|
|
May 22, 2013
|
|
The Byron Dorgan ThunderclapPosted on Jan 6, 2010A politically shrewd Senate Democratic staff member chatting about the future of health care negotiations stopped in midsentence late Tuesday afternoon as news flashed across his computer screen. “My God,” he said. “Byron Dorgan is retiring.” It was a thunderclap moment in the politics of 2010, an unfortunate twist for Democrats already looking at a difficult election year. Dorgan, a veteran of three decades in Washington, suddenly turned his North Dakota Senate seat from one that Democrats had a reasonable chance of holding into a likely pickup for the Republicans. Worse from the Democrats’ viewpoint, Dorgan’s move fed exactly the story line that Republicans have been pushing hard: Combined with the retirements of Gov. Bill Ritter in Colorado and of a number of incumbent House Democrats, Dorgan’s decision looked to be part of a mass flight of vulnerable members of President Barack Obama’s party from a grim political battlefield. But the retirement stories didn’t stop there, and the paradox is that by the time all the exiting was over on Wednesday, Democrats had reason if not to smile then at least to give a sigh or two of relief. The Dorgan news was quickly followed by Sen. Chris Dodd’s announcement that he would not seek re-election in Connecticut. His party’s operatives were torn in their responses. Advertisement In practice, they were grateful Dodd withdrew. A seat once so promising for Republicans now seems safe for Democrats again as Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal, a longtime electoral winner, becomes the favorite. Ritter’s retirement was equally a blessing for Democrats. They have strong potential candidates to replace him (including Denver’s popular Mayor John Hickenlooper and, possibly, former senator and now Interior Secretary Ken Salazar). And Ritter’s move might save Sen. Michael Bennet from a Democratic primary—if his current challenger, former Colorado House Speaker Andrew Romanoff, now runs for governor instead. Such calculations and countercalculations underscored how truly complicated the political map for this year’s battle for the Senate has become. Not even the most optimistic Democrats think their party can escape losing seats. But with so many states now unexpectedly in play, surprise Democratic victories could offset some Republican gains. On the other side, retirements—not to mention the moves of a certain president and vice president out of the Senate—have opened terrain for the Republicans that would normally be blocked. All by themselves, Obama’s victory and his choices of administration members threaten four previously solid Democratic seats: Obama’s old Illinois seat, Vice President Joe Biden’s in Delaware, Salazar’s in Colorado and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s in New York. Republicans can reel off four other states where they currently have a better-than-decent shot at Democratic seats: the newly promising North Dakota, plus Arkansas, Nevada and Pennsylvania. And if the country is really gloomy on Nov. 2, the GOP thinks it has a shot at California. Even this scenario would leave Republicans just short of a Senate majority, and Democrats are betting that they will easily hold New York and California, while hanging on to Nevada—Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has relatively unknown opponents and will have a huge bank account—and Pennsylvania. Arkansas Sen. Blanche Lincoln confronts the most difficult terrain of any Democrat this year, but she may profit from Republican divisions. Then there are the Democrats’ wild cards: five Republican seats where some combination of strong Democratic candidates, divisive Republican primaries and potentially weak GOP nominees offers a chance to offset losses. In rough descending order of possibility, these include Missouri, New Hampshire, Ohio, North Carolina and Kentucky. Democrats can’t bank on any of them, but just a win or two would buy their majority protection. It’s thus very hard to see how the Republicans can take over the Senate. But with North Dakota changing colors, the Democrats’ map is not a happy one. If managing a barely filibuster-proof majority has been hell for the party’s leaders, this now seems to be one burden they won’t have to worry about next year. Previous item: A Case for Presidential Power Next item: Partisan Hysteria Hypes (and Helps) Al-Qaida New and Improved CommentsIf you have trouble leaving a comment, review this help page. Still having problems? Let us know. If you find yourself moderated, take a moment to review our comment policy. |
By Harris, January 11, 2010 at 4:51 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
The elections really don’t matter…just a distraction and gives the pundits something to do or they would have to get a real job like the rest of us…it’s all smoke and mirrors…It’s not even our country….we don’t live in a democracy…it’s all about money..life isn’t important…people die for nothing, the wars are maintained to make money…someday we will all pay for this calamity…..
Report thisBy Paul J. Theis, January 9, 2010 at 11:41 am Link to this comment
Byron Dorgan was respected as a serious, caring, and thoughtful policy person (despite that distracting hairpiece!). I am sure he will be sorely missed in the Senate. But as much damage as a Republican Senate majority would bring, I agree with those who are becoming dismayed that the benefits of having a Democraic majority in Congress, along with a Democratic president in the White House, are falling far short of legitimate expectations. Wall Street still rules.
Report thisBy NABNYC, January 8, 2010 at 6:01 pm Link to this comment
I won’t vote for any democrats in the next election. I really didn’t ask them for much. They’ve been promising for years that if only they had the majority, they would use that position to help the people, reverse the abuses of the Bush regime. So I helped to get them elected. And they spit in my face.
I wanted them to end the wars. Instead, they’ve escalated in Afghanistan (already a wasteland) and start a new war in Pakistan. Without bothering to comply with the constitutional requirement that only Congress can start a war. They are relying on the Bush theory that the war on terror means the President can attack any country in the world any time he wants, forever.
