Chuck Schumer and the DSCC have the Senate's top Republican in their crosshairs.
Reflecting an increasingly aggressive strategy for the 2008 election cycle, Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-NY, acknowledged on Wednesday that the Democrats are gunning for the seat of Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-KY.
Schumer cited McConnell as a Democratic target for the first time during an open press briefing, and took a swipe at the Senate GOP leader, suggesting that his proximity to President Bush and his sagging poll numbers put him directly in electoral limbo.
"One state that we have our eye on," said Schumer, "you've all seen the numbers, Sen. McConnell's numbers are not very good and we are hopeful of having a Democratic governor and we are going to go out and try to get a Democratic senator."
In the interest of full disclosure, I am on DMI's Netroots Advisory Council and I did a some (very minor) consulting on this project.
The good folks at the Drum Major Institute have outdone themselves. For years, DMI has produced its "Middle Class Scorecard", grading every member of Congress on their votes on bills affecting the middle class. Today they have launched themiddleclass.org, which takes their efforts to a whole new level. From the DMI Blog:
Dream with me for a minute. Imagine that we-the-people could easily find out how our members of Congress voted on the bills that are most important to us. Imagine that there was a place that explained clearly and simply how those votes really impact America's current and aspiring middle class.
And, while we're dreaming, imagine that Congress knew that Americans of all walks of life could keep an eye on them, comparing their rhetoric in favor of strengthening and expanding the middle class with their votes.
With TheMiddleClass.org, you can check throughout the year for our signature DMI analysis of key legislation as members vote on it. You can track the scores of each member in the lead-up to the release of their final 2007 specific grade. And, you can easily build a custom widget for your own website, where you can share the information that matters most to you.
For example,
Want to learn more about the SCHIP bill?Click here.
Want to know how Montana's state delegation voted on it?Click here.
Want to know how Senator Max Baucus voted on this bill, and others?Click here.
I've often said that nobody, but nobody does more with less than DMI. Today they prove me right once again.
I'm sure many of you are following the debate over a new bill in the Senate that would, among other things, grant retroactive immunity to telecom companies that most likely aided and abetted President Bush's blatantly illegal and unconstitutional surveillance of tens of millions of Americans. Yesterday we heard word that my favorite candidate to replace the "decider" guy, Senator Chris Dodd, was planning to place a "hold" on the bill if it contained that immunity language and that Majority Leader Reid might ignore that hold, something virtually unprecedented.
Are you willing to go to the mat to restore the Constitution?
Just last night, we heard there are plans to disregard Senator Dodd's intention to place a hold on a FISA bill that includes amnesty for telecommunications companies.
That would be a pretty extraordinary move, but Chris Dodd has pledged to stop this horrible bill any way he can.
So if the hold is not honored, he is prepared to go to the Senate floor and filibuster.
Rolling back the Bush Administration assault on the rule of law has been a major focus of Chris Dodd's work in the Senate - and it's also a centerpiece in his campaign for President.
There are FOUR US Senators seeking the Democratic nomination for President. Only ONE of them has shown the guts to stand up say "enough." That's leadership.
Of course, it shouldn't have to be this way. It's dismaying to say the least that Senate Democrats seem so eager to reward lawlessness. That's why Senator Dodd's pledge to "go to the mat" is so inspiring. My good friend Justin Krebs just made this observation over at the Working Assets blog
It would be ironic if in this Senate -- in which the GOP's threat of filibuster has killed major majority-supported bills without them ever actually filibustering -- the first filibuster is mounted by a Democrat.
The other Democrats in the Senate, not just the others running for president, should be following Senator Dodd's lead on this one.
San Francisco: Will you join Sen. Chris Dodd's hold and proposed filibuster on any FISA bill that includes retroactive immunity for telecoms? Thanks for joining us for this chat today, Sen. Biden, and thanks for the leadership you provide the Democratic Party and America.
