U.S. Senate
See Full Big Line
(D) J. Hickenlooper*
(R) Somebody
80%
20%
Governor
See Full Big Line
(D) Michael Bennet
(D) Phil Weiser
60%↑
50%↓
Att. General
See Full Big Line
(D) M. Dougherty
(D) Jena Griswold
(D) David Seligman
40%
40%
30%
Sec. of State
See Full Big Line
(D) A. Gonzalez
(D) J. Danielson
(R) Sheri Davis
50%
40%
30%
State Treasurer
See Full Big Line
(D) Brianna Titone
(D) Jeff Bridges
(R) Kevin Grantham
40%
40%
30%
CO-01 (Denver)
See Full Big Line
(D) Diana DeGette*
(R) Somebody
90%
2%
CO-02 (Boulder-ish)
See Full Big Line
(D) Joe Neguse*
(R) Somebody
90%
2%
CO-03 (West & Southern CO)
See Full Big Line
(R) Jeff Hurd*
(R) H. Scheppelman
(D) Alex Kelloff
70%
30%
10%
CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado)
See Full Big Line
(R) Lauren Boebert*
(D) Trisha Calvarese
(D) Eileen Laubacher
90%
20%
20%
CO-05 (Colorado Springs)
See Full Big Line
(R) Jeff Crank*
(D) Somebody
80%
20%
CO-06 (Aurora)
See Full Big Line
(D) Jason Crow*
(R) Somebody
90%
10%
CO-07 (Jefferson County)
See Full Big Line
(D) B. Pettersen*
(R) Somebody
90%
10%
CO-08 (Northern Colo.)
See Full Big Line
(R) Gabe Evans*
(D) Yadira Caraveo
(D) Manny Rutinel
(D) Shannon Bird
45%↓
30%
30%
30%
State Senate Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
80%
20%
State House Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
95%
5%
December 15, 2009 04:34 PM UTC
85 Comments
Wanted to kick start your day with latest poll results. Go to http://www.rasmussenreports.co… to view the latest Rasmussen results.
McInnis really is the biggest Tea Party candidate in the country!
These numbers are interesting. Keep in mind these numbers come on the heels of a 527 spending a large sum of money on Ritter’s behalf and McInnis has done nothing. The numbers amoung Independents are mind blowing.
First off, Rasmussen gives an extra 10 points to the Republican. Second the GOP had a primary until recently and we Dems did not – that was a big advantage for the GOP as they were getting all the press (thank you Josh for dropping out – hurt McInnis but helped Ritter).
Second, Ritter isn’t campaigning yet. He needs to be and if he doesn’t get it in gear soon (especially on the web where Google rewards longevity and the links that come with it), then he will be hurting.
But at the moment, not terribly worrisome.
…and post Tom Tomorrow’s latest cartoon.
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITI…
Sources: Medicare buy-in likely to be dropped from health care bill
Pull his chairmanship, assign him to the crappiest committees, bury him under the corner of the building. I don’t care if he becomes a Republican, if he’s not on board with health care he broke the deal he made with the caucus and he should be punished. Discipline requires consequences.
Called his office ( really hard to get through), Reid’s and the WH to tell them so. The tables should be turned. We do have something Lieberman’s ego desperately needs: majority status and all the chairmanships.
All of Lieberman’s power comes from being the 60th vote but he’s made it clear he will never be that vote on any level of health reform that does any real good for ordinary people or takes a penny of profit or an iota of power from the industry that owns him. Besides, he’d rather indulge in spite and have revenge than do anything for his constituents. He has a constituency of one; himself.
So just let him know that if he, or any member of the majority caucus, joins a filibuster they will be cut off from every position of power, especially chairmanships. The only reason he chose to caucus with Dems was to be in the majority that chairs committees and controls the agenda. Tell him he isn’t getting any more concessions and he can either keep his perks or filibuster but not both.
If he isn’t going to be that 60th vote what good is he? Tell him to play ball or see if he likes the minority caucus better. Then explore all other options but stop giving more and more to Lieberman/Snowe and getting nothing worth the price in return.
55 y/o folks saving money at the expense of private insuranc companies by allowing them to sign up for Medicare. That would be a lot of premiums. So what if it ends up being more cash in he poscket of those 55 y/o. And, yes, it would be a foot in the door. As those 55 y/o experienced the high level of satisfaction at low cost that age would get dropped.
