I may be the only person who feels this way, but I was THRILLED to watch the challenge on CSPAN and CSPAN2 yesterday. I should also say that I am not among those who feel like those Senators and Representatives who voted against the objections were sellouts or failures.
So, why did I enjoy it so much? Because it was an example of our democracy in action, and it gave me the opportunity to scrutinize Representatives and Senators speaking on issues I feel very strongly about.
So, my question is, where to from here? What did I/we learn from this process? And what can we take into the future, specifically the midterms in 2006?
First, that Democrats banded together can make a very strong impression. Now, obviously each speaker felt differently about the issue, and had different talking points. But they were (almost) entirely unified, and they showed glimpses of what we could be if we could get our heads around the "minority party" role. This is the party I signed onto- not cowering in their boots, but sane, organized and powerful. And with the strength of their convictions.
I was greatly heartened by Pelosi and Reid's role in this. As was pointed out in the moveon email we probably all received, Boxer sat shoulder to shoulder with Harry Reid, and that tacit support means a lot. Also, Reid and Pelosi both spoke on behalf of the issue, and those speeches are now a matter of public record. These things count.
Now for 2006: This gave me a chance to consider the candidates I'd like to work for and, frankly, against. My Reps and Senators are pretty safe, being in Chicago. Jan Schakowsky voted for the objection, even though she didn't speak (did I miss her?) But Chicagoland was hardly lacking in representation, I'm happy to say.
I tried to focus on the Republicans (who seemed canned to me, and much less well prepared). Who was particularly egregious, and who would I really like to see go? Here's my list:
Senator DeWine (R-OH): I found his arguments totally lacking in substance, and their ad hominem nature offensive.
Rep. Roy Blunt (R-MO) and Tom Delay (R-TX): Yes, I know they're powerful. But as Dean keeps saying, we have to run good and strong campaigns against "unbeatable" candidates if we want to win the war (even if we lose the battle.) They took out Daschle. We can and must attack even their "strongest" Representatives.
Rep. Hayworth (R-AZ): on the basis of his hair alone. Seriously, the televangelist act was terrifying. And the fact that he actually introduced the phrase "sour grapes" was enough for me.
Rep. Miller (R-MI): Candace, how have you forsaken us? This is a woman who should know better. She's from a blue state, though I'm not sure which part, which makes a huge difference in MI. Regardless of how easy or difficult a target she is, we should go after her.
Rep. Dreier (R-CA): For that inexcusable remark about dissent and debate being equated with aiding terrorists. That's a disgrace.
And finally, the Democratic Senator from MN who broke ranks and spoke out against Boxer on the Senate floor. He should have stayed home. If he thought the challenge was useless, that wasn't the place to say it. I say we push a strong primary opponent.
Who else caught your attention? And why?