I wanted them to indict, prosecute, imprison or preferably hang every person on Wall Street above the level of receptionist. Use extroardinary rendition (kidnapping) to pick up every hedge fund and private equity fund scumbucket hiding offshore, and do the same to them. Expose all the rich people (and politicians) who have been hiding their money (and hiding their bribes) offshore, tax-free, for all these years. Seize their assets and use them to pay down the debt and create good jobs for Americans. Instead, Obama chooses Wall Street criminals to take control of the treasury and the economy, giving them billions of dollars in exchange for kick-backs to the Democratic Party.
And why oh why did Obama select that litte pr*ck Rahm Emanuel as chief of staff, Wall Street’s favorite politician, the man who loves war and opposed every single anti-war candidate who tried to run as a Democratic.
Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State, the lady who threatened to annihilate the civilians in Iran, to nuke them, turn them into ash if they looked cross-ways to Israel? Hillary Clinton?
As for the jobs programs, there are none. As for the housing programs, there are none. Alms for the poor and let them eat cake.
I won’t mourn these people leaving. I think everyone else in elected office should leave too. Why do the Senators act as if they’ve been knighted and given a feifdom over which to rule forever? Why shouldn’t they get the hell out of office after one term? And be barred from working for any industry that came before them while they were in office.
I hope these people aren’t sick. I’ll bet they’ve already got jobs lined up as lobbyists or representatives for some business interest, jobs with huge paychecks and no responsibilities, jobs given to them as bribes for selling their votes while in congress.
As far as I’m concerned, I wish every single democrat would get voted out of office next election. Maybe then they would understand that if they make promises to get our support, they better keep their word once they’re elected.
Report thisBy Hammond Eggs, January 7, 2010 at 2:35 pm Link to this comment
So . . . Byron Dorgan is a savior? He is the combined reincarnation of Adlai Stevenson, Henry Wallace and Paul Wellstone? LOL!
Report thisBy dihey, January 7, 2010 at 2:29 pm Link to this comment
“Unfortunate” implies that the one to which it happens could not have expected the “unfortunate” to happen. What nonsense! For weeks on end most analysts have predicted major problems for the Democrats in November of 2010 that is to say long before Dorgan and Dodd announced their retirements. It is beyond my comprehension why Truthdig continues to publish Mr. Dionne’s superficial and shilling papers. His analysis and style are antediluvian if not Cro-Magnon.
Report thisBy Naz, January 7, 2010 at 11:56 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
Congresspersons are simply corporate whores because money has become the culture of America. I almost died laughing when that screwball from the railroad industry, Smith or Jones or somebody, went to Bush with essentially a note saying that the banking industry needed almost a billion of taxpayer money because the institutions were “too big to fail.” I’d like for all these miserable criminals and traitors to bend over and take something too big to fail right up their asses. Please God let it happen.
Report thisBy bozhidar balkas, vancouver, January 7, 2010 at 10:19 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
MSM journalists, just like pols, et al ?always cast the narowest look at events they write or talk about.
Natch, widest look, and having in mind that every event is connected to every other event, is avoided [un]wittingly] like a plague.
For only such a look proffers an elucidaton; all other looks just further roil already very murky waters.
To them, there is this ‘wars’[actually naked aggressions/invasions], politics, science,judiciary, educators, priests, corporations, military, cia, fbi, pols, voters existing in total isolation from each other.
I don’t think one can understand ‘religion’ [read please cults], militarism, ‘schooling’ [read please condistioning as like that of pavlov dog], media reports, etc., if one believes that these aspects of one and only reality we have do not influence one another.
Such thinking, called “elementalism”, allowed for a holy constitution while at the same slavery and military actions against indigenes were deemed as separate issues; mattering not much or next to nil.
And, of course, not mattering an iota to 99% of americans as per intention. Very similar to how americans feel [never mind what the say]ab what is now hapening in wild east.
Report thisWild west, wild east; it is all the same. Out of site out of mind!
‘Wars’ of today, with that type of thinking, are also detatched from constitution-reality or are deemed [tacitly] by masters of aggressions-invasions as the constitutional OKs or as, Well, shit happens, War on terror; for democratization, etc.
tnx
By Rudyspeaks1, January 7, 2010 at 8:42 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
One more “who cares?” article. Who cares how many “Democrats” or “Repugs” we
Report thishave in Congress? 2008 we had a massive mobilization to elect Dems because we
were facing a regime that had 1) put Wall St. criminals in charge of the financial
system, 2) a “health care” industry that was plundering us and giving us lousy
health care, and 3) 2 asian land wars against people who never did anything to us,
threatening a third. We delivered the White House, a House of Rep.s majority, and
a 60 seat Senate. What have we got now? 1) Wall St. criminals still in charge of our
financial system, 2) a (proposed) HC “reform” that will still plunder us, provide
lousy care, but now we HAVE TO buy it, and 3) still 2 asian land wars but now
threatening 3 MORE! I hate to say it but I can get shallow belt-way crap like this
article from the LA Times.
By DieDaily, January 7, 2010 at 12:37 am Link to this comment
People often say that it’s a bad thing when the two parties gridlock. Not me! “How are they supposed to get things done?” they whine. Exactly! say I. If we could roll back every decision they’ve ever made since about 1840, that’d be ok with me! Is it finally time to shun both fake parties and just vote for independent, unaffiliated candidates? Hell ya!
Report this