Younger healthier participants, even just down to 55, enlarging the pool, paying in and costing less than the 65 and over group is good economics. It would also give enough encouragement to the voters and boots on the ground volunteers to stay active and turn out in 2010.
Down the road the logical conclusion would be to let everybody buy in for secure, basic, quality healthcare and leave the bells and whistles to private insurers. The huge pool including the youngest healthiest participants would make medicare the logical economic choice.
This kind of system works very well in many European countries where basic health care must be non-profit and highly affordable but more options are available in the private market.
Expanded medicare is the only thing that makes this package worth fighting for as a way to get where we need to be. It’s better than the watered down public option/opt in or out or trigger mess we bargained down to before this new plan was proposed.
Lieberman and the other conservative Dems can be given a choice of playing ball on the filibuster issue or losing all power perks. The President and the leadership need to grow a pair and stop listening to putzes like Rahm Emanuel and bowing before schmucks like Lieberman.
And if Lieberman et al would rather go down in flames than accept the offer we should move on to every other possible option including whatever we can get out of reconciliation or nuclear.
The grassroots will not be there to turn out the vote otherwise. Neither will the minority voters who pushed the 2008 election to where it wound up with a Dem WH and big majorities in congress. There won’t be a better chance in 2011. We wimp out now, we never have such a big majority again for the duration.
this will be the last straw for him with the caucus. This is basically the only reason they kept feeding him cookies, and now he’s barfed them back up in Reid’s face. Wouldn’t surprise me at all if he loses HSGAC in the coming months.
Because they so desperately want to hang on to the chimera of 60 votes.
Reid’s a very smart inside fighter and doesn’t need chimera. Besides, what else do they need 60 for after this? Leib is a 100% vote for any carbon regulation bill that’s coming and he’ll vote for any reasonable appointee.
I used to think so too, but he doesn’t have diddly squat to show for it in the past year….
This is becoming to be sort of like the “abused wife” syndrome. He campaigns for McCain for President, we keep him in the caucus and reward him with Homeland Security Chairmanship. He vows to filibuster the public option, we take it out of the bill and keep him in the fold. We offer up a Medicare expansion that WAS HIS IDEA three months ago, and now he vows to filibuster that.
It is time to terminate this abusive relationship. We can do better than him. We deserve better than him.
pieces of toast and more balls than prize steers. Lieberman is all about Lieberman and if he knows he will lose all power in the senate if he doesn’t play ball, that might outweigh spite in his tiny little mind and selfish soul.
If it doesn’t work the more brains than toast part should tell them that he really isn’t the 60th vote in any way that matters so there is no value in letting him be the boss of the caucus anymore. Right now, that’s what he is. And letting him maintain that position will so disgust the grassroots, the next election will be a disaster with pathetic turn out and pathetic volunteering and contribution levels on the Dem side.
We need to call and e-mail every Dem elected official we can to let them know they need to grow a pair. If they think they aren’t in a strong enough position now just wait until they see what 2011 is going to look like once we all see how much less effort it takes to just sit back and let Rs screw us instead of working our butts off so Ds can have that privilege.
have decided to give in to Lieberman again. They are apparently fine with Lieberman being the leader of the Dem caucus and the President’s boss on domestic issues.
They are willing to back off on both the public option (we knew that was gone) AND the medicare buy-in to please the snake Lieberman. Whatever they get now, they won’t have to worry about big bad Lieberman’s 60th vote after the next election because the low turn-out and lack of grass roots enthusiasm will take care of that problem for them.
Dems will lose seats. They’ll be in the majority in the Senate but nowhere near 60. There will be no second bite at the apple. The right might be so energized that they’ll be less likely to purge in favor of any tea party third choices and will happily turn out for regular GOP candidates.
This has been bungled from the day they rejected using the single payer faction for negotiating purposes through all their decisions to keep on giving way on core principles in the nonsensical quest for bi-partisanship in spite of the Rs coming right out and telling them that their only goal was to defeat ANY D reform package months ago.