I'm still stuck in dead laptop hell and the world keeps on turning. Today is a big day in the US Senate for the restoration of habeas corpus. (I'm still trying to wrap my head around the fact that I just had to actually type those words...) The folks at the Chris Dodd Campaign have Launched a great site called Restore Habeas and it includes this nifty tool that allows citizens to assemble their own whip count on the vote.
Very, very cool.
UPDATE: Just got this via email:
Yesterday, we wrote to you about our Habeas Corpus Restoration Act
which is currently being debated on the floor of the U.S. Senate.
Thanks so much to the thousands of you who have already signed on as
citizen co-sponsors, helping us build momentum for this critical
legislation!
Unfortunately, a number of Republican Senators are once again trying
to block our efforts by threatening to filibuster our amendment.
There's going to be a vote on the bill that could come as soon as
Wednesday -- that's tomorrow -- to try to beat back their filibuster,
and we'll need 60 votes to do it.
Today's Washington Post reports that New York Senator Chuck Schumer has sent President Bush a list of potential replacements for disgraced Attorney General Alberto Gonzales.
Several influential Democrats urged the White House to pick a consensus candidate to replace Gonzales, who announced on Monday his decision to resign after seven months of bitter confrontation with Congress. Sen. Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.), a prominent member of the Senate Judiciary Committee who was the first lawmaker to call for Gonzales's resignation early this year, said he was heartened by a courtesy call on Monday from White House counsel Fred F. Fielding. Schumer said he shared a list of potential candidates with the White House.
"We understand that we're not going to have the same ideological views as they do," Schumer said, referring to whomever is nominated by Bush. "But there are lots of people who would meet the requirements we have, which is to adhere to the rule of law above politics. . . . I think the majority of Democrats are interested in looking forward and solving things."
I can't imagine that the decider guy will give all that much credence to Schumer's picks, but I'm curious to know who the more lawyerly TAP readers might think is on that list. The one name I've heard more than any other is that of Michael Mukasey, the former chief judge for the Southern District of New York.
DavidNYC emailed me late last night about an interesting conversation taking place over at Swing State Project about who Eliot Spitzer may appoint should Hillary Clinton become our next President. It's a pretty lively discussion and I'm surprised at some of the potential candidates. It seems there is quite a well spring of support for Rep. Maurice Hinchey (NY-22) as well as Rep. Louise Slaughter (NY-28). There is even some talk of appointing Lt. Governor David Paterson.
Bear with me here. Let's assume for a moment that Hillary is our 2008 Presidential nominee, and that she wins. Fast forward to the election aftermath, where Gov. Eliot Spitzer has the task of appointing a replacement to fill Clinton's Senate vacancy.
Whom might Spitzer appoint? And whom would you want Spitzer to appoint?
Spitzer surprised many observers when he tapped state Senator David Paterson for his running mate in 2006, and perhaps he could surprise again given the chance. Despite being large in number, there is no one of tremendous stature in the state's Democratic congressional delegation who could be tapped (Charlie Rangel, at 77, is too old), but that's not to say that I think a promotion from the House to the Senate is unlikely.
...
Perhaps even Paterson himself could be a possibility, but one would expect that Spitzer would come under pressure to balance the state's Senatorial delegation with an appointee from upstate rather than a second Senator with Brooklyn roots.
The usual calculations are tossed around in the comments. Should the candidate be from upstate? Should they be female? A moderate? A progressive?
These are all good questions. I'll just say that I would look for an unabashed progressive. As much as I'd also like to replace a female Senator with another, and I have a feeling we would, my first and foremost wish is that New York be represented by a Senator with strong progressive values. I want this state to be looked upon as a beacon of such values once again and there's no good reason we shouldn't be. I mean, this is New York, not, say, Missouri or Pennsylvania.
Today the Republican minority in the US Senate effectively killed the Employee Free Choice Act for this year by defeating a cloture vote. Once again, Senate Republicans have sided with their corporate overlords and against the interests of middle class Americans by filibustering this hugely important bill.
