It’s a class with a lot of potential

August 10, 2006

Apropos of nothing, National Journal’s Chuck Todd raised an interesting point as part of a longer piece today.

If Lamont wins in November, and if Democrats win many of their Senate targets, is anyone aware of just how liberal the new Senate class will be? At times, Sherrod Brown has rivaled the liberalism of Dennis Kucinich (according to National Journal’s vote ratings) ; Jon Tester has had no qualms about the liberal label; ditto for Lamont. Claire McCaskill isn’t one to brag about being liberal, but she’s not easily mistaken for a conservative Democrat, either. If Kweisi Mfume wins in Maryland, add him to the list as well.

On the last point, I’d argue that Ben Cardin in Maryland would probably be just about as progressive a senator as Mfume, so either way we’re in good shape.

But on the broader argument, I think Todd’s right; this would be a fairly liberal freshman class. It’s encouraging when Dems win key Senate races, but electing five new Ken Salazars isn’t exactly the motivation that activists, donors, and partisans need to get excited about a campaign cycle.

But this group has real potential. Add Bernie Sanders, who’s favored to win in Vermont’s open Senate race, to the mix, and we’re looking an opportunity not only to inject some fresh blood into the chamber and the caucus, but also some progressive values to a Senate that could use it.

I just thought I’d mention it.

What we need is not liberal or progressive voices, what we need are people who abide by the rules. Congress and the Bushites are broken because they ignore the rules that makes government work.

Instead, we have Congress doing the administration’s job of deciding where to spend money on individual projects with their last minute ‘earmarks’ and we have the Bushites doing Congress’ job by rewriting the laws. Neither complains about the other intruding on their prorogatives and America gets screwed.

Ned Lamont said the right things in the debate and after his victory about earmarks and congressional corruption, and hopefully the other candidates follow those talking points. But we also have to hear them talk about Bushite illegalities. They have to say to the American People “Yes, we will investigate the White House. Don’t you want that?”

I’m not nearly as concerned with how liberal Congress will be after 2006. I want to know how honest and mature it will be.

  • Still, the 40th member of the Senate will be someone like Kne Salazar, Robert Byrd, or Byron Dorgan. Good guys, and not as conservative as Pryor, Baucus, and Landreiu (who currently occupy that position), but not great. Filibustering the next Supreme Court nominee, for instance, would be hard.

  • Good point. Looking at the strong Dem candidates for the Senate this year, we have:

    Bob Casey: Centrist with some conservatives leanings (pro-life and all that)
    Jon Tester: Populist who has no qualms about the “liberal” label.
    Sherrod Brown: Arguably most liberal of the bunch.
    Claire McCaskill: Center-left type.
    Ned Lamont: Ditto.
    Amy Kloubacher: Same.
    Bernie Sanders: Self described “democratic socialist.”
    Ben Cardin: Pretty much a clone of Paul Sarbanes, who he’d replace.
    Harold Ford: Centrist.
    Sheldon Whitehouse: Center-left.

    So save for Casey and Ford, it’s a pretty progressive looking bunch. Arguably the best since 2000, with the large class of Dem senators.

  • That is indeed a solid list, gf120581. The Senate needs a healthy infusion of progressivism.

    I’m wondering, however, what you all think of Weisberg’s latest piece at Slate. It concerns the fallout from the Lamont victory, but the context is much larger: “The result suggests that instead of capitalizing on the massive failures of the Bush administration, Democrats are poised to re-enact a version of the Vietnam-era drama that helped them lose five out six presidential elections between 1968 and the end of the Cold War.”

    As a fairly hawkish liberal myself, I must admit that I find Weisberg’s argument quite compelling. The uncovered terror plot in the U.K. only underscores the need for Democrats to be (and be perceived to be) tough on the global threat of jihadism. It may be true that our response to terrorism should be a matter for law enforcement rather than the military, but I worry that in general terms we will be seen as isolationists who don’t take the threat seriously enough. Whatever they many failures, after all, Republicans are very good at positioning themselves as the party best equipped to handle terrorism. All of us here may see right through that positioning, but there is a danger that voters won’t.

    I’m not saying, by the way, that Lamont and others like him aren’t “tough” enough. Perhaps they are. But do not discount the politics of fear — and the perception that Democrats are week on national security. It is imperative, it seems to me, that Democrats work tirelessly to turn that narrative on its head.

  • I’m wondering, however, what you all think of Weisberg’s latest piece at Slate.

    You’re jumping the gun, Michael. This is going to be the topic for this week’s Sunday Discussion Group. (Don’t tell anyone, it’s a secret….)

  • As much as I’d love to see the Senate swing well into the liberal side of the scale, I agree with Lance that I’d rather see a body that follows the rules than anything else.

    Hell, I’d be happy if the Senate was full of conservative Senators as long as they played by the rules and upheld their Constitutional duty to act as an independant branch of government and keep the executive branch in check.

  • Wait. I don’t get it. What’s wrong with being a liberal?
    — Haik Bedrosian

    I think it’s the linguistic proximity to words like “liberty” (freedom) that’s so threatening to the neocons.

  • Agreed with Libra. Doesn’t Mchael W. Stickings agrgument that liberals seem to be inherently weak on domestic security seem to fall in Rove’s trap? (Notice I didn’t say that liberals were weak on terror, because we all know that conservatives are strong on terror — terrorizing their own U.S. citizens.)

    If you want to succeed at liberating Iraq, put a liberal in charge. A liberal wouldn’t have been as stupid. They would have placed more safeguards against the kind of corporate corruption we now see Iraq that has stymied reconstruction and given the civil war its reason to persist. We would have listened to Gen. Shinseki in the first place and not insisted on an undersized force … and we wouldn’t have invaded in the first place since bin Laden wasn’t there and Saddam was already contained. Plus we would have finishd the job in Afghanistan that is now unravelling at the seams.

    Bush threw gasoline on the fire and that’s why now flying on an airplane will be as pleasant as a root canal.

    • Comments are closed.