Here we are, down to nothing that will energize Dems and what do we have to show for it? Lieberman as our de facto Senate leader and the vote of ONE R, Cao of Louisiana. This isn’t tough Rahm Emanuel politics. This is insanity+stupidity+inexplicable cowardice. Lieberman sinks our chances for an energized Dem electorate in 2010 without unlikely degrees of gain in Main Street prosperity and maybe Osama’s head on a platter AND gets to keep all his plum assignments.
$1 billion of bailout money to switch parties and tell Lieberman to go to hell.
If I was in charge of our democratic campaigns here in the state I would make it my top priority to do one thing. I would sit down with Ritter, Bennet, & Markey and tell them they need to blog.
They should each be posting 2 – 4 times/week. It has to be from them. And it needs to be informative, not campaigning. Talk about what is happening right then – politically, personally, what interests them.
All three of them are in office. They can create content that many find very interesting. That causes people to forward the links to others which spreads the word about them. It also gives people a more complete picture of each person – in a positive light.
Do that regularly and come October/November they own the web for their races. And with that they win.
But it requires that each of these people stop having their campaigns “study” the web and stop worrying about what is the “best” approach. Instead just start posting.
that you do not run the state campaigns.
I mean, I enjoy your posts and respect you David, but wow, glad you’re not a campaign manager of any kind.
I think a lot of campaign managers take your view where you want to control what is said, when it is said, where it is said, etc. In the old days that was the best way to approach things. Campaigns lived and died by the sound bite on TV and you could control that.
It doesn’t work that way anymore. The web insures that everything is out there and all you can do is influence the view of all those known issues. Schaffer got killed in the last election not because of all the issues like the Marianas Islands that were brought up – but because he did not respond to them effectively.
Slow, careful, and controlled will kill you in today’s world. Incumbency is a powerful advantage on the web – if you use it effectively.
Also keep in mind that not doing this does not mean you retain control of the campaign’s message – it just means you’re not involved in the campaign’s message.
How on earth could Schaffer have “effectively” responded to the Marianas Islands revelations?
I don’t even know what that means in this context.
Seriously though, candidates have a lot better things to do than post on blogs. I mean, I don’t mind if someone from the campaign writes up something every now and then to post under the candidate’s name is fine, but have the candidate take time to do that 4-5 times a week? Are you out of your mind?
You continually assert that candidates need to own the web in order to win, which may be true for some races, but I’ve yet to see a convincing case in which it is definitely true for all races. Especially when you yourself recognize that most people still get their news from TV, and more importantly, they just fucking watch TV, making ads way way more important. So instead of diddling around on a blog maybe a candidate should consider raising money for their next ad, or shooting their next ad, or something else that is actually productive.
Posting on a blog may let you “own your message” or whatever, so great, get someone to post up some policy pieces for you, some personal shit, whatever your message du jour is. But how much value do you actually think a candidate would get out of committing significant financial resources to blogs? Do you know how many people read blogs? How many are swing voters? How many are base voters? How to get those voters to the polls?
No.
Blog posting can be fine for getting information out their (be it positive piece or hit piece), but let’s not all get around and pretend like ColoradoPols is somehow the holy grail to electoral politics in Colorado.
(Sorry Pols, I love your site, but I know that you know it’s true too). 🙂
I agree that paid media is still the big dog. But the web is now the clear second – and in a myriad of different ways. This ranges from driving the news just as newspapers used to drive TV to being the prime source for many and secondary for a majority.
One example – go to http://www.quantcast.com/color… (select Range:all) which measures a small website I put up for the election. It hit 7.4K visitors/day with an average of 9.8 page view each. And they all came in via Google or other links.
Here’s the thing – this was not a major site like one of the news orgs, this had zero marketing or publicity, there were probably what, maybe 100 other blogs, sites, etc doing the same thing. So this was one small piece. Yet probably 30,000 people total were reading it in detail (9.8 page/views each).
Take that across all the sites like this and that’s a major impact. And these are people wanting to learn more before voting – the undecideds.
This is growing. More and more people go to the web to get the info they want to cast their vote. As we approach election day we will see searches for Ritter & McInnis skyrocket. And what people find at the top of Google will be what a significant number of people use to decide their vote. The younger they are the more likely that this is the only means they use.
Now lets say Bill Ritter posted regularly. What happens? Lots of people discuss it. Lots of people link to it. There are a good number of linsk to the articles discussing it. And what does our curious voter find?