51 Senators -- including all Democrats, both independents and a lone Republican (Sen. Arlen Specter) -- sided with working Americans, while 48 conservatives chose to keep the squeeze on the middle-class.
Those are some awesome "family values" you guys got there...
Yesterday, I posted about "the rule" that all but one the NY Dems shamefully voted for. That rule was largely the work of the Chairwoman of the House Rules Committee, New York's own Louise Slaughter (NY-28). The whole episode simply defies comprehension. Why would the Dem majority agree to manipulate the rules to help Republicans pass significant legislation that was opposed by the majority of the majority caucus? Why would a progressive like Slaughter do this?
And now, to add insult to injury, Dems are bragging to anyone who will listen about what a brilliant maneuver this was. It's sick.
In case you believe the malarkey being spewed by the House Rules Committee about the rule vote yesterday not really being the vote to give President Bush a blank check, take a look at the Washington Post and the Associated Press today. I reported this at the beginning of the day yesterday and was then criticized by House Rules Committee Chairwoman Louise Slaughter (D-NY). Now, though, it seems at least some major news organizations have caught on that I was exactly right. In the process, they are reporting what will be recorded in history as the final insult of it all: Democrats running to reporters bragging about their own brilliance in deceiving the public.
What "rule" might that be, you ask? I'll let David Sirota explain:
Today is the day House Democrats are expected to vote on Iraq - except, news out of Washington this morning says the leadership has come up with a nifty little trick to try to prevent the public from seeing who voted for giving Bush a blank check, and who voted against it. If you thought Democrats were behaving like cowards by caving into a President at a three-decade low in presidential polling and giving him the very blank check they explicitly promised not to give him during the 2006 election, you ain't seen nothing yet. We are watching the rise of the Dick Cheney Democrats - that is, the rise of Democrats who endorse governing in secret and hiding the public's business from the public itself.
Here's how it is expected to work today in a process only Dick Cheney could love (though you never know - it could change at the last minute). Every bill comes to the House floor with what is known as a "rule" that sets the terms of the debate over the legislation in question. House members first vote to approve this parliamentary rule, and then vote on the legislation. Today, however, Democrats are planning to essentially include the Iraq blank check bill IN the rule itself, by making sure the underlying bill the rule brings to the floor includes no timelines for withdrawal, and that the rule only allows amendments that fund the war with no restrictions - blank check amendments that House Democratic leaders know Republicans will have the votes to pass.
This means that when the public goes to look for the real vote on the Iraq supplemental bill, the public won't find that. All we will find is a complex parliamentary procedure vote, which was the real vote. Democratic lawmakers, of course, will use the Memorial Day recess to tell their angry constituents they really are using all of their power to end the war, that they voted against the Republican blank check amendment which the rule deliberately propels, and that the vote on the rule - which was the real vote for war - wasn't really the important vote, when, in fact, they know very well it is the biggest vote on the war since original 2002 authorization for the invasion. It is a devious, deliberately confusing cherry on top of the manure sundae being served up to the American public, which voted Democrats into office on the premise that they would use their congressional majority to end the war. To read more on these deliberately complex machinations, see Congressional Quarterly's piece just out on the web.
So, which of our NY Dems voted for "the rule"?
All of 'em. Well, all but Eliot Engel who quite courageously did not vote at all.
It seems certain that at least 100 Democratic Representatives, maybe even as many as 150, nearly a two-thirds majority, will vote against the egregious Iraq funding "compromise" put together by the Senate-House conference committee. And while it seems likely that very few Republicans will vote against the bill, especially given the media's (unfortunately correct) assertion that it gives Mister Bush pretty much everything he wants, it's not an ironclad lock.
So, if you haven't done so already, it is still worth your time to urge your Representative - especially if s/he is one of the 169 Democrats (and two Republicans) who voted "aye" for the McGovern bill - to say "nay" to this bill. Call your Senator, too, especially if s/he is one of the 29 who voted for cloture on the Feingold-Reid bill.
