Okay, you're all saying you're done with Reid as Senate leader, and that the Dems are spineless. Which they are.
The big question is, how do we get rid of them?
The problem with running someone against them in a primary is the threat that the Republican party will win simply by taking advantage of the division. This has been a common theme in American politics. Clearly, none of us want Republicans unless they somehow prove a sense of sanity. Which is doubtful.
So I would welcome opinions, as let us remember that in 2010 there are about 33 Senate seats up for re-election. While I'm pretty sure many diaries will focus on the Republican seats, I think it's high time to look at the incumbent Democrats that will be up for re-election.
Of course, I barely know about my own Senators in Jersey, so I must say that all this information comes from Wikipedia. Therefore, take it all with a grain of salt and CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG. Please. Also any comments on these Senators in particular will be nice.
Incumbent Dems in 2010 up for re-election:
Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas:
According to wiki, she supports immigration reform, but also voted to ban partial birth abortion, which I'm not entirely sure exists, and supports a "flag desecration amendment". That sends major warning bells to me. This is Arkansas though, which while Senatorially democratic voted for McCain in the election. I'm tempted to just let the Republicans have this one, just to prove a point, as Arkansas only had one Republican Senator since Reconstruction.
Barbara Boxer of California:
She's a keeper. Against Prop 8, supported censure of George W. Bush, lifetime rating of 3% of American Conservative Union, there is no good reason why we should target any efforts against her. Unless I'm missing something.
Ken Salazar of Colorado:
This is where we should prove a point. Salazar has supported Lieberman, and so we should clearly target him for primary challenges. The problem is...who is going to run against him? I don't know. Anyone from Colorado with suggestions? The Republican hopefuls all seem bad...
Christopher Dodd of Connecticut:
I have no idea. On the issues he's mixed, and he faces a steep uphill battle in his home state. A primary may just give the Dems a better shot against the Republican candidate.
Daniel Inouye of Hawaii:
It's speculated that he won't seek election. If he does, we can say he supported Ted Stevens. The two are friends, (and if the Republicans can talk about Bill Ayers). The problem is that he is an eight-term Senator. I mean, really, who goes up against a Senator and wins unless the incumbent does something REALLY stupid? Correct me if I'm wrong
Delaware and Illinois:
These are the special elections for our President and Vice President elects. Anyone in those places, when 2010 rolls around, vote for the guy that's on our side. I don't know how special elections work, though.
Evan Bayh of Indiana:His position on the issues are mixed, but are closer to non-progressive beliefs. I suggest we find some way to oust him, but again, who would run against him in a primary?
Barbara Mikulski of Maryland:
I have no idea. Maryland Dems may not support her over FISA, so maybe a primary challenger will step up.
Harry Reid of Nevada:
Heck yeah.
You are officially "on notice" Mr. Reid. We should spend, for many reasons, the bulk of our efforts, whatever they may be, on him, and him alone. Heck, I'd even support the Republican candidate just to prove a point. He must not win, I think, in 2010. We can replace him with other Dem seats.
Chuck Shumer of New York
Chairman of the DSCC. Ousting him from his office would prove a point. Again, the question is how.
Byron Dorgan of North Dakota:
Ron Wyden of Oregon:
Patrick Leahy of Vermont:
Patty Murray of Washington:
Russ Feingold of Wisconsin:
Unless there's something I don't know about these guys (and gal), keep them.
So now you may have an idea of who to kick off, and who NOT to kick off. To prove a point. Any suggestions will be very welcome.