They find a candidate who is talking through what they are doing and why – which sells Ritter as caring & competent. They find a candidate talking about what interests them – which sells Ritter as an interesting and many-faceted individual.
More than anything else, they see a robust detailed conversation from him which makes him appear as someone well capable of being governor – and it make’s McInnis appear as a wanna-be by contrast.
It also brings the citizens of the state in as partners with Ritter in his managing of the state. This will give people ownership and that is a powerful force in politics.
ps – I do agree with you that Pols probably does not directly impact all that many people. But it’s influence is notable both in what it influences directly and indirectly.
Why do you suppose that was?
He used the web to good effect to get elected. He no longer needs to worry about a competitive race. With that said, I think when he did blog a couple of times after getting elected, it was a useful & valuable thing for us constituents.
I particularly like your point how by posting more you would drive your candidate’s name to the top of google searches and would probably have more cross-posts and links to it.
I don’t know enough about computers, the internet, or quantcast technology to comment on the methodology behind those numbers, but it is certainly good to know you have some facts behind your argument.
And certainly the internet can be a powerful tool for campaigns, however, off the top of my head I still have two qualms:
1) Why the candidate? I admit that hot campaigns should have an effective internet operation which means more than just having a nice website, but I don’t think that any candidate should be sitting down writing blog posts.
2) Where is the line between engaging voters looking for information on the internet and giving additional ammunition to your opposition? I believe you commented yourself about how Twitter has evolved into the newest and fastest way for candidates/elected officials to shoot themselves in the foot, why would one provide that opening to an opponent?
I think I would buy your point well that blog posting should be included in an effective internet strategy, I’m just not convinced as to what priority that should take in a campaign hierarchy.
1) It does depend on the candidate – for some writing is hard work and the result is awkward at best. But for those that can, I think it provides a great ROI.
2) Google, digg, reddit, bing, stumble-upon, about, etc – they all reward quality content. The main measures of that is the content has been around for awhile, the content is linked to by many, and they get a lot of visits. A consistent set of competently written posts about what/why/etc by a major office holder will get that interest. And that means when voters do a search on that candidate – it goes to their blog.
3) People reading the web want authenticity and have damn good bullshit detectors. An ongoing set of posts by the candidate, where they speak honestly blows away anything else on authenticity. It’s like Megan McCain’s posts during the election – people gave it a lot of weight.
4) I think it also helps them, letting them better define for themselves what is important and what they want to do. When I write up my monthly high-level review of what’s done and where we’re headed at work – half the value (I think) is for me in sitting down and writing it up.
5) As to ammunition to the opposition – not an issue. With the web you don’t get to construct a portrait of your candidate – everything is out there. Your only choices are to participate in the conversation about your candidate or let others control all of the conversation. (Granted, if Bob Schaffer had written a blog about the workers paradise in the Marianas – that would have hurt.)
6) I do think twitter is a bad idea because it rarely helps, and it can let you put out something very stupid without even a second to think it through. Blog first, then once you get a good feel for that, then add twitter.
The biggie is this is more than just making sure one of the main sources for a voter like my daughters is the candidate’s own words. It’s influencing the press with not only something new to report on, but one of the first places they go for research. It’s giving fundraisers a great resource to tell people why they want to help the candidate. The list goes on.
There’s also another very good reason outside of the campaign – it will make them a better office holder. Ongoing direct communication is a giant benefit to the democratic process.
And this is even more true (and obvious) for the underdog races – CD6, CD5, AG, the various CO legislative races, school boards, city councils, etc.
It’s not going to be enough for many f the hard R districts, but it is necessary and a good idea.
I think the apprehension is to be out and about something before the political wind blows. Eg- Norton was for Ref C&D but how may people will remember that? If she blogged about it- google knows all forever. Or at least the opposition. Example- Andrews, Tancredo and others signed a pledge to eliminate all publicly funded education. see http://www.schoolandstate.org/…
That site used to be searchable and though it no longer is, screen shots of Tancredo’s support are available. If he did run for Gov this cycle, he would have had to address it.
So I agree with you – but Raphael’s reaction is going to be common until we have a core of elected officials who are out. And voters stop being so crazy when it comes to elected officials changing their nuanced positions- aka flip-flopping.
