We Need More Balance In The Senate

Gee willikers, I sure don't want to see Miss McConnell setting the agenda in the Senate next year. Is that enough of a reason to vote for some exceptionally putrid Democratic candidates? Reactionary corporate whore Joe Manchin in West Virginia? Reactionary Blue Dog Joe Donnelly in Indiana who's anti-Choice, anti-gay and anti-just about everything that has anything to do with being a Democrat?  Corrupt and reactionary Shelley Berkley in Nevada? Pandering business shill Tim Kaine in Virginia? Without victories in these states, the GOP will capture the Senate. But how do you pull a lever for any of these excruciatingly horrible candidates? I couldn't. 

I live in California, where Dianne Feinstein will be reelected by a landslide without anyone having to break a sweat, including Di-Fi. I first came across her when she was on the San Francisco Board of Supervisors and I knew then I would never vote for her for anything... ever! I ever helped Jello Biafra run against her for mayor. And I've never voted for her in any of her many races. And I never will. But would I if there was a chance she would lose and trigger a Republican takeover of the Senate? Well... she's not as bad as Manchin or Donnelly... but I'd hold out to the last second and probably make up my mind in the voting booth. I'd really disappoint myself if I ever voted for her.

The Senate is a screwed up, systemically anti-democratic body to begin with. I think it should be abolished entirely... or made into a strictly ceremonial branch. They could wear white powdered wigs and argue with each other or something. But the U.S. Senate was designed right from the git-go to thwart the popular will and that's the one thing it ever actually achieves. Me wanting it to be abolished isn't going to get it abolished, though, so we're very careful around here to just endorse proven progressives who we feel certain have the potential to make the Senate a better place. 

The only incumbent Blue America is raising money for this cycle is Vermont Independent Bernie Sanders. And we have two challengers we're trying to help, Elizabeth Warren in Massachusetts and Tammy Baldwin in Wisconsin. I'd walk over broken glass for either of them-- which isn't exactly how I feel about a wretch like Claire McCaskill (MO), a corporate shill like Tom Carper (DE) or Ben Nelson-wannabe like Bob Kerrey (NE). The Democrats have an especially horrendous lineup this year... one horrible candidate after another. And that just makes Bernie, Elizabeth and Tammy stand out all the more.

And currently all three are leading in the polls. 4 came out in Massachusetts showing Elizabeth leading... and then the GOP polling arm, Rasmussen rushed one out showing Republican incumbent Scott Brown tying her. Even voters in Massachusetts who are fond of Scott Brown, for whatever reason, are cognizant that voting for him means voting to put Miss McConnell in charge of the Senate... and no one wants to see that happen. Watch Elizabeth defining "a balanced approach" towards how we move forward politically as a nation in the video below. If she can explain that approach to Senate Democrats next year... maybe we should keep the institution and give it another try.

But Scott Brown isn't giving up the cushy job that has brought him so much love from Wall Street banksters. They're afraid of Elizabeth and they're encouraging Brown to appeal to lo-info white working class males by beating up on Elizabeth and going full on misogynist pig. Should be interesting watching how that works for him.

Call it Scott Brown vs. Elizabeth Warren 2.0.

With polls showing the liberal consumer advocate inching ahead of the Republican incumbent, the marquee Massachusetts Senate race is entering a defining new phase.

Brown is shedding his Mr. Nice Guy image and going on the attack. Warren is trying to make the race a referendum on a potential Republican Senate and less about personality-- a contest she’d have difficulty winning against the likable, everyman Brown.

The fresh approaches are indicative of a shift of the contours of the campaign in Warren’s favor, as Democrats begin to come home to support the first-time candidate in a blue state primed to deliver a massive margin of victory to President Barack Obama.

Since giving a prime time speech at the Democratic National Convention more than two weeks ago, the former Harvard professor has seized on the party energy ginned up in Charlotte. Boston Mayor Tom Menino’s wholehearted endorsement of her at a lively rally before several hundred supporters Friday afternoon added an exclamation point to that unity.

Warren’s debate performance Thursday night was roundly praised and marked a turn toward a sunnier manner that has helped quell complaints about her proclivity for preachiness.

Conversely, after months of warm ads showcasing the senator as a down-to-earth family man and consensus-seeking moderate, Brown debuted a more combative strategy during the debate. The senator’s invective toward Warren only accelerated over the weekend during numerous campaign stops.

And what about that video, up top? Did you watch that? That's the bumbling DC lobbyist and ex-Governor of Wisconsin, Tommy Thompson, who's running against Tammy. He's explaining the an audience why there's no one better than him to "do away with Medicaid and Medicare."

Who better than me, who’s already finished one of the entitlement programs, to come up with programs to do away with Medicaid and Medicare? Let’s block-grant what the state has, and allow the states to determine what’s going to go into Medicaid. And Medicare, let’s wait until everyone that right now is under 55 reaches 55 by age 2020, and give them a choice whether they want to purchase health insurance with a subsidy from the federal government, or stay on Medicare.

If you'd like to help make the Senate a better place... there's a page for that.