A recurring theme I keep seeing in news stories and even in some diaries here, is that the Democrats may take one house of Congress in the upcoming 2006 elections. The convential wisdom seems to be at this point, exactly four months before said elections, that Democrats seem poised to win enough seats in the House of Representatives to gain a majority, but have little or no chance of taking at least 7 Senate seats to regain a majority there. I think it is absolutely essential that we regain the Senate, rather than the House. More on the flip...
My reason for saying this boils down to five words: the next Supreme Court Nominee. Because that nominee will most likely not be replacing a conservative like Rhenquist or a more moderate swing vote conservative like O'Conner. The next nominee may be replacing a Stevens or a Ginsburg. And that will change the balance of the court for the next 15 to 20 years. The next Alito placed on the bench would have swung last week's ruling on the rights of prisoners at Gitmo the other way. And that is a truely frightning thought.
And it is the Senate that confirms those nominees. If one of the more moderate or liberal members of the court resigns or dies in the next two years, this country is screwed, big time. Unless we can block the nomination of another Alito.
I think we can do it. Pennsylvania, Montana, Rhode Island, Ohio, Missouri, Tennesee, Arizona, Virginia, Neveda. We need six of these nine, while holding on the seats Dems already have. If we don't the consequences may change this country for the next century.
Yes, it would be sweet to take back both houses. But frankly, I think we need to be more concerned about how we take back the Senate. And I mean now, not in 2008.