I’d like to say Lieberman is a WHORE!!!
If I can log off and pack I’ll have a better trip.
A USA Today/Gallop Poll showed the following:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/w…
And a warning to Democratic leadership–7 to 1 Americans say the Administration should focus on the economy over any other issue.
but but but but but
but what about the 3 scientists (out of 3000) who talked about messing with the data? what about the fact that Al Gore is a Democrat and all Democrats lie? what ’bout the cold temps we had last week? And what about cyclical droughts and dinosaur extinctions? Huh? What about those? Oh yea, and jobs. definitely about jobs. So there!
You probably saved Libertad from commenting.
http://freerepublic.com/focus/…
Better late to the party than never, right?
Doing nothing is what the DOE does best. A legal hold is just as good as any other way of doing nothing. Maybe better.
Oops, I meant Cap’n Tax.
and while “skeptics” waste time quibbling with Al Gore’s latest prediction that Arctic sea ice is going to disappear faster than 2020*, a new study shows that the Arctic coast is eroding into the Arctic Ocean at 30-45 feet per year.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/re…
*Who cares if it’ll happen in 2014 or 2020? That it will happen at all is utterly frightening. Nice distraction, though.
I was reading an article yesterday about the Himalayan region and how global warming is beginning to affect the people that live in that area–we are talking about 3 billion people here and several countries that are barely speaking to each other–India, Pakistan, Nepal, China, to name a few. The melting of glaciers, the drying up of what little water the area receives, the potential for major conflict over water and lack of food, were just a few of the issues raised. One very frightening scenario is that as glaciers melt there is a high probability that they will flood and completely wipe out entire villages and everyone that lives there.
The article was sobering, to say the least. I think it was in TIME magazine.
And now considers climate change to be a big enough threat to list in the Quadrennial Defense Review. (And the CIA sees it as a big enough threat to create a Center for studying the intel consequences of climate change.)
http://www.npr.org/templates/s…
So when will the R’s catch up? Over/under on 10 years?
DoD has been planning for this for a while. Between diesel costing $400/gal in AFPAK to the national security considerations of climate refugees, there’s a plan at FORSCOM for all of this.
or other low lying coastal areas in the South Pacific
see
http://www.google.com/search?h…
If you want beach front property- you can buy up the hill, and wait a few years.
This is bullshit.
if it is true. and therefore I doubt it is.
to this assertion by the anonymous “Senate aide.” I’m having a difficult time believing this, LB. If Obama was going to threaten anyone, it’d be Lieberman, not Nelson.
no big bases in his homestate that employ significant % of voters.
and they’re delighted with his obstructionism.
Strip him of leadership. The bastard loves power. Take it all away. Which they should have the day after Obama took office. Why Obama left him in place is still beyond me. I admire the Republicans on that point–they don’t fuck around. If a Republican betrays the party to the extent JL has, there are real consequences (see Dede in NY District 23) and I personally think that’s the way the Democratic Party ought to behave, too.
These are the same people that cheered when Chicago failed to win the Olympic games. They want to hurt Americans to advance their careers. But if that’s the crowd you run with…
Me and half of Chicago hate America.
You know, like Europe, sipping Peppermint Mochas spiked with rum?
Last night. Salzburg is so incredibly beautiful. We had a blast at all the Christmas Markets and spending time together. I’ll email you a couple of pictures.
And welcome home.
I’m sure my commentary was sorely missed here on Pols.
🙂
and since it’s all about me, who cares what anybody else thinks?:)
At least when I do it, it’s funny.
It was in response to this:
See, I already hated America, according to ajb. That’s pretty funny.
You can go ahead and put words in my mouth all you want, but that don’t make it so.
We all know that the Weekly Std has an agenda. If you come from a part of this country that elects Democrats, then you’re fair game. If it makes a Democrat look bad, it’s all good, no matter what the collateral damage is. From that, I think we can surmise that staff at the WS put politics above country. You disagree?
So now the WS is saying nasty things about the Prez (no surprise there), citing anonymous sources (no surprise there, either), and you jump right on board, displaying no skepticism about the source whatsoever.
If you want to align yourself with those guys, go right ahead. Next thing you know, we’ll be in a land war in Asia…
I didn’t expect the Spanish Inquisition
Surprise and fear! Fear and surprise!
