillance and interrogation abuses because they knew they would not actually do so; and indeed, once they were given the majority, the Democratic-controlled Congress continued to fund the war without conditions, to legalize Bush’s eavesdropping program, and to do nothing to stop Bush’s habeas and interrogation abuses (“Gosh, what can we do? We just don’t have 60 votes).

The primary tactic in this game is Villain Rotation. They always have a handful of Democratic Senators announce that they will be the ones to deviate this time from the ostensible party position and impede success, but the designated Villain constantly shifts, so the Party itself can claim it supports these measures while an always-changing handful of their members invariably prevent it. One minute, it’s Jay Rockefeller as the Prime Villain leading the way in protecting Bush surveillance programs and demanding telecom immunity; the next minute, it’s Dianne Feinstein and Chuck Schumer joining hands and “breaking with their party” to ensure Michael Mukasey’s confirmation as Attorney General; then it’s Big Bad Joe Lieberman single-handedly blocking Medicare expansion; then it’s Blanche Lincoln and Jim Webb joining with Lindsey Graham to support the de-funding of civilian trials for Terrorists; and now that they can’t blame Lieberman or Ben Nelson any longer on health care (since they don’t need 60 votes), Jay Rockefeller voluntarily returns to the Villain Role, stepping up to put an end to the pretend-movement among Senate Democrats to enact the public option via reconciliation.

This is why we need to keep track and put the pressure on hard as these situations arise.
 

Egalitarian Thug

(12,448 posts)
6. Baucus is still there. Pryor is still there. Both Nelsons are still there. Landrieu is still there.
Wed Nov 14, 2012, 02:51 PM
Nov 2012

Conrad is still there. So there's half a dozen to watch.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»So which Senate Dems do w...