Per Greg Sargent’s blog, The Plum Line: “But Nelson spokesman Jake Thompson emails that it just ain’t so: “The rumor is not true. This misinformation is coming from inside the Beltway partisans who only want to derail health care reform.”
http://theplumline.whorunsgov….
(Heavy sigh) I have to do everything.
pun intended
A majority of the House of Represenatives (425 members) and of the United States Senate (100 members) … plus 57% of 300 million Americans (WaPo, Oct. 20: http://www.washingtonpost.com/… ) all support some kind of “public option.”
But one person, Joseph Lieberman, doesn’t. And on this alone, the public option, along with “buying into Medicare” (tantamount to the public option for people age 55+) dies.
I’m not giving up second place in line to anyone in my contempt and detestation of Lieberman. Connecticut was a nice place when I lived there in a town adjacent to Lieberman’s hangout of Stamford. But Lieberman is a shit of the first order.
That said, however, the question is whether the problem with Lieberman? Could it not be Ben Nelson, for example? Or any other of the 100 senators?
The problem, as I have said in earlier posts here, is with the Senate itself. We we all know, it operates by rules that not subject to any kind of scrutiny outside that institution. Not by the House, not by the President, not by the voters. These rules give each individual senator powers way, way in excess of anything that could possibly be considered in line with democratic processes, i.e. majority rule.
In 1789 there may have been good reasons for the Senate. The main one was to give clout to slave-holding states, an argument spuriously presented in many elementary schools as “small states’ rights” against big states. By 1820 it was already clear that the Senate was all about protecting the institution of slavery.
But that was then. This is now. The rationale for the Senate is long, long gone. The notion of 50 “sovereign” states was eliminated by the civil war and ain’t comin’ back anytime soon.
Pining for the days of Lyndon Johnson as opposed to Harry Reid–whose role as majority leader must be tempered by his desperate bid for reelection in Nevada–is not to the point.
What is to the point is my proposed Amendment 28:
Period. End of Amendment. End of Senate as we know it. The new senate would resemble in many ways its Olde World model, the House of Lords. Hell, we could even start calling them by some new honorific, and award $100,000 to the author of the winning name.
“My Good Doofus.” “The Honorable Blowhard…”
Time to get moving, folks. Or do I err in thinking this as the government of, by, and for the people?
Not insofar as the purpose of the US government, but the mechanism (I think I just channeled a little Harvey).
Tyranny can be achieved through Democratic processes. This is why checks & balances were included in the constitution: governing was supposed to be hard, change was supposed to be slow.
I don’t need to change the game, in fact I want to strengthen the checks (Bush convinced me the executive branch is far too powerful).
What I want to change is my teams game plan.
I’ll concede your point about making change difficult if you’ll concede mine: that the status quo then, as now, favored the wealthy over those without property (to say nothing at all about slaves!).
Philosophical principles are important–very important. But they can also disguise some mighty unpleasant realities on the ground.
We could have a longer discussion sometime about precisely how the process of making governing difficult ought to work in practice. Protecting the rights of the minority is a lot easier to defend than allowing a single senator to thwart the will of the majority, not just of the Senate, but of the whole population! In this case, we have a micro-minority of financial interests thwarting the will of the majority to make affordable health care available to everyone. Rather a different proposition than protecting a beleaguered minority from being trampled by an avaricious majority.
Thus, I call dubs on defending the 28th amendment to wipe away this particular form of tyranny of the minority. I am open to modifications to the proposed amendment, however.
Our system does favor the status quo, and while that is often a terrible thing, sudden lurches do not always go in the direction you hope.
The three issues where this country is way off track are 1. civil liberties. No need to go in to what Bush/Cheney did, but what our rights are has never been litigated properly in the post Bush era. Obama has pulled back from the most egregious of practices, but I am not sure he still isn’t over the line and we have no reassurance what the next president will do–executive power is a creeping thing. 2. Healthcare- the status quo will bankrupt this country, things must change not for the touchy feeley reasons I have, but raw economics.
3. Financial regulation–without reform and regulation the banking system is a gun pointed at the head of the American taxpayer.
There are other places where I can see a need for change, but I don’t see the need for radical change. One note some of the things I think are minor changes, oponents will crow are radical (i.e. Gay marriage equity).
“Lyndon Johnson – Master of the Senate”
Very interesting, and an interesting study on how just a handful of senators, or in some cases even one, could wield such inordinate power to block legislation.
Like how the Southern Senators, even though a minority, were able to extinguish every piece of civil rights legislation from Reconstruction to the 1960’s by their chairs of committees due to seniority and the filibuster.
….they just pale in comparison. Like 1957.
I’m almost finished with LBJ: The Exercise of Power by Novak and Evans, 1966. If anything comes through about him, it is that he cherished consensus and despised conflict. LBJ avoided a filibuster on the 1957 bill, I think it was, by finding compromise. It was the first unfilibustered CR bill in history.
He also understood that timing was everything. Even though he personally wanted to see everyone fed, able to vote, etc., he knew that if he had taken the stance he wanted early in his career, he would not get re-elected. It was as simple as that. But by pretending to be a Southerner, he got where he did and where he could change our nation.
BTW, he was a really lousy personnel manager!
and yes, the 1957 act was passed, but it was pretty weak. Nothing really sweeping until the 60’s.
Caro makes the same point that he wanted consensus, and in fact even unanimity.
Interesting book for me because I was growing up when LBJ was president so he was my “first” president so to speak (although I do remember Kennedy and in fact saw him before he died).
I’ve read a couple books on LBJ’s presidency but didn’t know much about his Senate career, so a good read for me. I would highly recommend “Master of the Senate” if you haven’t already read it.
I picked this up for pretty much the same reason: To learn about the president that most impacted my generation coming of age. Kennedy died when I was a senior in HS, so he was my “first.”
I marched in Johnson’s 1965 inaugural parade. I was in the UF AF ROTC Billy Mitchell Drill Team. I remember Johnson not even looking at us, he was talking to someone. Funny, the things we remember.
I saw Kennedy when I was ten, a year before he died. I’ll never forget his Irish red hair.
Back then almost all news pics and of course TV was still black and white, so I never realized or never knew the color of his hair until then.
But I don’t remember why.
I like it better now.
Though I still believe good luck getting the Senate to go along.
I didn’t expect the Spanish Inquisition
And I held out for so long imagining the “11-dimensional chess” bullshit.
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo…
Imagine how surprised we’ll be when after all this posturing and time-wasting, no health care bill makes it to Obama’s desk. Fuck Lieberman, we say, but really Obama is the one to blame here, especially when he talks to Lieberman like this.
This already feels like the Clinton Presidency all over again, where the best thing anyone can say about it is that while things sucked and got worse, they weren’t quite as bad as the Bushes that preceded and followed them.
I was never a fan of his (Hello, swooning Polsters that used to argue with me about His Oneness…..)
It’s pretty much as I expected. Talks talk, not much walking, especially on the personal level.
And if Hillary had won, things would be soooooo different.
I said that? Why are you putting words in my mouth? You sound exactly like what I saw before the election, Saint Obama and no one dare criticize.
Further, I was an Edwards supporter and voted for him in the primary here. All evidence is that HE might have made a difference. After his departure from the race, I leaned towards Hillary, but was never enthusiastic.
and all evidence (that is, his actual record) suggests he would have saved us the trouble of hoping and just sold out from the beginning.
Quite aside from the fact that because of his affair and terrible campaigning, he would have thrown the election to McCain anyway.
Obama sucks, but Edwards would have been a nightmare.
He never would have won after the scandal with his mistress. If anything, we’re lucky he got demolished in the primaries, because we’d have President McCain right now, and I can guarantee you he would be doing a much worse job than President Obama.
I don’t care if you don’t like Obama, but this whole business of “see, I told you so” is totally counterproductive. I’m sorry for putting words in your mouth with Hillary, I just thought that’s what you were getting at.
I’m just unhappy with Obama, period. Maybe he is still the best of all the primaried contestants, but that doesn’t mean I should be happy. False conclusion if there was every one.
I had a lot of hope – oops, there’s that campaign word – for his administration. And he has done some good things, not saying otherwise. But he is as much in the corporate pockets as any other politician.
Sorry if I came off frothing at the mouth. I ran out of Obama Koll-Aid last summer, and I must have found an extra packet lying around. 🙂